Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CO Looking For 777s - New Rumors  
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 10603 times:

I have recently heard new rumors from several usually reliable sources that CO is looking to add between two and six 777-200ERs to its fleet; while CO has not announced anything, and continues to say publically that it cannot and will not invest in more widebody aircraft until the 787s arrive, the rumors I have heard are that CO is quietly looking at both new and used 772s (with GE90s) and is in discussions with both Boeing and ILFC and others to secure the aircraft. Has anyone else heard anything about this in recent days?

There are also several other "sub-rumors" connected with this story - Boeing offered CO additional 764s at a bargain price and CO said no, Boeing has offered to lease 744s to CO as an interim solution, and Boeing is having difficulty in delivering the 777s to CO within the time frame that they are looking for (seems CO's timing was bad, this renewed interest by CO in adding 772s came up just as Boeing landed a bunch of new 777 orders). I do not know if any of this is true. I did hear that CO wants atleast 2 and possibily 4 additional 772s in service by the Summer 2006 schedule (ie, one year from now)......by that point in time, CO will be operating both the EWR-DEL and EWR-PEK routes, and may have launched EWR-Shanghai (another 777 route) and other longhaul routes (which require atleast the range of the 767).

To continue the story, CO originally planned to pull 777s from most (if not all) transatlantic services out of EWR - downgrading routes flown with the 777 to the 767 and routes flown with the 767 to the 757 and then add additional frequencies to many key cities with the 757. (for example, a city that currently has one 777 flight per day would be switched to two flights per day, one with a 767 and other with a 757)....then the existing 777s could be used to open up the new long haul routes. The problem seems to be that demand on transatlantic (especially out of EWR) is very good at the moment (as are the yeilds) and CO wants to increase capacity on many routes (thus the extra 757 flights should be used for expansion only), CO has determined that the 752 is not the answer to all of its transatlantic problems (escpecially on routes to high-demand cities with competition) and with many new routes being considered that require the range of 767 or 777, failing to expand the longhaul fleet will create many compromises in the coming years.

Any additional information around? Your comments?

70 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7811 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10501 times:

Well given their planned long-haul expansion in the next 2 years they could certainly use the added lift. To some degree the 787s could not come soon enough. But I find it a little odd that they would turn down the 767-400; however I could understand it.


Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10383 times:

They could have the ones from Varig that ILFC seems to want back.

N


User currently offlineUNITED777300 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 131 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10312 times:

If ILFC wants the ex-UA 777's they'll be no use to CO. They want GE-powered models, the ex-UA ones are PW-powered.


/// U N I T E D: It's Time to Fly.
User currently offlineFlyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10273 times:

Do those 777s have to be 200ERs necessarily? Wouldn't it be enough to put "regular" 200s or 300s even on those key-Atlantic routes, and use the free ERs on those new routes? Or am I totally misinformed and CO only has "regular" 777s?


- When dreams take flight, follow them -
User currently offlineHawk44 From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 759 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10218 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Thread starter):
Boeing has offered to lease 744s to CO as an interim solution

 crossfingers  Bring back the meatball!


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Frank C. Duarte Jr.



Hawk44



Never under estimate the power of US
User currently offlineN60659 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 654 posts, RR: 24
Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 10180 times:

Quoting FlyinTLow (Reply 4):
Or am I totally misinformed and CO only has "regular" 777s?

CO has 18 772ER's and no A-market 777's in their fleet.

-N60659



Nec Dextrorsum Nec Sinistrorsum
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10128 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 2):
They could have the ones from Varig that ILFC seems to want back.

That, and AF has continually floated the idea of leasing a small number of GE90-92B aircraft to other airlines (didn't pan out with AM, but perhaps CO could secure some'n).


User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10102 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Dutchjet (Thread starter):
Boeing offered CO additional 764s at a bargain price and CO said no,

I'm not surprised. One of the recent aviation weeks pointed out how CO is making a good profit on the long haul. Since the 764's cannot do USA to China/Hong Kong/etc., they wouldn't fit in the long term "downturn resistant" structure that CO seems to be aiming for.

Quoting N60659 (Reply 6):
CO has 18 772ER's and no A-market 777's in their fleet.

CO is smart to keep the fleet standardized. Is anyone thinking of getting rid of 772ER's with GE-90's? Obviously CO would have to pick up the aircraft on leases to preserve their cash position.

