washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13400 times:
Transaero is set to begin 773 service on DME-JFK on February 27, initially on 1 of 2 weekly frequencies but on both frequenices a few weeks later. As far as I know, this is the first time a 773 has operated at JFK. Of course JFK has had many 77Ws since Air France began service in 2004, but I believe this is the first original 773.
I believe LAX or some other West Coast cities had 773 service in the last decade. Is this correct? What airlines/routes? Either way, exciting to see "old" 773s at JFK soon!
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8739 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13277 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter): I believe LAX or some other West Coast cities had 773 service in the last decade. Is this correct?
I don't think any airline that ordered the 777-300 is within range of any US airport until Transaero picked up some used frames. All the 777-300 operators were based in Asia. While having transatlantic legs, it didn't have transpacific legs except for the shortest of routes. I don't think it ever operated to LAX.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
dfwrevolution From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13161 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4): I don't think any airline that ordered the 777-300 is within range of any US airport until Transaero picked up some used frames. All the 777-300 operators were based in Asia. While having transatlantic legs, it didn't have transpacific legs except for the shortest of routes. I don't think it ever operated to LAX.
United_fan From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 7158 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13157 times:
I didnt think a 777-300A could make Moscow to JFK. Guess I was wrong.
'Empathy was yesterday...Today, you're wasting my Mother-F'ing time' - Heat.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10663 posts, RR: 100 Reply 10, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13009 times:
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2373 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12860 times:
Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 7): Any visual clues to differentiate for a casual spotter?
The lack of the enormous engines of the B777-300ER, it's odd that the B777-300 looks "wrong"as the engines appear to be too small as we're so used to the more common B77W.
PC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2236 posts, RR: 5 Reply 12, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12594 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 11): The lack of the enormous engines of the B777-300ER, it's odd that the B777-300 looks "wrong" as the engines appear to be too small as we're so used to the more common B77W.
I was about to say the same thing. It does look a bit odd. Nice, but odd.
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10546 times:
What is so exciting about a 777-300A coming to JFK ? Tons of 777 come to JFK daily, unless a person REALLY knows the difference its no big deal.
GT4EZY From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2007, 1724 posts, RR: 4 Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10393 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 14): What is so exciting about a 777-300A coming to JFK ? Tons of 777 come to JFK daily, unless a person REALLY knows the difference its no big deal.
I was thinking that myself. Aesthetically, the 773 and 77W are very much the same aircraft give or take one or two differences.
Eagleboy From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9358 times:
Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 8): Wingtips and GE90s. No 773As were selected with the GE90, and it is the exclusive engine of the 77W.
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 11): The lack of the enormous engines of the B777-300ER, it's odd that the B777-300 looks "wrong"as the engines appear to be too small as we're so used to the more common B77W.
Thanks for that. I look at the aircraft fuselage, never really pay attention to engines so I wouldn't have spotted a -300 from a -300ER!
je89_w From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 2327 posts, RR: 10 Reply 17, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9135 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 4): I don't think any airline that ordered the 777-300 is within range of any US airport
Korean Air had scheduled B773 service to HNL a few years ago. Since then, they've just about used every widebody in their fleet to HNL except for the A300, B77W, and A380.
Quoting Eagleboy (Reply 7): Any visual clues to differentiate for a casual spotter?
As mentioned earlier, no B773As were equipped with GE90s, so if you happened to see a B773 taking off without the roar of the GE90s, you're seeing (hearing) a B773A.
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 2): Other than Asian carriers and EK, the 773A is a rare sight.
Yup. Funny that all my flights on the B773 were on the non-ER models. Hope to get on a B77W soon, but I'm no rush!
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2373 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 9095 times:
Quoting jfk777 (Reply 14): What is so exciting about a 777-300A coming to JFK ? Tons of 777 come to JFK daily, unless a person REALLY knows the difference its no big deal.
Try asking the same question everytime BA send one of their B77Ws somewhere new, the locals go into meltdown over a B777 that's a wee bit longer than the usual. The B777-300 is relatively rare, indeed the only ones we only get one a day at LHR and probably not for much longer. Of course some of us do know the difference, just saying...
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 8794 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 18): Try asking the same question everytime BA send one of their B77Ws somewhere new, the locals go into meltdown over a B777 that's a wee bit longer than the usual.
Aficionados go photograph BA 77W because they are rare and have seen hundreds of BA 777-200ER by now. The 77W could be in huge nimbers in BA's fleet for 20 years or it could in small numbers for 5 years until A359 come.
PC12Fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2236 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 8560 times:
That raises a curious question for me though. On the "shorter" legs, which would be more efficient? The 300 or 300ER?
Just when I think you've said the stupidest thing ever, you keep talkin'!
747400sp From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3301 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 5923 times:
I thinking the same thing, you just beat me to it.
25 AirGabon: Yes, this is an event as 773 has never been operated on any transatlantic route and 773 has never been operated by any European airline. So yes, this
26 thenoflyzone: Depends, the 773A's operating empty weight is 16,200 lbs less than the 77W. That being said, the 77W can haul an extra 30,000lbs the 773A cannot (MLW
27 SEPilot: I'm actually a bit surprised that the 77W has been such a runaway hit while the 773 only had moderate success. How many 77W's fly only missions that c
28 thenoflyzone: i'd say over 90%. Yes, 6,000nm range is very respectable, considering only a handful of ULH flights in the world are longer than that. Most likely. O
29 SEPilot: How much of that is additional payload and how much is structure?
30 bmacleod: Just to clarify, the 777-300 has smaller fuel tanks or a worse fuel-burn ratio than the newer 77W?
31 thenoflyzone: I guess half is structure. 16,200lbs, based on OEW comparison. The 773ER can carry 2,600 US gallons more fuel than its older brother. Thenoflyzone
32 PlymSpotter: Hasn't EK substituted a 77W with them on the DXB-HAM-JFK route before? I seem to recall being told that did happen once or twice. Dan
33 SEPilot: Unless engine or aerodynamic efficiency is significantly increased, logic says that the 773 should have better economics than the 77W for missions wi
34 theobcman: Just out of interest what is the only one a day 773 we get at LHR - I'm not aware.
36 contrails15: So what 777 was Transaero using before to JFK? They go off and on with their 747 and 777.
37 thrufru: I flew on a 773 of Qatar Airways into JFK several years ago.
38 seabosdca: Their 772ER. They are just now getting the 773As, which are ex-SQ. WingedMigrator's old charts indicated that the 77L, despite its extra weight, star
40 PlymSpotter: A 777-300ER yes, but not a 777-300 standard. Dan
41 jfk777: Why celebrate the arrival at JFK of a 777-300(non ER). The 77W is the standard longer 777. I am going to be post #41 of this topic. We have better th
42 aerorobnz: It's older and rarer - and likely to be retired sooner. For a plane spotter, photographer and airframe collector it is worth celebrating. When you ar
43 PlymSpotter: I don't, personally. Everyone has their hobbies, some like the detail more than others. Nothing wrong with that. Dan
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 740 posts, 
From Niue, joined Dec 2009, 1616 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2011, 8 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2011, 247 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
