The 777-200 LR came out in 2006. The Airbus 350-1000 came out 12 years later in 2018. So way too much apples and oranges. Sometimes the future is now. Regardless a little context is always nice.
I don’t think this means the 200LR was unsuccessful, but rather fit a specific demand and market for passenger airlines. As many have already stated, this demand fits cargo airlines a bit more, but nonetheless it fulfilled its purpose that Boeing intended, and that airlines wanted.
I bet it was made simple for novice to see. This video was less than four minutes how long would it take you to make a flight plan from New York to say Sydney? It’s just a simple diagram, don’t get butt hurt just because it’s not technically correct.
soaringtractor yeah I know there’s been over 1600 total aircraft of the Boeing 777 type built, I was referring to the Air Canada 777-200LRs which I have flown on between Sydney and Vancouver. I’d recommend that you finish reading a comment before you tell us this information, or maybe you’re too stubborn to notice that there’s another line above and below “777-200LR”. But it is also possible that you apparently don’t have time to read it even though you spent at least 1 minute writing about how many 777s have been produced. Look the point is don’t waste your time writing stupid replies on comments on RUclips videos, go do something else that’s actually productive.
It's a matter of how you interpret things I guess. The 777F is based on the same airframe as the LR and is quite successful with 217 frames built,which I think isn't that bad for a subtype of the program.
People don't understand the fact that the 77L has a better payload compared to the 789. That means you can do for ex. YVR-SYD fully loaded with Cargo, Pax, and Baggage with zero weight restrictions. While if you did it with a 789, it will be weight restricted on Cargo. Or 77W which can cut a % of pax and cargo to SYD, but coming back is fine
It was just a niche model for those airlines that really needed that range and capacity for targeted routes while preserving fleet commonality. It was just a mod, didn’t need expensive development and did it’s job. It was never meant to sell in the hundreds. You can’t really call it a failure, at its time it was the only model available for that job.
Despite the aircraft performance, the 10 seats abreast economy class configuration on some airlines for ultra long haul flights is such a nightmare compares to the 8 seats abreast on A345.
but burn too much fuel and fulling was more difficult. This type of plane of aircraft for long routes are use to produce less due to that not big demand
Airbus failed with the A340-500. Singapore Airlines dropped its route Singapore-New York about 10 years ago after a few month as it was too costly. I dont know how successful SIA was/is with the re-opened route with the A350-900ULR, but at least that A350 is way more fuel efficient. Too bad... I flew in a 777LR from Air Canada some time ago and it was a great ride, very comfy. I think the 787-9 is THE aircraft being capable of ultra-long range and serving medium routes at the same time.
Can Boeing bring back Alan Mulally? It was under his watch the 777 program was great. Muillenburg has lined his pockets to get rich off stock buybacks and Calhoun is not much different.
Alan’s attitude with the 777 of there being no budget set and asking airlines for input was the best attitude ever. That’s why the program cost was only US$5 billion
David Molina The fact that it doesn’t sound right to you doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong. I personally say “seven seventy-seven”, does that make you mad as well just because it’s different from how you say it?
The longer the range, the higher your fuel burn too... Burning 1% more fuel on each trip adds up over time. After just 100 trips, you could have saved enough fuel to pay for another trip which cost around $0.3M on these long trips.
@@airforce556 it's not about the speed, it's about the thrust to MTOW ratio. By changing to a turboprop engine the aircraft with the same MTOW will need a much longer runway for takeoff. You can improve that by having a bigger wings but that will result in an increase in OWE and reduced range and payload. You can of course increase that back by using bigger engines and bigger wings. The net result is that by changing to a slower more efficient turboprop, you will likely lose more than you gain. Not to mention for a turboprop to generate 100klbf of thrust, the fan diameter will be as big as the A380 fuselage. Fancy riding an A350-1000 with an engine the size of the A380?
I have flown the -200LR 4 times between BLR and SFO since the route was re-introduced after the pandemic. It is Air India's longest route and features in the top 10 route list.
The 77L did not fail, rather it's very successful, the 77F is really selling, and it is based on 77L. Might be in the future when 77L retire from pax, it can be converted to 77F.
