Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:41 pm

https://www.novus.aero/app/uploads/2021 ... -300ER.pdf

The lessors who own BA’s latest 77Ws have just released a good and interesting article on the outlook of the 777-300ER.

They argue that the jet remains as relevant today as it was when it entered service in 2004. You can read the full 5 page report if you want. It’s not like that long. But here is the summary:

The B777-300ER will remain relevant in airline service with reasonable value retention long beyond the recovery in air travel demand (2024) for the following reasons:
• Airlines have no money to invest in replacement large-widebody aircraft (no orders 2020);
• Airline priorities will be focused on debt repayment over capital expenditure for the next 4-5 years (at least);
• Lessors have not made any large-widebody speculative orders (even pre-COVID);
• Large-widebody SLBs will be hindered because of appraiser negativity on future values;
• Most large-widebody types have been retired (B747s, A380s, A340s, B772s) leaving a likely shortfall in capacity once full-recovery takes place;
• Manufacturers are cutting production rates and reducing skilled headcount leaving little room for purchase price discounting because of higher unit production costs and have reduced ability to quickly ramp-up rates as/when demand returns;
• Network airlines still need large capacity twin-jets to restore premium class-driven profitability and overcome airport congestion on long-haul routes;
• Given the foregoing, the probabilities of lease extensions on B777-300ERs, longer utilisation for owned examples and the prospect of P2F conversion are increasing which would help to prolong/preserve values.


Thoughts?

Mods if there is a relevant thread where this can or shoved under please move it! Thank you
 
CRJockey
Posts: 354
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2020 11:54 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 12:54 pm

Well, what else would they say as owners of the assets? ;-)

With that said, I see no reason for the 77W to be any less relevant in a 787/350/779 world than the A330 was in a 787/350 world. 77Ws will be very useful planes with competitive total cost structure.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:03 pm

CRJockey wrote:
Well, what else would they say as owners of the assets? ;-)

With that said, I see no reason for the 77W to be any less relevant in a 787/350/779 world than the A330 was in a 787/350 world. 77Ws will be very useful planes with competitive total cost structure.

True!

And I agree with that too
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10047
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:17 pm

Well, it isn't enough to be good - for any carrier's fleet they have to be among the best, lest they be shed as excess capacity. See the thread below for AA's dumping of 332/333.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457311

Same thing for DL's 777 and 77L fleets. Not attractive enough to keep.

Same thing for ANA with 77W vs. 787s.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1453177&start=100
 
Weatherwatcher1
Posts: 922
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:14 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:18 pm

Residual values will be hurt when airlines retire 12 year old airplanes like Singapore and Emirates do. Emirates’ early 777-300ERs found new homes mostly in Russia. The freighter conversion program should help as well.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:25 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
Well, it isn't enough to be good - for any carrier's fleet they have to be among the best, lest they be shed as excess capacity. See the thread below for AA's dumping of 332/333.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1457311

Same thing for DL's 777 and 77L fleets. Not attractive enough to keep.

Same thing for ANA with 77W vs. 787s.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1453177&start=100

That is also true. It’s definitely still holding its own. 77L I won’t expect it to. They’re only about 60 in the world.

The newer 77W frames at ANA are still holding. About 15 will hold from the last update. I know CX has extended the life on half of theirs but I’m not sure here tbh. I’m not sure about anything CX

European carriers are also going to keep them for a long time. Like they do for most of their widebodies.

The 77W is still amongst the best in a lot of fleet

And the storage rates attest to that. About 14.8%
The 787 stands at about 15% at the moment and the A350 stands at 18%

These are cirium figures
Last edited by Opus99 on Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4743
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:28 pm

The 77W's relevance (and value) will be retained well into the future for a few reasons. It has proven itself to be a solid cargo hauler, the number of 747's is dwindling and are expensive to convert (and operate at 4 engines), same goes for the A380s. From a pax perspective, it has a favorable cost structure. Eventually, FedEx, UPS, etc...will need to retire their MD11s and the 77W is a logical replacement.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10047
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:55 pm

How many freight conversions do you think we'll see, with the eldest of the 300ERs turning 17 this spring? A big fraction of the 800+ 300ERs delivered? I doubt it.

