PanAm_DC10 From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, RR: 93 Posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 15680 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW COMMUNITY MANAGER
Boeing updated their O&D spreadsheet for the 3rd quarter and in the details there is a conversion by AA of one of their 7 outstanding 777-200ER orders to another 777-300ER.
When they announced their NB orders from Airbus and Boeing, buried in the report they also mentioned that they had 8 77W on order an increase of 2 from the 6 we previously knew of;
American also has firm orders for eight Boeing 777-300ER widebody aircraft to be delivered in 2012-2013. American is the first U.S. airline to order the 777-300ER, which will offer many operational and customer benefits while serving as the flagship of American's modernized fleet.
Is this conversion one of those two mentioned or is it a new one that will take their total to 9? They now have 6 remaining 772ER on order and some members such as Ikramerica, among others, have stated they expect all the 772ER to be converted to 77Ws, are we likely to see further conversions?
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 1, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15577 times:
LAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15583 times:
I would say it makes sense to convert them all to 77W. AA already has a large fleet of 77Es, considering size and technology once AA decides they are bringing 77Ws on board it seems to make sense to stick with 77Ws and 787s for future widebody deliveries. There is a lot going on at AA so I assume the delay in the conversions is more of a decision with whether to convert or cancel versus convert or keep.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 3, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15455 times:
I would suspect it is going to depend on how many 77W's AA really needs. A 77E is still cheaper to own and operate than a 77W, and if you don't need the capacity and range of a 77W then a 77W is a waste of money. As we don't yet know the routes and frequencies that will use the 77W we don't know how many it makes sense for AA to acquire. It might make sense for an airline just diving into the 777 pool to buy only 77W's, but since AA already has a substantial number of 77E's (and will have them for some time to come) they are not in that position, and it seems to me sensible for them to continue buying them for the routes that do not require 77W's.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15309 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3): I would suspect it is going to depend on how many 77W's AA really needs. A 77E is still cheaper to own and operate than a 77W, and if you don't need the capacity and range of a 77W then a 77W is a waste of money.
If AA doesn't want that many 77Ws, I think they will convert the orders to 789s before taking delivery of any more 77Es. Between the 789 and the 359, the 77E is essentially done in the marketplace.
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
LAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1563 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15287 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3): I would suspect it is going to depend on how many 77W's AA really needs. A 77E is still cheaper to own and operate than a 77W, and if you don't need the capacity and range of a 77W then a 77W is a waste of money. As we don't yet know the routes and frequencies that will use the 77W we don't know how many it makes sense for AA to acquire. It might make sense for an airline just diving into the 777 pool to buy only 77W's, but since AA already has a substantial number of 77E's (and will have them for some time to come) they are not in that position, and it seems to me sensible for them to continue buying them for the routes that do not require 77W's.
I agree in principal with everything you are saying, but if the route analysis determines they don't need a 77W I would suggest the most prudent and economical alternative would be for AA to go with 787s instead of more 77Es. 77Es are old technology and as you point out AA already has a substantial number (certainly enough to cover the routes they operate that would be in the 77E's operational sweet spot, because AA only operates 2 types of widebodys today some of their 777s are not on routes because it is the best suited aircraft but because its the only option they have. In a fleet with 77Ws, 788s, and 789s their need for more 77Es would seem to me to be none)
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6258 posts, RR: 39 Reply 6, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15177 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4): If AA doesn't want that many 77Ws, I think they will convert the orders to 789s before taking delivery of any more 77Es.
Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 5): I agree in principal with everything you are saying, but if the route analysis determines they don't need a 77W I would suggest the most prudent and economical alternative would be for AA to go with 787s instead of more 77Es.
This is of course true, but only if they can get their 787's in a timely manner. If they need something before they are available then the best option is still the 77E.
The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
miaami From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 381 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15159 times:
Does anyone know the time line of 777 deliveries for 2012?
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 8, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15066 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3): I would suspect it is going to depend on how many 77W's AA really needs. A 77E is still cheaper to own and operate than a 77W, and if you don't need the capacity and range of a 77W then a 77W is a waste of money. As we don't yet know the routes and frequencies that will use the 77W we don't know how many it makes sense for AA to acquire. It might make sense for an airline just diving into the 777 pool to buy only 77W's, but since AA already has a substantial number of 77E's (and will have them for some time to come) they are not in that position, and it seems to me sensible for them to continue buying them for the routes that do not require 77W's.
