Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6101 times:
They don't need them is the answer to the first question.
The second question is that it is a simple stretch of the 777-200ER.
RDUDDJI From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1314 posts, RR: 3 Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6087 times:
It's a timing issue. The 772 came out during "good" times for the U.S. aviation industry, the 773 was developed after 9/11 and U.S. airlines with similar fleet types are now broke and/or bankrupt.
Sometimes we don't realize the good times when we're in them
OURBOEING From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 474 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6051 times:
Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 3): It's a timing issue. The 772 came out during "good" times for the U.S. aviation industry, the 773 was developed after 9/11 and U.S. airlines with similar fleet types are now broke and/or bankrupt.
Quoting Ourboeing (Thread starter): I was just wondering as to why non of the US based airlines have 777-3xx in their fleet?
Many US airlines are not in very good financial state. In other words they cant afford it. In a few years I would expect United and maybe even NW to place an order.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26699 posts, RR: 83 Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 6018 times:
Also, the 773 is best used for short-to-medium-haul high-capacity flights, and many have been sold to NH and JL, for example, to replace older 747s.
So about only NW could use them, to replace their 742s on the Hawaii runs and, maybe, UA to upgauge their two-class 772s.
As for the 773ER, if UA does not buy 748s, the 773ER will probably be in their long range plans.
Jetfuel From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2066 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5966 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 1): They don't need them is the answer to the first question
There are many routes that they could be used. Let's face it - The US Airlines are in the worst state of ANY westernised region. Simple they CANT AFFORD them
Where's the passion gone out of the airline industry? The smell of jetfuel and the romance of taking a flight....
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5965 times:
Why dont the US carriers fly the 773? Quite simply, because they dont need or want the capacity. With US carriers focused on multiple hubs and high frequency departures, there is little interest in such a high capacity airliner. Most US carriers are better off flying two 757s on a given route over one 773, as more connection possibilities are created with two distinct flights.
The new longer range 773ER has also not landed any orders from US carriers for similiar reasons.....too many seats. DL, CO and AA, for example, have determined that the 772ER is ideal for their operations and have little interest in adding larger aircraft to their fleet. The 773ER could make sense at NW or UA for their very large pacific operations and as a 744 replacement, but neither airline is in the financial position to even consider a large order for the type at the moment.
The 773ER, like the 744, will see few sales in the US market for passenger use.
CALMSP From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3662 posts, RR: 8 Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5946 times:
actually there was some speculation that we at CO were looking to get some to replace them on our HNL routes...........
okay, I'm waiting for the rich to spread the wealth around to me. Please mail your checks to my house.
Lehpron From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 7028 posts, RR: 22 Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5917 times:
Quoting RDUDDJI (Reply 3): the 773 was developed after 9/11 and U.S. airlines with similar fleet types are now broke and/or bankrupt.
Uh...the original aircraft rolled out in the spring of 1998, it had 3 years to act as if riding the first versions wave of success.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5338 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5743 times:
No doubt, 9-11 had little to do with the lack of US-based 773 orders.
We don't fly it here for the same reason that we don't fly 747s here: TOO BIG. Northwest and United can get away with it SOMETIMES (I say sometimes because a lot of NW's Asian service got down graded to A320s, 757s, and D10's at one time in recent years). But really, the rest of the airlines prefer frequency over capacity.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5642 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 15):
Yes, at some time in the future, UA will order the B777-300ER, the B747-8, or both, but not before ordering the B787.
Unless, of course, Airbus makes a major investment in UA by providing a part of the exit financing that UA will need when it emerges from bankruptcy and conditions the loan on UA placing an order for Airbus aircraft. Yes, I am talking about a deal similiar to the one Airbus made with US/HP......Airbus agreed to lend the new airline $250 million, in turn, HP/US has now agreed to acquire twenty (20) A350s.
With UA still working its way out of the bankruptcy proceeding, its very difficult to determine if and when new aircraft orders will be placed, and for which types.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26699 posts, RR: 83 Reply 17, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5610 times:
Well GE is helping providing some of UA's exit financing, so by that logic, it seems to auger 773ER, 772LR, 787 and 748 orders...
And I still do not believe US bought A350s solely because Airbus gave them $250 million. I think the A350 was always their plan, since they lack both 777s and 747s so they need something bigger then an A333/787-9 to match the capacity their domestic competitors can offer and Boeing has yet to pull the trigger for or against the 787-10.
N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6222 posts, RR: 3 Reply 18, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 5592 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17): Well GE is helping providing the exit financing, so by that logic, it seems to auger 773ER, 772LR, 787 and 748 orders...
Funny, UA can give GEAE the bird, but not GE Capital and their money.
When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5554 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16): Unless, of course, Airbus makes a major investment in UA by providing a part of the exit financing that UA will need when it emerges from bankruptcy and conditions the loan on UA placing an order for Airbus aircraft.
Sorry to disappoint you, but those loans have already been negotiated and agreed to. Airbus is not one of the lenders. Neither is Boeing.
AirCop From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5473 times:
I recall reading somewhere the weight problem with the 777-300 is another reason. The footprint of the 777-300 is so small, that all the weight is in one area, and airport operators were concerned of damage to taxiways etc. Off the top of my head, I'm thinking at this time only JFK and IAH are handling the 777-300ER.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 21, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5428 times:
Quoting AirCop (Reply 20): I recall reading somewhere the weight problem with the 777-300 is another reason. The footprint of the 777-300 is so small, that all the weight is in one area, and airport operators were concerned of damage to taxiways etc.
Sorry, that's not even close to true. Both the A340-500 and the A340-600 have higher MTOW and the latter has a higher MLW than the B777-300ER which has more wheels to distribute that weight than either of the Airbii.