IMHO the OP's reference by the asset owner is an example of magical thinking: We need it to be true so we advance the argument. Owners of leasing firms, airlines that own the aircraft, lenders to leasing firms... nobody wants to read that $ tens of Billions of assets need to be written off (in the form of DL's $1.4 Billion write-down of just eight old 777 and ten 77L). It's of the same form as WN claiming they'd be at 95% of 2019 flight count in December 2020. (How'd that go!) It's the same form as Ryanair very recently arguing that vaccinations will create a summer 2021 travel boom. (What nation has a credible plan for vaccinating 70+ % to create herd immunity in that time frame? Is the UK going to allow unrestricted travel to/from places that have just 10-30% of people vaccinated?)

But O’Leary told an investor call that bookings would “snap back very strongly” once confidence grows in the rollout of vaccines across the European Union.

“I would be reasonably confident ... that we will see a return to relatively high-volume travel in that key July, August, September quarter,” he said.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ryan ... A11F6?il=0
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:08 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
How many freight conversions do you think we'll see, with the eldest of the 300ERs turning 17 this spring? A big fraction of the 800+ 300ERs delivered? I doubt it.

IMHO the OP's reference by the asset owner is an example of magical thinking: We need it to be true so we advance the argument. Owners of leasing firms, airlines that own the aircraft, lenders to leasing firms... nobody wants to read that $ tens of Billions of assets need to be written off (in the form of DL's $1.4 Billion write-down of just eight old 777 and ten 77L). It's of the same form as WN claiming they'd be at 95% of 2019 flight count in December 2020. (How'd that go!) It's the same form as Ryanair very recently arguing that vaccinations will create a summer 2021 travel boom. (What nation has a credible plan for vaccinating 70+ % to create herd immunity in that time frame? Is the UK going to allow unrestricted travel to/from places that have just 10-30% of people vaccinated?)

But O’Leary told an investor call that bookings would “snap back very strongly” once confidence grows in the rollout of vaccines across the European Union.

“I would be reasonably confident ... that we will see a return to relatively high-volume travel in that key July, August, September quarter,” he said.


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-ryan ... A11F6?il=0

They can make that argument because there are currently not enough counters to not make the argument. The 77W is still holding up enough particularly in this period in high cargo demand which is quite frankly the only thing making money. It’s cargo capabilities have allowed to hold even with much newer technology and cost structure. The article actually makes a very good argument. There are still about 600 77Ws operating in a pandemic. If that figure can be operated in the worst of times then it shows you the value of the jet to a lot of operators. Especially in this time.

And another good point. When demand comes back airlines still won’t focus on fleet replacement of the 77W there will be a focus on fixing balance sheets extending the life further. Then you have the expensive costs of replacement. DLs 777-200LR. I don’t know what that has to do with the 300ER. To very different aircrafts for two different purposes.

The 777-300ER is still the best cargo hauler on the market for a passenger jet on the market right now

As you can see by the reference. No mention of the 200LR
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2832
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:19 pm

Low fuel prices won't hurt its cause at all. Older tech aircraft are paradoxically far easier (cheaper) to park or dispose of but also more competitive in an environment where the aircraft are mostly or else entirely paid-off and fuel expenses are lower. I expect the 77W will remain strong for a while yet (and ditto the A333 which is in the same situation).
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:23 pm

MrHMSH wrote:
Low fuel prices won't hurt its cause at all. Older tech aircraft are paradoxically far easier (cheaper) to park or dispose of but also more competitive in an environment where the aircraft are mostly or else entirely paid-off and fuel expenses are lower. I expect the 77W will remain strong for a while yet (and ditto the A333 which is in the same situation).

Exactly, the 333 and 77W are still relatively efficient, and their cost structure helps them even more
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:33 pm

It is a well-built and reliable aircraft type. Hard to find such qualities with new types.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 2:38 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
How many freight conversions do you think we'll see, with the eldest of the 300ERs turning 17 this spring? A big fraction of the 800+ 300ERs delivered? I doubt it.


IAI is opening 3 lines that will convert 2 to 3 aircraft a year. So over a 20 year period starting in 2022, anywhere from 180 to 120. It won't make a big impact once the big operators start phasing the type out en masse.

https://www.aviationbusinessnews.com/ca ... sponsored/

By 2022, IAI intends to open three conversion lines dedicated to B777 conversion programs, each with the capacity to convert between 2 and 3 aircraft per year.
 
User avatar
ssteve
Posts: 1512
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 8:32 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:03 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
the number of 747's is dwindling and are expensive to convert (and operate at 4 engines).


