commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11763 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter): American Airlines still has 7 777-200ERs on order. Why? Why not convert these to 777-300ERs? Will they actually ever take these aircraft?
I think it is quite likely AA will take delivery of these aircraft. However, I think it is extremely unlikely that they will take delivery of them as -200ERs - I suspect these 7 outstanding orders will fill out AA's future -300ER fleet, bringing it to a more economically sustainable fleet of 15. The -300ER has better economics than the -200ER.
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 11722 times:
Well, ok. They have already ordered 8 777-300ERs. What are they waiting for?
jpetekyxmd80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4224 posts, RR: 29 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11629 times:
I'd speculate they got a better deal from Boeing with the new 77W orders, ,so that it wouldn't make sense to convert the existing order (assuming that price is locked in?). I'd be surprised if these birds ever come to fruition, but if they do I agree it will probably be 77W.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11561 times:
Well, ok. They have already ordered 8 777-300ERs. What are they waiting for?
From how it was explained, the 772s were set for a later delivery. AA ordered the 77Ws to arrive before those aircraft with new slots, while the older order is still in place for conversion and delivery after these initial 8. That would make 15 total delivered through 2016, IIRC.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16574 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11514 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 2): They have already ordered 8 777-300ERs.
Oh, so they are now up to 8 77Ws. They seem to order them sporadically.
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11367 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 5): Securing financing to purchase them, I imagine.
That is not what I meant. Rather than placing new orders for 8 777-300ERs, they could have converted the 7 to -300ER and then ordered 1 more. This would have been cheaper, as the deposits for those aircraft are already in place.
It is because of delivery slots? I guess we will see.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16574 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11289 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 7): Rather than placing new orders for 8 777-300ERs, they could have converted the 7 to -300ER and then ordered 1 more.
Because they will have more than just 8 77Ws. Highly doubt that they will only operate 8 of the type,
kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11260 times:
Quoting B747forever (Reply 8): Because they will have more than just 8 77Ws. Highly doubt that they will only operate 8 of the type,
yes, and then order more......
say if they plan for 20, they could have only placed 13 new orders and convert those 7, rather than 20 new orders.
B747forever From United States of America, joined May 2007, 16574 posts, RR: 11 Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 11221 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 9): say if they plan for 20, they could have only placed 13 new orders and convert those 7, rather than 20 new orders
But there is nothing yet that indicates why they wont change those 7 772ERs to 77Ws at a later stage. They maybe got a better deal from Boeing ordering a couple of 77Ws from the beginning, rather than just 1 and later on building on the fleet.
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6079 posts, RR: 56 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 11168 times:
Hi !
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 2): Well, ok. They have already ordered 8 777-300ERs.
Boeing's Order and Deliveries website mentions 6 777s ordered by AA this year as of Aug 16. Did they order two 77Ws last year ? Will two be leased ?
The777Man
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....GA, T5, CI and LX 777s
einsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2042 posts, RR: 6 Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10253 times:
Quoting B747forever (Reply 8): Because they will have more than just 8 77Ws. Highly doubt that they will only operate 8 of the type,
Why not? DL only has 8 772 and then ordered 10 77Ls. The workforce is in the 767. AA has a larger 772 fleet and a large 767 fleet as well. This might be just a higher capacity subfleet for markets with more demand (China, India and London are places that come quickly to mind) or expand to other markets (Sydney or Johannesburg, perhaps?)
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9784 times:
I know this is kind of off-topic, but I'm trying to figure out the maximum thrust AA's Boeing 777-200ER engines, the Rolls Royce Trent 892-17s, produce. I was told that AA derated them from 92,000 pounds of thrust per engine to 90,000 pounds of thrust per engine, but can find zero sources backing this up, or even stating what their thrust is specified at. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
malaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 7901 times:
I am so excited to see the 77W in AA. I have flown on the AA 772 several times and still enjoy it. the 77W is a welcome addition. hopefully next will be the American Airlines Space Freighters
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
AA777223 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1112 posts, RR: 7 Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5364 times:
Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 3): I'd speculate they got a better deal from Boeing with the new 77W orders, ,so that it wouldn't make sense to convert the existing order (assuming that price is locked in?). I'd be surprised if these birds ever come to fruition, but if they do I agree it will probably be 77W.
