VCVSpotter wrote:

Hello. I don't visit this thread often; however, I visited VCV today and this caught my eye. Air Canada 777-200LR C-FIUA was completely wrapped up, however a section of the tail panel was missing (refer to my pics in the link below). I've seen that on various 744s when they were retired, and with only a small subfleet of 6 aircraft, it would make sense that Air Canada would be retiring their 77Ls. Wonder if this is an actual retirement that hasn't been announced, storage, or what..... I tried searching up 'Air Canada 777 retirements' on Google & A.net and all I got was the 763/E190 retirements a while ago. The 77Ls are quite spread out, stored at VCV, MZJ, YVR, and YYZ, so it doesn't look like AC really has a 100% solid plan for a storage location either...anyone have more info??

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIHaVRthzm0/

Thanks,
VCVSpotter

PS: If someone can educate me on what part is missing from the 77L's tail (and why they removed it), it would be greatly appreciated! I reached out to a few people and nobody had a firm answer.

I have heard rumours on other social sites that the -200LRs are just parked for now but who knows

VCVSpotter wrote:

Hello. I don't visit this thread often; however, I visited VCV today and this caught my eye. Air Canada 777-200LR C-FIUA was completely wrapped up, however a section of the tail panel was missing (refer to my pics in the link below). I've seen that on various 744s when they were retired, and with only a small subfleet of 6 aircraft, it would make sense that Air Canada would be retiring their 77Ls. Wonder if this is an actual retirement that hasn't been announced, storage, or what..... I tried searching up 'Air Canada 777 retirements' on Google & A.net and all I got was the 763/E190 retirements a while ago. The 77Ls are quite spread out, stored at VCV, MZJ, YVR, and YYZ, so it doesn't look like AC really has a 100% solid plan for a storage location either...anyone have more info??

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIHaVRthzm0/

Thanks,
VCVSpotter

PS: If someone can educate me on what part is missing from the 77L's tail (and why they removed it), it would be greatly appreciated! I reached out to a few people and nobody had a firm answer.

If that is your post on Instagram, why are you saying it is being retired in that post?

VCVSpotter wrote:

Hello. I don't visit this thread often; however, I visited VCV today and this caught my eye. Air Canada 777-200LR C-FIUA was completely wrapped up, however a section of the tail panel was missing (refer to my pics in the link below). I've seen that on various 744s when they were retired, and with only a small subfleet of 6 aircraft, it would make sense that Air Canada would be retiring their 77Ls. Wonder if this is an actual retirement that hasn't been announced, storage, or what..... I tried searching up 'Air Canada 777 retirements' on Google & A.net and all I got was the 763/E190 retirements a while ago. The 77Ls are quite spread out, stored at VCV, MZJ, YVR, and YYZ, so it doesn't look like AC really has a 100% solid plan for a storage location either...anyone have more info??

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIHaVRthzm0/

Thanks,
VCVSpotter

PS: If someone can educate me on what part is missing from the 77L's tail (and why they removed it), it would be greatly appreciated! I reached out to a few people and nobody had a firm answer.

Seems highly unlikely that AC would retire the LR's. They have historically served a distinct purpose for AC - YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG - both of which historically have filled a 40J cabin and the belly with cargo. Although both a 77W (with some capacity restrictions westbound at certain times of the year) and the 789 can fly these routes, the 77L fits its role pretty well. They have also been seen on other routes that support 40J seats and cargo. The pilot pool is the same with the 77W's as is maintenance, and AC will not be retiring the 77W's any time soon. 4 of the 6 are owned aircraft so they may remain parked until demand picks back up - hence the wrapping for storage - but it seems likely that they will return at some point.

AC is still scheduling the 77L on YYZ-YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG into late 2021 for what that's worth, based on the current AC schedule.

yyztpa2 wrote:

VCVSpotter wrote:

Hello. I don't visit this thread often; however, I visited VCV today and this caught my eye. Air Canada 777-200LR C-FIUA was completely wrapped up, however a section of the tail panel was missing (refer to my pics in the link below). I've seen that on various 744s when they were retired, and with only a small subfleet of 6 aircraft, it would make sense that Air Canada would be retiring their 77Ls. Wonder if this is an actual retirement that hasn't been announced, storage, or what..... I tried searching up 'Air Canada 777 retirements' on Google & A.net and all I got was the 763/E190 retirements a while ago. The 77Ls are quite spread out, stored at VCV, MZJ, YVR, and YYZ, so it doesn't look like AC really has a 100% solid plan for a storage location either...anyone have more info??

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIHaVRthzm0/

Thanks,
VCVSpotter

PS: If someone can educate me on what part is missing from the 77L's tail (and why they removed it), it would be greatly appreciated! I reached out to a few people and nobody had a firm answer.

If that is your post on Instagram, why are you saying it is being retired in that post?

I elaborated on my reasoning later on in the post (besides the first line), and also emphasized waiting for a statement for Air Canada. I also have posted a longer explanation on my story (factoring in that C-FNNH is now flying into VCV). Yes we need to look for a statement from Air Canada, but AC would not have 2 aircraft at VCV for maintenance and/or repaint. C-FIUA has been there for 4 days (3 as of yesterday when the picture was taken). VCV is quick. If it was repaint, they would already have it in the paint hangar by then. If it was maintenance, they would have stairs attached and it would not be parked next to an EMPTY Boeing hangar (yes I saw it with my own eyes).