Quick question on the converted freighter market here: I thought that, even with the Covid increase in demand for pure freighters, that there were parked converted 744s in the desert? So, no demand for new conversion regardless of whether frames are available. (And I certainly wondered whether the Qantas 400ER frames would be desirable)
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4743
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:09 pm

ssteve wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
the number of 747's is dwindling and are expensive to convert (and operate at 4 engines).


Quick question on the converted freighter market here: I thought that, even with the Covid increase in demand for pure freighters, that there were parked converted 744s in the desert? So, no demand for new conversion regardless of whether frames are available. (And I certainly wondered whether the Qantas 400ER frames would be desirable)


Not sure, but I think the operating costs of the 77W vs. 747-400ER are likely lower, even after taking into consideration conversion (as well as the cost of transforming the frame into a freight hauler).
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22934
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:28 pm

While I think the 777-300ER is relevant and will keep flying, the values were brutalized in 2020.

On January 1st 2020 a 15 year old 77W was worth $46 million usd.

On October 28th, a 15 year old 77W was worth $24.5 million. I would bet that 77W that was worth $46 million is worth less than $23 million in October and declining with time.
https://leehamnews.com/2020/11/09/ponti ... ts-plunge/

Hence the market for conversions. Since the 77W has a long limit of Validity of 37,500 flight cycles as a freighter with 160,000 flight hours, there shouldn't be any that aged out of conversion (less than 17,500 cycles and 100,000 hours in service). The maximum used is my opinion of value for conversion.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/aerom ... 2012_q4/2/


So the 77W has suddenly dropped from a high utilization airframe to suitable for low utilization duty.

A link on 5-year values.
https://leehamnews.com/2020/09/22/hotr- ... ase-rates/

If you look, the A330 isn't doing well. At 5 years, the A333 dropped about the same in value starting at 60% of the value... At 15 years, the A332 is already at scrap pricing. Although, to be honest, the 77W teetering just above scrap values, which is why I think less pedigreed aircraft are being scrapped (e.g., Jet's 77Ws). The values given are for well documented aircraft.

Lightsaber
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 3:37 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
IMHO the OP's reference by the asset owner is an example of magical thinking: We need it to be true so we advance the argument. Owners of leasing firms, airlines that own the aircraft, lenders to leasing firms... nobody wants to read that $ tens of Billions of assets need to be written off (in the form of DL's $1.4 Billion write-down of just eight old 777 and ten 77L). It's of the same form as WN claiming they'd be at 95% of 2019 flight count in December 2020. (How'd that go!) It's the same form as Ryanair very recently arguing that vaccinations will create a summer 2021 travel boom. (What nation has a credible plan for vaccinating 70+ % to create herd immunity in that time frame? Is the UK going to allow unrestricted travel to/from places that have just 10-30% of people vaccinated?)


I think the analysis missed a key point of the economy and the industry in the next few years, that is what does the recovery curve look like. It is possible that COVID will be like the Spanish flu and take the world 3 years to see a resemblance of recovery.

Since that report was written more wide aircraft were parked.

What will the recovery curve look like, will it be a sharp rebound like SARS or the GFC, or will it be a long drawn out affair. The prospects for the 77W very much revolve around the passenger demand levels increasing particularly in premium cabins. If premium demand remains soft airlines will downsize their capacity leaving the 77W without a role.

As a pure cargo carrier without any passengers, it is very inefficient on a cost per tonne basis, even a 343 looks much better. 77W being newer still attract higher lease rates and per hour costs. The same reason we saw cargo airlines operating converted passengers aircraft well after they stopped flying passengers.

When the global economy does pickup, will oil production be able to ramp up fast enough to meet global demand, will we be seeing airlines faced with high oil prices again.

The true litmus test for the arguments put forward in the report is what had happened to the 100+ 77Ws that have been returned to lessors in the past 12 months ? Does industry share the same medium to long outlook as the author ?
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 22259
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Mon Feb 01, 2021 10:01 pm

The 744 remained relevant for 33 years and it probably would have survived another few years if the pandemic hadn't hit. The 77W is basically a version of the 744 that is 15 years younger. I predict that in another 15 years, we will start seeing that the 77W is being retired en masse, but for now, they only just ended production and there are a lot of very young birds.
 
