777-200ER on KHI-YYZ route?

Jacobin777 · Post by **Jacobin777** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:41 am

smarties wrote:i didn't know about AA's non-stop ORD-DEL. That flight is almost 16 hours non-stop on the 777-200ER!! There must be huge payload restrictions on that flight. I think that is probably the longest 777-200ER and boeing non-stop flight around? AA should also look at ordering the 777LR as well.

-CO's EWR-HKG is the longest 777-200ER flight in the world at 7000nm....that flight is payload restricted, especially due to some majour headwinds..

-AA's 777's are rarely if ever payload restricted for the ORD-DEL flight, the MTOW of their 777's as well as their RR-Trents 892's have more than enough legst to fly without payload restriction

-AA probably won't get the -200LR because of the GE engines on them...however, I would like to see AA go for some -200LR's to open up some ORD/JFK-India routes

-I think we'll see CO order the -200LR first before AA

PakN'US wrote:LR induction was indeed a crime. I have a feeling that the PIA was forced to acquire 777LR owing to a great deal of pressure from the US Government and possibly graft.

-absolutely wrong..the -200LR performs 10-15% better than the -200ER on routes greater than 5000nm, and PK got a great deal on the -200LR's..not to mention they are the first and so far only carrier in the world to have those planes....they should do more advertising for it though..

fly1346 wrote:yah thanks for the correction Behramjee.. I got confused didnt know which city.... but i still want to know how Continental does it using the 777-200ER...how does it do it? That distance is further than NYC-PAK how is that possible.. im assuming the luggage allowance is very little, not liek the 70 pounds PIA allows from JFK!... or did CO modify their 777-200 by adding additional fuel tanks??

while luggage might be lower for CO at 50lbs/bag, their GE90-90B powered 777's have more than enough power to do it...

the 777-200ER's can't have additional fuel tanks...only the -200LR's can..of which I can't recall any carrier ordering them with the optional fuel tanks, but if EK is to start DXB-LAX direct, then they might have to have the tanks installed on their incoming -200LR's...

sAAd · Post by **sAAd** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 7:47 am

thanks...very informative!!

Even though PK can't utilize the LR to its true potential, the cost of the two aircrafts more than compensates for that.

One of the LRs, that PIA claimed was not up to standards, has eanred a lifetiime of free supplies, spares, and maintenance from BOeing!!

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED??!!

smarties · Post by **smarties** » Tue Jun 13, 2006 12:39 pm

SQ flight SIN-EWR is the longest flights on any aircraft around (18h40 non-stop) , followed by TG BKK-JFK (17h10)both on the 345. I am surprised that SQ haven't ordered the LR.

AP-BGJ · Post by **AP-BGJ** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 5:41 am

the discussion continues regarding PIA buying 777's. can anyone update me on what the actual airbus offer was. bcoz again i was told that in the same price of 777's 11 airbus planes could have been bought. i have no idea on this. so if anyone can throw actual figures it would be great help

cheers!!!!

Jacobin777 · Post by **Jacobin777** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 6:31 am

sAAd wrote:thanks...very informative!!

Even though PK can't utilize the LR to its true potential, the cost of the two aircrafts more than compensates for that.

One of the LRs, that PIA claimed was not up to standards, has eanred a lifetiime of free supplies, spares, and maintenance from BOeing!!

WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED??!!

I agree...

AP-BGJ wrote:the discussion continues regarding PIA buying 777's. can anyone update me on what the actual airbus offer was. bcoz again i was told that in the same price of 777's 11 airbus planes could have been bought. i have no idea on this. so if anyone can throw actual figures it would be great help

cheers!!!!

I highly doubt that is credible....given the list prices of the 777-200ER competitors such as the A330-200, A330-300 or A340-300, Airbus would to have sold those planes at a loss, which would be illegal under WTO (World Trade Organisation) "anti-dumping" laws...

AP-BGJ · Post by **AP-BGJ** » Wed Jun 14, 2006 9:50 pm

exactly jacobin777!!!! i totally agree with u. but still at the moment it is quite evident that PIA is not utilizing its true potential of 777LR'S where as other airlines with ER'S are doin pretty better. so i guess it is well worth a look to see and find out what was it that airbus was offering maybe it might have been better for PIA to get airbusses. but only time will tell how useful it was to get 777's.. fingers crossed

cheers!!

Jacobin777 · Post by **Jacobin777** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 1:41 am

AP-BGJ wrote:exactly jacobin777!!!! i totally agree with u. but still at the moment it is quite evident that PIA is not utilizing its true potential of 777LR'S where as other airlines with ER'S are doin pretty better. so i guess it is well worth a look to see and find out what was it that airbus was offering maybe it might have been better for PIA to get airbusses. but only time will tell how useful it was to get 777's.. fingers crossed

cheers!!

ok..got ya! I see what you are saying...it would be interesting to see what they would have gotten with Airbus....

That being said, PK is utilising its -200LR's nicely on the YYZ-Pakistan route, especially on PK-784 route, where it is flying YYZ-KHI with 6300nm..actually all of the YYZ-Pakistan routes are utilising the power of the -200LR...don't forget, PK's 2 -200LR's do not have the extra tanks fitted, so it has a lower cost structure(and range)...now if PK want to fly to LAX nonstop, it would need the extra auxiliary tanks...but I think they are better off using pakistan-MAN-LAX with a 773...though I've read they will go to LAX via Asia, which I think is a wrong strategy...

Also, once they get the FAA/CAA situation/pilot situation solved, then they can start flying to the United States nonstop, and that will once again get the -200LR to full use...

wa salaam/cheers

Jacobin777

smarties · Post by **smarties** » Thu Jun 15, 2006 10:19 am

i don't think the 777-200LR would need extra tanks to make the non-stop flight from KHI to LAX (7,200Nm) Its only about 900Nm more than KHI-YYZ (6,300Nm) The extra tanks are required for the ultra long range like LHR-SYD which is 9,200Nm.

Jacobin777 · Post by **Jacobin777** » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:14 am

smarties wrote:i don't think the 777-200LR would need extra tanks to make the non-stop flight from KHI to LAX (7,200Nm) Its only about 900Nm more than KHI-YYZ (6,300Nm) The extra tanks are required for the ultra long range like LHR-SYD which is 9,200Nm.

you are correct to a certain extent...the plane wouldn't need to be fitted with all the extra tanks, but it might require one or two.....