Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
When Will SQ Start Dumping Its Oldest 777s?  
User currently offlineEl Al 001 From Israel, joined Oct 1999, 1063 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 10134 times:

Hi,

Seems to me that some of SQ 777s are getting to the age of withdrawal according with its fleet age standarts.

Im talking on SQ oldest 777s, the non-ER models which were built during the '90s.

Same goes with EK and CX.

What do you think?

50 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10078 times:

When their new A333s start to arrive in SQ and CX's case I would say, and EK are desperate for the capacity so they may think twice about dumping their 772As - IIRC they only have three and they are both owned so they may stick around for a while at least.

In SQ and EK's case - some of their 772ERs are the same sort of age as their 772As so they may start to become available at the same sort of time. All Rolls-powered.

Are the LY 777s Trent-powered or do they have Pratts? I thought they were Rolls-powered. I take it you are thinking will LY pick them up when they come onto the market? I would think they'd be interested yes.

[Edited 2007-09-06 15:36:27]


What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlinePM From Germany, joined Feb 2005, 6958 posts, RR: 63
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 10054 times:

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1):
Are the LY 777s Trent-powered or do they have Pratts? I thought they were Rolls-powered.

They are.

Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1):
I take it you are thinking will LY pick them up when they come onto the market?

El Al currently have 6 almost new 777-200ERs with RR but only the other day they said they want to have a fleet of almost double that size sooner or later. New-builds or retreads? Who knows, but used 777s will start appearing on the market sooner rather than later...


User currently offlineFlyTUITravel From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 723 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 9820 times:

Three EK 772s (A6-EMD/E/F I think) are leaving the fleet in June 2008, as far as I know.

 Smile


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9785 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

777-200A rental rates have held stable ($400-510,000 per month) after a good rise, thanks to limited supply of available 772ERs (whose rates are about double). However the long-term value prospects for her are grim, so some good deals could be coming down the road.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 9750 times:

SQ plan to start retiring their 777-200s in 2009 when the A330-300s start joining the fleet -- hopefully with new regional F/C seats.

User currently offlineWorldtraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9590 times:

At some point you have to think that it becomes financially feasible to convert 772As to 772ERs. I believe I am right (correct if you know otherwise) that the 772A and 772ER are structurally the same (same wings, landing gear etc) unlike the 777LR. Since airframes typically go through at least 2 sets of engines in their lifetimes (and there is a market for used engines anyway), it becomes prudent when 77A resale values drop enough to convert them based on the continued relatively higher price levels for the 772ER.

Airlines have converted other aircraft to ER types within the same family – DL did it on L1011s to create the L1011-250 which was a hybrid of the L1011-200 and -500. Given that the 772A and –ER are more similar, it should be an easier conversion.

Because the 772A is a heavy airplane for its mission (compared with the 330), it might be possible to give more life to early 772s while allowing some airlines that are hungry for growth to convert some early aircraft. In the meantime, airlines like SQ and EK will continue to buy new aircraft and get rid of them fairly early in their life.


User currently offlineDa man From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 887 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9559 times:

Quoting Worldtraveler (Reply 6):

I believe AA did exactly what you suggest to a few of their 767-200s (they converted them to ER) but the capabilities of the aircraft were not up to the full capabilities of a new-build 762ER, IIRC.



War Eagle!
User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3574 posts, RR: 67
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 9499 times:

Quoting Worldtraveler (Reply 6):
At some point you have to think that it becomes financially feasible to convert 772As to 772ERs. I believe I am right (correct if you know otherwise) that the 772A and 772ER are structurally the same (same wings, landing gear etc) unlike the 777LR.

Unfeasible due to the structural changes required to bring the 772A up to the 772ER operating weights. Some 772ER's are operated at 772A weights but a true 772A cannot operate at 772ER weights without considerable modification.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineLXA340 From Switzerland, joined Nov 2006, 2127 posts, RR: 3
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9324 times:

SQ's A333's will just be used for regional routes or also aimed for longer flights up to 9 hours or so? I gues they will get a 2 class config but not with a configuration found now in the B77W right? At least spacebeds should be put in in case they will be used on regional routes.

User currently offlineOceansWorld From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9292 times:

Quoting El Al 001 (Thread starter):
When Will SQ Start Dumping Its Oldest 777s? 

Probably when they receive the A333s between 2009 and 2001. In 2009, the oldest B777s will have had 12 years of service with SQ.

Quoting El Al 001 (Thread starter):
Im talking on SQ oldest 777s, the non-ER models which were built during the '90s.

The only non-ER aircraft are the thirteen -312. All the others are ER.


User currently offlinePlaneHunter From Germany, joined Mar 2006, 6903 posts, RR: 77
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 9253 times:

Quoting El Al 001 (Thread starter):
Im talking on SQ oldest 777s, the non-ER models which were built during the '90s.