Having flown this twice on AKL-DOH (give or take 7900nm) with Qatar in economy ~16-18 hours each way it's hardly any wonder it's not popular. It's very cramped - especially with a 230 economy 3-4-3 seating arrangement. It's understandable for economics of it all but it removes the comfort necessary. For ultra long haul, which it's designed to do, like Qantas studied for project sunrise. It needs more optimal space to freely move around with a 3-3-3 arrangement. Sure it's fine for normal long range 10-12 hour flights but beyond that it's like spending an entire day cramped up moving around a movie theater with a GE90 running on blast outside. It's a product designed for the technological challenges of range over passenger comfort unfortunately. With way the market is moving towards point to point and more longer ranges and more efficient aircraft - the comfort of passengers for ultra long haul needs to play more of a factor in overall picture just as Qantas is doing. I hope A350 does it a lot better.
It's a beautiful aircraft and would have been successful if the airlines knew how to use it. For e.g. Air India still uses them on the DEL-SFO route, Qatar uses it on the DOH-AKL route, Air Canada uses it on YVR to Australia and YYZ-BOM routes, all of which are ULH. The B789 can be capable of doing the same routes as those of B77L, but the B77L will be my favorite and the most underrated aircraft.
Amazingly, you failed to mention the two most important reasons why this plane (and the A345) were commercial failures. 1 - Having an ultra-long range capacity, means a heavier plane to begin with. This is explained by the structural reinforcements that are required to carry the extra fuel (heavier landing gears and wingboxes). As long as these planes fly the extra long routes, it's fine. But put them on shorter routes, and they're not efficient. Hence, operators lose a lot of flexibility in fleet planning with these planes. You sort of mentionned the idea of weight, but you failed to connect the dots properly. 2 - There aren't that many commercially viable routes, city pairs, in the world that require that kind of range. For example, AC operates their 772LR on the YVR-SYD route, but there are very few routes like that. That's the other factor to explain why the ultra long-range planes are not very popular.
I knew that B777 has been really successful, but didn't know B777-200LR was not.. B777-200LR was able to fly long distance with larger fuel tank, which was far from efficiency. Rather, new aircrafts like B787 or A350 are more efficient on fuel, so no doubts for airliners to select them to save their money! Thank you, sir. I learned good things, and I subscribed you🤣 Greetings from SouthKorea!
This pilot/engineer was a pax on a Philippine Air B-777-ER from Toronto to Manila. 17 hours. I like it just fine. You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
Are you gonna write an article about the impending 321T MTOW increase on the A350-1000 that will make it even longer ranged than the A350-900ULR? How that will then have too much range also??
GREAT VLOG. Well researched technically. Its not that straightforward and simple.The A340 500 was a versatile plane. Very competant. May not have been very successful, but was very useful in remote regions. Emirates uses the 340 500 for flights to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thai could not make a profit on full 340 500 flight to New York City. Qantas, Air New Zealand and SAA have similar high capacity, long requirements. But they use a mix of Boeings and Airbuses. Qantas was a Boeing only airline, now its mostly Airbus. Qantas bought the 380 and the 330 and the Americans were not happy. ITS NOT JUST TECHNOLOGY!! ITS POLITICS BIG TIME.
It was meant to be a stopgap until more fuel efficient models could be made to fill the same needs. In that sense, I think it accomplished its mission. It didn't cost much for Boeing to develop as it was just an evolution of an existing design, just like the 747-8.
Also, its easy to forget but the 77W blew out its range and fuel burn targets and turned out to be an incredibly high performing and versatile airplane. Depending on the exact mission and configuration, the 77L could surpass the 77E in performance in the 5000-6000mi mission (something SFO-PEK) if it was hauling cargo. But that detail became moot as the 77W matured and became clear it could outperform both the 77E and 77L on similar missions, and there just weren't enough 7500+ mi missions where you *needed* a 77L over a 77W.
Great video.☺️ I just subscribed to ur RUclips channel.☺️ The Boeing 777-200ER with two GE90 Engines with British Airways is my mat favourite aircraft ever built but I do love the Boeing 777-200LR, The original Boeing 777-200, The Boeing 777-300, The Boeing 777-300ER and the Boeing 777F but I’m not really a big fan of the new 777X especially because of the new engines. All they could’ve do with the 777X is just do a little Update with the GE90 Engines to burn less fuel instead of put those gutless sounding GE9X Engines with a lower rotation speed.
The fuel argument doesn’t make sense. The best fuel economy is during cruise, so shorter trips burn more fuel per mile on the average. I’d there just aren’t enough long-haul passenger routes.