Furthermore, another post (not linked to me in any way, it was sent to me by a friend) also suggests retirement, and states that "Air Canada is reportedly set to announce the retirement of its Boeing 777-200LR fleet this week." Link below:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIJKi9fB8fV/

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Seems highly unlikely that AC would retire the LR's. They have historically served a distinct purpose for AC - YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG - both of which historically have filled a 40J cabin and the belly with cargo. Although both a 77W (with some capacity restrictions westbound at certain times of the year) and the 789 can fly these routes, the 77L fits its role pretty well. They have also been seen on other routes that support 40J seats and cargo. The pilot pool is the same with the 77W's as is maintenance, and AC will not be retiring the 77W's any time soon. 4 of the 6 are owned aircraft so they may remain parked until demand picks back up - hence the wrapping for storage - but it seems likely that they will return at some point.

I would definitely agree with you that AC likely has a very niche area for these 77Ls (they are niche aircraft by nature), and you likely know the AC network way better than I do based off of your post. I do not know exactly what time this post was written (the little time icon on each post is always screwed up for me), however 77L C-FNNH is currently inbound to VCV: one of the leased aircraft. Given the Instagram post I linked earlier, the missing tail component which houses the hydraulic actuator (thank you to the poster who informed me about that earlier in the thread), and the fact that it was 3 days since C-FIUA flew in and it still did not have any of the tell-tale signs of being for either maintenance or paint, I think that I can say with a very high certainty that we will see an announcement of the 77L retirement this week.

When I was there, I did factor in that things were wrapped up (instruments, engines, etc), however that missing tail component is the biggest thing for me. Anyways, if you take a look at some of the Delta 77L/772s at VCV, they are also wrapped up but they are most definitely for retirement (at least from the Delta fleet).

VCVSpotter wrote:

yyztpa2 wrote:

VCVSpotter wrote:

Hello. I don't visit this thread often; however, I visited VCV today and this caught my eye. Air Canada 777-200LR C-FIUA was completely wrapped up, however a section of the tail panel was missing (refer to my pics in the link below). I've seen that on various 744s when they were retired, and with only a small subfleet of 6 aircraft, it would make sense that Air Canada would be retiring their 77Ls. Wonder if this is an actual retirement that hasn't been announced, storage, or what..... I tried searching up 'Air Canada 777 retirements' on Google & A.net and all I got was the 763/E190 retirements a while ago. The 77Ls are quite spread out, stored at VCV, MZJ, YVR, and YYZ, so it doesn't look like AC really has a 100% solid plan for a storage location either...anyone have more info??

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIHaVRthzm0/

Thanks,
VCVSpotter

PS: If someone can educate me on what part is missing from the 77L's tail (and why they removed it), it would be greatly appreciated! I reached out to a few people and nobody had a firm answer.

If that is your post on Instagram, why are you saying it is being retired in that post?

I elaborated on my reasoning later on in the post (besides the first line), and also emphasized waiting for a statement for Air Canada. I also have posted a longer explanation on my story (factoring in that C-FNNH is now flying into VCV). Yes we need to look for a statement from Air Canada, but AC would not have 2 aircraft at VCV for maintenance and/or repaint. C-FIUA has been there for 4 days (3 as of yesterday when the picture was taken). VCV is quick. If it was repaint, they would already have it in the paint hangar by then. If it was maintenance, they would have stairs attached and it would not be parked next to an EMPTY Boeing hangar (yes I saw it with my own eyes).

Furthermore, another post (not linked to me in any way, it was sent to me by a friend) also suggests retirement, and states that "Air Canada is reportedly set to announce the retirement of its Boeing 777-200LR fleet this week." Link below:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIJKi9fB8fV/

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Seems highly unlikely that AC would retire the LR's. They have historically served a distinct purpose for AC - YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG - both of which historically have filled a 40J cabin and the belly with cargo. Although both a 77W (with some capacity restrictions westbound at certain times of the year) and the 789 can fly these routes, the 77L fits its role pretty well. They have also been seen on other routes that support 40J seats and cargo. The pilot pool is the same with the 77W's as is maintenance, and AC will not be retiring the 77W's any time soon. 4 of the 6 are owned aircraft so they may remain parked until demand picks back up - hence the wrapping for storage - but it seems likely that they will return at some point.

I would definitely agree with you that AC likely has a very niche area for these 77Ls (they are niche aircraft by nature), and you likely know the AC network way better than I do based off of your post. I do not know exactly what time this post was written (the little time icon on each post is always screwed up for me), however 77L C-FNNH is currently inbound to VCV: one of the leased aircraft. Given the Instagram post I linked earlier, the missing tail component which houses the hydraulic actuator (thank you to the poster who informed me about that earlier in the thread), and the fact that it was 3 days since C-FIUA flew in and it still did not have any of the tell-tale signs of being for either maintenance or paint, I think that I can say with a very high certainty that we will see an announcement of the 77L retirement this week.

When I was there, I did factor in that things were wrapped up (instruments, engines, etc), however that missing tail component is the biggest thing for me. Anyways, if you take a look at some of the Delta 77L/772s at VCV, they are also wrapped up but they are most definitely for retirement (at least from the Delta fleet).

Your Instagram post is misleading is not supported by any known facts.

yyztpa2 wrote:

VCVSpotter wrote:

yyztpa2 wrote:

If that is your post on Instagram, why are you saying it is being retired in that post?