User avatar
Boeing757100
Posts: 750
Joined: Wed May 06, 2020 10:09 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Feb 02, 2021 2:07 am

DocLightning wrote:
The 744 remained relevant for 33 years and it probably would have survived another few years if the pandemic hadn't hit. The 77W is basically a version of the 744 that is 15 years younger. I predict that in another 15 years, we will start seeing that the 77W is being retired en masse, but for now, they only just ended production and there are a lot of very young birds.



I think the -300ER still has unfilled orders from Aeroflot and some leasing companies
 
FluidFlow
Posts: 1117
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:39 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Feb 02, 2021 9:38 am

Opus99 wrote:
https://www.novus.aero/app/uploads/2021/02/Economic-and-Financial-Factors-Favouring-the-B777-300ER.pdf

The lessors who own BA’s latest 77Ws have just released a good and interesting article on the outlook of the 777-300ER.

They argue that the jet remains as relevant today as it was when it entered service in 2004. You can read the full 5 page report if you want. It’s not like that long. But here is the summary:

The B777-300ER will remain relevant in airline service with reasonable value retention long beyond the recovery in air travel demand (2024) for the following reasons:
• Airlines have no money to invest in replacement large-widebody aircraft (no orders 2020);
• Airline priorities will be focused on debt repayment over capital expenditure for the next 4-5 years (at least);
• Lessors have not made any large-widebody speculative orders (even pre-COVID);
• Large-widebody SLBs will be hindered because of appraiser negativity on future values;
• Most large-widebody types have been retired (B747s, A380s, A340s, B772s) leaving a likely shortfall in capacity once full-recovery takes place;
• Manufacturers are cutting production rates and reducing skilled headcount leaving little room for purchase price discounting because of higher unit production costs and have reduced ability to quickly ramp-up rates as/when demand returns;
• Network airlines still need large capacity twin-jets to restore premium class-driven profitability and overcome airport congestion on long-haul routes;
• Given the foregoing, the probabilities of lease extensions on B777-300ERs, longer utilisation for owned examples and the prospect of P2F conversion are increasing which would help to prolong/preserve values.


Thoughts?

Mods if there is a relevant thread where this can or shoved under please move it! Thank you


I really agree with that analysis. The 77W is together with "its smaller brother" the A333 the workhorse aircraft. This two are solid aircraft that will operate as long as physically possible. We will see them flying well into 2040. The last ones are just coming of the line or did just come of the line and are relatively cheap to maintain due to the sheer amount of spares around.

The real killer in this report is this:

• Airlines have no money to invest in replacement large-widebody aircraft (no orders 2020);
• Airline priorities will be focused on debt repayment over capital expenditure for the next 4-5 years (at least);

That makes 77W and A333s so attractive and will keep them attractive for a long time. No one can afford anything new. So the 77W will live on and soldier on.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Feb 02, 2021 11:58 am

FluidFlow wrote:
The real killer in this report is this:

• Airlines have no money to invest in replacement large-widebody aircraft (no orders 2020);
• Airline priorities will be focused on debt repayment over capital expenditure for the next 4-5 years (at least);

That makes 77W and A333s so attractive and will keep them attractive for a long time. No one can afford anything new. So the 77W will live on and soldier on.


That sort of ignores the fact that airlines still have massive backlogs from the preceding years. Outstanding orders today are for 509 A350s, 274 A330neo, 513 787 and 299 777X. Even if a number of those aren't going to happen, that is still a lot of capacity that airlines will have to absorb, more than the total number of 777-300ERs, even if we ignore the 787-8 and entire A330neo backlog. Several of the biggest 777 operators already announced that they are going ahead with plans to replace the 777-300ER, including Emirates, Qatar, Air France and Aeroflot. Air New Zealand has probably joined them already.

That said, the 777-300ER will remain in service with major airlines for at least 15-20 years to come. The type has some fairly late adopters. I don't see Swiss, British Airways, KLM, Thai, Cathay, United or American Airlines replacing their youngest aircraft any time soon. I also don't think many airlines will replace the type as long as they still have the older 777-200ER in service, and some of the airlines that will keep it for a long time have a lot of those.
 
dtw2hyd
Posts: 9100
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:11 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:27 pm

VSMUT wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The real killer in this report is this:

• Airlines have no money to invest in replacement large-widebody aircraft (no orders 2020);
• Airline priorities will be focused on debt repayment over capital expenditure for the next 4-5 years (at least);

That makes 77W and A333s so attractive and will keep them attractive for a long time. No one can afford anything new. So the 77W will live on and soldier on.