GH1618 That’s part of it. Most passengers prefer to have at least one layover on very long journeys as well - even an 8 hour transatlantic flight in economy is awful; an 18 hour flight verges on torture, especially if you’re tall. There’s also the problem of crewing very long haul flights: Regulators and collective bargaining agreements put strict limits on how many hours flight crews can work consecutively.
So sad, it has so much potential. Air Canada flies the -200LR. You'll see it mostly on the Toronto to Hong Kong and Vancouver to Sydney route. but that is only 6800nm. However, they do fill the seats. I believe now the Sydney Melbourne and Perth routes are on the 787.
Wow this was unnecessarily critical. What were the expectations? Of course you need to carry more fuel if you want to go further. There are very few ultra long haul routes that justify a direct flight vs hub and spoke. Based on the technology of the time, this was the way to build a long range aircraft. Of course technology has moved on since then and efficiency has increased.
I am not sure about carrying 440 pax if the range would still be 8555nm. The 8555nm is based on a typical 3 class configuration not on all economy class configuration.
There's like a tona these flying around as freighters....The 777f is essentially a 200lr but as a cargo variant instead of a passenger one....So i wouldn't say they aren't successful, but yeah theirs only 60 of them flying around and passeneger aircraft......
Jaafar Zaidi - 'like'? What are you, a teenage girl?! Loved you in Aladdin, by the way - the scenes where you argued with your parrot were really funny.
Though it is true that 777-200ER can fly some 9,300 odd NM in still air it can only do so with some 300 pax and no cargo. The max exit capacity of this plane is 440 pax in an extremely tight configuration. What is positively impossible is to simultaneously fly the max distance. The extra 140 pax over 300 pax weigh 14 tons, which at 7 t/hour fuel consumption means that the plane can load that much less fuel, or 2 hours less flying time, or 1,000NM less range
Excellent vlog !!! Whats the difference between the 777 200 LR and the 777 8X. Air Canada had a 777 300 ER on the Sudney run. Air India flies to SFO using a 777 200 LR. PIA operates one to Toronto Pearson. Qatar flies one to Santiago.
full service carriers across still needs the B777-200 LR just as much as they need the B777-300 ER . . . because the B777-200 LR is the only wide body jet that can fly Mumbai (BOM) - Sao Paulo (SPO) non-stop . . .
Ming Ming more like when the plane will be available. Because the 350k ulr takes the existing 350k and add more fuel tanks, slight modifications, and so on; so, it takes lesser time to get it certified and delivered. Whereas the -8 is a new plane still on development. Even his longer brother is still undergoing flight test and delivery starts approx next year if everything is on schedule. So its a long wait for Qantas if they chose the -8.
Politics Geek again only if empty. Why do you think airbus have launched project sunrise? To find a plane that can have the range and carry enough passengers
Why is Sydney to New York shown as a long route- would it not be quicker to fly up from Sydney over the Eastern tip of Asia, then across and over Hawaii and the over North America as that way there is still many airports to stop at and surely it is quicker as less airlines fly that way?
I got to ride the 777-200 from L.A. to Inchon Korea in business , very nice . The flight attendants were very good a sexy . I would recommend business to anyone . It was Asiana Airlines but I had a camera and cell phone stolen maybe from L.A.
Ultra long range creates crewing problems where the airline regulators and unions are significant factors unless of course they are flying out of the sand box. This affects the success of this model
@@ralphefernandes they're probably gonna turn that into the 777-8F I guess. It's more suited for the freighther market tbh but only time will tell from here
Air New Zealand could have probably maintained a tri or quad weekly Auckland - New York non stop service had they ordered the 200LR. 1 - 2 - 1 business cabin and 2 - 2 - 2 premium economy cabin (Space Seat). Could have flown non stop to Miami and Washington DC too. Too bad.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. How can anyone complain that an airplane does exactly what it's supposed to do? I think what the video is _trying_ (not very successfully) to say is that the 2006-era 777ER isn't as fuel efficient as newer, more recently-designed airplanes with similar range.
@@Milesco It's because of density. For a 777 to be profitable on those long range, you'd need capacity. If you don't have it, you're losing money making the trip. That's why even Delta's LR's are frequently underutilized on the ATL-LAX route, only using 20% of it's range.
You could just say they chose to order the regular 777-200 instead rather than suggesting the other option was a 330 or a 787 which was to come a decade later. Simple indeed.
The 777-200 LR came out in 2006. The Airbus 350-1000 came out 12 years later in 2018. So way too much apples and oranges. Sometimes the future is now. Regardless a little context is always nice.
