Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Largest 777 Fleet? Look At This!  
User currently offlineAlexinwa From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1142 posts, RR: 0
Posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2188 times:

From the Boeing web-site, Current orders and number delivered:
UAL 61/48
AA 45/24
BA 45/40
SIA 43/18
JAL 31/10
Saudia 23/21
CO 16/14
Malaysia 15/11
Thai 14/13
DL 13/7
KE 12/9

Still think UAL will buy the A3XX?


You mad Bro???
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCathayPacific From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2008, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1999 times:

Impressive numbers!

User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1320 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1975 times:

Hey,
where is Air France? They got 23 or 25 in order or service if I am not wrong. Alitalia will have till 18 in the near future.

Ciao

Stefano



User currently offlineEnglandair From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 2228 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1964 times:

What series are the BA 777s (on order)?

User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1320 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1941 times:

Anyway,
if you want to have a complete overview of all B777 ordered or delivered take a look at "The777man" userprofile. His own homepage is full of such infos.

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2703 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1911 times:

Here's the ones you're missing;

ILFC 67/12

AA 47/24

ANA 35/21

AF 28/10

GECAS 15/0

CX 12/11

As well as numerous others with fewer.

Hamlet69




Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineEnglandair From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2000, 2228 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1863 times:

Who are GECAS & ILFC?

User currently offlineFFMilesJunkie From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1842 times:

GECAS = GE Capital Services.

ILFC = International Lease and Finance Co.

AF is up to 12 delivered, they just got another one in November.


User currently offlineBaec777xx From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1764 times:

Englandair,


BA has 777-200 series.



Baec777xx  


User currently onlineThe777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6404 posts, RR: 55
Reply 9, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1762 times:

Air France leases/will lease a lot of the 777s, but they will have around 30 or so in their fleet when they have all of them delivered. My webpage lists the number of 777s in service/on order per carrier whether leased or owned. UA will NOT buy the A380!!! The777Man


Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly...T5, CI, MU, LX and LH 777s
User currently offlineB727-200 From Australia, joined Nov 1999, 1051 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1683 times:


Just to expand on FFMilesJunkie post, ILFC and GECAS are aircraft leasing companies. These are the biggest, but there also a number of smaller ones around (AWAS - Ansett Worldwide Aviation Services, IA - Intrepid Aviation, etc...).

Aircraft leasing companies provide a good source for airlines to fill short term fleet requirements (ie. 2-3 years plus). In a speculative market they are very handy.

For example, if you have an airline that has purchased, say, 10 B737-700's, and you find the markets you fly may require a couple more. It is most likely safer to lease the extra units. You lease the 2 aircraft (identical to your owned ones) for 5 years with a 2 or 3 year exit clause. If the market fails you return the aircraft on lease expiry (or at the exit clause date for a fee), if it succeeds you extend the lease.

You always have your base aircraft to fall back on, and don't have the capital expense or ownership risk of your speculative fleet units. Leasing companies will also order off the assembly line in the specs of the specific airline to minimise the risk of "rogue units" in the fleet.

Sorry for the long reply, it is our last working day before christmas and I have no work to do  

Best wishes for the festive season to all.

B727-200.


User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3355 posts, RR: 42
Reply 11, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1631 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

CO 16/14 ?? Nope. It's 18/16


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineIahcsr From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 3355 posts, RR: 42
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 1624 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmmmmm.... On second thought, two of CO's 777's are leased from ILFC. That could account for the variance.


Working very hard to Fly Right....
User currently offlineBOS-CDG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1601 times:

If you think you can fly every route with a 777 then you don't know much about fleet and network management...Give us a break...777 or A330 it does not make sense economically to fly long ETOPS route with these A/C on a large scale basis. Longer route, more fuel burnt, longer blocktime, crew costs higher very costly in case of engine failure and diversion, quads still have a future...And there is no way you fly twin engine over the himalaya one day (as an example)...Too bad, there is there much room for shortcuts and blocktime optimization, for quads not for twin....

E.


User currently offlineSteman From Germany, joined Aug 2000, 1320 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

Hi E.

I agree with you and i think that improvement in engines technology will lead to develop more four engined aircrafts. More efficient and lighter engines will allow a quad to be as costly effective as a twin.

Ciao

Stefano


User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1586 times:



BOS-CDG wrote:
-------------------------------
If you think you can fly every route with a 777 then you don't know much about fleet and network management...Give us a break...777 or A330 it does not make sense economically to fly long ETOPS route with these A/C on a large scale basis. Longer route, more fuel burnt, longer blocktime, crew costs higher very costly in case of engine failure and diversion, quads still have a future...And there is no way you fly twin engine over the himalaya one day (as an example)...Too bad, there is there much room for shortcuts and blocktime optimization, for quads not for twin....<

Disagree with you. So far 777 has about the same diversion rate as a quad A340. So this argument does not apply.

As precautionary measure even when 1 engine failed on a quad aircraft, diversion will still be amde. Hence your point makes no sense what so ever.

Regarding fuel burn, this is not that true either. A340 with its under power engine burns much more fuel than 777 due to the fact A340 can't climb as fast and has to maintain a lower initial crusing altitude hence higher fuel burn. Also as I recall Quad A340 does not curise faster than 777 as well, hence more fuel will be burned.