Quoting Dutchjet (Thread starter):
To continue the story, CO originally planned to pull 777s from most (if not all) transatlantic services out of EWR - downgrading routes flown with the 777 to the 767 and routes flown with the 767 to the 757 and then add additional frequencies to many key cities with the 757.

Smart plan. It keeps aircraft on the existing routes (so one doesn't lose high yield customers) and moves the 777's to the more profitable long hauls.

CO will be one of the survivors (in my opinion). I thought they were getting a few new 772ER's without having to fork out pre-payments or a down payment. Anyone know more?

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21587 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10070 times:

I would imagine those two Varig 772ER with GE engines are as good as in COs fleet, as long as someone else doesn't agree to better lease terms.

2x777 should suffice for now.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently onlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9662 times:

If Boeing offered CO 744s, I assume they'd be ER versions, but would Boeing really be able to offer delivery quicker than 777s? And what routes would CO use them on? EWR to TLV, HKG, NRT? Not saying CO would add 744s, as that would be another fleet type.


Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9622 times:

Quoting Lightsaber (Reply 8):
Smart plan. It keeps aircraft on the existing routes (so one doesn't lose high yield customers) and moves the 777's to the more profitable long hauls.

If I was a premium customer flying to FRA, AMS, or LGW, I'd be pretty angry if I was stuck on one of CO's sardine-can 757s over the Atlantic. I'd rather opt for an airline with a 767 or 777 instead. True that most people don't know the difference, although a higher portion of premium and frequent flyers sure will.


User currently offline777gk From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1641 posts, RR: 18
Reply 12, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9585 times:

EWR-TLV is probably the best candidate in the system for 747 service. Any other routes (EWR-NRT,EWR-HKG,IAH-LGW) are currently well-served with the 777 and a 747 would probably only serve to dilute yields.

I will say that I have heard the rumors re: the former RG 772s, yet only internet speculation on the acquisition of 747s - which would be amazing - but clearly not a component of our long-term strategy.

FlyCaledonian, my guess would be that Boeing would offer up some secondhand 747-400s, maybe 2-3 airplanes, with GE power and very attractive lease rates. Business is business, and if the price was right I'm sure we would do it, but we are talking a MAJOR departure from our established precedents on fleet planning. Basically, it would have to be an offer CO couldn't refuse, with no Corleone-style strongarming on the part of Boeing.

Bottom line, I really can't see this 747 deal happening.

[Edited 2005-06-10 23:50:50]

User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21587 posts, RR: 59
Reply 13, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9571 times:

Have you flown the sardine can in BF? I haven't yet, but will. I'll tell you if it is second class to a 777. Something about a mini cabin of 16 seats is appealing however. Would feel like a private jet. But we'll see.


Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9456 times:

CO will no get a 747, especially as a stop gap measure.

The 2 TAP GE 777s (or any other GE powered ERs that might be repossessed) or subleases 777s from another airline are the only real possibilities. They won't waste their time on A-market or non GE used ones. Would be great to see them order 2+ 772LRs, but they won't as they don't have the cash. Plus I doubt CO could get new 777s delivered by next year.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 11):
If I was a premium customer flying to FRA, AMS, or LGW, I'd be pretty angry if I was stuck on one of CO's sardine-can 757s over the Atlantic.

1. I somehow doubt that those destinations will be reduced entirely to 757s. There may be a few (many of them summer additions such as the current EWR-LGW that is in addition to the 2x daily 772s), but those 3 above will definitely remain at least primarily 767.

2. BizFirst 757s are quite comfy.

3. If they go through with the PTV AVOD addition to the 752s, they would certainly be better than a non PTV widebody, that most airlines will send you on.



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offlineDrdivo From United States of America, joined Feb 2003, 118 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9418 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 11):
True that most people don't know the difference, although a higher portion of premium and frequent flyers sure will

I utterly and respectfully disagree. The 757 is a terrific airplane, and having only 16 J class seats ensures a very high level of service. I am already looking forward to sampling CO's award winning "J" class service on flights to their new destinations - which can ONLY be made profitable flying aircraft with the lower CASM.

Are those of you who constantly bash CO's operating 757 equipment across the Atlantic aware that the 757 has the identical gauge to the 707? Would you have turned your nose up to PA Flt 01/02, which is being discussed in another thread presently because the cabin was a "sardine can?"



