zhiao From United States of America, joined Jan 2011, 356 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10625 times:
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.
Mcoov From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 113 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 10516 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.
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 10325 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.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16939 posts, RR: 57 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 10032 times:
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.
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6306 posts, RR: 39 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 9870 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
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16939 posts, RR: 57 Reply 11, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 9380 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.
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!
SEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 6306 posts, RR: 39 Reply 17, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 8509 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
wjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4597 posts, RR: 18 Reply 18, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 7129 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.
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3055 posts, RR: 3 Reply 19, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6887 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.
FlyCaledonian From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 1973 posts, RR: 3 Reply 23, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4956 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?