Boeing: 772LR can carry 50 more seats than SIA345

[jiml1126]

Boeing claims its 777-200LR, to be rolled-out in Jan 2005, will carry 50 more passengers than 340-500, under Singapore Airlines' requirement.

The 772LR can also carry First Class.

Singapore Airlines' original configuration for its A345LeaderShip includes First Class, 210-seater.

However, due to weight restriction, SIA is forced to drop the plan. SIA's First Class suite's weight equals to 2.5Space Bed.

This claims indicates Boeing is trying to geer up 777X sales, which apparently lost to 345/346 due to higher price.

As a result, Boeing plans to lower the 777X price.

777-200LR can carry 50 more passengers than A340-500, insiders say

[hkgspotter1]

Boeing are good at saying but not DOING.

767-400....

757-300.....

747-400ER.....

Sonic Cruiser......

[PHF2ATL]

Is there really much of a market for these ultra-long haul routes? I think this will be another boeing flop like the 753 and 764.

[DAL767-400ER]

Boeing says 772LR can carry 50more seats than SIA345

I think the 772LR is only an option for 773ER customers who want to have a smaller plane with he same range. The 772LR doesn't really same like a plane for airlines that already have the 772ER, at least for now, judging by the current sales.
And while the potential for these ultra-long hauls is pretty small, it is there, and there are still some route possibilities to considered. Whether those are economical or necessary or realistic is yet a different thing (like e.g. DL flying ATL-SYD- at least the feed in ATL is there ).

-Colin

[uy707]

Pretty shortly next to the 772ER, now we get the 772LR.
Fine they're set to canibalize each other since they adress similar basic requirements
Alain

[ConcordeBoy]

Re: Boeing says 772LR can carry 50more seats than SIA345

This claims indicates Boeing is trying to geer up 777X sales, which apparently lost to 345/346 due to higher price.

Actually, the overwhelming majority of A345 customers became so before the 772LR was ever launched.

Pricing premiums obviously do not bother the airlines in reference to these models; as the 773ER is neck&neck with the A346, despite being around for half as long.

Boeing are good at saying but not DOING

Exactly what about those models did Boeing "say" which it did not "do"?

Fine they're set to canibalize each other since they adress similar basic requirements

Hence the pricing premium.

At this point, few airlines in the market for a 772 will op for the -LR over the -ER......... but should for any reason -200ER sales slump (e.g., the advent of a decent competitor), Boeing already has a superMOTW 772 ready to go: the de-tanked 772LR.

[Ansett]

thats good then, they can sell those seats at a lower cost?

[N776AU]

Is there really much of a market for these ultra-long haul routes? I think this will be another boeing flop like the 753 and 764.

753 maybe..but 764 no...only DL and CO needed something like that, but they got what they wanted, and it works very well. It's a nice aircraft too

[Ghibli]

Re: Boeing says 772LR can carry 50more seats than SIA345

Boeing claims its 777-200LR, to be rolled-out in Jan 2005, will carry 50 more passengers than 340-500, under Singapore Airlines' requirement.

So it's confirmed they'll be ditching the A345s for 772LRs? Well that means they'll also definitely be getting the 773ER and not the A346. Pity...

[Airbus330Fan]

I love the 777s but there is no way will i fly a twin jet for over 18 hrs. Yes, the technology is there but what if there is one engine failure over the trans-pacific ? My heart will be beating very fast and hard.

[beyond 1000]

I guess Airbus330Fan, if you got a chance to go to space in the Shuttle you wouldn't go either.

If they say its safe to fly a twin over that length of distance then it's safe.

There are plenty of landing strips to land in an emergency in the Pacific. Remember one good engine is still running.

[Simpleboy]

I would fly on a twin engine if I had to but if I got the choice, I would rather fly on a 4 engine aircraft.

[Airbus330Fan]

I guess Airbus330Fan, if you got a chance to go to space in the Shuttle you wouldn't go either.

If they say its safe to fly a twin over that length of distance then it's safe.

There are plenty of landing strips to land in an emergency in the Pacific. Remember one good engine is still running.

Well, thats your own opinion and I have my own. Most of the nervous flyers will agree with me.

[ConcordeBoy]

I love the 777s but there is no way will i fly a twin jet for over 18 hrs.

Though I can empathize with the [ignorant] root of this fear; the above statement is illogical at best...

...18+ hours though the flight may be, it actually doesn't spend any more time (in fact, less time, in some cases) operating under ETOPS than other transpacific flights.

Most of the nervous flyers will agree with me.

"Most of the nervous flyers" also 1) don't know squat about aviation and 2) do not regularly contribute to the airline's premium-yield...

...ergo, who cares what they agree with