I elaborated on my reasoning later on in the post (besides the first line), and also emphasized waiting for a statement for Air Canada. I also have posted a longer explanation on my story (factoring in that C-FNNH is now flying into VCV). Yes we need to look for a statement from Air Canada, but AC would not have 2 aircraft at VCV for maintenance and/or repaint. C-FIUA has been there for 4 days (3 as of yesterday when the picture was taken). VCV is quick. If it was repaint, they would already have it in the paint hangar by then. If it was maintenance, they would have stairs attached and it would not be parked next to an EMPTY Boeing hangar (yes I saw it with my own eyes).

Furthermore, another post (not linked to me in any way, it was sent to me by a friend) also suggests retirement, and states that "Air Canada is reportedly set to announce the retirement of its Boeing 777-200LR fleet this week." Link below:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CIJKi9fB8fV/

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

Seems highly unlikely that AC would retire the LR's. They have historically served a distinct purpose for AC - YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG - both of which historically have filled a 40J cabin and the belly with cargo. Although both a 77W (with some capacity restrictions westbound at certain times of the year) and the 789 can fly these routes, the 77L fits its role pretty well. They have also been seen on other routes that support 40J seats and cargo. The pilot pool is the same with the 77W's as is maintenance, and AC will not be retiring the 77W's any time soon. 4 of the 6 are owned aircraft so they may remain parked until demand picks back up - hence the wrapping for storage - but it seems likely that they will return at some point.

I would definitely agree with you that AC likely has a very niche area for these 77Ls (they are niche aircraft by nature), and you likely know the AC network way better than I do based off of your post. I do not know exactly what time this post was written (the little time icon on each post is always screwed up for me), however 77L C-FNNH is currently inbound to VCV: one of the leased aircraft. Given the Instagram post I linked earlier, the missing tail component which houses the hydraulic actuator (thank you to the poster who informed me about that earlier in the thread), and the fact that it was 3 days since C-FIUA flew in and it still did not have any of the tell-tale signs of being for either maintenance or paint, I think that I can say with a very high certainty that we will see an announcement of the 77L retirement this week.

When I was there, I did factor in that things were wrapped up (instruments, engines, etc), however that missing tail component is the biggest thing for me. Anyways, if you take a look at some of the Delta 77L/772s at VCV, they are also wrapped up but they are most definitely for retirement (at least from the Delta fleet).

Your Instagram post is misleading is not supported by any known facts.

Flame bait. But I'll just say that I've been spotting/tracking VCV movements daily for the past 4 years, so I think I have expertise at that airport and it's operations. I've been spotting for 11. And I do state that nothing is confirmed by Air Canada.

I'll have a further statement up later.

As stated by JFKalumni, these are access panels for the rudder actuators. I wouldn't consider them "components". These could have been removed for inspection of the actuators, replacement of the actuators, replacement of the bearings connecting the actuators to the airframe and the rudder, or some combination of all of the above. I wouldn't think this would be a likely place to begin scrapping an airframe.

m1m2 wrote:

As stated by JFKalumni, these are access panels for the rudder actuators. I wouldn't consider them "components". These could have been removed for inspection of the actuators, replacement of the actuators, replacement of the bearings connecting the actuators to the airframe and the rudder, or some combination of all of the above. I wouldn't think this would be a likely place to begin scrapping an airframe.

Ok, thank you for that insight Just felt kinda strange given that I’ve only seen that on retired aircraft, although I haven’t been able to see a lot of maintenance work up close on the in-service planes.

I don’t mean to send this thread going in circles, but after everything I’ve heard it seems like the ‘official’ word (although technically there is none) is storage (appears to me to be eventual retirement (not just bc of the panels, but the covid environment), but that’s solely my view). I elaborated on this in my updated post.

If the 77L are retired from pax use I would imagine they want to convert it to freighter instead of the 767s they are planing on converting since 77L are younger+ larger and more efficient.

I do find it interesting AC never flew the 77L during the pandemic as it seems like it may be a better plane than the 77W for some route due to its lower pax capacity but I am not really familiar with the fuel burn efficiency of the 77L.

How is the 77L for belly cargo compared to the 788/789 and 77W?

Sometimes storage is a good opportunity to take care of maintenance. You very well may be right about them being stored, but they may go back in service when times improve in the airline industry. This is a question you would have more insight into than me, usually for long term storage the windshields and cabin windows are covered aren't they? Short term storage requires covering the engines and any access points into the airplane such as the apu inlet, the inlet for the air conditioning packs, that sort of thing. Long term storage is usually more inclusive.

m1m2 wrote:

Sometimes storage is a good opportunity to take care of maintenance. You very well may be right about them being stored, but they may go back in service when times improve in the airline industry. This is a question you would have more insight into than me, usually for long term storage the windshields and cabin windows are covered aren't they? Short term storage requires covering the engines and any access points into the airplane such as the apu inlet, the inlet for the air conditioning packs, that sort of thing. Long term storage is usually more inclusive.

Agreed on the mx part. For long term storage, they can be/often are covered, but not always. Since it was only 3 days since C-FIUA flew in, they might not have been put on yet. In addition, I’ve seen aircraft that have sat out there for years without window coverings and then flew out (for example, a Qantas 744 that ferried VCV-MCI for scrap a few months ago, or numerous Southwest 737s that flew out nearly a year or more after initial storage), so it’s not a ‘must have’ in every case.

