American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4158 posts, RR: 12 Posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7184 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Yes, there was a while ago a post all about the market there could be for the 777-300 Series aircraft in the United States, and I replied saying that Northwest and United would likely be customers for that aircraft given the expanded network they both have in the Pacific Sector. I then realised Northwest and United would not order it because Boeing is offering the 777-300ER only with GE engines, Northwest and United would consider buying it if it were offered with PW engines, I'm not sure American will order any of those, then I thought maybe Continental could buy it and be the first US customer for the type.
This sounds like a plausible thing to me for the following reasons:
1. Continental always goes Boeing. Bethune always looks at all Boeing twinjets when buying new airplanes.
2. Continental already has GE powered B777-200ER's which they operate on international flights to Europe and the Far East.
3. Air France, with whom they codeshare and work, has already ordered the B777-300ER so if Continental buys it then maybe they can get together to work on the maintenance of that aircraft.
Do you think Continental will go for the B777-300ER?
N670UW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1608 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7111 times:
It could just be me, but I fail to see any routes that could support the large capcity of the 777-300ER without having to sacrifice frequency. I think CO's current widebody makeup of 767-200, 767-400, 777-200ER fit them well for the size airline they are and the routes they fly. Wasn't this one of the reasons why Bethune got rid of the 747-200?
DeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 22
Reply 2, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7108 times:
Where on earth would they fly it? The mix they have is perfectly suited to their network.
Engine type is not a deal breaker as far as aircraft are concerned. BA and JL operate mixed fleets, as does DL with its 767s. So I wouldn't necessarily rule out UA and NW for simple reason of engine type. And I wouldn't rule CO more likely simply for that reason.
I'd say UA and NW are the only US carriers that would even consider the 777-300ER, and within that context, there are plenty of reasons to assume that neither one will be flying it anytime soon.
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16982 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 7079 times:
If the economics are right airlines like UAL and NWA will choose the 777-300ER regard less of the engine type, DL operates 767s with GE and PW powered 767s.
CO at some point (not for a couple years) will look at the 777-200LR for routes like EWR-HKG, it would correct the current weight penalty issues they experience flying 777-200ERs on the route. It would also allow them to continue their expansion into Asian from EWR and IAH, such as Singapore and Taipei.
They will likely order the 777-300ER if...
A renewal of the Israeli/Palestinian Peace process brings about the calm experienced in that region during the late 1990s/early 2000, CO was flying double daily 777-200s at one point. The 777-300ER would fit them perfectly on this route, "if" calm and reason could once again return to the people in charge over there so that tourism and trade between North America and Israeli and Palestine can be allowed to flourish.
The other reason I could see CO ordering the 777-300ER is if they were to get Heathrow access, whether the 10 daily flights they requested or 2 daily flights.
Ual777contrail From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6914 times:
Where did CO get the 175million for the 777-300? I didn't think they had the cash to spend on new airplanes. You would think they would save their cash for awhile before spending it on a plane they don't need that many seats for.
Would be cool to see a US carrier fly the 777-300, but I have to agree with the above posts, UAL or NWA would be the only ones to need that size of plane, for the pacific division.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16403 posts, RR: 56
Reply 9, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 6765 times:
Any current 772 customer is a likely 772LR/773/773ER customer in the next 10 years. Once US major financial performance returns, the 773 will be the most logical capacity addition to the 772 fleet, and as a 744 replacement.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6673 times:
In time, I eventually see many current 772ER operators eventually flying the 777NGs.... but not at the current premium Boeing is pricing them at. No doubt it doesnt want them to eat into the 772ER's market while that plane is still hot.
The 772LR has a particular advantage: as it can carry up to 22 tons more payload than the 772ER, but still fly 7730nm, great for an airline who doesnt need to the range of the 772LRET (i.e., most airlines )
VIRGINIA From Netherlands, joined Sep 2003, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6477 times:
Continental does not need the B777-300ER's at this moment or maybe never will be needed, because Boeing is already working on the B7E7, and personnally I think they will go for that one.
Or the B777LR because of the increased payload earlier mentioned.
Cessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 6182 times:
You know, I don't know how any airlines could put up the cash any time soon with all the lost profits going around... You don't see many United States airlines ordering new planes, you just see deliveries that were probably modified from larger orders a few years ago. Personally, I'd sit back and wait a while until the economy goes up, or until we get a new president in the white house...
Airzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1258 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 6067 times:
Well since Bethune has stated that at this moment they have too many widebodies hence why they are chucking 777's on HNL, I would doubt CO would ever be a contender for the 773.
In fact I think the current situation speaks for itself, you don't see CO, AA, or DL with the 747's hanging around it's neck as it tries to fill capacity.
The 773 appears to be the perfect replacement for 742 on medium to long haul flights, CO doesn't have any markets that today support the need for that capacity, I doubt you'll see much need in the future.
I agree CO will be a central player in the 7E7 program and will again leverage their hub strength to exploit nonstop service to more cities that aren't currently served.
CB777 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1216 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5982 times:
CO doesn't have too many widbodies, if anything they are short widebodies. They have routes that can use widebody service such as CLE-LGW, they can definitely use a 767-200 or maybe a 767-400 on that route.
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (11 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5858 times:
They have routes that can use widebody service such as CLE-LGW.
Actually, for now, the 752 is the perfect aircraft for CLE-LGW. It doesn't need anything bigger. CLE can fill 16 BFiirst seats on the 757, but would struggle to consistently fill 25 BFirst seats on a 762. Remember, it's BFirst, not the number of coach seats that drives any CO international flight, since that's where the money is made.
When and if the CLE hub is expanded, then possible a 762 would be more sutible for the route, but that time is certainly not now.