Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AI 777s To Go All Economy After Sale Fails!  
User currently offlinegauravpai From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5968 times:

Hi all,

AirIndia was trying to sell 5 of their 777 aircraft and as they failed to receive bids for them have now changed apparent strategy

Their J cabins are being totally removed and a high density all economy 777 is planned, they will be used exclusively on high traffic Gulf routes.

Interesting way of getting profits up!

Also leads to another question, are there any other 777 mainline carriers in an all economy layout?

Cheers

Dr Gaurav Pai

Source. NDTV India

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinegauravpai From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6002 times:

Here's the official article from Ndtv , was trying to find it earlier

http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/ai...me-boeing-777-planes-source-293116

Cheers


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6003 times:

Seems the 77L faces the same fate as the A345. Pretty, but uneconomical, they are very hard to sell these days.Its at least two years now AI is trying to offload these planes, first for lease, than for sale.
So now they end up on the guest worker shuttle to the Emirates, plus the Hadj I would add. Will that work or will they just be run-down faster that way?


User currently offlinegauravpai From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5992 times:

Quoting na (Reply 2):

Yeah agree with the first line.

It should work given that the gulf flights are almost always packed to the rafters,hell on a certain flight to dxb even the jumps seat was used by a pax   

Let's hope this works for them at least ,
How dense would an all economy 777 be in terms of pax numbers?

Cheers


User currently offlinefrigatebird From Netherlands, joined Jun 2008, 1712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting na (Reply 2):

Well, if things go according to plan (ULH which was a hype 10 years ago, but proved to be less popular as expected), find an alternative. So, if costs are higher than other aircraft, use it on routes that yield more. SQ used it as an all J luxury long distance bus, EK used it on destinations people were prepared to pay a premium anyway, like Zurich or SEZ. Which pleases me mightily, I will go to SEZ in February, which means both EK's A380 and A345!   

Quoting gauravpai (Reply 3):
How dense would an all economy 777 be in terms of pax numbers?

I believe it is certified for a maximum of 440 passengers...   



146,318/19/20/21,AB6,332,343,345,388,722,732/3/4/5/G/8,9,742,74E,744,752,762,763,772,77E,773,77W,AT4/7,ATP,CRK,E90,F50/7
User currently offlinegdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5983 times:

Quoting gauravpai (Thread starter):
AirIndia was trying to sell 5 of their 777 aircraft and as they failed to receive bids for them

EK had no interest?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5999 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Seems the 77L faces the same fate as the A345. Pretty, but uneconomical, they are very hard to sell these days.

The 777-200LR is economical.

The reasons AI could not find a buyer is because their configuration is wrong for anyone but EK, so any potential customer would have to rip the entire cabin out and reconfigure it, which would be quite expensive. Add to that Air India wanting above market value pricing and they were not going to find any interested buyers.

Air India never should have had a First Class cabin and Business Class should have been 14 or 21 seats and then everything aft of Door 2 should have been Economy (probably at 10-abreast).


User currently offlineJOYA380B747 From India, joined Mar 2005, 557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5986 times:

It doesn't have to be intl for these refitted 77Ls, they can always, I mean ALWAYS fly these on top domestic routes like DEL-BOM, DEL-MAA, etc.


If it wasn't for AI and those money mongers sitting in the parliament, 9W would have been as big as SQ...:(
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5995 times:

Quoting gauravpai (Thread starter):
Their J cabins are being totally removed and a high density all economy 777 is planned, they will be used exclusively on high traffic Gulf routes.

440 pax 3-4-3 all Y on a 77L for 3 hour flights to Dubai ? What a waste of the airframe. They could do the same with a 777-200A.


User currently offlineTupolev160 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5987 times:

I've flown one of those and remember the economy class seats being harder than in some buses + 10 abreast, not a pleasant experience under any circumstances, despite the plane being only 40% full (DEL-HKG). Catering was awful.

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2679 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5993 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Seems the 77L faces the same fate as the A345. Pretty, but uneconomical

  

The 777-200LR is not uneconomical. The reason that they've been hard to move isn't because of the aircraft itself. Everybody that wants a 777-200LR already has one. Besides, them being ex-AI aircraft might be another factor.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The 777-200LR is economical.

The reasons AI could not find a buyer is because their configuration is wrong for anyone but EK, so any potential customer would have to rip the entire cabin out and reconfigure it, which would be quite expensive. Add to that Air India wanting above market value pricing and they were not going to find any interested buyers.

Didn't know that AI were wanting above market price for them, but that'd be another reason why they're finding them impossible to sell.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5983 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
The 777-200LR is not uneconomical.

AI surely says otherwise. And for anything other than the increasingly limited niche it was built for its an uneconomical plane for sure.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
The reason that they've been hard to move isn't because of the aircraft itself. Everybody that wants a 777-200LR already has one.

Like the A345, as I said.


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2553 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5984 times:

Quoting na (Reply 11):

AI surely says otherwise. And for anything other than the increasingly limited niche it was built for its an uneconomical plane for sure.