That sort of ignores the fact that airlines still have massive backlogs from the preceding years. Outstanding orders today are for 509 A350s, 274 A330neo, 513 787 and 299 777X. Even if a number of those aren't going to happen, that is still a lot of capacity that airlines will have to absorb, more than the total number of 777-300ERs, even if we ignore the 787-8 and entire A330neo backlog. Several of the biggest 777 operators already announced that they are going ahead with plans to replace the 777-300ER, including Emirates, Qatar, Air France and Aeroflot. Air New Zealand has probably joined them already.

That said, the 777-300ER will remain in service with major airlines for at least 15-20 years to come. The type has some fairly late adopters. I don't see Swiss, British Airways, KLM, Thai, Cathay, United or American Airlines replacing their youngest aircraft any time soon. I also don't think many airlines will replace the type as long as they still have the older 777-200ER in service, and some of the airlines that will keep it for a long time have a lot of those.


It is easy to cancel pending orders than take on new debt even for airlines strictly lease.

For airlines finance to own 77Ws no need to think about replacing for the foreseeable future.

If the new replacement is 20% efficient, and has 20% AOG time because of teething issues, it is a wash at best and unnecessary hassle.

Folks forget, not long ago 777 was backup for 787.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Feb 02, 2021 12:37 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
VSMUT wrote:
FluidFlow wrote:
The real killer in this report is this:

• Airlines have no money to invest in replacement large-widebody aircraft (no orders 2020);
• Airline priorities will be focused on debt repayment over capital expenditure for the next 4-5 years (at least);

That makes 77W and A333s so attractive and will keep them attractive for a long time. No one can afford anything new. So the 77W will live on and soldier on.


That sort of ignores the fact that airlines still have massive backlogs from the preceding years. Outstanding orders today are for 509 A350s, 274 A330neo, 513 787 and 299 777X. Even if a number of those aren't going to happen, that is still a lot of capacity that airlines will have to absorb, more than the total number of 777-300ERs, even if we ignore the 787-8 and entire A330neo backlog. Several of the biggest 777 operators already announced that they are going ahead with plans to replace the 777-300ER, including Emirates, Qatar, Air France and Aeroflot. Air New Zealand has probably joined them already.

That said, the 777-300ER will remain in service with major airlines for at least 15-20 years to come. The type has some fairly late adopters. I don't see Swiss, British Airways, KLM, Thai, Cathay, United or American Airlines replacing their youngest aircraft any time soon. I also don't think many airlines will replace the type as long as they still have the older 777-200ER in service, and some of the airlines that will keep it for a long time have a lot of those.


It is easy to cancel pending orders than take on new debt even for airlines strictly lease.

For airlines finance to own 77Ws no need to think about replacing for the foreseeable future.

If the new replacement is 20% efficient, and has 20% AOG time because of teething issues, it is a wash at best and unnecessary hassle.

Folks forget, not long ago 777 was backup for 787.

That’s a very good closing point.

Willie Walsh had always said if he had known the issues and delays that would’ve come with the 787 he would’ve ordered more 300ERs
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Feb 02, 2021 3:00 pm

dtw2hyd wrote:
It is easy to cancel pending orders than take on new debt even for airlines strictly lease.


You are skipping fairly easily over the issue here. Airbus and Boeing are both fighting tooth and nail to hold the airlines to their orders. I am aware of at least one major airline that has been forced to take so far 14 new widebodies since the crisis began, despite not wanting them. We have seen a number of deferrals, but few cancellations.
 
Speedy752
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 3:51 am

I think it will remain relevant not only because it’s still (relatively) young but also because like the a333 it’s going to be the newest “old” plane standing after retirements. If you parked a 744 or a346 and demand returns rapidly you’d probably spend the money on a secondhand 77W than trying to get the older uncompetitive metal up to standard. If demand comes quick you won’t be able to get a new A or B factory fresh model for some time
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 1:36 pm

zeke wrote:
[
As a pure cargo carrier without any passengers, it is very inefficient on a cost per tonne basis, even a 343 looks much better. 77W being newer still attract higher lease rates and per hour costs. The same reason we saw cargo airlines operating converted passengers aircraft well after they stopped flying passengers.