Given the recent massive order tossed airbus's direction, Boeing may not be quite as keen to dop the price of 77Ws, if the deal for 77Es was already negotiated. I would imagine that the landscape has changed a little between AA and B. Considering the gentlemen's agreement was never in writing, and expecially considering AA just broke it, we might have seen the end of majorly preferential pricing for AA outta Chicago (Seattle).
Quoting Thrust (Reply 13): I know this is kind of off-topic, but I'm trying to figure out the maximum thrust AA's Boeing 777-200ER engines, the Rolls Royce Trent 892-17s, produce. I was told that AA derated them from 92,000 pounds of thrust per engine to 90,000 pounds of thrust per engine, but can find zero sources backing this up, or even stating what their thrust is specified at. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
I was surprised by this. I always thought AA's 77Es we're pretty long-legged considering some of the sectors they pull non-stop. DEL-ORD, PEK-ORD, etc. Some of those almost rival CO on EWR-PEK.
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1171 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 5201 times:
AA like many airlines has a habit of building clauses into their contracts for variance in subtype in a given order. There is likely a price point negotiated in the contract to convert the 772E to W. Given the difference in capabilities, I'd suspect they will convert those to W's when the contract deadline calls for a decision.
fpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 754 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4846 times:
Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 3): I'd speculate they got a better deal from Boeing with the new 77W orders, ,so that it wouldn't make sense to convert the existing order (assuming that price is locked in?). I'd be surprised if these birds ever come to fruition, but if they do I agree it will probably be 77W.
I don't know how good of a price they will get, they did go mostly Airbus with narrowbody and the 77W are in hot demand. I jsut don't see Boeing bending over backwards for 7 77W's, especially for AA. I don't think Boeing has any incentive here to upheld their end of the gentlemen's agreement, if that is still in effect at all.
Just my 2 cents, what do you guys think about the pricing on 77W's when it comes to AA? I am not at all familiar with waht deals they had prev to the narrowbody order, just speculating here.
william From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1138 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 4546 times:
Yes, AA is going to get Boeings best price on 777Ws. AA ordering A320s is one thing, AA potentially ordering Airbus A350s is another from Boeing's profit per unit perspective.
commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 63 Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 4404 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Reply 7): That is not what I meant. Rather than placing new orders for 8 777-300ERs, they could have converted the 7 to -300ER and then ordered 1 more. This would have been cheaper, as the deposits for those aircraft are already in place.
When the first order of any -300ERs was disclosed in the 4Q10 earnings release back in January, AMR made clear that the order (initially 2 aircraft) was placed due to favorable terms available at that time, and that AA was simply taking advantage of an opportunity that presented itself. What - exactly - that means is highly proprietary of course, but some combination of factors, perhaps including favorable terms from Boeing, financing availability, delivery positions in the production line, etc. all combined to create a deal AA obviously felt it couldn't pass up. I'd imagine that the incremental orders since then (which have now brought the outstanding order book to 8) were probably much the same.
AA generally does not like to operate small fleets/subfleets - even going back years, they have traditionally liked operating fleets at some critical mass in order to gain economies of scale with lots of the indirect cost of supporting a fleet (like spares, training, maintenance, etc.). AA has certainly made exceptions, of course, and continues to do so - such as with the MD11, and the 767-200ER, etc. But, generally speaking, AA likes larger fleets. I suspect the 777-300ER fleet will be not different - AA will want to reach some level of critical mass with the fleet in order to make it more economically viable.
As I have said, I personally do not believe for one second that the outstanding 7 777-200ER orders will ever be taken up by AA as -200ERs - I believe those will ultimately be delivered as -300ERs. If that is correct, the -300ER fleet would then ultimately number at least 15 frames. AA could do a lot with 15 -300ERs.
Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 12): This might be just a higher capacity subfleet for markets with more demand (China, India and London are places that come quickly to mind) or expand to other markets (Sydney or Johannesburg, perhaps?)