Its is economical, AI just dont know how to use them properly... I mean, who else complains about their 77Ls being uneconomical?

Quoting na (Reply 11):
Like the A345, as I said.

Well the 77L has sold more than the A345, plus its the platform used on the 777F which has a good amount of orders (127 currently according to the boeing website), which in my opinion, is pretty good for an "uneconomical aircraft".



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5983 times:

Quoting na (Reply 11):
AI surely says otherwise. And for anything other than the increasingly limited niche it was built for its an uneconomical plane for sure.

Well maintenance record might have been an issue but anybody with GE powered 777s, especially anybody with 77W's shouldn't have had any issues with them. Delta for example does well out of Sydney with the type not because the extra range is needed but because it enables more cargo to be uploaded and i believe it is the same in shanghai.

United could use this bird well out of EWR to Asia. Obviously EK could have. Turkish might have found a fit for it. I don't think Air France or KLM have any routes that require the range but if the price was right it would fit straight in. But that is probably your real problem. If the price is right. The type's real advantage today now that ULH flights aren't economic, is the ability to uplift huge amounts of freight and not be weight restricted. This is why it works for Delta. Often this freight can be largely in one direction making dedicated freight aircraft uneconomical. Or, as in the case of LAX-SYD the aircraft is at the range envelope (think 744) so cargo is getting left behind for fuel to be uploaded. The problem is for flights up to about 12 or 13 hrs the 772ER can do the same thing just fine. It's just those few 14 hr type flights that are the issue, and not too many carriers have those.

They need to just cut their losses.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2679 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5978 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 12):
Its is economical, AI just dont know how to use them properly... I mean, who else complains about their 77Ls being uneconomical?

     

A bad tradesman blames his tools. AI didn't know how to make money using the 777-200LR, so they blamed the aircraft. Perhaps they should never have ordered them in the first place.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting gauravpai (Thread starter):
Also leads to another question, are there any other 777 mainline carriers in an all economy layout?

In 2005, I flew on an ANA 773 in all economy between Naha and Tokyo! LOTS of seats!

135Mech


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5976 times:

Quoting 135mech (Reply 15):
In 2005, I flew on an ANA 773 in all economy between Naha and Tokyo! LOTS of seats!

yes but that is the lowest gross weight version and it was selected exactly for that reason, capacity. In the AI case, they should have got the 77A if this was the game they wanted to play. Or better still the 333. lets be honest. AI is a bit of a basket case.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5981 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 11):
AI surely says otherwise.

The 777-200LR was uneconomical for AI, but that was because AI configured them improperly with a significant premium cabin and failed to generate the proper return from that configuration by giving away most of the premium seats.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5982 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 14):
A bad tradesman blames his tools. AI didn't know how to make money using the 777-200LR, so they blamed the aircraft.

I fully agree with you there.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 14):
Perhaps they should never have ordered them in the first place.

Absolutely. The 772ER or A330-300E would have surely worked better for them.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 12):
Well the 77L has sold more than the A345, plus its the platform used on the 777F which has a good amount of orders (127 currently according to the boeing website), which in my opinion, is pretty good for an "uneconomical aircraft".

Its totally wrong to include the freighter in this discussion.

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 12):
Its is economical, AI just dont know how to use them properly

I didnt say anything else, so no reason for a reply insinuating something what I didnt say. I dont deny the 77L (like the A345 on its slightly shorter and even smaller niche) is fine on the routes it was built for. See my post above. But if those routes are slashed, its an uneconomical plane. Not only for AI.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 8):
440 pax 3-4-3 all Y on a 77L for 3 hour flights to Dubai ? What a waste of the airframe. They could do the same with a 777-200A.

Yes, and 3-4-3 on a 777, how uncomfortable even compared to an old SV or PIA 743 flying similar routes.


User currently offline135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 412 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 16):
Quoting 135mech (Reply 15):
In 2005, I flew on an ANA 773 in all economy between Naha and Tokyo! LOTS of seats!


yes but that is the lowest gross weight version and it was selected exactly for that reason, capacity. In the AI case, they should have got the 77A if this was the game they wanted to play. Or better still the 333. lets be honest. AI is a bit of a basket case.

Yes, but I was simply responding to that part of the original post. ANA and JAL both loved their large domestic configurations for a very long time, hence the 744D's for both companies. LOVED seeing 744's and 772's and 773's repeatedly flying in and out of Naha!

I completely agree about AI, they love the "point fingers and blame everyone else" and whine that they can't get what they wanted.

135Mech


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5982 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 18):
Absolutely. The 772ER or A330-300E would have surely worked better for them.

A 777-200ER with the same configuration as the 777-200LR would have worked out even worse. The 777-200LR's aerodynamic and engine tweaks make it more efficient at missions beyond 2000nm than the 777-200ER.

As for the A330-300, it would likely have been a nightmare in the Air India configuration. The 8 First Class and 35 Business Class seats would have taken up a significant portion of the cabin and with the bulk of those seats being given away and not sold, the significantly smaller Economy Class cabin probably could not have hoped to generate the income necessary to cover the trip costs.

