Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?  
User currently offlineBWOOD From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 32 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 7876 times:

I was wondering if anyone knew if any U.S. air carriers were interested in purchasing the new 777-300ERs. It seems to me that there should be a need or possible market for them to replace older 747s or even older 777s for United, American or even Delta. It could also fill in for older 767s. I know that money is very tight for U.S. airlines but it would seem to me that it could pay off in the long run with fewer airplanes in the fleet that can carry more people longer distances. It could even open up new 777 routes from the U.S. such as Australia, and Asia. Just looking for info and your opinions.

31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7729 times:

Thusfar, UA has been the only USA carrier to show public interest in either 777NG, and they've been in no possition to buy.

CO and AA both studied the 773A in 1999 and 2000, and both concluded that they couldn't profitably fill it on a yearround basis. Same would no doubt apply to the 773ER, an even more expensive product.


User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1796 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7708 times:

But for instance, wouldn't high density airports like HKG and NRT be possible routes that can be flown on a 777-300ER?

Does Air France fly its 773ER to JFK or LAX?



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7655 times:

wouldn't high density airports like HKG and NRT be possible routes that can be flown on a 777-300ER?

...could be, sure.




Does Air France fly its 773ER to JFK or LAX?

They've flown it into JFK and will eventually return.

LAX was one of their initial planned destinations, have no idea when/if they still plan to go there with it.


User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12289 posts, RR: 18
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 7634 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Right now no USA carrier is in tip top condition to start spending big sums of money on new planes. Airlines that fly to high density airports like LHR, NRT etc would most likly be able to fill the B773s.

User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7467 times:

All of the above comments regarding aircraft size are true.

It is also possible that extreme range may not be as valuable for US airlines. All of Europe and most of Asia can be reached non-stop from the US mainland by B-market aircraft. In addition to this, some US airlines operate flights between Chinese and Japanese cities and the rest of Asia or rely on code share partners to do the same. It is true that there are a few cities (most notably Singapore) that do require high nonstop range to reach. But Singapore airlines gets most of North America and Europe as a reward for going that distance. The US just gets Singapore, Thailand, a few Australian cities, and perhaps parts of Central Asia(Pakistan, India, etc.). Why invest in a new aircraft type when you can go from China or Japan instead? US airlines also have easy access to Hawai and a lot of domestic trafic to and from the Islands. Some flights that would have used extreme range aircraft stop in Honolulu instead.


Notice that the A340 (whose range is its main selling point) did not do very well in the US either. There are a few routes where a US airline could make money from ultralonghaul aircraft like the A340NG's and 777NG's. But there arn't enough of them and they are not big enough to make it worth the money. It is easier to codeshare.

IN SHORT.... The US is more centrally located (if one can use that term on a global scale) then most other industrialized regions. You gain a lot more from extreme range if your airline is based in the South Pacific rim, in a country like Thailand, Singapore or Australia. South Asia and parts of The Middle East are also pretty far away from many highly populous and industrialized places. That is why most (if not all?) of the extreme range planes being bought are being bought by airlines in these regions.


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2975 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 7289 times:

Since when is there a 777NG?
Variants for the 777 are 772, 772ER, 772LR, 773, & 773ER with tweaking of gross-weights for each variant.

The current despressed state of the legacy carrier industry in the US, it is a huge dream to just think about a 773ER in a US carrier color scheme in the short-term. Who knows in the medium/long-term. It's anything but a WAG right now.


User currently offlineBoeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7070 times:

I'll get this one for ConcordeBoy.  Laugh out loud The 777-200LR & 777-300ER are affectionately also known as 777NG's.

User currently offlineDeltaWings From Switzerland, joined Aug 2004, 1294 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6800 times:

notice there are not even that many 747s in the US either, exept for UA and NW (does CO still have their 742s?). I think the 777-300 would have a better chance in the US, compared to the 773ER, since there are also many 747 mainline flights (see UA)


Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3949 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6711 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

No DeltaWings, Contiental no longer operates the Boeing 747 aircraft. They retired their last Classic 747 four or five years ago and they have never ordered any 400 Series, nor they picked up any second hand ones from other carriers.
I don't see a 777-300 with a US carrier because the airlines in the United States don't need such a high capacity aircraft on domestic routes or routes to Alaska, Guam and Honolulu. Yes, Northwest may still operate the 747-200 on routes to Honolulu and maybe Guam (I don't know if NW flies there, I know CO does) but they are not interested in any variant of the 777. United is still in Chapter 11 and they have parked quite a few 747-400's which weren't that old, so it doesn't surprise me they don't order the 777-300. The only US carrier that could order the 777-300ER is Continental, because the 777's they currently have are GE powered and since they work with Air France they could have Air France do the maintenance of their 773ER's and vice versa.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium



Ben Soriano
User currently offlineUsairways16bwi From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1004 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6533 times:

i also find it strange that U.S carriers dont operate the 773ER.
- AA may be happy with their 772's, but i think they could benifit from the 773ER's to use for the east coast-asia and maybe australia flights.

