Why The Range Of The Boeing 777-200LR Was Too Long 

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.

Wow I never knew there was only 60 made, I’ve flown the 777-200LR 4 times between Sydney and Vancouver.

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.

Boeing 777-300ER is also the best looking of the 777's

It’s the basis for the freighter so they’re doing just fine with that .

Drawing the routes in the wrong way in a flat map is the worst way to illustrate range.

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

777-200LR has left the chat A340-500 has left the chat A350 & 787-9: It's free real estate

“Rising fuel prices” *Checks Brent oil price* :/

Flew long haul on the 777-200LR many times with Delta and I really enjoyed it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for including km in range, its now much more easier to understand.

I have flown on a 777-200LR in December 2020

i love how this video gets to the point and doesn't drag it out.

I love the 777 content. FINALY TRIPPLE SEVEN yay they finally understood

My favorite plane besides the 300er variant love the vid !

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.

When you were showing the Emirates 777 an add for it popped up on my tv lol

Its long range is not due to bigger fuel tank. But higher maximum take off weight due to more powerful engines. Edit: grammatical error

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.

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.

PIA and Air India were shown,that mean you would see alot of Pakistani and Indian fighting in the comment section soon haha

White Elephant? Like the A380?

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!

Suffering from success

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.

Put less fuel in the bugger then the range wouldn’t be to long

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.

Boeing bean counter: Who's idea was this? Boeing engineers: 🥹🥹🥹🥹

To be honest Boeing could see the writing on the wall and airlines was a bit slow...

My favorite 777 variant The 777-200LR

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 777-8 will be a great replacement and will hopefully become successful

The 777 freighter is probably the second most suitable freighter aircraft currently in service and is a fantastic, efficient long haul worker.

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....

I've had the privilege of flying on an Air Canada 777-200LR from Toronto to Munich.

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.

Damn, that some range.

I think that's a bit out of date. The 787-8 has I think a bit more and it can carry more passengers

Airlines: we prefer longer range aircraft rather than bigger aircraft Also airlines:

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 . . .

Great video.☺️ I just subscribed to ur RU-vid 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.

SFO-DEL with Air India. The 777-200LR was amazing.

nice informations...amazing video

777 best airline of all time

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.

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 love the way you describe things you make it very easy to understand 😘

This video doesn’t make sense. Boeing builds a long range plane, and supposedly fails because it has... too longe range??

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 :(

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

Honestly it's incredible to me that such a thing is even possible.

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......

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?

Boeing 777 💚❤️

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.

Isnt that a good thing? Having a longer range aircraft means your airline can go further routes

The B777-300 was barely popular. It was the 300ER that dominated that market.

At present the Airbus A350-1000 has the maximum range.

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.

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.

Fun fact: The 777-200LR was offered to Qantas as an interim solution for Project Sunrise.

Do something on the Crj1000

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.

Another BIG misleading from this channel. First, you need to understand the purpose of 77L development, beside of the reason which replacing Singapore airlines its 345 for their ultra long haul, if ain't 77L, you won't see so many 77F are flying in the sky nowadays. Second, 77L came out in 2006, and 351 came out in 2018. Do you still think it s fair to compare both of them directly?

I've flown this nice aircraft from DOH-IAH multiple times.

Finally made it into the top three person....

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.

I thought it has more than 17,000km range

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.

Still the best aircraft ever made!

The 787-9 has a shorter range than the 77L

Too much range doesn't appeal to the airline industry unless it's cargo

Great Vlog. The 777 LR is a successful plane like the A340 500. Very small market for high capacity long range routes.

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.

777-8 should be the king of the ultra long haul i think

I'm confused. Does the -200lr have more range than the 200ER?

What is the different between LR and ER and how can they fly further?

Much better Much more range, much better

Simple flying: It failed due to rising fuel prices COVID: Hold my Corona

So how come Qantas never bought it for its long haul routes??

PIA was launch customer of 777 200LR for routes to USA....but they declined.....

i think you guys didnt realize that LR stands for long 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.

Who in his right mind would choose to fly for twenty hours in a cramped airplane squeezed like a sardine? That's the part that Boeing got wrong.

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

Airbus A350: *looks away nervously*

When the onboard toilets can no longer be flushed because the holding tanks are full, you know you've been in the air too long...

Thats Singapore Airlines prefered the A350ULR and Qantas a modified A350-1000 cuz not only of its range but also cheaper to operate

Yaaay. Thank you so much for this video

What’s wrong with big tanks? If you don’t like them just don’t use them.

Nice