Plus, depending on the mission, the A330-300 might not have had the range to even operate it.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2679 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5984 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 13):
The type's real advantage today now that ULH flights aren't economic, is the ability to uplift huge amounts of freight and not be weight restricted.

  

The 777-200LR is much, much more than a one trick pony.

Quoting na (Reply 18):
I didnt say anything else, so no reason for a reply insinuating something what I didnt say.

Yes, you did. You said,

Quoting na (Reply 11):
its an uneconomical plane for sure.

and that is what I take issue with, as it's clearly not. The only problem with AI's 777-200LRs is that AI doesn't know how to use them properly to maximise its advantage. The fact that they're now planning to use a high density configuration to use on short/medium haul routes is further evidence of their mismanagement. Unless they intend to stuff the belly full of cargo, using the 777-200LR on short missions is a staggering decision.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 5981 times:

Quoting na (Reply 11):
AI surely says otherwise. And for anything other than the increasingly limited niche it was built for its an uneconomical plane for sure.
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 16):
In the AI case, they should have got the 77A if this was the game they wanted to play.

It wasn't all that long ago that AI was complaining about 77A's being "gas guzzlers."

Is The 777-200 A "Gas Guzzler"? Air India Thinks So. (by globalflyer777 Aug 21 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 14):

A bad tradesman blames his tools.

  



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5978 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MountainFlyer (Reply 22):
It wasn't all that long ago that AI was complaining about 77A's being "gas guzzlers."

No, they were complaining the 777-200LR were "gas guzzlers". And they do indeed drink deep.

Which is why you need to configure them properly...


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2553 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5977 times:

Quoting na (Reply 18):

Its totally wrong to include the freighter in this discussion.

Fine, not that its much different other than the obvious...

Quoting na (Reply 18):
But if those routes are slashed, its an uneconomical plane. Not only for AI.

Well, how many of those routes were "slashed" because of the 77L by other airlines? As far as I know AI is the only airline who's complaining about the 77L.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 21):
The only problem with AI's 777-200LRs is that AI doesn't know how to use them properly to maximise its advantage. The fact that they're now planning to use a high density configuration to use on short/medium haul routes is further evidence of their mismanagement.

     



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10805 posts, RR: 9
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6686 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 21):
Yes, you did. You said,

Quoting na (Reply 11):
its an uneconomical plane for sure.

Please stop insinuating and quoting only half of what I said.

I said:

Quoting na (Reply 11):
And for anything other than the increasingly limited niche it was built for its an uneconomical plane for sure.


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 6884 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

How many 777-200LR airframes are actually flying 14,000km or greater stage lengths - which is the "niche" it was built for.

If the answer is less than "all of them", then that's a pretty good sign that it's not an "uneconomical plane for sure" when flown on shorter stage lengths.


User currently offlinegdg9 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 665 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 7024 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 14):
A bad tradesman blames his tools

Too right!


User currently offlineMountainFlyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 477 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7043 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
No, they were complaining the 777-200LR were "gas guzzlers". And they do indeed drink deep.

Which is why you need to configure them properly...

My bad! Thanks for pointing that out. For some reason I saw "777-200" before and thought it was referring to the 77A.



SA-227; B1900; Q200; Q400; CRJ-2,7,9; 717; 727-2; 737-3,4,5,7,8,9; 747-2; 757-2,3; 767-3,4; MD-90; A319, 320; DC-9; DC-1
User currently offlineRWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3431 posts, RR: 5
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7021 times:

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 12):
I mean, who else complains about their 77Ls being uneconomical?
Quoting CXB77L (Reply 14):
A bad tradesman blames his tools. AI didn't know how to make money using the 777-200LR, so they blamed the aircraft.
Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 24):
As far as I know AI is the only airline who's complaining about the 77L.

The only market AI has cornered, is the whine market. AI has had a myriad of complaints about their aircraft, the threads are littered throughout A.net. Did AI forget to factor in take off conditions at BOM or DEL? Why is it that AI has had so many more issues than other carriers receiving the same aircraft types? I guess that is the $100,000 question.



AA AC AQ AS BD BN CO CS DL EA EZ HA HP KL KN MP MW NK NW OO OZ PA PS QX RC RH RW SA TG TW UA US VS WA WC WN
User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7066 times:

Talking of Air India's woes about the 77L, how is neighboring PIA fairing with its 77Ls ? How are they being utilized and do they have similar complaints with regard to it being uneconomical?

Also, currently Air India uses a 77W for the nonstops to New York. Are they weight restricted at all? If so, could using the 77L without weight restrictions help revenue? Especially if more cargo can be carried.

And if the airline is going to use them now in a high density configuration on Gulf routes, could they de-rate the engines since the full power is unlikely required on these routes? Would that help with costs?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 7156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AT (Reply 30):
Talking of Air India's woes about the 77L, how is neighboring PIA fairing with its 77Ls ? How are they being utilized and do they have similar complaints with regard to it being uneconomical?

I don't recall any complaints.

PK's 777-200LRs are configured with 35 Business Class (same as AI) and 215 Economy (20 more than AI). They also have a 60-seat Premium Economy cabin. So overall, PA's 77Ls seat 72 more than AI.