Respectfully - the Divo
User currently offlineFlyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9098 times:

Quoting 777gk (Reply 12):
FlyCaledonian, my guess would be that Boeing would offer up some secondhand 747-400s, maybe 2-3 airplanes, with GE power and very attractive lease rates. Business is business, and if the price was right I'm sure we would do it, but we are talking a MAJOR departure from our established precedents on fleet planning. Basically, it would have to be an offer CO couldn't refuse, with no Corleone-style strongarming on the part of Boeing.

Yeah, totally agree. It would have to be an offer where the planes basically come in for free. Kinda like the car dealer giving you a rental before your actual car is delivered for free. It wouldn't make sense to have to train pilots, mechanics, etc. otherwise!

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 11):

If I was a premium customer flying to FRA, AMS, or LGW, I'd be pretty angry if I was stuck on one of CO's sardine-can 757s over the Atlantic

Now I really don't understand the whole deal with the 757s across the Atlantic. As I understand it, the seat pitch and leg-room were "trans-atlanticly" adjusted, so in your seat, you have the exact same room as you would have in a 777 or 767. Normally, you should remain in your seat most of the flight anyway, 90% of the time at least. Ok, the plane is a single isle (i doubt that single isle is more often filled with carts than on a 767), and it has less lavatories per passenger. But how often are you on those anyway? Maybe you have to wait longer. But if you judge the quality of your flight by the time you stand in line to wait to get on the toilet ...



- When dreams take flight, follow them -
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3135 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8940 times:

Quoting FlyinTLow (Reply 16):
Now I really don't understand the whole deal with the 757s across the Atlantic. As I understand it, the seat pitch and leg-room were "trans-atlanticly" adjusted, so in your seat, you have the exact same room as you would have in a 777 or 767. Normally, you should remain in your seat most of the flight anyway, 90% of the time at least. Ok, the plane is a single isle (i doubt that single isle is more often filled with carts than on a 767), and it has less lavatories per passenger. But how often are you on those anyway? Maybe you have to wait longer. But if you judge the quality of your flight by the time you stand in line to wait to get on the toilet ...

There are the points you mention and a few others:

1) On a 757, only 1/3 of passengers are on the Aisle, as opposed to 4/7 on a 767 or 4/9 with the 777.

2) There are more middle seats than a 767 (2/6 vs 1/7)

3) Loading and Unloading is slower.

4) Less overhead room for baggage.

5) Lavatory and Carts-blocking-aisle argument that you mention.

6) Plane feels less spacious and a little more clausterphobic.


Additionally, CO's 757's are extremely uncomfortable in coach domestically (more so than UA, AA, or DL IMO - hence the sardine can comment), and I couldn't imagine the same experience as a coach passenger for a 7-9hour flight across the Atlantic, especially considering the factors above. BizElite might be different, but coach would be miserable if it's anything like the 757s I've taken to IAH.

Considering everyone who doesn't live in the NY area will have to connect to cities like HAM, TXL, or OSL anyways, why not fly somewhere like LHR, CGD, AMS, or FRA on a widebody with more amenities, and then take a quick 1-2 hour flight to the final destination? Admittedly, this works better for those in cities with international service than those without. These new services are really only an improvement for people in the NY area, or smaller cities without direct access to one of the European hubs (although are these really the cities driving these new flights? doubtful.)


User currently offlineFlyinTLow From Germany, joined Oct 2004, 525 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8864 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
There are the points you mention and a few others:

1) On a 757, only 1/3 of passengers are on the Aisle, as opposed to 4/7 on a 767 or 4/9 with the 777.

2) There are more middle seats than a 767 (2/6 vs 1/7)

3) Loading and Unloading is slower.

4) Less overhead room for baggage.

5) Lavatory and Carts-blocking-aisle argument that you mention.

6) Plane feels less spacious and a little more clausterphobic.

Ok, should have taken my thought a little further, you are absolutly right about that. Although I definitly think having the middle middle seat on a 777 just is the worst spot to be on an airplane (after the wheel well that is).

And yes, I have to agree, every domestic 757 flight i have been on was horrible, I even got upgraded to first once on US, and it wasn't very much better than regular economy on an international flight. But I doubt CO left their international B757s in domestic configuration. Or they would have a product that is not anywhere competative to anything!



- When dreams take flight, follow them -
User currently offlineBlsbls99 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 345 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8711 times:

Well, it sounds like there might be some options out there for CO for some additional widebody capacity within the next year. The Varig 777's that ILFC might be repo'ing, if that comes to fruition, would be the ideal candidates.
If not, there's 767's. And if additional 767-200s or 767-400s don't sound ideal to CO, maybe they should swing a few 767-300s (as those should have a better resale value).
The 747-400 option just sounds to big...unless it was an interim measure until they received some new order 777s (which seems ideal, but the "bank account" doesn't allow that).