Sometimes, you’ll strangely see coverings on aircraft that have been retired (such as Delta 777s). So coverings alone do not determine the length of their stay or whether it’s retirement or storage. Annoyingly unpredictable, isn’t it. Lol

[twoid][/twoid]

andrew1996 wrote:

If the 77L are retired from pax use I would imagine they want to convert it to freighter instead of the 767s they are planing on converting since 77L are younger+ larger and more efficient.

I do find it interesting AC never flew the 77L during the pandemic as it seems like it may be a better plane than the 77W for some route due to its lower pax capacity but I am not really familiar with the fuel burn efficiency of the 77L.

How is the 77L for belly cargo compared to the 788/789 and 77W?

A quick google search shows the -200LR has a 6.8ton/hour fuel burn and the -300ER has a 7.5ton/hour fuel burn but that’s obviously subject to changes depending on weight, distance etc

Also, AC announced Friday that they were using 768s for its new cargo division but didn’t mention 777s. And as mentioned by others, AC uses the -200LR for routes it’s designed for such as YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG/BOM. I’d say they are just in storage

VCVSpotter wrote:

m1m2 wrote:

As stated by JFKalumni, these are access panels for the rudder actuators. I wouldn't consider them "components". These could have been removed for inspection of the actuators, replacement of the actuators, replacement of the bearings connecting the actuators to the airframe and the rudder, or some combination of all of the above. I wouldn't think this would be a likely place to begin scrapping an airframe.

Ok, thank you for that insight Just felt kinda strange given that I’ve only seen that on retired aircraft, although I haven’t been able to see a lot of maintenance work up close on the in-service planes.

I don’t mean to send this thread going in circles, but after everything I’ve heard it seems like the ‘official’ word (although technically there is none) is storage (appears to me to be eventual retirement (not just bc of the panels, but the covid environment), but that’s solely my view). I elaborated on this in my updated post.

I’d say just long term storage, I don’t see why AC would get rid of them when they fill such a niche role and do it well. I don’t see the need for retirements as others have mentioned AC has 777-300ERs in its fleet, 25 to be precise. And it’s the same pilot group so it’s not like DL where they had a small 777 sub fleet. I don’t see the retirements of these birds coming anytime soon. I’m trying to understand where you’re coming from thinking they’ll be eventually retired due to the covid situation?

VCVSpotter wrote:

m1m2 wrote:

Sometimes storage is a good opportunity to take care of maintenance. You very well may be right about them being stored, but they may go back in service when times improve in the airline industry. This is a question you would have more insight into than me, usually for long term storage the windshields and cabin windows are covered aren't they? Short term storage requires covering the engines and any access points into the airplane such as the apu inlet, the inlet for the air conditioning packs, that sort of thing. Long term storage is usually more inclusive.

Agreed on the mx part. For long term storage, they can be/often are covered, but not always. Since it was only 3 days since C-FIUA flew in, they might not have been put on yet. In addition, I’ve seen aircraft that have sat out there for years without window coverings and then flew out (for example, a Qantas 744 that ferried VCV-MCI for scrap a few months ago, or numerous Southwest 737s that flew out nearly a year or more after initial storage), so it’s not a ‘must have’ in every case.

Sometimes, you’ll strangely see coverings on aircraft that have been retired (such as Delta 777s). So coverings alone do not determine the length of their stay or whether it’s retirement or storage. Annoyingly unpredictable, isn’t it. Lol

I mentioned it above but I’ll just mention it again, AC uses the -200LRs on YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG, and YYZ-BOM which is what the a/c is designed for. Ultra long haul flights

777luver wrote:

VCVSpotter wrote:

m1m2 wrote:

Sometimes storage is a good opportunity to take care of maintenance. You very well may be right about them being stored, but they may go back in service when times improve in the airline industry. This is a question you would have more insight into than me, usually for long term storage the windshields and cabin windows are covered aren't they? Short term storage requires covering the engines and any access points into the airplane such as the apu inlet, the inlet for the air conditioning packs, that sort of thing. Long term storage is usually more inclusive.

Agreed on the mx part. For long term storage, they can be/often are covered, but not always. Since it was only 3 days since C-FIUA flew in, they might not have been put on yet. In addition, I’ve seen aircraft that have sat out there for years without window coverings and then flew out (for example, a Qantas 744 that ferried VCV-MCI for scrap a few months ago, or numerous Southwest 737s that flew out nearly a year or more after initial storage), so it’s not a ‘must have’ in every case.

Sometimes, you’ll strangely see coverings on aircraft that have been retired (such as Delta 777s). So coverings alone do not determine the length of their stay or whether it’s retirement or storage. Annoyingly unpredictable, isn’t it. Lol

I mentioned it above but I’ll just mention it again, AC uses the -200LRs on YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG, and YYZ-BOM which is what the a/c is designed for. Ultra long haul flights

I agree that the -200LRs fill that niche role for ULR flights, but the 789 can do that too, and for cheaper.

You are correct in your earlier post that the pilot group is same, but I’m sure that there are also differences, however subtle, in maintaining them. Any cost cutting that can be done likely will be. Just my 2 cents.