I don't know what premium cabin loads out of Pakistan are in comparison to India, but I'd be willing to guess that those extra 70 (Premium) Economy seats don't hurt the operating economics.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4389 posts, RR: 2
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6927 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):

Quoting na (Reply 11):
AI surely says otherwise.

The 777-200LR was uneconomical for AI, but that was because AI configured them improperly with a significant premium cabin and failed to generate the proper return from that configuration by giving away most of the premium seats.

AI is not the best in terms of management and that is the root problem at AI.

Quoting na (Reply 18):
Absolutely. The 772ER or A330-300E would have surely worked better for them

How would the 772ER be any better economically speaking than having the 77L. Does the 772 have better fuel burn than the 77L on the routes that AI uses them on?

Quoting na (Reply 18):
Yes, and 3-4-3 on a 777, how uncomfortable even compared to an old SV or PIA 743 flying similar routes.

The seats are not any more uncomfortable than the DC-10's seating arrangement. The extra seat in the row take up aisle space more than the narrowing of the seats themselves.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineRonaldo747 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 6964 times:

Don't want to be rude, but I think nobody want these 77L because they are AI frames. Their financial problems and other issues may raise doubts about the shape of the aircraft. The 77L is an economical aircraft, but as other said you have to use them properly.

User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6942 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Ronaldo747 (Reply 33):
Don't want to be rude, but I think nobody want these 77L because they are AI frames. Their financial problems and other issues may raise doubts about the shape of the aircraft.

I'm pretty sure our members with ties / contacts with the Indian Aviation Industry have stated that the maintenance records for the planes are complete and up-to-date.


User currently offlineAT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1050 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6895 times:

Since we are discussing the quality of AI's maintenance and whether that would be a factor contributing to the lack of interest in the 77Ls, what sort of maintenance problems/areas would a potential buyer be concerned about, especially given that the LRs are pretty new and haven't needed to go through major cycles of maintenance thus far. Or is it mostly about the reliability / accuracy of the records.

How old are Air India's 777-200LRs anyway?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6914 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AT (Reply 35):
How old are Air India's 777-200LRs anyway?

Delivered between 2007 and 2009 (though the 2007 birds sat at PAE for many, many months prior to actually being delivered).


User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3425 posts, RR: 4
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6947 times:

Quoting na (Reply 18):
Absolutely. The 772ER or A330-300E would have surely worked better for them.

No. The 772LR is far superior to the 772ER in operating economics. It povides a massive increase in potential payload over almost any route you would use a 777 on to begin with.

The 772LR hasn't sold well for 3 reasons.

1. Boeing charging premium rates for 777 frames. Boeing has been milking the 777 line for very high margin sales. Contrast this to the 747 which for much of its life had the lowest margins of anything Boeing sold.

2. Loss of commonality with the 777-300 and 777-200ER. I don't know everything that changed, but the big jump in MTOW, new engines, and landing gear are the obvious ones that hide all the less obvious work in making a new generation plane out of the 777. So for an airline currently operating only 772ER, The 772LR not only costs millions more, but has its own type as far as parts and servicing are concerned. Which makes operating a just few more frames non-economical

3. The 777-300ER is simply better. For the same money you get a plane with the same operating economics cost side, but much higher revenue potential. Can haul more passengers and cargo. So if you buy a billion dollars of 777, you will make more profits with the 773ER than the 772LR. The LR only makes sense for a 773ER operator who has routes that are at the limit or beyond of the 773ER's range/payload chart. I guess you can make a very slight case for them when takeoff performance also is limiting the 773ERs performance.

I believe we will see #3 taking over airline fleet planning for future types, where a simple stretch larger capacity version of a plane steals 80%+ of the sales over its lifetime. I can't imagine the A358 taking even 20% of the sales out of the A358/A359 pair. I suspect if they make a A359ER out of the A351 it would also fail to take more than 20% of that pair. While the 788 and 789 goes beyond a simple stretch, I think the 788 will wither on the performance of the 789. The one plane that might make me a liar is the 781 with its range limitation, but hell there is an impressive number of A330 out there that Airbus sold that are "suffering" from that same range limitation.


User currently offlineElPistolero From Canada, joined Feb 2012, 1023 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 6911 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 10):
sides, them being ex-AI aircraft might be another factor.
Quoting AT (Reply 35):
Since we are discussing the quality of AI's maintenance and whether that would be a factor contributing to the lack of interest in the 77Ls, what sort of maintenance problems/areas would a potential buyer be concerned about, especially given that the LRs are pretty new and haven't needed to go through major cycles of maintenance thus far. Or is it mostly about the reliability / accuracy of the records.

For some reason, AI = bad maintenance for a certain set of posters here (largely from a small section of Commonwealth countries - ironically, not including the UK - probably still stuck with an image of 1940s India). No idea why, since AI flies to the US and EU and meets all existing norms. AFAIK, they haven't had any problems of late - certainly no suspended safety licenses on account of poor maintenance.