Compared to a 744, MD11 or even as you said a A343 on a similar route like NRT-ANC-ORD how much tonnage could a pure fully converted 77W carry? And what would the fuel burn look like I'm just interested because it is interesting an A343 would perform better than a 77W. I'm not doubting you I'm just a bit shocked that a twin 77W would be inefficient even against a A343 on a cost per tonne basis.

I wonder is this because the main deck of a 77W would require so much reinforcement do to the fact it is a stretch version of the original 777?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:35 pm

jayunited wrote:

Compared to a 744, MD11 or even as you said a A343 on a similar route like NRT-ANC-ORD how much tonnage could a pure fully converted 77W carry? And what would the fuel burn look like I'm just interested because it is interesting an A343 would perform better than a 77W. I'm not doubting you I'm just a bit shocked that a twin 77W would be inefficient even against a A343 on a cost per tonne basis.

I wonder is this because the main deck of a 77W would require so much reinforcement do to the fact it is a stretch version of the original 777?


Talking about passenger aircraft being used for belly freight, they are not taking a lot of tonnage, mainly cubing out.
 
Antarius
Posts: 3436
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 4:41 pm

Speedy752 wrote:
I think it will remain relevant not only because it’s still (relatively) young but also because like the a333 it’s going to be the newest “old” plane standing after retirements. If you parked a 744 or a346 and demand returns rapidly you’d probably spend the money on a secondhand 77W than trying to get the older uncompetitive metal up to standard. If demand comes quick you won’t be able to get a new A or B factory fresh model for some time


Additionally, airlines recently have taken 77W deliveries. This is despite newer and better aircraft like the 787 and a350 being out and the 777X on the horizon. Similarly a330s were being delivered until quite recently (non-neo).
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 22934
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 5:12 pm

In my opinion, coronavirus made the 77W the next 744 overnight. It will start exiting passenger duty, but will steadily be phased out by more efficient aircraft. Just was with the 744, this will take time. A long time.
Just my opinion:
We'll see some fraction scrapped. Those GE-90s with green time are worth a lot. But mostly aircraft with poor paper or in need of an unusual amount of care and attention for individual airframe or individual airline reasons.

We'll see more converted to freighters. I expect IAI Bedek will be busy. i expect 200 to 500 conversions, how many dependent upon the economy and that discussion quickly goes off topic.

I expect more than two thirds to return to passenger duty, but not extended service. I expect by 2030 we will be discussing 77Ws operating at only a few airlines in passenger duty, even though there will be two hundred or so still in pax duty at that time.

By 2035 there will only be a handful of 77Ws in passenger scheduled passenger duty and we're discuss again and again there replacement at the few airlines that still fly them.

The same will be true of the A330CEO, in my opinion. They will fade away together, like to old enemy soldiers wagging fingers at each other in the nursing home. :old:

Then they get parked and depending on the 777xF offering, we should start seeing the type slowly fade away over decades even in freight duty.

I would bet in 2050 there will still be 777-300ERSFs in service, albeit in limited and declining numbers.

jayunited wrote:
zeke wrote:
[
As a pure cargo carrier without any passengers, it is very inefficient on a cost per tonne basis, even a 343 looks much better. 77W being newer still attract higher lease rates and per hour costs. The same reason we saw cargo airlines operating converted passengers aircraft well after they stopped flying passengers.


Compared to a 744, MD11 or even as you said a A343 on a similar route like NRT-ANC-ORD how much tonnage could a pure fully converted 77W carry? And what would the fuel burn look like I'm just interested because it is interesting an A343 would perform better than a 77W. I'm not doubting you I'm just a bit shocked that a twin 77W would be inefficient even against a A343 on a cost per tonne basis.

I wonder is this because the main deck of a 77W would require so much reinforcement do to the fact it is a stretch version of the original 777?



Per IAI Bedek, 100.6 metric tons of payload.

https://www.iai.co.il/drupal/sites/defa ... ochure.pdf

The A343 is too optimised for passenger duty (too light of structure) to ever be a converted freighter. In a way, the A330 being overbuilt to also be an A340 is what makes it a great conversion candidate.