VCVSpotter wrote:

777luver wrote:

VCVSpotter wrote:

Agreed on the mx part. For long term storage, they can be/often are covered, but not always. Since it was only 3 days since C-FIUA flew in, they might not have been put on yet. In addition, I’ve seen aircraft that have sat out there for years without window coverings and then flew out (for example, a Qantas 744 that ferried VCV-MCI for scrap a few months ago, or numerous Southwest 737s that flew out nearly a year or more after initial storage), so it’s not a ‘must have’ in every case.

Sometimes, you’ll strangely see coverings on aircraft that have been retired (such as Delta 777s). So coverings alone do not determine the length of their stay or whether it’s retirement or storage. Annoyingly unpredictable, isn’t it. Lol

I mentioned it above but I’ll just mention it again, AC uses the -200LRs on YVR-SYD, YYZ-HKG, and YYZ-BOM which is what the a/c is designed for. Ultra long haul flights

I agree that the -200LRs fill that niche role for ULR flights, but the 789 can do that too, and for cheaper.

You are correct in your earlier post that the pilot group is same, but I’m sure that there are also differences, however subtle, in maintaining them. Any cost cutting that can be done likely will be. Just my 2 cents.

Just with the -200LRs, the 789s can take some severe penalties on those flights with passengers and weight. I personally don’t see them using 789s on those routes, but having said that, with covid reducing loads to new lows who knows. But the 789 carries 289 passengers and the -200LR carries 300. However being an insider I just don’t see it but stranger things have happened

777luver wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

andrew1996 wrote:

If the 77L are retired from pax use I would imagine they want to convert it to freighter instead of the 767s they are planing on converting since 77L are younger+ larger and more efficient.

I do find it interesting AC never flew the 77L during the pandemic as it seems like it may be a better plane than the 77W for some route due to its lower pax capacity but I am not really familiar with the fuel burn efficiency of the 77L.

How is the 77L for belly cargo compared to the 788/789 and 77W?

A quick google search shows the -200LR has a 6.8ton/hour fuel burn and the -300ER has a 7.5ton/hour fuel burn but that’s obviously subject to changes depending on weight, distance etc

Also, AC announced Friday that they were using 768s for its new cargo division but didn’t mention 777s. And as mentioned by others, AC uses the -200LR for routes it’s designed for such as YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG/BOM. I’d say they are just in storage

Yes, I saw those fuel burn figures but obviously the actual economics of operation also factor in how full the belly and pax load is etc. Yes, my point of cargo 767 is that I think if AC wanted to get rid of the 77L from freight operation they may have considered converting the 77L instead, albeit I do not think that has ever been done before but a 77W is in the conversion works.

YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG can all be operated by the 77W and 789 too and they are not really ULH either. In fact, CX uses the 77W on the YYZ-HKG sector but granted the CX frames are light owing to AC's high density on the 77W. BR seems to full load up the 77W flying YYZ-TPE too in the winter and although YYZ-TPE is shorter than YYZ-HKG, BR does not fly polar on this route while CX/AC can fly polar on this route in the winter to HKG so YYZ-TPE is longer than YYZ-HKG in reality. In fact, AC has used 77W for the YYZ-HKG leg. UA does SFO-SIN that is 500miles longer with a 789 without much restriction but granted UA 789s are also less dense than AC's 789s. For sure I see the 77L having a role to play in AC's fleet and network and I think it is a create aircraft but I do not think it has that much of a niche in AC's fleet because other planes can fulfil the missions AC uses as those routes are not really ULH compared to real ULH flights that the 77L can do like YVR/YYZ-SIN length flights. I think in the future the 77L's role is to operate missions where a 77W is too large and the 789 fleet is stretched thin and better used elsewhere. 77L is also a good aircraft to test new long haul flights where the 77W is too ambitious or to supplement a second daily frequency. I think the 77Ls also have a role to play in transcons to ship cargo around without adding too much seat capacity moving forward.

andrew1996 wrote:

If the 77L are retired from pax use I would imagine they want to convert it to freighter instead of the 767s they are planing on converting since 77L are younger+ larger and more efficient.

Unlike the B767, there is no passenger to freighter conversion program for the B77L, nor are there plans to create one.

The 77W just recently got a P2F program approved, with first conversions expected to roll out in the next couple of years. A 77W program makes more sense, as there is huge feedstock (over 820 77Ws delivered vs only 60 77L), plus the frame can carry more volumetric cargo than the 77L.

andrew1996 wrote:

777luver wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

andrew1996 wrote:

If the 77L are retired from pax use I would imagine they want to convert it to freighter instead of the 767s they are planing on converting since 77L are younger+ larger and more efficient.

I do find it interesting AC never flew the 77L during the pandemic as it seems like it may be a better plane than the 77W for some route due to its lower pax capacity but I am not really familiar with the fuel burn efficiency of the 77L.

How is the 77L for belly cargo compared to the 788/789 and 77W?

A quick google search shows the -200LR has a 6.8ton/hour fuel burn and the -300ER has a 7.5ton/hour fuel burn but that’s obviously subject to changes depending on weight, distance etc

Also, AC announced Friday that they were using 768s for its new cargo division but didn’t mention 777s. And as mentioned by others, AC uses the -200LR for routes it’s designed for such as YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG/BOM. I’d say they are just in storage

Yes, I saw those fuel burn figures but obviously the actual economics of operation also factor in how full the belly and pax load is etc. Yes, my point of cargo 767 is that I think if AC wanted to get rid of the 77L from freight operation they may have considered converting the 77L instead, albeit I do not think that has ever been done before but a 77W is in the conversion works.

YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG can all be operated by the 77W and 789 too and they are not really ULH either. In fact, CX uses the 77W on the YYZ-HKG sector but granted the CX frames are light owing to AC's high density on the 77W. BR seems to full load up the 77W flying YYZ-TPE too in the winter and although YYZ-TPE is shorter than YYZ-HKG, BR does not fly polar on this route while CX/AC can fly polar on this route in the winter to HKG so YYZ-TPE is longer than YYZ-HKG in reality. In fact, AC has used 77W for the YYZ-HKG leg. UA does SFO-SIN that is 500miles longer with a 789 without much restriction but granted UA 789s are also less dense than AC's 789s. For sure I see the 77L having a role to play in AC's fleet and network and I think it is a create aircraft but I do not think it has that much of a niche in AC's fleet because other planes can fulfil the missions AC uses as those routes are not really ULH compared to real ULH flights that the 77L can do like YVR/YYZ-SIN length flights. I think in the future the 77L's role is to operate missions where a 77W is too large and the 789 fleet is stretched thin and better used elsewhere. 77L is also a good aircraft to test new long haul flights where the 77W is too ambitious or to supplement a second daily frequency. I think the 77Ls also have a role to play in transcons to ship cargo around without adding too much seat capacity moving forward.

There is no conversion program for the 77L. Certification of the program would be costly and there are few aircraft to be converted. The cabin floor of the 77L is different from the 77F which limits what can be carried on the passenger deck (also applies to the 77W conversion). It is very unlikely that we will ever see a 77L conversion program.

AC flies their aircraft for upwards of 25-30 years, as can be seen with the present A32X aircraft and the 767's that were historically in the fleet (and are coming back to haul cargo). They are refurbishing fairly old A330's which will likely carry on for at least 5-10 years more following refurbishment. AC presently have 4 77W's and 3 A330's with seats removed hauling lighter cargo on the main deck. The reason the 4 77W's were chosen is that they only have a 28 seat J cabin and the J seats were not removed. They also have more floor space which would mean removing the seats from the 77L's would make no sense. If you look at AC's fleet, and the present routes being served, the 77L's are simply not required, as the present route map cannot support all the aircraft in the fleet. Both YVR-SYD and YYZ-HKG are presently suspended and, as previously mentioned, the 77L's fly niche routes, so it makes total sense that they would be parked. I would be shocked if they removed a very useful aircraft type, that are on average 13 years old, and can do AC's longer routes with high J and cargo demand. It would make very little business sense, especially in light of the CapEx on these aircraft both at purchase and with the refurbishment to the dream cabin. They may be parked for upwards of 18 months but they will likely be back in service when the routes they are used on resume.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

If the 77L are retired from pax use I would imagine they want to convert it to freighter instead of the 767s they are planing on converting since 77L are younger+ larger and more efficient.

Unlike the B767, there is no passenger to freighter conversion program for the B77L, nor are there plans to create one.

The 77W just recently got a P2F program approved, with first conversions expected to roll out in the next couple of years. A 77W program makes more sense, as there is huge feedstock (over 820 77Ws delivered vs only 60 77L), plus the frame can carry more volumetric cargo than the 77L.

True I guess I was initially thinking the 77L may be easier because the 77F is based on the 77L except I would imagine the main deck needs to be strengthened and a new cut door but yes otherwise I agree there is more economic sense in focusing on the 77W for freighter conversion.

YMX4ever wrote:

Hopefully these cargo flights are out of YMX The transport minister announced plans to inject cash into Mirabel to make it a cargo hub

I doubt that as Air Canada's operations are at YUL.

Pilots, Ramp agents, and the cargo centre are all at YUL. I doubt AC would want to spend money to build a whole operation at YMX.

A bit off topic but it's regarding C-FNNH. Here it is steeply taking off from YVR bound for VCV:

https://twitter.com/onemoreweektogo/sta ... 5434662912

According to Flightaware another B77L(CFNND.....acft 705) will be ETA VCV 0943P TODAY
Ac2313 YYZVCV

Ishrion wrote:

A bit off topic but it's regarding C-FNNH. Here it is steeply taking off from YVR bound for VCV:

https://twitter.com/onemoreweektogo/sta ... 5434662912

Sweet takeoff! Thanks for sharing @Ishrion Sad though. Looks like 77L operations at AC have pretty much stopped for now. On the plus side, it looks like they're pulling a second 737 from storage tomorrow. Fin 516 is sked to fly from MZJ to YYC.

Cessnapimp wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

A bit off topic but it's regarding C-FNNH. Here it is steeply taking off from YVR bound for VCV:

https://twitter.com/onemoreweektogo/sta ... 5434662912

Sweet takeoff! Thanks for sharing @Ishrion Sad though. Looks like 77L operations at AC have pretty much stopped for now. On the plus side, it looks like they're pulling a second 737 from storage tomorrow. Fin 516 is sked to fly from MZJ to YYC.

This is the third aircraft out the desert now, 523 and 524 are in YYZ.

andrew1996 wrote:

Thenoflyzone wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

If the 77L are retired from pax use I would imagine they want to convert it to freighter instead of the 767s they are planing on converting since 77L are younger+ larger and more efficient.

Unlike the B767, there is no passenger to freighter conversion program for the B77L, nor are there plans to create one.