Wish this channel was managed better in information
David Oldham throw in the fact the A340-500 was around back then and even now the 777-8 has more range than the -200LR
the future is now, old man
Finally! Someone who gets it.
@@airforce556 unfortunately, they never learn
I don’t think this means the 200LR was unsuccessful, but rather fit a specific demand and market for passenger airlines. As many have already stated, this demand fits cargo airlines a bit more, but nonetheless it fulfilled its purpose that Boeing intended, and that airlines wanted.
Boeing 777-300ER is also the best looking of the 777's
777-9 would take that spot in my opinion
Its well proportioned and I love its circular fuselage. I'm not keen on the -9's dimensions and nose
Agree, B777-200 just feels kind of stubby
@@marvelgoh5648 Same
@@Skrramjam It's just sad they new 777x planes will have a 787 looking cockpit instead of the old beautiful brown color
Drawing the routes in the wrong way in a flat map is the worst way to illustrate range.
Eduardo Ganança exactly what I was thinking
Agreed
hahaha :D
That was my first thought as well ^^
I bet it was made simple for novice to see. This video was less than four minutes how long would it take you to make a flight plan from New York to say Sydney? It’s just a simple diagram, don’t get butt hurt just because it’s not technically correct.
Wow I never knew there was only 60 made, I’ve flown the 777-200LR 4 times between Sydney and Vancouver.
when your spoiled but you didn’t know it
@soaringtractor do u know how to read?
@soaringtractor he meant that lol
soaringtractor learn to read DUUUUHHHHH!!!!!
soaringtractor yeah I know there’s been over 1600 total aircraft of the Boeing 777 type built, I was referring to the Air Canada 777-200LRs which I have flown on between Sydney and Vancouver. I’d recommend that you finish reading a comment before you tell us this information, or maybe you’re too stubborn to notice that there’s another line above and below “777-200LR”. But it is also possible that you apparently don’t have time to read it even though you spent at least 1 minute writing about how many 777s have been produced. Look the point is don’t waste your time writing stupid replies on comments on RUclips videos, go do something else that’s actually productive.
It’s the basis for the freighter so they’re doing just fine with that .
Because freight decreases range by a ton.
Southern air and atlas operate the type 😉
@@erasmodemeo6167 and emirates and Air France and many more
I don't think the freighter is based on the LR, but the regular 200
@@12345fowler it’s based on both 200 sized with LR upgrades in engine etc
It's a matter of how you interpret things I guess. The 777F is based on the same airframe as the LR and is quite successful with 217 frames built,which I think isn't that bad for a subtype of the program.
“Rising fuel prices” *Checks Brent oil price* :/
At that time dumass,not current time.... If now fuel cheaper but airline can't fly due to pandemic...
@@arifkhamar6430 Why? I u look they fly to China and back with cargo
@@mateuszzimon8216 cargo plane still moving.yup
arif khamar A. It was a joke B. Oil had dropped from where it was 5-10 years ago.
@@dankspain lol it don't seem like a joke
People don't understand the fact that the 77L has a better payload compared to the 789. That means you can do for ex. YVR-SYD fully loaded with Cargo, Pax, and Baggage with zero weight restrictions. While if you did it with a 789, it will be weight restricted on Cargo. Or 77W which can cut a % of pax and cargo to SYD, but coming back is fine
Flew long haul on the 777-200LR many times with Delta and I really enjoyed it.
Many pax complain to the noise of the engines not you ?
777-200LR has left the chat
A340-500 has left the chat
A350 & 787-9: It's free real estate
It was just a niche model for those airlines that really needed that range and capacity for targeted routes while preserving fleet commonality. It was just a mod, didn’t need expensive development and did it’s job. It was never meant to sell in the hundreds. You can’t really call it a failure, at its time it was the only model available for that job.
Despite the aircraft performance, the 10 seats abreast economy class configuration on some airlines for ultra long haul flights is such a nightmare compares to the 8 seats abreast on A345.
The A345 was always such a comfortable ride
AGREED !!! WELL SAID !!
but burn too much fuel and fulling was more difficult. This type of plane of aircraft for long routes are use to produce less due to that not big demand
Airbus failed with the A340-500. Singapore Airlines dropped its route Singapore-New York about 10 years ago after a few month as it was too costly.
I dont know how successful SIA was/is with the re-opened route with the A350-900ULR, but at least that A350 is way more fuel efficient.