SQ has never operated any B772A models - but B772ER models with different thrust and MTOW ratings.


PH



Nothing's worse than flying the same reg twice!
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 9149 times:

Quoting El Al 001 (Thread starter):
Im talking on SQ oldest 777s, the non-ER models



Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1):
In SQ and EK's case - some of their 772ERs are the same sort of age as their 772As

As previously stated, SQ has never operated the 772A.
It chooses, for whatever inane reason, not to identify the 9V-SQ* and 9V-SR* birds as 772ERs, despite the fact that they are--- just with a lower MTOW than the 9V-SV* series, which is easily changeable on paper.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9079 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 12):
(SQ) chooses, for whatever inane reason, not to identify the 9V-SQ* and 9V-SR* birds as 772ERs, despite the fact that they are--- just with a lower MTOW than the 9V-SV* series, which is easily changeable on paper.

I seem to recall folks saying that Boeing and Airbus charge different prices for different MTOWs and that if you don't need all of it, many airlines certify at a lower MTOW to save some money, and then can "re-certify" at a higher MTOW as needed, cutting a check to Boeing/Airbus on the back end.


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 9079 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 8):
Unfeasible due to the structural changes required to bring the 772A up to the 772ER operating weights.

what specifically are the structural changes?


User currently offlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3574 posts, RR: 67
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8972 times:

Gauge up in the wing spars, ribs, and skins and landing gear revisions due to the higher MTOW.


Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlinePapatango From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 526 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 8943 times:

Delta is hungry for long range aircraft maybe they will pick up a few of these SQ 777's

User currently offlineBoeingBoy From Bouvet Island, joined Jul 2007, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8930 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 12):
As previously stated, SQ has never operated the 772A.
It chooses, for whatever inane reason, not to identify the 9V-SQ* and 9V-SR* birds as 772ERs, despite the fact that they are--- just with a lower MTOW than the 9V-SV* series, which is easily changeable on paper.

If it walks like a DUCK and quacks like a DUCK - its a DUCK  butthead 



10% is the best we can do
User currently offlineSeabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5757 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8897 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
Gauge up in the wing spars, ribs, and skins and landing gear revisions due to the higher MTOW.

EK can just take care of that overnight at the gate, eh?  Wink Big grin


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8887 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 15):
Gauge up in the wing spars, ribs, and skins and landing gear revisions due to the higher MTOW.

not doubting that may be the case but I'm not sure that I've seen anything that supports that the 772ER is not structually the same. Do you have any support? The 772A is a beefy plane to begin with and the ER was long intended as the baseline plane. Further, most of the 772As were built after the 772ER was already being offered with the exception of some of UA's models. Many 772As were built within the last 10 years.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 19):
not doubting that may be the case but I'm not sure that I've seen anything that supports that the 772ER is not structually the same.

Well the Operating Empty Weight is only 5,000lbs lighter for the 777-200A then the 777-200ER, but the ER's MTOW is 100,000lbs higher, so that 5K must be used darn wisely. Big grin


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 8793 times:

Quoting Papatango (Reply 16):
Delta is hungry for long range aircraft maybe they will pick up a few of these SQ 777's

DL looked at that option heavily in both 2005 and this year...

...and basically decided it'd be lying buying a 2yr-old car with 199,000mi on it  Wink


User currently offlineWorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8571 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Well the Operating Empty Weight is only 5,000lbs lighter for the 777-200A then the 777-200ER

or more accurately that the 772A is overweight...compare the empty weight of the 772A to the A330. The whole reason why NW would not go with the 777 for Europe was because it is too heavy for a transatlantic aircraft.

Also, much of that 5000 pound weight difference could be attributable to the larger engines and the extra fuel tank which the 772ER surely has in comparison with the 772A.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31240 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8459 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 22):
or more accurately that the 772A is overweight...compare the empty weight of the 772A to the A330. The whole reason why NW would not go with the 777 for Europe was because it is too heavy for a transatlantic aircraft.

Well UA and a number of other airlines found (and find) the 777-200A to be "light enough" for trans-Atlantic operations.

But yes, Boeing might have been able to reduce the MEW of the 777-200A more, just as they could have with the 787-3 vis-a-vis the 787-8. The A340-300 is 20,000lbs heavier then the A330-300, which is about what the 777-200A carries over the A330-300.

But then maybe Boeing was stymied by the engines available at the time, which meant that while a 777-200A is almost a 777-200ER, she lacked the *oomph* on the wings to haul that extra 100,000lbs of payload/fuel. Airbus got around that by adding two more engines, but I wonder if the A330-300 could have had 90k engines, if her MEW would not have been close to 300,000lbs, as well...


