BWOOD
Topic Author
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 6:20 am

777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:37 pm

I was wondering if anyone knew if any U.S. air carriers were interested in purchasing the new 777-300ERs. It seems to me that there should be a need or possible market for them to replace older 747s or even older 777s for United, American or even Delta. It could also fill in for older 767s. I know that money is very tight for U.S. airlines but it would seem to me that it could pay off in the long run with fewer airplanes in the fleet that can carry more people longer distances. It could even open up new 777 routes from the U.S. such as Australia, and Asia. Just looking for info and your opinions.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:09 pm

Thusfar, UA has been the only USA carrier to show public interest in either 777NG, and they've been in no possition to buy.

CO and AA both studied the 773A in 1999 and 2000, and both concluded that they couldn't profitably fill it on a yearround basis. Same would no doubt apply to the 773ER, an even more expensive product.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
ktachiya
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 5:54 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:15 pm

But for instance, wouldn't high density airports like HKG and NRT be possible routes that can be flown on a 777-300ER?

Does Air France fly its 773ER to JFK or LAX?
Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:39 pm

wouldn't high density airports like HKG and NRT be possible routes that can be flown on a 777-300ER?

...could be, sure.




Does Air France fly its 773ER to JFK or LAX?

They've flown it into JFK and will eventually return.

LAX was one of their initial planned destinations, have no idea when/if they still plan to go there with it.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
777ER
Crew
Posts: 9853
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:41 pm

Right now no USA carrier is in tip top condition to start spending big sums of money on new planes. Airlines that fly to high density airports like LHR, NRT etc would most likly be able to fill the B773s.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:29 pm

All of the above comments regarding aircraft size are true.

It is also possible that extreme range may not be as valuable for US airlines. All of Europe and most of Asia can be reached non-stop from the US mainland by B-market aircraft. In addition to this, some US airlines operate flights between Chinese and Japanese cities and the rest of Asia or rely on code share partners to do the same. It is true that there are a few cities (most notably Singapore) that do require high nonstop range to reach. But Singapore airlines gets most of North America and Europe as a reward for going that distance. The US just gets Singapore, Thailand, a few Australian cities, and perhaps parts of Central Asia(Pakistan, India, etc.). Why invest in a new aircraft type when you can go from China or Japan instead? US airlines also have easy access to Hawai and a lot of domestic trafic to and from the Islands. Some flights that would have used extreme range aircraft stop in Honolulu instead.


Notice that the A340 (whose range is its main selling point) did not do very well in the US either. There are a few routes where a US airline could make money from ultralonghaul aircraft like the A340NG's and 777NG's. But there arn't enough of them and they are not big enough to make it worth the money. It is easier to codeshare.

IN SHORT.... The US is more centrally located (if one can use that term on a global scale) then most other industrialized regions. You gain a lot more from extreme range if your airline is based in the South Pacific rim, in a country like Thailand, Singapore or Australia. South Asia and parts of The Middle East are also pretty far away from many highly populous and industrialized places. That is why most (if not all?) of the extreme range planes being bought are being bought by airlines in these regions.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2563
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:42 pm

Since when is there a 777NG?
Variants for the 777 are 772, 772ER, 772LR, 773, & 773ER with tweaking of gross-weights for each variant.

The current despressed state of the legacy carrier industry in the US, it is a huge dream to just think about a 773ER in a US carrier color scheme in the short-term. Who knows in the medium/long-term. It's anything but a WAG right now.
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:10 pm

I'll get this one for ConcordeBoy.  Laugh out loud The 777-200LR & 777-300ER are affectionately also known as 777NG's.
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
DeltaWings
Posts: 1234
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 4:06 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:13 pm

notice there are not even that many 747s in the US either, exept for UA and NW (does CO still have their 742s?). I think the 777-300 would have a better chance in the US, compared to the 773ER, since there are also many 747 mainline flights (see UA)
Homer: Marge, it takes two to lie. One to lie and one to listen.
 
User avatar
American 767
Posts: 3923
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 7:27 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:41 pm

No DeltaWings, Contiental no longer operates the Boeing 747 aircraft. They retired their last Classic 747 four or five years ago and they have never ordered any 400 Series, nor they picked up any second hand ones from other carriers.
I don't see a 777-300 with a US carrier because the airlines in the United States don't need such a high capacity aircraft on domestic routes or routes to Alaska, Guam and Honolulu. Yes, Northwest may still operate the 747-200 on routes to Honolulu and maybe Guam (I don't know if NW flies there, I know CO does) but they are not interested in any variant of the 777. United is still in Chapter 11 and they have parked quite a few 747-400's which weren't that old, so it doesn't surprise me they don't order the 777-300. The only US carrier that could order the 777-300ER is Continental, because the 777's they currently have are GE powered and since they work with Air France they could have Air France do the maintenance of their 773ER's and vice versa.

Ben Soriano
Brussels Belgium
Ben Soriano
 
USairways16BWI
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue May 11, 2004 4:58 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:41 am

i also find it strange that U.S carriers dont operate the 773ER.
- AA may be happy with their 772's, but i think they could benifit from the 773ER's to use for the east coast-asia and maybe australia flights.