Too bad... I flew in a 777LR from Air Canada some time ago and it was a great ride, very comfy. I think the 787-9 is THE aircraft being capable of ultra-long range and serving medium routes at the same time.
The 789 still doesn't have enough range to fly SIN-EWR direct though I think
The 787 is too cramped for ultra long haul
Thanks for including km in range, its now much more easier to understand.
I love all variations of the triple 7, she's a beautiful aircraft and has been a fantastic servant to the airline industry since the late 90's.
Can Boeing bring back Alan Mulally?
It was under his watch the 777 program was great.
Muillenburg has lined his pockets to get rich off stock buybacks and Calhoun is not much different.
Alan’s attitude with the 777 of there being no budget set and asking airlines for input was the best attitude ever. That’s why the program cost was only US$5 billion
Surely Calhoun is not as worse as Muilenburg
MBGA
Make Boeing Great Again
Isn't Mulally still running Ford?
I love the 777 content. FINALY TRIPPLE SEVEN yay they finally understood
“Seven seven seven” is also acceptable.
KasabianFan44 not really it doesn’t sound right
David Molina
The fact that it doesn’t sound right to you doesn’t automatically mean it’s wrong. I personally say “seven seventy-seven”, does that make you mad as well just because it’s different from how you say it?
@@KasabianFan44 chill out bro y you so aggresive. Hes right it doesn't sound right but that doesn't mean your wrong. Chill
*Tripple Seven*
i love how this video gets to the point and doesn't drag it out.
The longer range is better, there is no such thing "to much range". Look at all the airlines that own these planes. Its proving well in cargo.
i totally agree , getting an airplane with a bigger range has been the prime request from airlines for many years .
The longer the range, the higher your fuel burn too... Burning 1% more fuel on each trip adds up over time. After just 100 trips, you could have saved enough fuel to pay for another trip which cost around $0.3M on these long trips.
Well, you can also fly at slower speeds and change to more fuel efficient engines
@@airforce556 it's not about the speed, it's about the thrust to MTOW ratio. By changing to a turboprop engine the aircraft with the same MTOW will need a much longer runway for takeoff. You can improve that by having a bigger wings but that will result in an increase in OWE and reduced range and payload. You can of course increase that back by using bigger engines and bigger wings.
The net result is that by changing to a slower more efficient turboprop, you will likely lose more than you gain. Not to mention for a turboprop to generate 100klbf of thrust, the fan diameter will be as big as the A380 fuselage.
Fancy riding an A350-1000 with an engine the size of the A380?
I'm not saying turbo prop I'm saying ge90 to ge9x
Also the plane was in 2006 befor the a350
My favorite plane besides the 300er variant love the vid !
Its long range is not due to bigger fuel tank. But higher maximum take off weight due to more powerful engines.
Edit: grammatical error
And guess what they can do with that higher MTOW? Carry more fuel
IT has 8% larger fuel capacity than the 777-200er
Henning Kaasa if they’re choose to put the extra tanks in. This was optional
The LR is a gas guzzler. Heavy drinker. Higher MTOW to lift all that gas. Powerful engines that drink like a fish.
I have flown the -200LR 4 times between BLR and SFO since the route was re-introduced after the pandemic. It is Air India's longest route and features in the top 10 route list.
The 77L did not fail, rather it's very successful, the 77F is really selling, and it is based on 77L. Might be in the future when 77L retire from pax, it can be converted to 77F.
Having flown this twice on AKL-DOH (give or take 7900nm) with Qatar in economy ~16-18 hours each way it's hardly any wonder it's not popular. It's very cramped - especially with a 230 economy 3-4-3 seating arrangement. It's understandable for economics of it all but it removes the comfort necessary. For ultra long haul, which it's designed to do, like Qantas studied for project sunrise. It needs more optimal space to freely move around with a 3-3-3 arrangement. Sure it's fine for normal long range 10-12 hour flights but beyond that it's like spending an entire day cramped up moving around a movie theater with a GE90 running on blast outside. It's a product designed for the technological challenges of range over passenger comfort unfortunately. With way the market is moving towards point to point and more longer ranges and more efficient aircraft - the comfort of passengers for ultra long haul needs to play more of a factor in overall picture just as Qantas is doing. I hope A350 does it a lot better.
I have flown on a 777-200LR in December 2020
Emirates?
