Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could A US Airline Buy Second Hand 777s For Cheap?  
User currently offlinezhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 428 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12155 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Just as DL is buying cheap but still relatively new MD90s, wouldnt it also be smart to buy some secondhand 777s that are getting replaced in Asia. Specially I am talking about the 772 and 773. I could see AA getting some and using them for what their A300s used to do, and 773s could be used for trunk European and Latin American routes. The planes are not that old and are simply much cheaper than buying brand new ones! Does anybody see this happening? If DL does it with MD90s I can't see why no one else can do it with larger planes.

41 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineluv2fly From United States of America, joined May 2003, 12150 posts, RR: 49
Reply 1, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12154 times:

Nothing is stopping them. Though is the ROI worth it? I mean after doing C or D checks, painting interior mods and the length of time all that takes while your paying for the plane.


You can cut the irony with a knife
User currently offlineMcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 12046 times:

Quoting zhiao (Thread starter):
I could see AA getting some and using them for what their A300s used to do, and 773s could be used for trunk European and Latin American routes.

The last thing AA needs is antiquated aircraft, no matter how airworthy they are. They have enough 777-200ERs along with the incoming 77Ws and the narrowbodies that they really don't need any more 777s.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined exactly 2 years ago today! , 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Delivery, C+D checks, paint, mods, time. And I have to agree that AA doesn't really need old 772s, especially with 5 more on order and the merger and bankruptcy mess. I could, however, see a US Airline buying a few if the opportunity was good. If price and timing is right, then someone might snap it up.

User currently offlinemffoda From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11788 times:

Personally, I would separate this "C+D" checks thinking (logic)... As they are very different animals.


harder than woodpecker lips...
User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 5, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11729 times:

Quoting UA787DEN (Reply 3):
Delivery, C+D checks, paint, mods,

The airline getting the plane rarely if ever pays these costs. It's on the airline turning them in to the lessor that is on the hook for the cost.



"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11562 times:

Big picture:

For any airliner costs can be divided into two classes:
1) Fixed costs of ownership
2) Operational costs

Category (1) is costs like lease payments, certification maintenance, etc. Whether you fly the plane or not, they don't change.

Category (2) is fuel costs, maintenance costs that are dependent on cycles and/or air time.

If you buy an inexpensive airframe, category (1) will be low. But category (2) will be high. If that airframe is due for a heavy check, it will be even higher. Such airframes are best used in low-utilization settings. If you buy a new airframe, category (1) will be high but category (2) will be high, so this is good for airframes that anticipate high utilization.

A 777 typically flies legs of 6-12 hours. Hence, high utilization. You don't want to buy old aircraft for high utilization missions.


User currently offlineRafabozzolla From Brazil, joined Apr 2000, 1239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11489 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
A 777 typically flies legs of 6-12 hours. Hence, high utilization. You don't want to buy old aircraft for high utilization missions.

Your logic does not seem to stand. Number of cycles is what really increase maintenance costs. 777s usually have high number of hours but low number of cycles.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7199 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11400 times:

Just how many 777's are not actively flying? I saw somewhere that the number of 777A's in active service is about 20 less than the number produced; I know a couple of them have been parted out, but what about the others? Are they parked, or what?


The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11376 times:

A certain US based charter carrier is looking for then right now.


737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineMCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8691 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 11120 times:

Quoting FI642 (Reply 9):
A certain US based charter carrier is looking for then right now.

It is either Omni, Vision or Ryan. I will guess the first being that Omni already has a 777 fleet of ex UA/AI examples.

KH



Never be afraid to stand up for who you are.
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20362 posts, RR: 59
Reply 11, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10910 times:

Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 7):
Your logic does not seem to stand. Number of cycles is what really increase maintenance costs. 777s usually have high number of hours but low number of cycles.

A new A333 is going to have a high cost of ownership. However, it burns very little fuel and has a lower operating and maintenance costs than a 1999 772 (unless that 772 is fresh out of a heavy check). The 772 has low ownership costs, but relatively high operating costs. If it's over ten years old, it probably does have a heavy check looking it in the face. It burns more fuel and it can only do a few missions that the A333 can't at this point.

Given both frames are going to have high utilization, the balance will probably work out in favor of the new A333. And that, folks, is why new planes get bought in the first place.

From time to time, the balance works out otherwise. That is why DL still has DC-9's, even though some of them are over 30 years old.


User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9828 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10867 times:

Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 7):

Cycles, flight hours and calendar days all matter. If you look at the maintenance review board report the intensive checks for zonal maintenance and corrosion are limited by both cycles and calendar days. Only the very short haul operators like ANA and JAL which have average flights of only one hour are limited by cycles. Most airlines are limited by days. With that said higher cycles usually results in more wear .