Lightsaber
 
alan3
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 6:13 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:09 pm

I thought the era of 400 seaters was on the decline? AC, for example, pack up to 450 seats on one configuration of their 77W. If airlines are still in the mood for such big boys, wouldn't a new 77X be the preferred option over the maintenance of keeping a 77W in service for 20-30 years?
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 7:54 pm

zeke wrote:
jayunited wrote:

Compared to a 744, MD11 or even as you said a A343 on a similar route like NRT-ANC-ORD how much tonnage could a pure fully converted 77W carry? And what would the fuel burn look like I'm just interested because it is interesting an A343 would perform better than a 77W. I'm not doubting you I'm just a bit shocked that a twin 77W would be inefficient even against a A343 on a cost per tonne basis.

I wonder is this because the main deck of a 77W would require so much reinforcement do to the fact it is a stretch version of the original 777?


Talking about passenger aircraft being used for belly freight, they are not taking a lot of tonnage, mainly cubing out.


My apologies I thought you were talking about conversions.

But sticking with passenger aircraft being used as freighters with belly cargo only when you say they are not taking a lot of tonnage what is the max tonnage you believe they are carrying on the 77W with belly freight only?
 
Speedy752
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Fri Feb 19, 2021 11:13 pm

alan3 wrote:
I thought the era of 400 seaters was on the decline? AC, for example, pack up to 450 seats on one configuration of their 77W. If airlines are still in the mood for such big boys, wouldn't a new 77X be the preferred option over the maintenance of keeping a 77W in service for 20-30 years?

As airlines rebuild their balance sheets I think we will see them phase out, but if you’re an airline needing seats cheaply and quickly I think most will fly again in the near future. I’d still suspect any 787/a350s to find new homes quickly but if you need range and or cargo it’s by no means a 744 or 346 where it’s not worth the investment. If we look out 10 years they will be into the replacement cycle but that’s a lot of life still left on a very popular frame
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Feb 20, 2021 2:23 am

jayunited wrote:

But sticking with passenger aircraft being used as freighters with belly cargo only when you say they are not taking a lot of tonnage what is the max tonnage you believe they are carrying on the 77W with belly freight only?


I have seen them taking less than 20 tonnes, you should be able to see on your system cargo flights that are not carrying much in terms of weight.

Footage inside a 77W cargo flight https://youtu.be/d7igmRDgAik
 
PhilipBass
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:30 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:19 am

https://theicct.org/sites/default/files ... 180912.pdf
With Jet-A fuel now at roughly the same price as it was in 2017 this research seems relevant.

https://www.iata.org/contentassets/9036 ... 2021_1.png

777-200, 777-200ER, 777-300 and 777-300ER are now at record low lease values and I was looking earlier in the week at lease prices from the last quarter but try as I might I can't find the link any more.
The shorter the journey length the more competitive the older plane becomes and a journey trans-Atlantic between East Coast US and West Coast Europe seems ideal.
If you can get the re-rated versions of these planes then various other charges decrease too.

The one big issue these older planes has which is hard to overcome is in-flight entertainment and cabin ambience.
Nobody wants to be re-fitting an old plane and an established airline won't want them undermining their brand image.

I see a gap in the market once the madness settles down for a bare bones new entrant using these older widebody two-engine planes on routes of around 3000NM or for the bucket and spade routes in high season.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:53 pm

zeke wrote:
jayunited wrote:

But sticking with passenger aircraft being used as freighters with belly cargo only when you say they are not taking a lot of tonnage what is the max tonnage you believe they are carrying on the 77W with belly freight only?


I have seen them taking less than 20 tonnes, you should be able to see on your system cargo flights that are not carrying much in terms of weight.

Footage inside a 77W cargo flight https://youtu.be/d7igmRDgAik


Less than 20 tonnes that is around 40,000 LBS are you sure about this on a 77W? The reason I asked the question is because I'm looking at UA's cargo on our cargo only 77Ws and your numbers are off. That is why I"m scratching my head saying if it such an inefficient aircraft why are airlines like UA using them for cargo only missions.

United was putting more 40,000 LBS or more on our 77W with a full load of passengers before the COVID. Now during the pandemic UA's 77Ws cargo only flights routinely depart with over 100,000 LBS or 50 tonnes. Over this past summer and fall UA's engineers worked with Boeing engineers and came up with a way to increase the cargo compartment limits in the belly of our 77Ws while still leaving the seats onboard upstairs. On our cargo only flights UA's compartment limits are now 87,848 LBS for the forward compartment and 74,000 LBS for rear compartment. Although we would never get any where close to that amount of cargo in either compartment the increased limits do help our load planner better balance the aircraft enabling us to take heavier pallets. Now many of UA's cargo only flights out of Asia and our GRU-ORD cargo only flight are taking off with a belly load between 112,000 LBS or 56 tones and 120,000 LBS or 60 tonnes.