319 320 313 722 732 733 735 73G 738 739 742 752 763 772 CRJ D9S ERJ EMB L10 M88 M90 SF3 AT4
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21587 posts, RR: 59
Reply 20, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8605 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
Considering everyone who doesn't live in the NY area will have to connect to cities like HAM, TXL, or OSL anyways, why not fly somewhere like LHR, CGD, AMS, or FRA on a widebody with more amenities, and then take a quick 1-2 hour flight to the final destination? Admittedly, this works better for those in cities with international service than those without. These new services are really only an improvement for people in the NY area, or smaller cities without direct access to one of the European hubs (although are these really the cities driving these new flights? doubtful.)

I agree the 757 as configured isn't great in economy (unless you are in the second exit row like I am most of the time), which is why I used my miles for BF. And the widebody has better amenities, but the 757 has plenty of lavs spaced well enough that carts should not be blocking them for very long.

As for connecting:

1. if you are connecting from outside a major city in the US, you would then need to connect at a hub, then at another hub, to get to smaller cities in europe. flying direct cuts out one connect, the connect at the end of the trip when you are tired and are worried about clearing customs and then making a local flight on time (or waiting around that airport for 2 hours), often departing from a different terminal, where you don't know the customs, possibly the language, etc. There are major benefits to making all connections in your home country. You could be at your hotel already flying direct while the pax who did the old fashioned way is still waiting at the hub airport for their connection.

2. it allows you to check in more easily coming home, since you would be going to the desk of your domestic airline and not having to connect with a euro carrier and figure out what to do. This can be very confusing, especially if you can't check your bags through (happened in Japan to me, due to 4+ hour connection). Not to mention, with the way so many flights leave for the US at or before noon, connecting to those flights can be very hard from some european cities without waking up far too early, already hard for Americans 6-9 hours off on time.

Taking both of those into account, the fewer amenities can be overcome by the convenience and lack of hassle.

I guess your question is: "Why would you choose to fly direct with a US carrier (or one stop with a local US hub) when you could connect to a euro carrier at a major US city, fly with a european carrier across the pond, and then connect at their hub city, or take the US carrier to the foreign hub, then change airlines and likely terminals?"

I hope you can see the answer to your own question there, for some people. Not all, but some. Including me.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineFlyingTexan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 8591 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Thread starter):
Any additional information around?

Larry Kellner was asked if plans exist to acquire additional 777s at the FlyerTalk event in April. His answer – a no comment.

That is answering the question - but no specifics and 2 month old info.


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 56
Reply 22, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8510 times:

Concerning the 757s accross the Atlantic:

While many at a.net get upset with the concept of a narrowbody plane accross the Atlantic, pax do not object. In most pax eyes, a nonstop narrowbody flight is better than a connection with a widebody airliner.....and most passengers really object to flying over 2 hubs to get to their destination....a nonstop 757 out of EWR to Europe or an easy connection at EWR is better than additional connections for most. And, how is BF on a 757 so different from sitting in the upper deck of a 747 (which everyone thinks is marvelous)?

Quoting FlyingTexan (Reply 21):

Larry Kellner was asked if plans exist to acquire additional 777s at the FlyerTalk event in April. His answer – a no comment.

That is answering the question - but no specifics and 2 month old info.

No comment is a very different answer from no......in my experience, a no comment answer usually means something is up but we dont want to talk about it just yet. Time will tell.


User currently offlineGoCOgo From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 701 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8523 times:

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
Considering everyone who doesn't live in the NY area will have to connect to cities like HAM, TXL, or OSL anyways, why not fly somewhere like LHR, CGD, AMS, or FRA on a widebody with more amenities, and then take a quick 1-2 hour flight to the final destination?

Many people prefer to connect at at a US airport. Less concerns about missing a connection due to customs/immigration issues, language barrier, etc. Some of the difficulties may be imagined, but they are real enough in the minds on enough travelers, including me.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
These new services are really only an improvement for people in the NY area, or smaller cities without direct access to one of the European hubs (although are these really the cities driving these new flights? doubtful.)

Believe me, CO sees a good amount of connecting traffic on these flights. Plus, a 752 serves LGW out of CLE. More might serve AMS or CDG for us. Is that helping NC, or us?