- i dont think UA needs them because they have the 772's and the 744's.

-as for CO, i dont know how well thay are doing on the european flights, but if its going well, maybe they could use a few 773ER's to increase loads.

 
N1120A
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:53 am

AA has said they don't want to take the risk of not filling a 747, any 747, and the 773ER is almost as big as a 741 (look at the number of seats that airlines actually put in them, not what Boeing says). I would think this would mean less interest. Also, they run Trents on their 772ERs, and they are not available on the 773ER.
CO is an airline that would have a good case for picking the 773ER up. They are in a much better financial position (though not great), their 772ERs are GE-90 powered, they have a shortage of widebodies, and they are flying some routes that are both weight restricted and under capacity (EWR-HKG, GUM-HNL-LAX). Depending on the price, they really could use the plane. BA is also a good airline for the 773ER (they have some GE-90 craft, though they prefer the Trent ones) but not as a 744 replacement as some people think. The 744 still holds more people and has more practical range, but the 773ER could be a good high density plane for leisure routes that used to fly with 741s and 742s.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
FA4UA
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 1:27 am

Too bad the 773ER can't run Pratt and Whitney engines (or can they?). It would be awesome for UA to trade in the 744's for the 773ER... perfect method of fleet simplification!

FA4UA
The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:21 am

but i think they could benifit from the 773ER's to use for the east coast-asia and maybe australia flights.

...too bad they dont think the same  Big grin

That, and AA is no fan whatsoever of the GE90 (not that it amounts to much in the scheme of things, but still)







as for CO, i dont know how well thay are doing on the european flights, but if its going well, maybe they could use a few 773ER's to increase loads.

I'm guessing either 1) you're illiterate, 2) you willingly chose to ignore reply #1, or 3) some combination thereof  Insane





The 744 *** has more practical range

...Boeing doesn't seem to think so  Laugh out loud





Too bad the 773ER can't run Pratt and Whitney engines (or can they?).

...only if Boeing wants to lose hundreds of millions for breach of contract over a B-market aircraft with A-market performance  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
COEWR2587
Posts: 492
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 10:09 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:37 am

Don't people seem to get it? U.S. aren't are high at filling widebodies to capacity domestically like Asia or Europe can. I can't think of any U.S. airline, except UA as a 747 replacement, that would be useful to have.
Newark Airport...My Home Away From Home
 
Thrust
Posts: 2584
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:17 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:09 am

The 773ER is simply too big and too expensive a jet right now for most U.S. carriers. Getting a full payload will prove to be a tremendous task on a regular basis. Also, UA will not likely purchase the 773ER since they are so low on cash right now, and there is also the problem of engine commonality. They appear perfectly satisfied with their 744s. Boeing needs to figure out a way to lower the prices of their aircraft without losing stock in my opinion if they expect to generate more sales.
Fly one thing; Fly it well
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 6:15 am

Getting a full payload will prove to be a tremendous task on a regular basis.

No it wouldn't.

The problem would be deriving a decent yield, yearround, from whatever loads they may have.




Boeing needs to figure out a way to lower the prices of their aircraft without losing stock in my opinion if they expect to generate more sales.

What's their incentive?

Their B-market 777s have routinely matched and/or outsold their A340 competitors despite significantly higher [MSRP] acquisition costs.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
sv11
Posts: 216
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 1999 6:26 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:08 am

Is NWA planning to replace its 747-200s? Looking at their fleet http://ir.nwa.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=111021&p=irol-fleet, they have a sizable fleet of -200 passenger and freighter aircraft. I was thinking they might replace them with used 744s but I believe not many are available now. Maybe they might order some 777-300ER and convert some 744s to freighters.

sv11
 
kl911
Posts: 3979
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:23 am

I still don't get it. If for example AF can fill a 777-300 on the CDG-JFK route, then DL can do the same, no? Same FF, pax have same nationalities( French and US)

Why can European Carriers fill all their 747's and 777-300's and make money, and US carriers can't?

KL911
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6167
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:26 am

Maybe because service level in flights operated by the European carriers is notably higher than on their American counterparts' and therefore there is more demand for BA, LH, AF, etc. flights than for legacy carriers' flights. Maybe because European passengers yield better margins than American pax (because Americans upgrade more or redeem their miles to fly more than Europeans do). Maybe because European carriers can also fly these big planes to other places like Canada, Latin America, Asia and Africa, whereas the American carriers do not need 747's or 773's to fly to Latin America, they don't fly to Africa, and they have a smaller presence in Asia than European carriers (this means that European airlines can use these aircraft to more destinations more often, all year round). Or maybe it is simpler than that and it is just that given their financial situation, they just can't afford to get brand new 773's while European carriers are doing better financially.

I really don't know. Your point is very good and I tend to share it. These are only ideas that come to my mind right now but I may be really wrong so please be gentle.
Next flights: MEX-LAX AM 738, LAX-PVG DL 77L, SHA-PEK CA 789, PEK-PVG CA A332, PVG-ORD MU 77W, ORD-MEX AM 738
 
Checo77
Posts: 1263
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:39 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:08 pm

I think I would be a pretty good decision, as you say, US carrier may use fewer airplanes and transport more people. I think, since Delta its in trouble, they should od it. After all, the 777 is one of the best best aiplanes availables in the market and customer would be very happy to fly a 777. I would.
Czech Boeing lover living in Lima
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 2:03 pm

Why can European Carriers fill all their 747's and 777-300's and make money, and US carriers can't?