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9191 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 8423 times:

They will still be around for sometime I guess since they still very new

25 WorldTraveler : true, Stitch, but it can also be said that the 777 was optimized to be a long-haul aircraft from the beginning and it just took engine technology to c
26 OldAeroGuy : What source do you have for this statement? While the structural arrangement may be the same between the airplanes, not all the structural elements a
27 WorldTraveler : You do realize you are just supporting my assertion that there is not anything structurally different, esp. in the wings between the 77A and 772ER, d
28 Zvezda : SQ have twelve 777-300s (not including 777-300ERs). The definitive answer is that the 777-200ERs are substantially different structurally from the 77
29 Ktachiya : Its not only a matter of SQ but I presume that the older B777-200A variant in NH and JL are also close to 10-12 years old. Well, JL keeps good care of
30 Da man : You are aware that JL took delivery of a 777-200A this year? I don't think they're going to be getting rid of their machines any time soon.
31 Ktachiya : I stated in the first post that proably JL would keep them for a long time. I was just wondering about NH. Yes and I agree again, I don't think they
32 Post contains images PM : "hoping"? "disappointed"? Are we given to understand that airlines place orders without actually talking to the manufacturer?! What next? UA were hop
33 Zvezda : Reading into whatever you'd like to imagine. I stand by what I wrote. UA were hoping that Boeing would find it more convenient to manufacture 777-200
34 ConcordeBoy : ...the Trent892 and Trent895 are both lighter and more powerful than any PW engine utilized on the 772ER. They have no such trouble relative to that
35 OldAeroGuy : Just because the airplanes are structurally similar, it doesn't mean they are identical. Parts of the 772ER are beefed up to allow it to have a highe
36 ConcordeBoy : ...why? Their A333s have opped (the longer) YVR-LHR for quite some time
37 XT6Wagon : What PM doesn't understand is that people all the time play these games from the end consumer to CEO's of major companies. I know people who have ord
38 Post contains images PM : Oh, I wasn't doubting it. It was just the way you phrased it I found amusing. It conjured up the image of airlines mailing off their orders (or maybe
39 797charter : You are right Stitch, - many of the SAS 737 are weight "restricted" by the same reason.
40 JKJ777 : Doesn't it seem like yesterday that the first 777 went in to service? It is hard to believe that these birds are ready to be phased out according to s
41 SRMD11 : That's an easy one... SIA will dump their first 777 after they dumped their last PAX 747!
42 Zvezda : No, SQ will retire their first 777 in 2009 and their last passenger 747 in 2010 or 2011.
43 Ktachiya : I read somewhere that the jet-stream the flows from Japan-North America gets really strong in the winter compared to other ones. I might be completel
44 WorldTraveler : I appreciate the answer... really. Your original answer appreared to me to be more speculative than definitive... could have been my interpretation o
45 OldAeroGuy : Don't forget that the 777 static loading test showed the basic structure was good for more than the original 777A MTOW.
46 The Coachman : You're joking right? CX fly A333's 3x daily on HKG-SYD - scheduled at 9:10 and sometimes 9:20. QF operate SYD-PVG and SYD-PEK with the A333. They als
47 Amirs : Why do they get rid of a/c so quickly? Is it because of maintenance problem?
48 TodaReisinger : I think it's rather to have always a very young fleet...offering the very best services and highest comfort levels to their pax...
49 Zvezda : Singaporean law on the depreciation of assets (they don't call in depreciation in Singapore) makes it financially attractive to turn over the fleet f
50 ZK-NBT : QF have severe restrictions on the SYD-PEK route they carry no freight from what I'm aware and this route will go to a 332, restrictions are slightly
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...
When Will SQ A380 Show On Booking Engine? posted Tue Aug 28 2007 14:12:36 by NG1Fan
When Will SQ's A380 Flights Be On Res. Systems? posted Wed Aug 8 2007 01:19:36 by Coal
When Will AA Start Recalling Pilots? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 02:39:38 by ORDTerminal1
When Will Thai Airways Retire Its 743s? posted Fri Jun 30 2006 14:29:26 by LY777
When Will FRA Start Work On T3? posted Tue Apr 25 2006 18:46:47 by FRAspotter
When Will AI Start Serving SFO posted Thu Jan 19 2006 12:16:36 by Camair
When Will Boeing Start Building AC 1st 777-300ER? posted Mon Dec 26 2005 07:14:57 by AirCanada014
DL JFK-KBP When Will It Start? posted Fri Dec 2 2005 05:14:22 by Thepilot730
When Will Eurofly Start The New Flights? posted Tue May 10 2005 20:46:39 by NightFlier
When Will AA Start DFW-BOG? posted Thu Feb 17 2005 22:49:10 by Avianca