I doubt it has anything to do with the material state of the aircraft. Probably got a lot more to do with the amount airlines are willing to pay to what they percieve to be a desparate buyer, combined with Government of India requirements/baliout package conditions that limit the ability of AI to sell these birds for anything other than a substantial amount of money.

Not that it'll end the mindless claims 


User currently offlineJOYA380B747 From India, joined Mar 2005, 557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6851 times:

How could AI ever make money out of the 77Ls when they'd have Govt officials and the like having free seats on the premium cabins all the time. I'm surprised AI never tried selling off some of the 77Ws.

AI should just be done with this all economy, stop whining anymore, and save all our souls.   



If it wasn't for AI and those money mongers sitting in the parliament, 9W would have been as big as SQ...:(
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31702 posts, RR: 56
Reply 40, posted (2 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6575 times:

Quoting gauravpai (Reply 3):
t should work given that the gulf flights are almost always packed to the rafters,hell on a certain flight to dxb even the jumps seat was used by a pax

Ideal time to start Air Kerala.....



Think of the brighter side!
User currently onlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12802 posts, RR: 46
Reply 41, posted (2 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6513 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 12):
Well the 77L has sold more than the A345

That's hardly a ringing endorsement with a combined sales total of less than 90! Both are very much niche planes.



Time flies like an arrow, but fruit flies like a banana! #44cHAMpion
User currently offline777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12282 posts, RR: 18
Reply 42, posted (2 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6496 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
FORUM MODERATOR

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The reasons AI could not find a buyer is because their configuration is wrong for anyone but EK,

Normally another buyer will rip out the interior and install their own interior if its different anyway so thats not really an issue for a buyer.

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Seems the 77L faces the same fate as the A345. Pretty, but uneconomical

Its been said in the New Zealand Aviation Threads that the B772LR would be more better suited to NZs North American routes then the 200ER with the same config in the 200LR as in the 200ER


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 43, posted (2 years 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 6501 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scbriml (Reply 41):
That's hardly a ringing endorsement with a combined sales total of less than 90! Both are very much niche planes.

The 777-200LR's low sales are, IMO, due more to the fact that by the time it entered service, mostly everyone who wanted a long-haul 300-seat twin already had a 777-200ER. Almost all of the 777-200LR's operators were new 777 family customers and I expect they purchased the model because of it's greater efficiency on missions between 10,000 and 14,000km as opposed to it's ability to perform missions greater than 14,000km.


Quoting 777ER (Reply 42):
Normally another buyer will rip out the interior and install their own interior if its different anyway so thats not really an issue for a buyer.

The cost to replace that interior can very much be an issue to the buyer - especially at the price AI was demanding for the airframe.


User currently offlineJOYA380B747 From India, joined Mar 2005, 557 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (2 years 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6424 times:

Quoting 777ER (Reply 42):
Normally another buyer will rip out the interior and install their own interior if its different anyway so thats not really an issue for a buyer.

Not every airline is well-endowed to pay to replace the entire interior. I remember Arik Air using KF 345s with unchanged interiors.



If it wasn't for AI and those money mongers sitting in the parliament, 9W would have been as big as SQ...:(
User currently offlinebtblue From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2004, 578 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (2 years 6 days ago) and read 6393 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If AI are saying the aircraft are not profitable why on earth did they buy them in the first place?


146/2/3 737/2/3/4/5/7/8/9 A320 1/2/18/19/21 DC9/40/50 DC10/30 A300/6 A330/2/3 A340/3/6 A380 757/2/3 747/4 767/3/4 787 77
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 46, posted (2 years 6 days ago) and read 6411 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting btblue (Reply 45):
If AI are saying the aircraft are not profitable why on earth did they buy them in the first place?

It has been said because Indian government bureaucrats and officials could indirectly make money off the deal.

[Edited 2012-11-20 09:51:11]

User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20241 posts, RR: 59
Reply 47, posted (2 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 6397 times:

Quoting gauravpai (Thread starter):
Interesting way of getting profits up!

Cutting losses, anyway. Fact of the matter is that other carriers can and still do fly even 777-200A's profitably. The airplane is not the problem.

I wonder if they will go with a 10-abreast configuration.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13439 posts, RR: 100
Reply 48, posted (2 years 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 6376 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 29):
The only market AI has cornered, is the whine market.

  

Quoting gauravpai (Thread starter):
AirIndia was trying to sell 5 of their 777 aircraft and as they failed to receive bids for them have now changed apparent strategy

I believed they received interest, just not at rates they would consider.

Quoting gdg9 (Reply 5):
Quoting gauravpai (Thread starter):
AirIndia was trying to sell 5 of their 777 aircraft and as they failed to receive bids for them

EK had no interest?

With EK received numbers of high MTOW 77Ws that will free up North American 77Ls, why would they want to buy more? Almost the same trip cost and EK is able to fill the added seats. Oh, for a low enough price EK would have been interested. In general, EK is up-gauging.

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 14):
A bad tradesman blames his tools. AI didn't know how to make money using the 777-200LR, so they blamed the aircraft. Perhaps they should never have ordered them in the first place.