It's a beautiful aircraft and would have been successful if the airlines knew how to use it. For e.g. Air India still uses them on the DEL-SFO route, Qatar uses it on the DOH-AKL route, Air Canada uses it on YVR to Australia and YYZ-BOM routes, all of which are ULH. The B789 can be capable of doing the same routes as those of B77L, but the B77L will be my favorite and the most underrated aircraft.
When you were showing the Emirates 777 an add for it popped up on my tv lol
PIA and Air India were shown,that mean you would see alot of Pakistani and Indian fighting in the comment section soon haha
maybe but they just need to can it, we're so over ancient history
Im pretty sure Pakistani and Indian civilian aviation enthusiasts do not care about the clique politics
AP-BGZ is a true work horse, it’s the only plane that comes to Toronto each week. It’s way overused.
Why to fight on this matter? Nothing seems wrong here. From India
White Elephant? Like the A380?
Put less fuel in the bugger then the range wouldn’t be to long
In that case it would simply be a more expensive 777-200ER with less cargo space available due to the additional (empty) fuel tanks.
Amazingly, you failed to mention the two most important reasons why this plane (and the A345) were commercial failures.
1 - Having an ultra-long range capacity, means a heavier plane to begin with. This is explained by the structural reinforcements that are required to carry the extra fuel (heavier landing gears and wingboxes). As long as these planes fly the extra long routes, it's fine. But put them on shorter routes, and they're not efficient. Hence, operators lose a lot of flexibility in fleet planning with these planes. You sort of mentionned the idea of weight, but you failed to connect the dots properly.
2 - There aren't that many commercially viable routes, city pairs, in the world that require that kind of range. For example, AC operates their 772LR on the YVR-SYD route, but there are very few routes like that. That's the other factor to explain why the ultra long-range planes are not very popular.
London to Sydney! You can do it, guys!
I knew that B777 has been really successful, but didn't know B777-200LR was not.. B777-200LR was able to fly long distance with larger fuel tank, which was far from efficiency. Rather, new aircrafts like B787 or A350 are more efficient on fuel, so no doubts for airliners to select them to save their money! Thank you, sir. I learned good things, and I subscribed you🤣 Greetings from SouthKorea!
The 777-8 will be a great replacement and will hopefully become successful
This pilot/engineer was a pax on a Philippine Air B-777-ER from Toronto to Manila. 17 hours. I like it just fine. You have to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
The 777 freighter is probably the second most suitable freighter aircraft currently in service and is a fantastic, efficient long haul worker.
I've had the privilege of flying on an Air Canada 777-200LR from Toronto to Munich.
To be honest
Boeing could see the writing on the wall and airlines was a bit slow...
777 best airline of all time
So far ....
And the 777-x on the way 👌👌👌
@@rickykelleher9833 you mean the 777x
Because the 777-x stands for the 200lr and 300er variants
SFO-DEL with Air India. The 777-200LR was amazing.
Damn, that some range.
My favorite 777 variant
The 777-200LR
nice informations...amazing video
Are you gonna write an article about the impending 321T MTOW increase on the A350-1000 that will make it even longer ranged than the A350-900ULR? How that will then have too much range also??
I'll pass it on to our content team. - TB
What is the different between LR and ER and how can they fly further?
Its name say it, the ER is extender range, which means a little more range, while long-range means more, more than unusual.
GREAT VLOG. Well researched technically. Its not that straightforward and simple.The A340 500 was a versatile plane. Very competant. May not have been very successful, but was very useful in remote regions. Emirates uses the 340 500 for flights to Afghanistan and Iraq. Thai could not make a profit on full 340 500 flight to New York City. Qantas, Air New Zealand and SAA have similar high capacity, long requirements. But they use a mix of Boeings and Airbuses. Qantas was a Boeing only airline, now its mostly Airbus. Qantas bought the 380 and the 330 and the Americans were not happy. ITS NOT JUST TECHNOLOGY!! ITS POLITICS BIG TIME.
and what do Boeing and Airbus airline's situation have to do with the 777LR?
Suffering from success
It was meant to be a stopgap until more fuel efficient models could be made to fill the same needs. In that sense, I think it accomplished its mission. It didn't cost much for Boeing to develop as it was just an evolution of an existing design, just like the 747-8.
Also, its easy to forget but the 77W blew out its range and fuel burn targets and turned out to be an incredibly high performing and versatile airplane. Depending on the exact mission and configuration, the 77L could surpass the 77E in performance in the 5000-6000mi mission (something SFO-PEK) if it was hauling cargo. But that detail became moot as the 77W matured and became clear it could outperform both the 77E and 77L on similar missions, and there just weren't enough 7500+ mi missions where you *needed* a 77L over a 77W.