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
1) On a 757, only 1/3 of passengers are on the Aisle, as opposed to 4/7 on a 767 or 4/9 with the 777.

Yes, a 767 is great for aisle seats, but for 757 v 777, 1/3=0.333, 4/9=0.444. A difference, but a relatively small one.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
2) There are more middle seats than a 767 (2/6 vs 1/7)

But it is the same on a 777. 2/6=1/3=0.333, 3/9=1/3=0.333. I don't see you complaining about 777s

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
3) Loading and Unloading is slower.

Will 5-10 min kill you?

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
4) Less overhead room for baggage.

It's not like they reduce the amount you are allowed. People take too much carry-on baggage anyway. Maybe not being able to fit it will teach some of these people a lesson.

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
5) Lavatory and Carts-blocking-aisle argument that you mention.

True. Also keep in mind that the ratio is one lav to 43 passengers. On a flight 7.5 hrs. long, an average length for many of these flights, each passenger has about 10 min in the lav. If you can't pee twice in that length of time, you may have a medical condition.  Wink

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 17):
6) Plane feels less spacious and a little more clausterphobic.

That is based only on your personal experience, and some, including myself, don't find it to be the case.



"Why you fly is your business, how you fly is ours"
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12341 posts, RR: 18
Reply 24, posted (9 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 8438 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Will be nice to see B744s in CO colour scheme. Have Boeing and CO agreed on a delivery time for the 10x B787-8s?

