Cslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 854 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8870 times:
We all know that soon CO will run out of widebody long-haul airplanes for intercontinental capacity growth. [They do have 2 777-200ERs and a bunch of 787-8s on order.] But they need much more capacity growth for 2008-09.
Do you think the 77W is a complementary aircraft for CO?
Do you think CO will be able to absorb the capacity generated by the 77W?
Which of CO's routes would the 77W be most suited for flying?
HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8782 times:
I think CO won't order anything else for right now... they have to find what going to work for them and make them profietable... I have a feeling thats number one on their list right next to figureing out what their going to do about replacing the missing XJet Capacity... they haven't even replaced that yet...
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 6247 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8695 times:
No, they don't.
Why on earth would they buy a bigger aircraft, which would only add more capacity, and further depress yields?
Continental's future fleet will, in my opinion, be built around the 787. The 777-300ER is just too big. IT's almost got the same capacity as the classic 747s... and you don't see any US airlines able to fill those, either. Except NW and UA... and both of those have tangoed with bankruptcy in recent memory.
CO doesn't need BIGGER planes, they need MORE planes.
But, clearly, they don't feel that way, otherwise they'd have more orders.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 33653 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 8675 times:
UA and NW could definitely use them as they would cover their current 744 missions pretty well.
With the other domestic 747 operators getting rid of their frames for the 772ER, I am not sure they could justify a 773ER. A good deal of international traffic seems to be seasonal. UA, for example, flies 767s trans-Atlantic in the winter and 777s in the summer on the same routes.
But a 773ER would be the next logical step for most of them if they could justify the capital outlay.
HPAEAA From United States of America, joined May 2006, 1075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 8156 times:
Quoting Bomber996 (Reply 16): Honestly I think the chances of DL ordering the 773ER are VERY slim. They're bankrupt, they only have 8 or so 772ER's, and their 772's use RR instead of GE. although I'd love to see it I highly doubt it.
Agreed plus isn't the reason that their 777 fleet is so small to begin with is because they couldn't come to terms with the pilots on the pay scale?
Stirling From Italy, joined Jun 2004, 3943 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 7763 times:
I would think Continental would have no trouble at all filling up a 77W to bilaterally constrained markets such as China, and Brazil.
India wouldn't be bad either, along with Tel Aviv.
And why couldn't it work to Paris from Newark in the high season?...or Frankfurt....or any other high-demand Euro destination.
But I see the niche primarily in Asia, where there is no debating traffic will only continue to grow.....
The 777-300ER is different from the 747 Classic in one big aspect, 2 engines versus 4. It can accomplish the same mission with half the moving parts.
Same load, same distance, lower CASM. Just because airlines have retired that part of their fleets, doesn't mean there aren't specialized situations where they need the ability to uplift a ginormous amount of people.
PlanesNTrains From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 6963 posts, RR: 28
Reply 18, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7503 times:
Well there is that IMHO inevitable consolidation that may still be coming. Not that it changes anything drastically, but if they have that idea on the near/mid term horizon, it might be another way via route/fleet rationalization to grow without ordering more planes.
Others? Not out of the realm of possibilities, and to me it makes more sense to pick up 772ER's on the used/lease market as available and wait for the 788/789's instead of taking on yet another derivative.
ANNOYEDFA From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 451 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 7471 times:
Why does everyone think bigger is better? The 777's are being removed from most european routes and being replaced with 75's or 76's. Just because a plane is packed doesn't mean it's profitable. The 75's should be used for shorter and medium length european route's like they are and add frequencies, and the 76's go deeper into Europe while the 777's are used for ultra long haul route's. I can see a 777LR option this way the belly, front, and back can go out full. Often the back of the 777's are blocked out and weight restricted for cargo.
Actually, though, within your point, Boeing7E7 posted in another thread about a potential 6000nm (IIRC) 737RS. That would play right into your comments - why operate a 773 JFK-FRA when you can operate a 737RS BDL-HAM (or whatever)? And who wants to be left holding 20-30 773;s when that competitive wave hits?!
LTU932 From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 14227 posts, RR: 46
Reply 21, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 7190 times:
I personally think the 772LR would make much more sense for CO than the 77W. It would be the perfect aircraft for flights to India and HKG, which are flown nonstop and probably with some weight restrictions due to the distance. 4 aircraft, two for each route, perhaps even a 5th one as a spare might do the trick. CO could also capitalise on the potential cargo market which seems to be developing in India in this way, and given the 772LR's range capabilities, they could fill up those cargo holds a lot. Any weight restrictions currently in place for those flights would be alleviated by this aircraft.
ChiGB1973 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1626 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (9 years 8 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5629 times:
Too much capacity. The 773 is not the appropriate aircraft for CO, they have what they need.
DL too, the 763 is fine, it is full. Simple supply and demand. Full flights are what is needed. DL has other options, ie upgrade to 764 or 772 and they are not. I am relatively sure DL's and CO's 764s and 772s are stretched to the limit now, but, if there was money to be made on these routes with larger aircraft, it would probably already be done? If DL or CO thinks a route needs more capacity and could make more money, they will add frequency vs capacity in the form of an aircraft larger than what they already "own."
If the plane, a 773, is good for only a few routes, it is not worth the trouble. It is not interchangeable on all like routes. If either carrier had a need and could afford at least 5+, that would make the plane more of a viable option. DL can substitute the 763 and CO can substitute the 772 fairly easily, use them on all 763 or 772 routes where as the 773 would not be as flexible for either carrier.
I still stick with my supply and demand theory as a major, and probably deciding factor.
I rambled a little, but I hope you got the gist of my opinion.