   Money can be made off the 77L.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The 8 First Class and 35 Business Class seats would have taken up a significant portion of the cabin and with the bulk of those seats being given away and not sold, the significantly smaller Economy Class cabin probably could not have hoped to generate the income necessary to cover the trip costs.

Something needs to be done to stop the graft befor it handicaps India's economic growth. Its not just AI, but the whole system. AI suffers because of it though.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
I wonder if they will go with a 10-abreast configuration.

Anything else would be silly.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20241 posts, RR: 59
Reply 49, posted (2 years 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):
Anything else would be silly.

Not necessarily. AI needs to decide if replacing all the seats in the 777's is cost-effective vs. just pulling out F class and replacing it with more of the existing Y seats. If they do go 10Y, then they will need to replace every seat in every 777.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
The 777-200LR's low sales are, IMO, due more to the fact that by the time it entered service, mostly everyone who wanted a long-haul 300-seat twin already had a 777-200ER. Almost all of the 777-200LR's operators were new 777 family customers and I expect they purchased the model because of it's greater efficiency on missions between 10,000 and 14,000km as opposed to it's ability to perform missions greater than 14,000km.

The other thing is that offering the 77L was a no-brainer. They were developing the airframe for the 77F, anyway. The cabin is identical to the 772 cabin. The rest of the airframe is identical to the 77W with a few obvious differences. All the systems are identical. Basically, they took a 772 and bolted it onto a 77W wingbox. When you compare the money spent developing the 77L exclusively (i.e. not counting costs that would have existed anyway from designing the 77F and 77W), the it's about as close to "free" as you can get.


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9672 posts, RR: 14
Reply 50, posted (2 years 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 5949 times:

Quoting na (Reply 2):
Seems the 77L faces the same fate as the A345. Pretty, but uneconomical, they are very hard to sell these days.

So then your saying the 777-200 family is uneconomical. As Stitch said....

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
The 777-200LR's aerodynamic and engine tweaks make it more efficient at missions beyond 2000nm than the 777-200ER.

The reason why you haven't seen may 777-200LR orders are 1) the economy sucks....and has sucked for a while 2) most 777-200ER operators don't want to add the cost of add the LR to its fleet. 3) the 777-300ER is a even more economical beast.



yep.
User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 51, posted (2 years 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 5955 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):

A 777-200ER with the same configuration as the 777-200LR would have worked out even worse. The 777-200LR's aerodynamic and engine tweaks make it more efficient at missions beyond 2000nm than the 777-200ER.

The 77-200ER would have cost the at least 100 million less to buy, and even cheaper to lease, the cost of finance is not free.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13439 posts, RR: 100
Reply 52, posted (2 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

In my opinion, due to AI's typical RASM, these planes should be flown further than the gulf. The 77L has a tremendous lift potential and an all Y 77L should be able to make Europe. Do any AI routes have multiple frequencies per day (e.g., DEL-LHR/FRA I would assume)? The less popular flight time could be accommodate (unless J and F are paying their way).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
Not necessarily. AI needs to decide if replacing all the seats in the 777's is cost-effective vs. just pulling out F class and replacing it with more of the existing Y seats. If they do go 10Y, then they will need to replace every seat in every 777.

I'm not sure that would be a cost effective enough approach. I shouldn't have said 'silly' as you pointed out a very reasonable justification for sticking with 9-across. But if they are going regional... Pack them in!   

Ok, being more serious, how much of this is to discourage the 'free riders' in F/J? If one is losing revenue as the government connections get a free ride, make it so that seat has a low CASM!

Per an article about 18 months old, the seats are about $2,300 each (for a regional Y seat, not ULH Y seat). I estimate buying new seats would save about 2kg per seat (less padding as they are being bought for different markets) and the added revenue would pay back quickly. Now that is about $1M per plane for seats plus the money spent re-configuring anyway.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
the it's about as close to "free" as you can get.

Which is still about a hundred million bucks.   But I agree with your point in that Boeing didn't lose anything developing the type. At their prices, DL and EK probably amortized the type.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently onlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5767 posts, RR: 6
Reply 53, posted (2 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

You all are overthinking this.

The airframes didn't sell because AI wants an unrealistic price for them. AC and DL both kicked the tires but were unimpressed with the price.

AI can't use the airframes on their design mission because North America-India ULH routes haven't ever performed like people were hoping they would in the early 2000s. That said, converting them to short-haul is absurd. If AI wants large, densely configured short-haul aircraft they would probably do better in the long run by selling the 77Ls at a loss and finding some older used A330-300s.

Mismanagement from start to finish.


User currently offlineFlyingAY From Finland, joined Jun 2007, 712 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (2 years 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 5670 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 26):
How many 777-200LR airframes are actually flying 14,000km or greater stage lengths - which is the "niche" it was built for.

If the answer is less than "all of them", then that's a pretty good sign that it's not an "uneconomical plane for sure" when flown on shorter stage lengths.

