Originally Posted by
Pianoman109876
Probably an amateur question, but curious what the difference is between the 772ER vs 772LR. Both appear to have the same number of seats (37/36/218), rated cruising speed (550 mph) and range (10375 miles). Can anyone fill me in?
From a passenger point of view very very little is noticeable.
From a mechanic point of view:
The 777-232ER fleet is Rolls Royce Trent 895 powered. They have the highest MTOW option available for a 777-200ER.
The 777-232LR fleet is General Electric GE90-110B1 engines. They can thrust bump up to 113,000lbs if needed (generally this is only used out of JNB and when DL operated to DXB) DL also has the highest MTOW option here but does not have any of the extra fuel tanks that could come with the 77L (I actually don't believe any operator does)
The interesting thing about the 777-200LR is that Boeing offered a lot of customization with the frame. For example an airline could have gotten less beefy landing gear (not sure if it the same gear as the 777-200ERs or not) or they could have gone with the 77W gear, which is what DL did. DL also had to work with Boeing and Goodyear to find a tire that would handle the JNB operations. The 77L has a tire speed issue that can limit its take off ability.
On top of all of that the 77L is a little bit heavier of an aircraft as well as having things from the 77W like gear (options) and the extended wing tips.
Interesting fact, DL's 777-232ERs happen to be some of the most capable ERs in the world. Very few operators have 95K thrust engines and full MTOW. No one in the US has that combination.
Originally Posted by
audidudi
A good starting place but not DL specific.
Originally Posted by
DLATL777
ATL-JNB is the only route that really needs an LR. Sydney can take an ER, in fact in the past they have used it. All of the daily Virgin Australia flights to SYD are 777-300ERS anyway.
The 777-300ER isn't a 777-200ER. Even DLs 777-232ERs are not as capable as a 77W.
And for a full load 365 days a year the 77L is the only airplane Delta has currently that can do it. Both the 77Es and current 359s will leave cargo behind at times. The 280t 359 should be able to do LAX-SYD no problem.
Originally Posted by
ijgordon
Well I’m pretty sure the 777-300ER has a longer range than the -200ER.
correct
Originally Posted by
spin88
The 772LR (range 8555, entered service in 2006) was Boeing answer to the A345 (9,000 nm range, entered service 2003). It was designed to keep EK from defecting and buying the A345. Boeing only sold 55 of them because fuel prices sharply spiked around the time it entered service, making long haul flying uneconomical. The 772LR have stuck around as they did not have the extreme fuel penalty (due to extra weight from a third tank, and reinforcement for a higher MTOW) that the A345 had.
From a passenger standpoint the A/C is exactly the same as a 772ER, the difference - to the airline - is that on a shorter range mission the fuel burn/seat is higher as you are carrying around extra weight over the 772ER.
I think DL got it for ATL-JNB, but I think they had plans to do other ULR routes, but dropped them around the time they got the planes and (a) fuel was $100+/barrel, and (b) the economy cratered. I have seen others post that the 772LR is at the edge of its range going JNB-ATL due to the winds it faces going west combined with the hot/high airport in JNB restricting its take off weight due to lower thrust.
Airbus has again beaten McDDdbaBoeing to the punch with the A350ULR which has a range of 9700nm, and is being launched by SQ on SIN-JFK, SIN-LAX. While other aircraft can theoretically fly these ranges, they do so with a substantial weight penalty. It will be intersting if DL at some point, with its network needs (see e.g. JFK-SIN, JFK-JNB, ATL-SYD) orders the A350ULR.
If only Boeing didn't have something called the 777.
Might want to look at the 777-8 and then you can come back and tell us who has the more capable airframe.
Originally Posted by
ashill
59 total delivered; Delta owns 10 of those, says Wikipedia.
Yeah, and I imagine that they have enough commonality with the 777-200ER that there isn't the typical inefficiency in having such a small subfleet for an airline (like Delta) with a decent-sized ER fleet. So it makes sense for DL to have a small number of these to enable the handful of missions that can't be done with an ER (ATL-JNB) or often can't be done at full capacity (LAX-SYD), since the LRs can also do anything an ER can do (I would guess at comparable operating cost, though I don't know that for sure).
Yes and no.
The biggest issue is the landing gear and the engines.
Having said that DL has power by the hour agreements with Rolls Royce and GE for the engines. The Trent 800s go to SAESL in Singapore for overhaul and the GE90s go GE's Cardiff facility. Also pretty sure at least the 77L landing gear is sent to a vendor for overhaul.
Originally DL sent its Trents to TAESL in Fort Worth but American and Rolls decided to shut the facility down which is why they get sent all the way to SIN now.