Great video
Honestly it's incredible to me that such a thing is even possible.
Wow really? Only 60 built? Now I feel SO lucky that I had flown it twice with Delta between PVG and DTW in 2014!
Great video.☺️ I just subscribed to ur RUclips channel.☺️ The Boeing 777-200ER with two GE90 Engines with British Airways is my mat favourite aircraft ever built but I do love the Boeing 777-200LR, The original Boeing 777-200, The Boeing 777-300, The Boeing 777-300ER and the Boeing 777F but I’m not really a big fan of the new 777X especially because of the new engines. All they could’ve do with the 777X is just do a little Update with the GE90 Engines to burn less fuel instead of put those gutless sounding GE9X Engines with a lower rotation speed.
Calm down
I think that's a bit out of date. The 787-8 has I think a bit more and it can carry more passengers
Notable 777-200LR route: lax to syd in Delta 41
And famous ATL-JNB on Delta :)
I wish Delta kept them but they are going away :(
Airlines: we prefer longer range aircraft rather than bigger aircraft
Also airlines:
what they really need:💸💰 📈
Finally made it into the top three person....
Boeing 777 💚❤️
Boeing bean counter: Who's idea was this?
Boeing engineers: 🥹🥹🥹🥹
I love the way you describe things you make it very easy to understand 😘
The fuel argument doesn’t make sense. The best fuel economy is during cruise, so shorter trips burn more fuel per mile on the average. I’d there just aren’t enough long-haul passenger routes.
GH1618 That’s part of it. Most passengers prefer to have at least one layover on very long journeys as well - even an 8 hour transatlantic flight in economy is awful; an 18 hour flight verges on torture, especially if you’re tall. There’s also the problem of crewing very long haul flights: Regulators and collective bargaining agreements put strict limits on how many hours flight crews can work consecutively.
So sad, it has so much potential. Air Canada flies the -200LR. You'll see it mostly on the Toronto to Hong Kong and Vancouver to Sydney route. but that is only 6800nm. However, they do fill the seats. I believe now the Sydney Melbourne and Perth routes are on the 787.
Great Vlog. The 777 LR is a successful plane like the A340 500. Very small market for high capacity long range routes.
Thanks for the feedback. - TB
@@SimpleFlyingNews Great Vlog MATE!!! I know a thing or two about aviation, so in shared my toughts.
Still the best aircraft ever made!
Simple flying: It failed due to rising fuel prices
COVID: Hold my Corona
I've flown this nice aircraft from DOH-IAH multiple times.
Wow this was unnecessarily critical.
What were the expectations?
Of course you need to carry more fuel if you want to go further.
There are very few ultra long haul routes that justify a direct flight vs hub and spoke.
Based on the technology of the time, this was the way to build a long range aircraft.
Of course technology has moved on since then and efficiency has increased.
Fun fact: The 777-200LR was offered to Qantas as an interim solution for Project Sunrise.
I believe KLM has a few right? Or is it just the normal version?
VeniVidiAjax no it doesn’t. 200ER & 300ER
Can you make a video on the tupolev 144?
soaringtractor UGH 😑 what the heck. There is always one fucking keyboard warrior who have to ruin everything.
I'm confused. Does the -200lr have more range than the 200ER?
yes
I am not sure about carrying 440 pax if the range would still be 8555nm. The 8555nm is based on a typical 3 class configuration not on all economy class configuration.
There's like a tona these flying around as freighters....The 777f is essentially a 200lr but as a cargo variant instead of a passenger one....So i wouldn't say they aren't successful, but yeah theirs only 60 of them flying around and passeneger aircraft......
Jaafar Zaidi - 'like'? What are you, a teenage girl?! Loved you in Aladdin, by the way - the scenes where you argued with your parrot were really funny.
@@markfox1545 Fine i removed it....Happy now?
Why is there a drawing of Emirates a340
Abdullah Atif oh I had no idea thank you
Though it is true that 777-200ER can fly some 9,300 odd NM in still air it can only do so with some 300 pax and no cargo. The max exit capacity of this plane is 440 pax in an extremely tight configuration. What is positively impossible is to simultaneously fly the max distance. The extra 140 pax over 300 pax weigh 14 tons, which at 7 t/hour fuel consumption means that the plane can load that much less fuel, or 2 hours less flying time, or 1,000NM less range
The B777-300 was barely popular. It was the 300ER that dominated that market.