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined exactly 2 years ago today! , 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10858 times:

DL will the MD-90s until the world ends. Plus a day. A US airline could get used 777s but they probably won't.

User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8514 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10465 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A few years ago Delta was "looking" at some Emirates 777-300(no ER) but EK kept the planes. They had RR engines like DL's 772ER fleet.

User currently offlinePellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2495 posts, RR: 8
Reply 15, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 10176 times:

The relevant thing to know is....

Most US airlines that want 777 family aircraft...already have them.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineby738 From Tonga, joined Sep 2000, 2432 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10039 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
A333 is going to have a high cost of ownership. However, it burns very little fuel

mmm. Relatively little I suppose comparing to older types. But still uses huge amounts of fuel.


User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7199 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 10039 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):

If you buy an inexpensive airframe, category (1) will be low. But category (2) will be high.

Otherwise known as the law of supply and demand. New aircraft are sold at a price that reflects the cost to build it plus profit. Used aircraft are sold at a price that someone is willing to pay for them. That price usually is established by what the overall costs of ownership are expected to be, and it generally means that the costs to operate are not going to vary all that much regardless of the age of the plane. I would expect overall costs of older aircraft to be somewhat lower due to the desirability and increased reliability of new aircraft; these have value which will be reflected in the price of older aircraft. But when certain costs, such as fuel or capital costs, change suddenly it will have a very disruptive effect on the price of used aircraft, depending on whether new or used aircraft are the more sought after. The long and short of it is that there are rarely any genuine bargains in used aircraft; the price will quickly adjust to the real value based on the cost to operate.

One other factor entering in is how much a plane is used. Obviously an airline depending on an aircraft to fly 10-16 hours a day every day is going to value fuel economy and reliability more than one that flies only a few hours a day, or not even every day; in that case capital cost is a much bigger factor. The latter is obviously going to be drawn to cheap used frames, and the former is going to want new ones.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently onlinewjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5364 posts, RR: 22
Reply 18, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8659 times:

Doc -- here's a thought.

You correct about scheduled service. In charter service, however, you have low utilization even on long missions; i.e. the thing isn't flying every day.

That's a decent market for a used, low-capital-cost widebody.

Another niche is freight service where the aircraft is somewhat supplemental; i.e. runs on days where package volume is higher or, even though a widebody, runs relatively-short legs (1-2 hours) and sits the rest of the time.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3778 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8417 times:

Acquisition of the aircraft would be easy enough, IF........IF....the airline had a use for it. AA, DL or anyone else isn't going to acquire aircraft without an intended use for them, and as far as AA is concerned, they're already receiving new build 77Ws which will eventually displace 772s(minus any new routes), so they can be used on other routes.


PHX based
User currently offlineytz From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 2361 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8063 times:

Why buy 772s now when they can get 7810s by 2017?

At the very minimum, the arrival of the 787-10 should help reduce 772/77E values a good bit.


User currently offlineUA787DEN From United States of America, joined exactly 2 years ago today! , 420 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8012 times:

Um...772s are cheaper to get and you can have them now. That's the whole point of buying used.

User currently offlineFI642 From Monaco, joined Mar 2005, 1079 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6631 times:

Quoting by738 (Reply 16):

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 11):
A333 is going to have a high cost of ownership. However, it burns very little fuel

mmm. Relatively little I suppose comparing to older types. But still uses huge amounts of fuel.

NW said the fuel burn was more than 40% less than their DC-10's I know what a 10 uses, so that's a
monster improvement in consumption.



737MAX, Cool Planes for the Worlds Coolest Airline.
User currently offlineFlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2104 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (1 year 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6486 times:

CO and NW are the two carriers that spring to mind who added a lot of secondhand widebody capacity in the 1990s with the DC-10, while at that time even DL added some TriStar 500s (and also a handful of ex-GF 763ERs). To add secondhand 777s today one of the US majors has to have a need for them, either to replace something else or to add capacity. But do any of them have such a need?

AA - In bankruptcy, and has 77Ws and 787s on order. The 77Ws are going to allow AA to add capacity, and redeploy the 772s to some 763 routes. No real gain in adding secondhand 777s, while it is going to have extra 77Es to deploy through the 77Ws taking on key routes.