Well, that's like saying that the Boeing 727 must be an economical plane, because some are still flying. There are other conditions that might force the operators to use what they currently have, be that 727s or 77Ls.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37):
3. The 777-300ER is simply better. For the same money you get a plane with the same operating economics cost side, but much higher revenue potential.
Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 50):
3) the 777-300ER is a even more economical beast.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
No, they were complaining the 777-200LR were "gas guzzlers". And they do indeed drink deep.

So we can conclude that compared to 777-300ER, the 777-200LR is an less economical plane (if not uneconomical, though some might say that all flying is uneconomical with current oil prices) if you're flying missions that the 77W could do (which is what most 77L do, I'd guess)?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Plus, depending on the mission, the A330-300 might not have had the range to even operate it.

Well, the A330 for sure would have had the range for this latest all-economy gulf thingie they're using their 77Ls for...


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 55, posted (2 years 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5179 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 51):
The 77-200ER would have cost the at least 100 million less to buy, and even cheaper to lease, the cost of finance is not free.

At the time AI placed their order, list prices were as follows:

777-200LR - $221 million
777-200ER - $192 million

So at list, AI would pay $232 million more for the 777-200LR than the 777-200ER. Effectively, they could have bought eight 77Es for the price of seven 77Ls.

However, the average discount rate for the 777-200LR was greater than that for the 777-200ER (likely driven by a desire by GE to sell the GE90-110b) therefore the Average Sales Price for both models was very similar. Also, as AI ordered 15 777-300ERs with GE90-115b engines, so that also may have favored the 77L over the 77E and encouraged GE (and perhaps Boeing) to offer better discounts. While I don't have the specific numbers, I would not be surprised if the difference was the low tens of millions as opposed to the low hundreds.

As for leasing rates, AI wasn't leasing, but for the sake of argument, a new 77L would have leased for a bit over $1 million a month and a new 777-200ER would have been a bit under $1 million a month. So again, not a tremendous difference between them (and if they were leasing from GECAS, for example, I could see their being almost no difference).



Quoting FlyingAY (Reply 54):
So we can conclude that compared to 777-300ER, the 777-200LR is an less economical plane...if you're flying missions that the 77W could do (which is what most 77L do, I'd guess)?

At the same load factors, that's probably correct as I expect the trip costs between them are not too different so the greater capacity of the 777-300ER both lowers CASM and raises RASM.


User currently offlinezeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9210 posts, RR: 76
Reply 56, posted (2 years 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 4939 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):

At the time AI placed their order, list prices were as follows:

They didn't need to buy new 777-200ERs, second hand have been available.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 55):
As for leasing rates, AI wasn't leasing, but for the sake of argument, a new 77L would have leased for a bit over $1 million a month and a new 777-200ER would have been a bit under $1 million a month.

AI has been leasing, e.g. their A330s, and used 777-200ERs are not anywhere close to $1 a month, more like $5-600k, even the AI deal with Air Canada, they 77Ls were not going for under $1m a month.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 57, posted (2 years 5 days ago) and read 4882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting zeke (Reply 56):
They didn't need to buy new 777-200ERs, second hand have been available.

I don't know what second-hand market availability of the 777-200ER was in late 2005, so maybe an airline had eight frames available. Cobbling together a fleet of eight from multiple sources might have meant a mix of engines and BFE, which would have raised conversion and operating costs.

Of course, the real reason AI bought was because of graft and corruption within the Indian Government. It's the same reason Indian carriers buy new 737s and A320s as opposed to going to the second-hand market.



Quoting zeke (Reply 56):
AI has been leasing, e.g. their A330s, and used 777-200ERs are not anywhere close to $1m a month, more like $5-600k.

I was basing figures on a brand new 777-200ER airframe. Yes, AI could have saved hundreds of thousands a month leasing an older 777-200ER airframe.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13439 posts, RR: 100
Reply 58, posted (2 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 53):
The airframes didn't sell because AI wants an unrealistic price for them. AC and DL both kicked the tires but were unimpressed with the price.

Agreed. That is without a doubt. Price could have made the sale happen. It didn't. Boeing is working on taking the 777 LOV to 60,000 cycles, so these airframes should be able to take the duty.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlinetrex8 From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 4838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 59, posted (2 years 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 4581 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46):
It has been said because Indian government bureaucrats and officials could indirectly make money off the deal.

It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that happened but doesn't that also mean someone at Boeing broke US federal laws?


User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 60, posted (2 years 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4447 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting trex8 (Reply 59):
It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that happened but doesn't that also mean someone at Boeing broke US federal laws?

I fully believe that neither Boeing nor Airbus are crass enough to directly bribe a government official to win a deal.

The graft and corruption most probably takes the form of things like having an interest in the MRO that will provide service and spares to the new planes. Or a construction company that would expand or improve an airport to allow the new planes to operate.

These people would be the ones bribing the more senior officials to sign the deal.


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (2 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 21):
The only problem with AI's 777-200LRs is that AI doesn't know how to use them properly to maximise its advantage. The fact that they're now planning to use a high density configuration to use on short/medium haul routes is further evidence of their mismanagement. Unless they intend to stuff the belly full of cargo, using the 777-200LR on short missions is a staggering decision.