Excellent vlog !!! Whats the difference between the 777 200 LR and the 777 8X. Air Canada had a 777 300 ER on the Sudney run. Air India flies to SFO using a 777 200 LR. PIA operates one to Toronto Pearson. Qatar flies one to Santiago.
At present the Airbus A350-1000 has the maximum range.
Do something on the Crj1000
full service carriers across still needs the B777-200 LR just as much as they need the B777-300 ER . . . because the B777-200 LR is the only wide body jet that can fly Mumbai (BOM) - Sao Paulo (SPO) non-stop . . .
777-8 is even longer range, but still couldnt beat a350-9 XLR for project sunrise. So yeah, still not long enough and economic enough....
Ming Ming more like when the plane will be available. Because the 350k ulr takes the existing 350k and add more fuel tanks, slight modifications, and so on; so, it takes lesser time to get it certified and delivered. Whereas the -8 is a new plane still on development. Even his longer brother is still undergoing flight test and delivery starts approx next year if everything is on schedule. So its a long wait for Qantas if they chose the -8.
that what you think, just wait until the 777x came.
The 787-9 has a shorter range than the 77L
Do you reckon the 777-200lr can fly non-stop from Sydney to London?
Politics Geek no unless empty
@@tomstravels520 What about Sydney to New-York?
Politics Geek again only if empty. Why do you think airbus have launched project sunrise? To find a plane that can have the range and carry enough passengers
@@tomstravels520 A350ULR? 777-8?
Politics Geek yeah. And they’ve selected the A350
Nice
Why is Sydney to New York shown as a long route- would it not be quicker to fly up from Sydney over the Eastern tip of Asia, then across and over Hawaii and the over North America as that way there is still many airports to stop at and surely it is quicker as less airlines fly that way?
I got to ride the 777-200 from L.A. to Inchon Korea in business , very nice . The flight attendants were very good a sexy . I would recommend business to anyone . It was Asiana Airlines but I had a camera and cell phone stolen maybe from L.A.
Yaaay. Thank you so much for this video
Airbus A350: *looks away nervously*
Ultra long range creates crewing problems where the airline regulators and unions are significant factors unless of course they are flying out of the sand box. This affects the success of this model
No it didn't. There were crew rest quarters that accommodated two full crew aboard this jet. I flew it dozens of times.
So how come Qantas never bought it for its long haul routes??
i think you guys didnt realize that LR stands for long range :/
Yes this is why it is called LONG RANGE!
Much better
Much more range, much better
Agreed, more comfortable and quieter than 777-300ER.
777-8 should be the king of the ultra long haul i think
Hopefully. But the 777-8 program does not look like taking off right now... 777-9 is "secured"....
@@ralphefernandes they're probably gonna turn that into the 777-8F I guess. It's more suited for the freighther market tbh but only time will tell from here
A350-1000
Air New Zealand could have probably maintained a tri or quad weekly Auckland - New York non stop service had they ordered the 200LR.
1 - 2 - 1 business cabin and 2 - 2 - 2 premium economy cabin (Space Seat). Could have flown non stop to Miami and Washington DC too.
Too bad.
This video doesn’t make sense. Boeing builds a long range plane, and supposedly fails because it has... too longe range??
Yeah, that's what I was thinking, too. How can anyone complain that an airplane does exactly what it's supposed to do?
I think what the video is _trying_ (not very successfully) to say is that the 2006-era 777ER isn't as fuel efficient as newer, more recently-designed airplanes with similar range.
@@Milesco It's because of density. For a 777 to be profitable on those long range, you'd need capacity. If you don't have it, you're losing money making the trip. That's why even Delta's LR's are frequently underutilized on the ATL-LAX route, only using 20% of it's range.
PIA was launch customer of 777 200LR for routes to USA....but they declined.....
Only 60, well I'll be. I've only been on the Delta ones between Sydney and Los Angeles and vice versa
You could just say they chose to order the regular 777-200 instead rather than suggesting the other option was a 330 or a 787 which was to come a decade later. Simple indeed.
The 777-200LR is the best 777 but it doesn’t fill any demand, almost all 77L fly a few hours flights
Also who wants to sit in the 3-4-3 configuration for 15+ hours.
Plant Seed exactly that 3-4-3 is barely humane in 777 , ideally 3-3-3