Boeing is looking for B777-200AR

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 01 Oct 2005, 22:00

Boeing is looking for B777-200AR (Advanced Range):

Boeing seeks to fly 777LR further

Regards

Seb.

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 01 Oct 2005, 23:16

Why are they debating creating an even longer range version of the 777 when the 777-200LR doesn't even have very many orders???

Ruscoe · Post by **Ruscoe** » 01 Oct 2005, 23:39

Hi Knight255,

Boeing want to win the QF order.

A long held dream of QF is to fly Sydney - London non stop both ways.
The current 772LR can only do it one way non stop because of winds.

The changes necessary are quite small apparently, and may well be an option of extra tanks and MTOW increase for the 772LR rather than a new variant altogether.

Cheers,
Ruscoe

HorsePower · Post by **HorsePower** » 02 Oct 2005, 00:50

Airlines like AF and BA might be interrested also. The changes will include a lighter cabin interrior.

Seb.

CX · Post by CX » 02 Oct 2005, 02:06

Non-stop flights are certainly good, but where I am living, Auckland, there are just so many transit package offered by airlines at a very competitive price which simply urges you to do a transit instead of flying directly...

How many hours does Sydney-> London take? I mean sitting in the economy class for 20 hours wouldn't be pleasing at all I suppose...

By the way, how does the A345 and A346 compare with the 773ER/772LR in terms of distance?

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 02 Oct 2005, 22:28

Do y'all honestly think that Boeing will invest that much money in a 777 derivative for a handful of airlines??? That doesn't make sense to me. If you're going to design an airliner, you want it to be ordered by more than just Quantas or British Airways....

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 03 Oct 2005, 03:49

The additional investment on Boeings part is very small, the carriers who have expressed interest are many, the big advantage is cost savings, if you don't have to land, you don't pay landing fees, navigation charges, stand charges, ground handling charges, customs charges, it goes on and on.

I read somewhere about two years ago that Qantas would save over $10,000 U.S. per flight on various fees for London - Sydney , which I'm sure have risen since.

I personally would not enjoy sitting on an Aircraft for 18 or 20 hours, but there are some who don't mind, as long as there is lots of entertainment, and a refreshing beverage or two.

KT

lastrow · Post by **lastrow** » 03 Oct 2005, 09:08

Hi,
I think that no on needs to be scared about sitting 20h in tight economy class, because the lighter cabin interior would results in less seats. should be like the SIA flight between New York and Singapore where they offer "executive economy" with a seat pitch of 37 inches. the whole A345 is equipped with somewhat about 180 seats. Should be pretty comfortable.
-lr

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 03 Oct 2005, 16:53

How much longer until Boeing makes a 777 which can fly London-Sydney back and forth for a week without refueling...

regi · Post by **regi** » 03 Oct 2005, 17:19

put some solar cells on the wings

Knight255 · Post by **Knight255** » 03 Oct 2005, 18:13

The additional investment on Boeings part is very small

Are you sure??? The recertification process takes some time and money to accomplish even if it only involves sticking in some more fuel tanks. Don't get me wrong, the 777-200AR is a good idea, but the ends must justify the means!! So I would think that Boeing should wait for a few more customers to be interested in it before they start developing the plane. Unless if Quantas wants to pay a handsome price for the plane which will payoff the development costs....

5Y-KQV · Post by **5Y-KQV** » 03 Oct 2005, 19:58

Knight255 wrote:
The additional investment on Boeings part is very small
Are you sure??? The recertification process takes some time and money to accomplish even if it only involves sticking in some more fuel tanks. Don't get me wrong, the 777-200AR is a good idea, but the ends must justify the means!! So I would think that Boeing should wait for a few more customers to be interested in it before they start developing the plane. Unless if Quantas wants to pay a handsome price for the plane which will payoff the development costs....

I think I agree with you Tony. This could be an expensive venture for both Boeing and the few airlines that might actually be interested in the plane. The -200LR already has a very limited market and I guess the -200AR's ptential market would even be smaller.

Cheers,

Walter.

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 04 Oct 2005, 03:44

This will shed a little more light.
http://www.atwonline.com/news/story.html?storyID=2572

TUB023 · Post by **TUB023** » 04 Oct 2005, 23:51

earthman wrote:How much longer until Boeing makes a 777 which can fly London-Sydney back and forth for a week without refueling...

don't forget that a plane needs a max weight to land

bits44 · Post by **bits44** » 05 Oct 2005, 01:09

Apparently they are going to tow a glider behind with built in fuel tanks, should go about a week.

SR89 · Post by **SR89** » 08 Oct 2005, 00:32

The interest for this aircraft will be quite negligible

earthman · Post by **earthman** » 10 Oct 2005, 21:08

The 'AR' should mean 'Amazing Range', then the next model would be the 777-200IR, 'Incredible Range', etc..

Avro · Post by **Avro** » 10 Oct 2005, 21:18

5Y-KQV wrote:
Knight255 wrote:
I think I agree with you Tony. This could be an expensive venture for both Boeing and the few airlines that might actually be interested in the plane. The -200LR already has a very limited market and I guess the -200AR's ptential market would even be smaller.

Of course the market is very small but if the modifications Boeing needs to apply to the LR to make it an AR are few it could work. It's all coming down to a simple cost/benefit analysis here.

If the modifications are so small, they could produce the AR and hereby attract new airlines to buy a few of them + many more of the other B777 derivatives since commonality could play a role.

Chris

regi · Post by **regi** » 10 Oct 2005, 23:10

serious question: why don't we see the military solution of midair refueling as a option?
a 777 with a probe on its roof, don't tell it further!

bigjulie · Post by **bigjulie** » 15 Oct 2005, 19:45

who is

Knight255 wrote: Quantas

?
It is spelt Qantas!

regi wrote:serious question: why don't we see the military solution of midair refueling as a option?
a 777 with a probe on its roof, don't tell it further!

Do you really think this is an option