Traffic concentration....

How many transatlantic gateways does an airline such as KL (AMS) have, versus one such as AA (BOS, JFK, RDU, MIA, ORD, DFW, LAX) through which to channel their pax?
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
FA4UA
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:26 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:56 pm

A recent USA Today article (a couple months ago) described the difference between the 744 and the 772 in laymen's terms... albeit not all totally accurate on every fact. One number that really stood out was that the average 744 cost an additional $3,000 an hour to operate compared with the 772 when one examines fuel burn, staffing costs, maintenance, etc etc.

I would love the same comparison 773ER vs. 744.

It really is a shame that Boeing had to have that exclusivity contract with GE for the engines on the 773ER!

my two cents...

FA4UA
The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
 
ckfred
Posts: 4694
Joined: Wed Apr 25, 2001 12:50 pm

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:24 am

The 777-300ER would make sense for AA for routes to Hong Kong and China, but only if Boeing offered the plane with RR Trent engines. Since the GE90 is the only engine, I doubt AA will buy any.

Considering that AA is gradually getting rid of the PW-powered 757s, having an aircraft type with 2 different engines is not what AA wants.

Now, if Boeing ever decides to offer the Trent on the -300ER, AA might reevaluate its position.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 1:51 am

I don't think so. AA would have to penetrate those markets with a 772 first, and see what the loads are.

UA operates the 777 on many of their Asian routes, and they've been in the space for 20 years.

N
 
SonicKidatBWI
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 4:03 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:01 am

Can't ever see it happening for a U.S. carrier because of range. As another A.net member posted, the U.S. is positioned almost perfectly from every major city in the world. The 772ER's in most U.S. carrier fleets can fly to just about everywhere that is popular. So essentially anything the size of the 773ER with all of the added capacity would not be practical for basically all U.S. majors because as other members have all ready pointed out, only NW and UA operate 747s out of the U.S.
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:11 am

It really is a shame that Boeing had to have that exclusivity contract with GE for the engines on the 773ER!

Cry a river, buy a bridge, and get the fudge over it  Insane

GE was the only one who had an engine ready to power the birds within the time frame Boeing wanted; and GE wouldn't do it unless they were contractually assured that they'd be the only provider; end of story.





Now, if Boeing ever decides to offer the Trent on the -300ER

The decision isn't Boeing's to make.

As has already been explained ad infinitum: GE is the only one who can grant Boeing that authority (without hundreds of millions of bucks in litigation that is).... and that'll happen sometime around never.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 2:14 am

Its sad, but the largest airliners such as the 773/ER, A346, A380, the potential 747A, and the longest range airliners such as the 772ER and A345 are of little interest to US carriers

In most cases the US airlines simply do not need the seats offered by the larger variants due to multiple frequencies on dense routes which support hub operations (4 763s per day between ATL and LGW works better than 2 747s for example) and due to market fragmentation (instead of flying 2 A380s per day between SFO and Tokyo, lets instead offer 1 A330 per day to Tokyo from LAX, SFO, PDX, SEA, etc).....the market fragmentation theory was the basis for Boeing's decision not to launch a direct competitor to the A380. These two concepts, taken together, has reduced the US carriers' demand for large airliners....the only exception, of course, are certain trans-pacific routes and even those markets may fragment over time. This situation is rather unique to the US at the moment, where there are multiple carriers operating long haul flights from multiple hubs...thus, US carriers seem very happy with their 763ERs and 772ERs and need nothing larger.

The ultra long haul variants have not caught on mainly due to price (these are very expensive toys), risk issues, and lack of suitable routes....ultra long haul is not a priority for the US airlines at the moment.

Times change, when the 747 program was launched, every US carrier rushed to order the type....then again, those same 747s nearly put a few airlines out of business.
 
mikephotos
Posts: 2887
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 12:52 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:17 am

Does Air France fly its 773ER to JFK or LAX?

They've flown it into JFK and will eventually return.


eventually is here, it's been back on the skeds for at least the past week maybe longer.

Mike

[Edited 2004-10-15 21:18:22]
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:25 am

and the longest range airliners such as the 772ER

he means 772LR folks...
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:29 am

Thanks ConcordeBoy, you are simply too sharp!.........

regards
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: 777-300ER For U.S. Carriers?

Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:44 am

eventually is here, it's been back on the skeds for at least the past week maybe longer.

On the schedules, or in service? If the latter... IBD, I didn't think it was comin' back until November. Good stuff  Big thumbs up
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, ASFlyer, BAxMAN, D328, F9Animal, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], hOMSaR, jbs2886, Jetty, keesje, klm617, MaxxFlyer, mstx44, msycajun, n0ct, N62NA, nikeson13, reality, Rookinla, seat1a, tootallsd, uta999, yeogeo, Yflyer and 355 guests