AC787 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5390 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 10): Why dont the US carriers fly the 773? Quite simply, because they dont need or want the capacity.
I really don't believe this often quoted fact. I believe many of the majors could use it on several routes that would justify having a fleet of 5-20 aircraft. If AC can use it I believe UA, NW, AA, DL, and CO could use it. There are routes where CO sends a 777 or a 767 and then a 757, I know frequency is sometimes good, but a 777-300 would cover 2 of those flights pretty nicely.
Islandboy From Bahamas, joined Dec 2003, 165 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 5370 times:
Quoting AC787 (Reply 22): I really don't believe this often quoted fact. I believe many of the majors could use it on several routes that would justify having a fleet of 5-20 aircraft. If AC can use it I believe UA, NW, AA, DL, and CO could use it. There are routes where CO sends a 777 or a 767 and then a 757, I know frequency is sometimes good, but a 777-300 would cover 2 of those flights pretty nicely.
Yes but can they profitably sustain the route year round. Air Canada is the only home based International carrier in Canada. In the Unuted States, you have AA, CO, DL, NW, UA, & US. The only possibility would be UA & NW for the asian routes. However with NW ordering the B787, They plan to overfly NRT for the most part. So only a few 77W may be needed. UA would me the best hope for it in the United States.
AC787 From Canada, joined Mar 2005, 337 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 5323 times:
Quoting Islandboy (Reply 23): The only possibility would be UA & NW for the asian routes.
I'm sure united could use the 777-300 to European destinations such as FRA, LHR.
Quoting Islandboy (Reply 23): Air Canada is the only home based International carrier in Canada. In the Unuted States, you have AA, CO, DL, NW, UA, & US.
And the united states has a population thats 10 times larger then Canada's. And most of these airlines, if not all, carry more passengers then AC despite facing more competition. With the amount of feed some airlines can get to there respective hubs, and with some very high performing routes, I think the 773 could be used by many american carrieres... if only they were in better financial shape.
25 Stitch: Paris-Orly whined about this to AF about their 773ERs, but in the end the plane didn't cause any damage (if they even operate there). UA serves LHR o
26 N328KF: I think it wasn't 9/11, but the general aviation downturn. "Wrong plane, wrong time." I thought the 777-300ER had the highest runway loading (per squ
27 Ha763: AA already looked at the 773 in the past, pre-Sept. 11, and came to the conclusion that they could use it on some routes, but only for certain season
28 Islandboy: Very plausible. However UA has practically new B744 and B777. There really isn't a need for a order just now. Not to mention if Bermuda 2 is dropped,
29 Cores001: US airlines don´t have 773s because US airlines are just too cheap. I guess its the same reason why they don´t have any version of 747s, and why the
31 Bobnwa: Where did you get the info that NW plans to overfly NRT? Do you have any details of this, because Northwest has never said this.
32 B707Stu: Question: Do you think this will mean US commercial carriers will not be ordering any A380's?
33 Islandboy: I believe NW has said they plan to use the B787 to serve a few existing and new cities in asia. Logic then says, they won't need NRT as mch as a re-f
34 Bobnwa: I don't recall Northwest ever saying this. The Narita hub will be even larger!
35 Bicoastal: With the exception of JFK-LHR, United does VERY well on its routes to London from SFO, ORD and IAD. Three times daily (4 in the summer) from IAD, for
36 FRAspotter: It's acually called the B777-200LRF
37 MiCorazonAzul: because US based airlines are struggling to fill a 777-200 let alone trying to fill a -300 series.
38 Mdsh00: Brilliant reasoning. And this is coming from the continent served by Ryanair and a whole slew of European LCC's. If anyone has flown around in the US
39 Kahala777: Where will the money for the hub getting "larger" come from? KAHALA777
40 AAFLT1871: IIRC did'nt AA put up a fuss that it was only going to be offered with GE engines and not RR.
41 Boo25: "I was just wondering as to why non of the US based airlines have 777-3xx in their fleet? Also, is 777-3xx a stretch version of a normal 777? " Becaus
42 Bobnwa: The infrastructure is already there at Narita. To make it larger does not require a large capital outlay. I'm sure you knew that.
43 Atnight: American carriers have carried-over for years lots of financial baggage, thus operating on red and making them so uncertain for real growth. Right now
44 FA4UA: I really hope to see 773ER's in our fleet-- a widebody fleet of all 777's is a pretty thing! Huge savings on training and many parts as well! FA4UA
45 Zvezda: I'll go further than that. I don't expect any Western Hemisphere carriers to order any WhaleJets -- ever -- except for small package carriers like Fe
46 AirCop: Back to what Alnight was saying, there is also a east coast bias with airline management. Do you realize that from SFO and LAX there is only one fligh
47 Gigneil: It definitely is not. Its the 777-200F. N
48 N328KF: Dear Mr. Gigneil, It is the "777 Freighter" or "777F." Witness: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/777...amily/pf/pf_freighter_product.html You and I k
49 Cure: US carriers are perhaps basically launching/supporting Boeing's strategy.....?
50 Gigneil: Its gonna need a model number, nonetheless. AF's will be 777-229F, for example. I was responding that it would not be a 777-229LR/F N
51 N1120A: It is, however, based on the 772LR, not the 772ER
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 474 posts, 
From UK - England, joined Mar 2005, 3760 posts, 
From Lesotho, joined Jun 2004, 1314 posts, 
From Portugal, joined May 2005, 2831 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 2066 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2005, 1492 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Bahamas, joined Dec 2003, 165 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