AA is keen on more hub-to-hub than p2p, so the 77W is a good choice to increase capacity without jamming up slots. There's only so much the 77E can do, which afterall, is just a mid-sized WB.
say 5x JFK-LHR on 77E versus 4x on 77W - that extra valuable LHR slot could then be deployed to increasing ORD/DFW/MIA or even launch a new city
frigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1195 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 15043 times:
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter): Is this conversion one of those two mentioned or is it a new one that will take their total to 9?
Hmm, difficult to say. If AA is the one behind the single UFO 77W order of September 30, their total is probably still 8. If AA is one of the UFO's for 2x 77W in August, or if AA isn't any of the UFO's on Boeing's order sheet, it's probably 9.
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter): They now have 6 remaining 772ER on order and some members such as Ikramerica, among others, have stated they expect all the 772ER to be converted to 77Ws, are we likely to see further conversions?
I guess AA will decide what to do with it as soon as production of their remaining 77E's is about to start. If they see the need of another 77W, they'll convert it. If they can't see the need of anything that large, they'll keep it as 77E, or if available, perhaps convert to 789.
goldenstate From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 527 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 14647 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 8): AA is keen on more hub-to-hub than p2p, so the 77W is a good choice to increase capacity without jamming up slots. There's only so much the 77E can do, which afterall, is just a mid-sized WB.
I don't know if it's so much what they are "keen on" as the fact that they can't really sustain an extensive portfolio of secondary markets without having addressed their structural cost issues. Their ORD-Europe operation has more or less cratered, NYC-Europe is savagely competitive and will become more so as DL executes on product/network/facility upgrades.
Same story in Asia, where LAX-PVG is a good long term network addition, but UA immediately reciprocates and in the short term they find themselves facing two competitors that both have lower costs.
There is still plenty of upside that they could unlock within the existing 777 and 763 fleets. Premium cabin redesigns and revised seat counts would be a good start. I'd rather see them utilize existing assets more efficiently before they further leverage the balance sheet to acquire new ones.
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 8): say 5x JFK-LHR on 77E versus 4x on 77W - that extra valuable LHR slot could then be deployed to increasing ORD/DFW/MIA or even launch a new city
That would represent a change from their stated strategy to overwhelm competitors by offering a high frequency shuttle-type schedule alongside BA.
ikramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 11, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 13293 times:
Quoting frigatebird (Reply 9): I guess AA will decide what to do with it as soon as production of their remaining 77E's is about to start. If they see the need of another 77W, they'll convert it. If they can't see the need of anything that large, they'll keep it as 77E, or if available, perhaps convert to 789.
AA will not keep any 77E orders. They need to replace 763s so if they decide not to continue taking 77Ws, they will take 787s.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 12, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 12080 times:
Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3): I would suspect it is going to depend on how many 77W's AA really needs. A 77E is still cheaper to own and operate than a 77W, and if you don't need the capacity and range of a 77W then a 77W is a waste of money. As we don't yet know the routes and frequencies that will use the 77W we don't know how many it makes sense for AA to acquire. It might make sense for an airline just diving into the 777 pool to buy only 77W's, but since AA already has a substantial number of 77E's (and will have them for some time to come) they are not in that position, and it seems to me sensible for them to continue buying them for the routes that do not require 77W's.
AA operates many routes where they have multiple 777 daily, the 77W is a way to expand seating without another daily frequency. EZE & GRU are such destinations, AA does sell their F & J seats on these flights making these two cities amongst AA most profitable. The 77W with AA's new BA inspired F and J class is just what product development AA needs. The 64,000 dollar question is will AA launch a new route with these capable planes, could Miami to Cape Town and J'berg be far away ? BA does very well down there and have their own local airline too, so AA would have feed in South Africa too. Wherever AA flies the 77W's only good things will follow.
gdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 9658 times:
Do we have a delivery schedule for the 777-300s for AA?
bonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 398 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9278 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 12): Miami to Cape Town and J'berg be far away ? BA does very well down there and have their own local airline too, so AA would have feed in South Africa too. Wherever AA flies the 77W's only good things will follow.
How about JFK-Cape town. Right now it's just SAA, right?
I definitely agree about the 77W. Brand new flagship aircraft with interiors that can actually compete with the likes of LH, EK, and CX (or at least get closer). AA has been trying to rebrand itself as the ideal airline for premium travelers, and hopefully this will be part of it.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 15, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 9250 times:
Quoting bonusonus (Reply 14): I definitely agree about the 77W. Brand new flagship aircraft with interiors that can actually compete with the likes of LH, EK, and CX (or at least get closer). AA has been trying to rebrand itself as the ideal airline for premium travelers, and hopefully this will be part of it.
Whatever F and J comes on the 77W will go to teh rest of the 777 and coming 787-9 too.
ATLflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 707 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7665 times:
crAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 572 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 7518 times:
This will be their 9th.
Although they've tended to add a few after each quarter over the last year. It will be interesting to see if this the only one for this quarter or if they'll announce anything more when they release their earnings later this month.
SunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3953 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 6447 times:
Quoting bonusonus (Reply 14): How about JFK-Cape town. Right now it's just SAA, right?
SAA flies JFK-JNB. JFK- CPT would have some advantages , at sea level , about 150nm shorter distance, lower temperatures than JNB but only a 10500ft runway. This could reduce MTOW some days but perhaps not for evening departures. The load/range tables suggest they could have as high as a 40t payload.
So far as I can see there is no direct service to CPT from Europe except service from LHR. So not sure how important a destination it is.
LipeGIG From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, RR: 61 Reply 19, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 5757 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 12): AA operates many routes where they have multiple 777 daily, the 77W is a way to expand seating without another daily frequency. EZE & GRU are such destinations, AA does sell their F & J seats on these flights making these two cities amongst AA most profitable. The 77W with AA's new BA inspired F and J class is just what product development AA needs. The 64,000 dollar question is will AA launch a new route with these capable planes, could Miami to Cape Town and J'berg be far away ? BA does very well down there and have their own local airline too, so AA would have feed in South Africa too. Wherever AA flies the 77W's only good things will follow.
The 77W is one of the few chances AA have to reduce their costs and to be more competitive.
In my view it must be used to keep revenue moving down the costs. 12 to 14 B77W can be used for that reason (3 on JFK-LHR, 4 on MIA-GRU, 3 on ORD-LHR, 2 on DFW-LHR, 1 on MIA-LHR) allowing 14 to 18 B772 to replace non competitive B763 on select routes. The B763 can then replace the B762.
Just imagine how 2 B772 + 1 B763 on MIA-GRU could become even more profitable as 2 B77W. Then imagine if AA can or not become more competitive on a route such as JFK-CDG using the 772. Furhter, think about 20%+ cost saving with the 763 flying LAX-JFK.
New York + Rio de Janeiro = One of the best combinations !
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6083 posts, RR: 56 Reply 20, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 3979 times:
Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Thread starter): Is this conversion one of those two mentioned or is it a new one that will take their total to 9? They now have 6 remaining 772ER on order and some members such as Ikramerica, among others, have stated they expect all the 772ER to be converted to 77Ws, are we likely to see further conversions?
Thanks for the information on the conversion!
Boeing/s Order and Deliveries website shows AA have 7 777-300?ER with this conversion. Are they leasing two or are they listed as unidentified order ?
Thanks !
The777Man
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....GA, T5, CI and LX 777s
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 21, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3223 times:
Quoting The777Man (Reply 20): Is this conversion one of those two mentioned or is it a new one that will take their total to 9? They now have 6 remaining 772ER on order and some members such as Ikramerica, among others, have stated they expect all the 772ER to be converted to 77Ws, are we likely to see further conversions?
With today's available planes the 77E is not competitive as a new plane. The case for the 77W is very compelling. This plane lets AA fly to Asia nonstop from ORD & DFW west of Shanghai. Any airline wanting a 77E today is buying 787-9's.
JerseyFlyer From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2918 times:
Quoting seabosdca (Reply 4): If AA doesn't want that many 77Ws, I think they will convert the orders to 789s before taking delivery of any more 77Es. Between the 789 and the 359, the 77E is essentially done in the marketplace.
This could be good for RR as AA will owe RR for cancellation of the 77E engine order, and that could be exchanged for RR on 787s
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7347 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2784 times:
Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 22): This could be good for RR as AA will owe RR for cancellation of the 77E engine order, and that could be exchanged for RR on 787s
yeogeo From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 790 posts, RR: 14 Reply 24, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 2704 times:
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 18): So far as I can see there is no direct service to CPT from Europe except service from LHR. So not sure how important a destination it is.
Actually from Europe there are nonstops (mostly seasonal) from LHR (SA, BA and VS), AMS, CDG and FRA. World's Longest Flights, 3rd Edition (by yeogeo Jun 20 2011 in Aviation Polls)
yeo
La pierre qui roule n'amasse pas mousse
25 panam330: A quick wikipedia search shows year-round KL to AMS, Edelweiss to ZRH starting later this month, and seasonal LH to FRA, in addition to the LHR servi
26 ATLflyer: Why does the Boeing O&D page say American only has 6 777 on order when AA's press release says 8??
Sponsor Message: 
From Australia, joined Aug 2000, 3987 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4277 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1195 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 3953 posts, 
From Brazil, joined May 2005, 11201 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2007, 458 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