- i dont think UA needs them because they have the 772's and the 744's.

-as for CO, i dont know how well thay are doing on the european flights, but if its going well, maybe they could use a few 773ER's to increase loads.



User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6487 times:

AA has said they don't want to take the risk of not filling a 747, any 747, and the 773ER is almost as big as a 741 (look at the number of seats that airlines actually put in them, not what Boeing says). I would think this would mean less interest. Also, they run Trents on their 772ERs, and they are not available on the 773ER.
CO is an airline that would have a good case for picking the 773ER up. They are in a much better financial position (though not great), their 772ERs are GE-90 powered, they have a shortage of widebodies, and they are flying some routes that are both weight restricted and under capacity (EWR-HKG, GUM-HNL-LAX). Depending on the price, they really could use the plane. BA is also a good airline for the 773ER (they have some GE-90 craft, though they prefer the Trent ones) but not as a 744 replacement as some people think. The 744 still holds more people and has more practical range, but the 773ER could be a good high density plane for leisure routes that used to fly with 741s and 742s.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFA4UA From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 812 posts, RR: 20
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6360 times:

Too bad the 773ER can't run Pratt and Whitney engines (or can they?). It would be awesome for UA to trade in the 744's for the 773ER... perfect method of fleet simplification!

FA4UA



The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 6026 times:

but i think they could benifit from the 773ER's to use for the east coast-asia and maybe australia flights.

...too bad they dont think the same  Big grin

That, and AA is no fan whatsoever of the GE90 (not that it amounts to much in the scheme of things, but still)







as for CO, i dont know how well thay are doing on the european flights, but if its going well, maybe they could use a few 773ER's to increase loads.

I'm guessing either 1) you're illiterate, 2) you willingly chose to ignore reply #1, or 3) some combination thereof  Insane





The 744 *** has more practical range

...Boeing doesn't seem to think so  Laugh out loud





Too bad the 773ER can't run Pratt and Whitney engines (or can they?).

...only if Boeing wants to lose hundreds of millions for breach of contract over a B-market aircraft with A-market performance  Big grin


User currently offlineCOEWR2587 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 607 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5969 times:

Don't people seem to get it? U.S. aren't are high at filling widebodies to capacity domestically like Asia or Europe can. I can't think of any U.S. airline, except UA as a 747 replacement, that would be useful to have.


Newark Airport...My Home Away From Home
User currently offlineThrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2690 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5877 times:

The 773ER is simply too big and too expensive a jet right now for most U.S. carriers. Getting a full payload will prove to be a tremendous task on a regular basis. Also, UA will not likely purchase the 773ER since they are so low on cash right now, and there is also the problem of engine commonality. They appear perfectly satisfied with their 744s. Boeing needs to figure out a way to lower the prices of their aircraft without losing stock in my opinion if they expect to generate more sales.


Fly one thing; Fly it well
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 5848 times:

Getting a full payload will prove to be a tremendous task on a regular basis.

No it wouldn't.

The problem would be deriving a decent yield, yearround, from whatever loads they may have.




Boeing needs to figure out a way to lower the prices of their aircraft without losing stock in my opinion if they expect to generate more sales.

What's their incentive?

Their B-market 777s have routinely matched and/or outsold their A340 competitors despite significantly higher [MSRP] acquisition costs.


User currently offlineSv11 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 161 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 5090 times:

Is NWA planning to replace its 747-200s? Looking at their fleet http://ir.nwa.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=111021&p=irol-fleet, they have a sizable fleet of -200 passenger and freighter aircraft. I was thinking they might replace them with used 744s but I believe not many are available now. Maybe they might order some 777-300ER and convert some 744s to freighters.

sv11


User currently offlineKL911 From Czech Republic, joined Jul 2003, 5261 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 4978 times:

I still don't get it. If for example AF can fill a 777-300 on the CDG-JFK route, then DL can do the same, no? Same FF, pax have same nationalities( French and US)

Why can European Carriers fill all their 747's and 777-300's and make money, and US carriers can't?