So your post is fully of mistakes.


User currently offlineIndianGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

Why cant a 2-engine aircraft fly over the Himalayas?

User currently offlineBOS-CDG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1571 times:

I disagree with you. There are many cases where quads have been able to continue even with one engine failure. Moreover a 777 or an A330 which needs engine replacement on a diverted airfield will dearly cost the airline...Just tell me on which airfield would be diverted a jet doing HNL-NRT...There are some diversion possible, guess what the traffic is...

Also, twins will fly longer route, consult some winter and summer routes flown over the pacific by twins and you will see that there are by no means optimized due to ETOPS restriction.

E.


User currently offlineBOS-CDG From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 1564 times:

Twins in case of engine failure will drift down to single engine type ceilings, typically FL150 or so...

Also Twins flying on ETOPS route must make provision for additionnal fuel load, (see ETOPS constaints in case of diversion and related fuel constraint)...So more fuel, less payload...So again, twins on transpacific flights are according to me a challenging economical bet...

E.


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 7929 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1545 times:

If the 777-200ER is such a "challenging economical bet," how come UA is successfully flying the 772ER on the LAX-NRT, SFO-NRT, SFO-LHR, and SFO-FRA routes? Or why AA is flying the 772ER on the ORD-NRT and DFW-NRT routes? Or why CO is flying the 772ER on the EWR-NRT route? Or why AF is flying the 772ER from CDG to destinations in South America?

Because of the extra safety margins demanded by ETOPS 180 rules, these planes will less likely divert than a 747-400 or A340-300.

No wonder why Boeing has sold over 500 777's, and orders are continuing to come in.


User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1508 times:



BOS-CDG wrote:
-------------------------------
I disagree with you. There are many cases where quads have been able to continue even with one engine failure. Moreover a 777 or an A330 which needs engine replacement on a diverted airfield will dearly cost the airline...Just tell me on which airfield would be diverted a jet doing HNL-NRT...There are some diversion possible, guess what the traffic is...<

There isn't any airline is the world that would risk continuation of flying with 3 of the 4 engine avaliable as the remaining engines will have to work harder to compensate. So you argument still does not apply. And it would cost airline dearly to replace a A340 engine as well in remote island like you are claiming.

HNL-NRT- depends on where you are along the route, I believe there are several airpor that is in range of ETOPS, for example GUAM. I believe with pacific route the ETOPS will extended to 240. Which is about 4 hours. enough to return to either HNL on contiue to Guam as planned.




>Also, twins will fly longer route, consult some winter and summer routes flown over the pacific by twins and you will see that there are by no means optimized due to ETOPS restriction.<

Proof please.


User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 938 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1495 times:



BOS-CDG wrote:
-------------------------------
Twins in case of engine failure will drift down to single engine type ceilings, typically FL150 or so...

Also Twins flying on ETOPS route must make provision for additionnal fuel load, (see ETOPS constaints in case of diversion and related fuel constraint)...So more fuel, less payload...So again, twins on transpacific flights are according to me a challenging economical bet...<

What are the chance the twin would suffer an engine failuer. To be certified for ETOPS the airline must demonstrate a lower than normal engine fail rate than those on a quad aircraft. Which means chances are higher that a Quad engine will have 1 engine failure and have to divert. Aircraft such as 744 can still climb with 3 engines. But A340 can't.

Aircraft the flies the transpacific route generally carries full fuel load anyways. Even thoug Etops requires certain reserves to be carried. The effect is not as huge as you are making it out to be.

ETOPS on the other hand does have severe impact across Atlandtic (espeically the East Cost to Europe) in which flight are 6 hours and less. This woudl require 777 to carry more fuel. But since U.A./ and a host of other are operating more and more twins across the atlantic ocean, even with extra weight of fuel is still economical to do so.

Also the 744/A340 4 engines still would burn more fuel than 777 and 767 with 2 engines even though the ETOP limitation would increase weight for both 777 and 767.


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...
What Makes Us Crazy Of The 777: Look At This... posted Sun Dec 16 2001 21:30:18 by Flying Belgian
Look At This Delta's Fleet List... posted Wed Dec 12 2001 18:41:35 by Baec777
Look At This AA 777 Beauty! posted Mon Jul 24 2000 16:20:11 by Montenegro
Look At This Magnificent CO 777! posted Fri Sep 24 1999 16:53:12 by Montenegro
Longest Airbridge? Look At This One... posted Thu Jun 29 2006 22:56:44 by DIA
Hey Look At This-Graphical Air Traffic posted Sun Aug 28 2005 00:40:25 by KarlB737
Take A Look At This A320... posted Tue Dec 14 2004 15:19:20 by AC330
Look At This Pic-Why Are There No Overheadbins? posted Thu Sep 9 2004 22:12:45 by COEWR2587
Best Biz Seats On A 321: Have A Look At This! posted Sun Jun 8 2003 08:59:11 by Salim
Take A Look At This KLM 744 posted Tue Mar 11 2003 17:44:48 by Red Panda