25 GoCOgo : Who said they were getting 744s? Rather, most have said that WON'T happen. I heard 2009. Don't know if that has changed or if the specifics have been
26 Aeroman62 : The 757 business first is o.k., not as nice as the 777 or 767, but much better than the crummy coach seats. CO's coach seats on the 757, and frankly t
27 Tpaewr : But ya can't take B6 to TXL or YAP,in fact you can't even fly them to LAX!
28 Toxtethogrady : Everyone seems to be speculating about 'near-misses'. Seems to me what CAL needs are any spare 757 or 767 aircraft - and perhaps even the 767-300. Mea
29 Toxtethogrady : "Larry Kellner was asked if plans exist to acquire additional 777s at the FlyerTalk event in April. His answer – a no comment." Awfully coy. The 777
30 Cba : CO's coach is no more cramped than that of another legacy US carrier, unless you're flying in Economy Plus. The 777's I believe have a seat pitch of 3
31 Drdivo : I was told yesterday that they start coming online later this month.
32 FlyingTexan : Ye shall concur with the first part! Alas, doesn’t the great globe spanning air carrier based in my hometown of Houston have a 777 sitting in Hong
33 Tpaewr : Yeah, but other than a tag (SGN perhaps? but UA is already there) there isn't much that could be done with it, beyong perhaps a 1230a-430a return from
34 Cloud4000 : Doesn't BA have some 777s A-Series aircraft lying around?
35 3201 : I don't understand these at all. If I'm flying TXL-SFO, connecting at EWR/JFK I would need to clear customs there, and would definitely be worried ab
36 Alitalia744 : try 31" on both in coach.
37 The777Man : I think they could extend the HKG flight to SIN or BKK also. The777Man
38 FlyinTLow : Definitly have to agree with that! Always flew US or UA to the US, and connecting in PHL never worked out for me (4 tries = 4 trips that started out
39 CODC10 : 31" on the 757 and 777, 32" on the 767. The 767 is marginally more comfortable, due to pitch and the 2-3-2 arrangement. As I understand, CO is not int
40 FlyinTLow : Just an idea - not that CO would ever go for that though: Before CO would go for 747s, would they maybe consider some A330s or something if they came
41 A330323X : CO offers 31"-32" on its international fleet. Compare to US's A330s at 34", with AVOD at every seat.
42 WhiteHatter : It would be horrendously expensive, as would operating the 744. The problems start with issues like crewing and servicing. Both types are not part of
43 N1120A : No, because of the way CO utilizes its fleet, particularly the 777s. They don't make simple round trips, they constantly move all over the system to
44 Post contains images LifelinerOne : I find it rather remarkable that this rumors consists of two types of planes that Boeing needs to keep it's productionline open for. The B767 for the
45 Dutchjet : BA did have two excess 777As, I think that they are now with Varig and BA has kept three 777As in their fleet. CO frequently takes care of mantainanc
46 Post contains images GoCOgo : For one, they are putting a 753 on a CLE-SEA run for the summer. Probably for all the Alaska cruse traffic. I'm sure there are more. Turn that around
47 FlyinTLow : yeah, have to agree to that with a lot of people that I know.
48 CB777 : I read somewhere that Varig might be returning the A market 777's instead of the ER's
49 Post contains images 3201 : I've never had to clear customs connecting in LHR, FRA, or MUC. In Germany, there's a very short formality with passport control, but you don't need
50 N77014 : Some opinions... No B744's. The cost and time needed to create a new seniority roster, train, maintain, and schedule a small fleet like that is no pic
51 Dutchjet : 1. I agree, I do not see CO taking the 744 as a short or long term solution. 2. It seems that CO may have changed its position about additional 777s
52 N77014 : How does EWR, with close to 2 banks to Europe, compare to NW at MSP/DTW with multiple departures to AMS?
53 Dutchjet : It hard to compare - Both DTW and MSP have multiple flights to AMS....but other service to Europe is rather limited, NW flies from DTW to only LGW, C
54 Atmx2000 : Which of course is due to the nature of each airlines domestic hubs. NYC has more international O&D traffic and can support a lot of thin routes to E
55 PlaneSmart : CO could approach customers with 777's on order, and acquire these aircraft before delivery. Obviously you have to have $'s to incentivise the origina
56 Toxtethogrady : "As I understand, CO is not interested in international tag-on routes, and will be focused on nonstop long hauls out of the IAH/EWR hubs, the next one
57 Toxtethogrady : "If they were serious about wanting B777's they could have negotiated with Boeing when the TZ B753's were proferred; a plane with much less utility IM
58 N1120A : Given the size, it would be natural to have the pay rate similar to what the 757/767 pilots make as the 788 slots between the 762 and 764 in size EZE
59 United Airline : I hope this is true too. But is it likely?
60 9V-SVC : Why not 773ER ? Since capacity is close to 744 and besides CO are already operating GE powered 772s.
61 Coa764 : New Fleet type + additional cost to train crews on a 4 engine airplane + no commonality so no cross utilization of crews (more cost) = not going to h
62 Navion : GE powered 777A's such as the ex-Varig, ex-BA 777-236's would be ideal for CO' European routes and would free up other aircraft for new services. The
63 Dutchjet : The problem is money and availability.......the 773ER is a great airliner, but it is costly and it would be very hard to find one in the short term f
64 Cloud4000 : The 777As could do transcons, or even to Central & South America.
65 Dutchjet : CO may be thinking about more 777s for two reasons: 1. to keep the type on certain transatlantic routes and not lose capacity on those routes. 2. exp
66 777gk : The 777 is too much airplane for our transcontinental flights, and we do not offer widebody service to Central America. The acquisition of several A-m
67 Dutchjet : I look at it differently.......... CO needs atleast six 777ERs to operate the new routes to Bejing, Shanghai (if formally approved) and New Dehli....
68 Toxtethogrady : "EWR-IAH 777 service -IAH-LAX 777 service" Too short. Any 777 that goes EWR-IAH will be the tag end of a 777 service from either Europe or Asia. Any a
69 Toxtethogrady : "the 773ER is a great airliner, but it is costly" I've seen somewhere that CO's costs on the 772 are a little over 3 cents a seat-mile. Would the 300
70 777gk : Exactly. The issue moot if we can get our hands on some 777-200ERs with GE90-85B/90B/92B engines. They would fold seamlessly into our system and creat
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...
CO Looking For New RJ Partner posted Wed Dec 28 2005 17:10:12 by CALMSP
CO Looking For A Western Hub? posted Wed Jul 19 2000 10:17:53 by COexERJ
Airtran Looking For Help Finding New Cities! posted Mon Oct 30 2006 20:34:01 by Vivavegas
Air Koryo Looking For New Aircraft posted Wed Aug 30 2006 19:28:04 by 777way
MLB Looking For New Airlines posted Wed Aug 16 2006 05:57:29 by Tonytifao
New Spanish LCC Catair Looking For Pilots! posted Mon Jun 12 2006 00:33:38 by EUROBUS
Silk Air Looking For New Aircraft posted Tue Mar 7 2006 21:34:13 by CX747
10 Abreast In Economy For Emirates' New 777s? posted Tue Nov 22 2005 14:18:38 by BrightCedars
Air India Looking For New Toilet Paper Supplier posted Wed Jul 6 2005 10:49:16 by Mrniji
Gulf Air Looking For New Aircraft & Public Listing posted Tue May 24 2005 06:14:44 by MEA