KL911


User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7619 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 4500 times:

Maybe because service level in flights operated by the European carriers is notably higher than on their American counterparts' and therefore there is more demand for BA, LH, AF, etc. flights than for legacy carriers' flights. Maybe because European passengers yield better margins than American pax (because Americans upgrade more or redeem their miles to fly more than Europeans do). Maybe because European carriers can also fly these big planes to other places like Canada, Latin America, Asia and Africa, whereas the American carriers do not need 747's or 773's to fly to Latin America, they don't fly to Africa, and they have a smaller presence in Asia than European carriers (this means that European airlines can use these aircraft to more destinations more often, all year round). Or maybe it is simpler than that and it is just that given their financial situation, they just can't afford to get brand new 773's while European carriers are doing better financially.

I really don't know. Your point is very good and I tend to share it. These are only ideas that come to my mind right now but I may be really wrong so please be gentle.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineCheco77 From Peru, joined Oct 2004, 1345 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 4197 times:

I think I would be a pretty good decision, as you say, US carrier may use fewer airplanes and transport more people. I think, since Delta its in trouble, they should od it. After all, the 777 is one of the best best aiplanes availables in the market and customer would be very happy to fly a 777. I would.


Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3978 times:

Why can European Carriers fill all their 747's and 777-300's and make money, and US carriers can't?

Traffic concentration....

How many transatlantic gateways does an airline such as KL (AMS) have, versus one such as AA (BOS, JFK, RDU, MIA, ORD, DFW, LAX) through which to channel their pax?


User currently offlineFA4UA From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 812 posts, RR: 20
Reply 22, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 3863 times:

A recent USA Today article (a couple months ago) described the difference between the 744 and the 772 in laymen's terms... albeit not all totally accurate on every fact. One number that really stood out was that the average 744 cost an additional $3,000 an hour to operate compared with the 772 when one examines fuel burn, staffing costs, maintenance, etc etc.

I would love the same comparison 773ER vs. 744.

It really is a shame that Boeing had to have that exclusivity contract with GE for the engines on the 773ER!

my two cents...

FA4UA



The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
User currently offlineCkfred From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 5297 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3639 times:

The 777-300ER would make sense for AA for routes to Hong Kong and China, but only if Boeing offered the plane with RR Trent engines. Since the GE90 is the only engine, I doubt AA will buy any.

Considering that AA is gradually getting rid of the PW-powered 757s, having an aircraft type with 2 different engines is not what AA wants.

Now, if Boeing ever decides to offer the Trent on the -300ER, AA might reevaluate its position.


User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (10 years 1 month 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3558 times:

I don't think so. AA would have to penetrate those markets with a 772 first, and see what the loads are.

UA operates the 777 on many of their Asian routes, and they've been in the space for 20 years.

N


25 SonicKidatBWI : Can't ever see it happening for a U.S. carrier because of range. As another A.net member posted, the U.S. is positioned almost perfectly from every ma
26 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : It really is a shame that Boeing had to have that exclusivity contract with GE for the engines on the 773ER! Cry a river, buy a bridge, and get the fu
27 Dutchjet : Its sad, but the largest airliners such as the 773/ER, A346, A380, the potential 747A, and the longest range airliners such as the 772ER and A345 are
28 Mikephotos : Does Air France fly its 773ER to JFK or LAX? They've flown it into JFK and will eventually return. eventually is here, it's been back on the skeds for
29 ConcordeBoy : and the longest range airliners such as the 772ER he means 772LR folks...
30 Dutchjet : Thanks ConcordeBoy, you are simply too sharp!......... regards
31 Post contains images ConcordeBoy : eventually is here, it's been back on the skeds for at least the past week maybe longer. On the schedules, or in service? If the latter... IBD, I didn
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
New Layout AF 777-300ER For COI Routes posted Fri Jun 2 2006 14:49:59 by Puck
First 777-300ER For EK posted Sun Mar 13 2005 12:08:20 by AlitaliaMD11
Boeing 777-300ER For Emirates posted Sat Apr 13 2002 03:17:31 by RJ_Delta
777-300ER Makes Heaviest Ever Takeoff For A Twin posted Thu May 29 2003 03:47:25 by AvObserver
Boeing Statement On Philippine Airlines 777-300ER posted Fri Dec 8 2006 20:19:34 by Werkur767
747-8I Best Fit Above 777-300ER And A340-600 posted Mon Dec 4 2006 09:28:03 by Eureka
SQ Will Sent 777-300ER To CDG posted Wed Nov 29 2006 18:22:48 by Lufthansi
SIA Take Delivery Of 2 777-300er's Tuesday 11-28 posted Sat Nov 25 2006 12:48:45 by UAL747-600
PIA 777-300ER At MAN? posted Thu Nov 23 2006 21:43:59 by JakTrax
Success Of The 777-300ER posted Tue Nov 21 2006 14:36:44 by NYC777