The 77W just recently got a P2F program approved, with first conversions expected to roll out in the next couple of years. A 77W program makes more sense, as there is huge feedstock (over 820 77Ws delivered vs only 60 77L), plus the frame can carry more volumetric cargo than the 77L.

True I guess I was initially thinking the 77L may be easier because the 77F is based on the 77L except I would imagine the main deck needs to be strengthened and a new cut door but yes otherwise I agree there is more economic sense in focusing on the 77W for freighter conversion.

I wonder how much Air Canada now regrets not taking the two 777F's that was part of their original order, with the demand for air cargo these days. I'm sure it made sense at the time to cancel them.

When is the MAX service entry date for AC planned?

Ishrion wrote:

A bit off topic but it's regarding C-FNNH. Here it is steeply taking off from YVR bound for VCV:

https://twitter.com/onemoreweektogo/sta ... 5434662912

Amazing!! thanks for sharing

YMX4ever wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

A bit off topic but it's regarding C-FNNH. Here it is steeply taking off from YVR bound for VCV:

https://twitter.com/onemoreweektogo/sta ... 5434662912

Amazing!! thanks for sharing

Sometime after Transport Canada lifts the flight restrictions on the aircraft

Skywatcher wrote:

When is the MAX service entry date for AC planned?

Would require Transport Canada to unground the aircraft first.

Sorry if this is off topic or whatever...but what is the reasoning for putting a 77W with a penalty on YYZ-HKG when the 77L does it likely without? Wouldn't it make more sense to just put the 77L on in the first place, unless some are out due to maintenance?

SaschaYHZ wrote:

Sorry if this is off topic or whatever...but what is the reasoning for putting a 77W with a penalty on YYZ-HKG when the 77L does it likely without? Wouldn't it make more sense to just put the 77L on in the first place, unless some are out due to maintenance?

With current typical passenger loads I doubt the 77W is facing much of a penalty, and can still carry more cargo than the 77L.

Maybe the 77L's are stored in SoCal (and Arizona, there is one in MZJ according to planespotters) to avoid wet, cold and long canadian winter ? Just a theory. I hope these gorgeous aircraft's will fly again sometimes.

Polot wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

Sorry if this is off topic or whatever...but what is the reasoning for putting a 77W with a penalty on YYZ-HKG when the 77L does it likely without? Wouldn't it make more sense to just put the 77L on in the first place, unless some are out due to maintenance?

With current typical passenger loads I doubt the 77W is facing much of a penalty, and can still carry more cargo than the 77L.

Sorry, I should've clarified a bit more. They were putting the 77W on the route pre-covid as well...my question was more to then.

SaschaYHZ wrote:

Polot wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

Sorry if this is off topic or whatever...but what is the reasoning for putting a 77W with a penalty on YYZ-HKG when the 77L does it likely without? Wouldn't it make more sense to just put the 77L on in the first place, unless some are out due to maintenance?

With current typical passenger loads I doubt the 77W is facing much of a penalty, and can still carry more cargo than the 77L.

Sorry, I should've clarified a bit more. They were putting the 77W on the route pre-covid as well...my question was more to then.

A 77W does not need to block 100+ seats to fly YYZ-HKG, so even with any penalty it was carrying more passengers than AC’s 77Ls would have.

^ Exactly.

77W range with 396 passengers is 7,370nm. YYZ-HKG is 6,787 nm. Considering it's a cross polar flight, it won't face killer headwinds either. Some seats getting blocked is understandable due to AC's higher seat capacity, but otherwise, it's doable for the 77W.

CX uses/used the 77W on YYZ-HKG as well, although their frames have less seats than AC’s.

Quick question regarding the 767s being converted for cargo ops. Will they be converted similar to a way the A330s are or are these full freighter conversions?

Full freighters.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

Full freighters.

Ah thatll be interesting to see then. Wonder if they will get the new colors aswell. Would be nice to see a 76 wearing the new colors.

Polot wrote:

SaschaYHZ wrote:

Polot wrote:

With current typical passenger loads I doubt the 77W is facing much of a penalty, and can still carry more cargo than the 77L.

Sorry, I should've clarified a bit more. They were putting the 77W on the route pre-covid as well...my question was more to then.

A 77W does not need to block 100+ seats to fly YYZ-HKG, so even with any penalty it was carrying more passengers than AC’s 77Ls would have.

Cool...I didn't know how much of a penalty they were putting on I mean, obviously if it didn't make sense, they wouldn't do it, I was just wondering why you would put a plane that needs a penalty vs one that didn't. i know it probably wasn't a huge one.

So, with such a penalty (100 blocked seats), the resulting CASM must be pretty close to the 777LR ("assuming" similar amount of freight is profitably carried).

May as well add more flight hours/cycles to the 777LR fleet and scrap them when they run out of cycles/hours (as we know their eventual resale value will be WAY less than the 77W anyways).

Just out of curiosity, I checked the loads on YYZ-HKG-YYZ and see as far as the schedule predicts, it’s operated by a 787-9.

That appears to be the big issue. For AC’s needs, the 787-9 does all the 777-200LR can do. I am sure during fleet rationale meetings, the 777-200LR has a huge target on its back. Is it really worth keeping them for the very odd occasion the 777-200LR’s capabilities are needed?

Yes, they could have (and did order) the 777F. But the decision not to was made almost 15 years ago. Cargo needs were very different then.

Thomaas wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Just out of curiosity, I checked the loads on YYZ-HKG-YYZ and see as far as the schedule predicts, it’s operated by a 787-9.