UA - Has a large 777 fleet as it is through the CO/UA merger, and is not far off completing a refurbishment of the sUA fleet. Some 777s and 77Es were let go during bankruptcy, and if UA was going to add any extra 777 capacity surely trying to get these aircraft back would be the best bet? I seem to recall a rumour a few years ago that CO was potentially interested in the 4 China Eastern 777s (A models), which are GE powered, to replace the 764s on COMIKE flights (so they could be used with the other 12 764s). But since the UA merger there is no need for that as 9 sUA PW 777s will be configured for use on Hawaii and Micronesia flights.

DL - More interesting, as it only has 18 777s in the form of 8 RR 77Es and 10 GE 777Ls. Could be benefits in adding either type to bulk up small subfleets, but where would the aircraft come from? SQ seems the only carrier to be releasing RR powered 77Es, while it seems AI wanted too much for its 77Ls for anyone to want to take those birds on. The AI birds could have been of interest to DL to standardise its 777 fleet on one type, but then who would want its RR powered 77Es?



Let's Go British Caledonian!
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1609 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 12 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5707 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FI642 (Reply 9):
A certain US based charter carrier is looking for then right now.

Well I guess that "certain charter airline" did not look very hard as a 1999 build 777ER is being scrapped as we speak in GYR....... a real shame.....


25 SEPilot : We don't know the reason it is being scrapped; it could well have some significant issue (such as corrosion) that renders it uneconomical to return t
26 LipeGIG : In my view if they fit the current fleet, and are in good order, they can allow AA to grow in markets where their 763 is not a good fit.
27 n471wn : I can tell you that the condition of the a/c was excellent but a D Check was required
28 trex8 : How much is a D check cost? 5, 10 million, more??
29 jfk777 : The mass movement of 777 from first to second owners will happen soon but most are still with their first owners. Singapore Airlines has been the only
30 Stitch : I don't know what the going rate for labor is, but per an article from 2003, Air France's Boeing 777 engineering and maintenance manager said a D-che
31 SEPilot : I would expect that with overhead and considering that a lot of parts and materials would be required a starting figure would be $100/hr, making the
32 yeelep : 6,000 man hours might get a "C" check done on a A320 or 737. 60,000 man hours is a more realistic 777 "D" check number.
33 DocLightning : You would think, right? Except when Mr. Romney needed campaign planes to charter, he couldn't even find a 737, much less a widebody. There just isn't
34 Post contains links Stitch : As the 777 complies with the MSG-3 standard (Maintenance Steering Group, 3rd edition), it needs significantly less labor hours for a "D" check then o
35 United727 : Ryan Air International is in very bad shape. Last heard, their parent company, Berghoff Indust. in Rockford, Il, was doing just as poorly and lossing
36 Post contains links and images Polot : While they recently returned the A333 back to Virgin (I believe was always a short term lease anyways) they have an ex-Atlasjet A332 to replace it: V
37 wjcandee : Huh. I just thought he wanted to use USA Jet. I'm surprised that Sun Country or Miami Air wouldn't have been able to furnish him a 737. As to bigger
38 Post contains images TZTriStar500 : I'd like to think ATA, if we were still around, would be looking at some or at least have some operating already along with some 763s and maybe the o
39 strfyr51 : all the remaining 'C'-checks are encompassed in the next 'D' check. So I'd get the next 'D' check and AD notes Zero Timed. and that will give you a g
40 luv2fly : I bet it had more to do with price then availability! If he really wanted a certain plane he could have had it. I am sure USA Jet had a patriotic rin
41 Post contains images NWAROOSTER : Would the RNC like paying for expense of painting and repainting a Sun Country 737. Painting an aircraft is NOT cheap and has environmental issues.
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...
Could Another Airline Buy F9? posted Mon Jul 7 2008 00:08:58 by SAN787
Could An Airline Buy An Oil Company? posted Thu Apr 24 2008 22:17:54 by Flyibaby
Aeroflot Buy 5 Second Hand A330s posted Wed Feb 21 2007 23:46:28 by FCKC
Could A Big Airline Buy A Low Fare Airline? posted Thu Apr 29 2004 07:00:02 by Kieso
Buy A Cheap US Airline! posted Tue Sep 14 2004 06:43:30 by Aerohottie
Could Another US Airline Join Oneworld? posted Wed Sep 21 2011 12:09:58 by 747400sp
Is This Normal For A US Airline? posted Thu Jan 1 2009 17:43:32 by Qantas767
The Next Step For The US Airline Industry? posted Fri Nov 7 2008 11:53:26 by Expressjet_erj
Could US Carriers Merging Spawn A Need For VLA? posted Wed Dec 13 2006 03:36:39 by Jetjack74
Was 1978 Too Late For US Airline Deregulation? posted Wed Sep 27 2006 19:49:51 by Tangowhisky