If AI put in 440 Y seats, the payload will quickly be 40-44 tonnes (pax+bags) on a full flight. I guess the B77L will come in handy then, if it still has more weight available for cargo and fuel for 3-hour flights to the Gulf? Or am I way off here?



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13439 posts, RR: 100
Reply 62, posted (2 years 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 3768 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 61):
I guess the B77L will come in handy then, if it still has more weight available for cargo and fuel for 3-hour flights to the Gulf? Or am I way off here?

The 77L would be able to fly just over 8,000nm with that payload! So the 77L would be 'restricted' to a 15 hour mission... I think they'll be able to make DXB.  

See Boeing's payload/range chart for the 777:

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_payload.pdf

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineDarksnowynight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 63, posted (2 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3583 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 37):
Contrast this to the 747 which for much of its life had the lowest margins of anything Boeing sold.

Almost everything I've ever heard and read about the 747 points to it having a greater margin than the 777 ever did or will. Makes sense, given the complete lack of competition for most of its life. It's also not much of a secret that Boeing really isn't interested in selling the 748i at discounted rates either (one of many reasons sales there have been somewhat leisurely).

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
Fact of the matter is that other carriers can and still do fly even 777-200A's

Indeed. We forget here that unless the ER (or LR) is absolutely needed, the 77A is a better choice, given the significantly lower operating cost. It does, after all, have identical PAX capacity to the LR & ER models.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
I wonder if they will go with a 10-abreast configuration.

Anything else would be silly.

And? It's AI. Not being snarky, but you really can't take any conclusion for granted with these guys.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 49):
If they do go 10Y, then they will need to replace every seat in every 777.

Quite so. But too much is being made of that. India to Gulf region flights will go out full, and going to 10Y would be more than paid for in a couple of weeks. It's certainly a no brainer that it's worthwhile. But, as I said, this is AI, so it remains to be seen.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 50):

The reason why you haven't seen may 777-200LR orders are 1) the economy sucks....and has sucked for a while 2) most 777-200ER operators don't want to add the cost of add the LR to its fleet.

Truth be told, we really haven't seen many 77E orders lately either. My personal feeling is that the 77W has obsoleted all but the F variant of the 772 subfamily. The W isn't itself perfect for every mission, but it goes that if you can make money with a 77E, A, or L, you can almost certainly make more with a W.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently onlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31251 posts, RR: 85
Reply 64, posted (2 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 3522 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 61):
If AI put in 440 Y seats, the payload will quickly be 40-44 tonnes (pax+bags) on a full flight. I guess the B77L will come in handy then, if it still has more weight available for cargo and fuel for 3-hour flights to the Gulf?

A 777-200LR can haul it's maximum structural payload of 64 tones beyond 7000nm.  


User currently offlineCRJ900 From Norway, joined Jun 2004, 2222 posts, RR: 1
Reply 65, posted (2 years 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3401 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 64):
A 777-200LR can haul it's maximum structural payload of 64 tones beyond 7000nm

Then they can use the all-economy aircraft on India-UK too - backpacker express  



Come, fly the prevailing winds with me
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25860 posts, RR: 22
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 3120 times:

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 63):
Truth be told, we really haven't seen many 77E orders lately either.

The last 77E order was 3 years ago (December 2009) for 5 aircraft for ANA.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13439 posts, RR: 100
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2654 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Darksnowynight (Reply 63):
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 48):

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 47):
I wonder if they will go with a 10-abreast configuration.

Anything else would be silly.

And? It's AI. Not being snarky, but you really can't take any conclusion for granted with these guys.

   I'm laughing with you as I agree. With AI, what they do is no proof of the configuration economics.  
Quoting CRJ900 (Reply 65):
Then they can use the all-economy aircraft on India-UK too - backpacker express

I see the potential for multiple destinations in 'fortress Europe' for an all Y 77L for AI. There are even a few routes to Asia. IMHO, once AI realizes how much *less* money they loose on comp premium seats, I suspect far more of their aircraft will go all Y.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
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...
SriLankan To Introduce All Economy Service posted Mon Nov 8 2010 21:51:48 by KFlyer
AI Pilots To Go On Mass Leave posted Sat Sep 26 2009 16:44:51 by DTWLAX
AA To Go All Mainline At MSY posted Sun May 7 2006 16:15:02 by MSYtristar
What Led DL And CO To Go All-Boeing? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 20:10:13 by 1337Delta764
USAirways To Go All Contract Ramp In ROC posted Mon Jan 31 2005 08:27:51 by AEroc
Not Again! AI Staff To Go On Strike posted Sun Nov 16 2003 05:27:19 by Indianguy
UA To Go All A32X-single Aisle? posted Fri Nov 8 2002 20:41:11 by Solnabo
Kuwait Airways To Go All-Airbus? posted Thu Feb 21 2002 18:43:55 by Na
WN To Go All Boeing posted Thu Jul 19 2001 04:26:49 by TWA717_200
Ansett To Go All Airbus... posted Wed Jul 18 2001 17:14:37 by Aduum