That appears to be the big issue. For AC’s needs, the 787-9 does all the 777-200LR can do. I am sure during fleet rationale meetings, the 777-200LR has a huge target on its back. Is it really worth keeping them for the very odd occasion the 777-200LR’s capabilities are needed?

Yes, they could have (and did order) the 777F. But the decision not to was made almost 15 years ago. Cargo needs were very different then.

4 of the 6 77Ls are owned, and their resale value is fairly limited. Maintaining them in the fleet costs AC very little as they have a large 77W pilot pool.

Wonder if in a few years they could convert them to freighters like they are doing with the 767s from rouge. Get the most out of them in Pax form and then make a bit more money using them as freighters.

jumbojettony wrote:

Thomaas wrote:

CrewBunk wrote:

Just out of curiosity, I checked the loads on YYZ-HKG-YYZ and see as far as the schedule predicts, it’s operated by a 787-9.

That appears to be the big issue. For AC’s needs, the 787-9 does all the 777-200LR can do. I am sure during fleet rationale meetings, the 777-200LR has a huge target on its back. Is it really worth keeping them for the very odd occasion the 777-200LR’s capabilities are needed?

Yes, they could have (and did order) the 777F. But the decision not to was made almost 15 years ago. Cargo needs were very different then.

4 of the 6 77Ls are owned, and their resale value is fairly limited. Maintaining them in the fleet costs AC very little as they have a large 77W pilot pool.

Wonder if in a few years they could convert them to freighters like they are doing with the 767s from rouge. Get the most out of them in Pax form and then make a bit more money using them as freighters.

As has been stated in a thread a bunch of times, there is no conversion program for the 77L, and, based on the number of frames in existence, there won't be. The 77L's have a niche, but useful role in AC's fleet. AC keeps their aircraft in service for over 30 years. They have 10 more J seats and hold more cargo than the 789, hence why they are used on the routes they fly. They will likely remain in service for another 10 years flying YYZ-HKG and YVR-SYD. Should AC ever decide to add South Africa (which has been discussed many times), they would also work extremely well on YYZ-JNB.

With Air Canada converting some of the 767 to freighters, i wonder will they use AC/ACA code, or will they get a new one like ACC for Air Canada Cargo.

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

jumbojettony wrote:

Thomaas wrote:

4 of the 6 77Ls are owned, and their resale value is fairly limited. Maintaining them in the fleet costs AC very little as they have a large 77W pilot pool.

Wonder if in a few years they could convert them to freighters like they are doing with the 767s from rouge. Get the most out of them in Pax form and then make a bit more money using them as freighters.

As has been stated in a thread a bunch of times, there is no conversion program for the 77L, and, based on the number of frames in existence, there won't be. The 77L's have a niche, but useful role in AC's fleet. AC keeps their aircraft in service for over 30 years. They have 10 more J seats and hold more cargo than the 789, hence why they are used on the routes they fly. They will likely remain in service for another 10 years flying YYZ-HKG and YVR-SYD. Should AC ever decide to add South Africa (which has been discussed many times), they would also work extremely well on YYZ-JNB.

Anecdotally, when AC studied YVR - SIN a couple years back, the focus at the time was using a 77L for the route (no source, just shop talk at work). This would be another obvious niche route for the 77L, when demand returns.

Retired57 wrote:

With Air Canada converting some of the 767 to freighters, i wonder will they use AC/ACA code, or will they get a new one like ACC for Air Canada Cargo.

I wonder if they are going to be ex-Rouge, ex-mainline or acquired.
The newer of Rouge craft would seem most logical - the mainline were some of the oldest. If Company LNs are being converted, which of those and what is the timetable to complete?

mach86 wrote:

EdmFlyBoi wrote:

jumbojettony wrote:

Wonder if in a few years they could convert them to freighters like they are doing with the 767s from rouge. Get the most out of them in Pax form and then make a bit more money using them as freighters.

As has been stated in a thread a bunch of times, there is no conversion program for the 77L, and, based on the number of frames in existence, there won't be. The 77L's have a niche, but useful role in AC's fleet. AC keeps their aircraft in service for over 30 years. They have 10 more J seats and hold more cargo than the 789, hence why they are used on the routes they fly. They will likely remain in service for another 10 years flying YYZ-HKG and YVR-SYD. Should AC ever decide to add South Africa (which has been discussed many times), they would also work extremely well on YYZ-JNB.

Anecdotally, when AC studied YVR - SIN a couple years back, the focus at the time was using a 77L for the route (no source, just shop talk at work). This would be another obvious niche route for the 77L, when demand returns.

YVR-SIN has been more commonly suggested as being flown by a 789, much like how United uses it from SFO (although United's 789 has more premium seats). YVR to SIN is 6923 nautical miles while SFO to SIN is 7340 nautical miles. It really comes down to J class and cargo as the 77L is more premium than a 789 and can carry more cargo. If AC decided to launch YVR-SIN, it could certainly be possible that the aircraft placed on the route could change based on the season. YVR-SYD has historically had high J demand, as has YYZ-HKG. Seems likely that J class to HKG will continue to be lower, while SYD won't be in demand again until the vaccine is really commonplace and Australia's borders are open. Both routes will likely see 789's for a while, especially Sydney, as both Brisbane and Melbourne, as well as Auckland, likely won't be restarted for a while.