AA has repeatedly said that the -300ERs can be used both to increase capacity in existing markets and/or to add new markets where the -300ER's unique combination of range and capacity will make routes economically sustainable where the -200ER would not work.
I, myself, believe that a 15-frame -300ER fleet - I am again assuming those remaining -200ERs will ultimately be delivered as -300ERs - could be profitably deployed on, as an example:
1.5 - DFW-GRU (swaps with DFW-NRT)
2.0 - DFW-HKG
1.0 - DFW-LHR
1.5 - DFW-NRT (swaps with DFW-GRU)
2.0 - MIA-EZE
2.0 - MIA-JNB
1.0 - MIA-LHR
1.5 - ORD-BOM (swaps with ORD-HKG)
1.5 - ORD-HKG (swaps with ORD-BOM)
That schedule would drive good utilization and provide one operational spare. Plus, with the 777-200ERs freed up from being replaced by -300ERs on DFW-GRU (1.5), DFW-LHR (1.0), DFW-NRT (1.5), MIA-EZE (2.0) and MIA-LHR (1.0), AA could also open new 777 routes such as:
2.0 - DFW-ICN
2.0 - LAX-PEK
2.0 - ORD-DXB
And the reshuffle could go on and on ...
Just my $0.02 ...
Quoting AA777223 (Reply 17): Given the recent massive order tossed airbus's direction, Boeing may not be quite as keen to dop the price of 77Ws, if the deal for 77Es was already negotiated.
Boeing knows where their bread is buttered. AA has been and will remain one of Boeing's largest and most strategically important customers - the recent Airbus order notwithstanding. Boeing lost that AA order all on its own by making a strategic mistake in not clarifying their 737 plans sooner - I think Boeing is smart enough not to "stick it" to AA in the future as a result of their own mistakes. Pissing off one of your biggest customers isn't a smart business strategy, and I think Boeing is smart enough to know that.
Quoting AA777223 (Reply 17): Considering the gentlemen's agreement was never in writing
False. Actually - it was not a "gentlemen's agreement" - it was a legally binding contract with an exclusivity clause. It was clearly in writing, but that writing was voided after the Europeans took issue with it.
Quoting AA777223 (Reply 17): we might have seen the end of majorly preferential pricing for AA outta Chicago (Seattle)
Doubtful. Again, AA is still a massive customer of Boeing's and will continue to receive strong financing and preference just as Delta and United still do.
dfwexecplat From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3163 times:
Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter): American Airlines still has 7 777-200ERs on order. Why? Why not convert these to 777-300ERs? Will they actually ever take these aircraft?
All you need to do is check their website. It's all there for you to read....They are taking delivery of the 777-200ERs and yes, they do have 8 777W's on order....
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6079 posts, RR: 56 Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3092 times:
Hi !
Quoting dfwexecplat (Reply 23): l you need to do is check their website. It's all there for you to read....They are taking delivery of the 777-200ERs and yes, they do have 8 777W's on order....
Thanks for the link. Boeing still only shows 6 77Ws for AA but perhaps AA is in procss of converting 772s to 77Ws for AA. Perhaps AA will finalize the order for the last two shortly ? So for the time being I'll stick with Boeing's number; 6.
Nice to see a US carrier getting the 77W, hopefully DL and UA will add them as well.
The777Man
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....GA, T5, CI and LX 777s
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21025 posts, RR: 60 Reply 25, posted (1 year 9 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 18): AA like many airlines has a habit of building clauses into their contracts for variance in subtype in a given order. There is likely a price point negotiated in the contract to convert the 772E to W. Given the difference in capabilities, I'd suspect they will convert those to W's when the contract deadline calls for a decision.
This explains better what I was trying to convey.
AA couldn't easily convert the 77Ws yet, but will be able to soon, for the delivery slots they have lined up. The new orders allowed them to jump the line on their own existing order, IIRC. The 77Ws on order are scheduled for delivery before the 77Es that haven't been converted.
Beancounters at AA must have determined that the most cost efficient way of ordering 15-20 77Ws was the way they are going about it based on delivery times, contractual pricing, etc.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, 
From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 2042 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