In terms of cargo only flights UA's 77Ws are carrying the most weight of any aircraft in our fleet over long distances like NRT-ORD, GUM-LAX, TPE-LAX, NRT-SFO, GRU-ORD.
 
Speedy752
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2020 4:13 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sat Feb 20, 2021 11:11 pm

Do you think we will see any of the larger 777 operators perhaps with 772 or 77E models using the lower costs to swap out the older aircraft for newer 77W models? Maybe around cabin refurb time?
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:27 am

jayunited wrote:
Less than 20 tonnes that is around 40,000 LBS are you sure about this on a 77W?


Yes, very sure, pharma pallets are not heavy and also limited by how much dry ice can be carried. Not sure what the dry ice limits are on your 777 aircraft, I suspect it will be around 800 kg total in the cargo hold. Pharma needs so much dry ice per container.

jayunited wrote:
Now during the pandemic UA's 77Ws cargo only flights routinely depart with over 100,000 LBS or 50 tonnes.


Which is only a 787 load, hence the same observation, it is inefficient in that role compared to a passenger 787 carrying the same payload under floor, which is also inefficient compared to dedicated freighter.

jayunited wrote:
Now many of UA's cargo only flights out of Asia and our GRU-ORD cargo only flight are taking off with a belly load between 112,000 LBS or 56 tones and 120,000 LBS or 60 tonnes.


That is still inefficient compared to a freighter, a 77F would take about 50 tonnes more that that for about the same fuel burn.
 
User avatar
flee
Posts: 1485
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:14 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:34 am

zeke wrote:
Which is only a 787 load, hence the same observation, it is inefficient in that role compared to a passenger 787 carrying the same payload under floor, which is also inefficient compared to dedicated freighter.

I suspect that it is only profitable doing this during the Covid-19 pandemic because freight rates are much higher. We should see dedicated cargo operators reporting huge profits for 2020!
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:04 am

flee wrote:
I suspect that it is only profitable doing this during the Covid-19 pandemic because freight rates are much higher. We should see dedicated cargo operators reporting huge profits for 2020!


There is still lots of general freight only selling for US$2.00 per kg
 
RJMAZ
Posts: 2446
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 2:54 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 3:39 am

The low lease prices of the 777W make them very attractive versus a new build aircraft. The much lower lease cost can pay for a fair bit of fuel. This completely changes the econmic calculation on when the aircraft should be retired.

Likewise the A330CEO lease costs will be low.

I expect new widebody sales to take a much bigger hit than people expect. Retirement schedules on average will probably get pushed 5 years to the right due to lower than planned utilisation.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:39 am

Speedy752 wrote:
Do you think we will see any of the larger 777 operators perhaps with 772 or 77E models using the lower costs to swap out the older aircraft for newer 77W models? Maybe around cabin refurb time?

I think BA did that for their 772s (G-ZZZA to G-ZZZC) and replaced them with new build 77Ws that recently got delivered
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:00 pm

zeke wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Less than 20 tonnes that is around 40,000 LBS are you sure about this on a 77W?


Yes, very sure, pharma pallets are not heavy and also limited by how much dry ice can be carried. Not sure what the dry ice limits are on your 777 aircraft, I suspect it will be around 800 kg total in the cargo hold. Pharma needs so much dry ice per container.

jayunited wrote:
Now during the pandemic UA's 77Ws cargo only flights routinely depart with over 100,000 LBS or 50 tonnes.


Which is only a 787 load, hence the same observation, it is inefficient in that role compared to a passenger 787 carrying the same payload under floor, which is also inefficient compared to dedicated freighter.

jayunited wrote:
Now many of UA's cargo only flights out of Asia and our GRU-ORD cargo only flight are taking off with a belly load between 112,000 LBS or 56 tones and 120,000 LBS or 60 tonnes.


That is still inefficient compared to a freighter, a 77F would take about 50 tonnes more that that for about the same fuel burn.

https://www.skycargo.com/media/2021/eks ... -sheet.pdf

Emirates sky cargo has the 77W at maximum 21 tonnes in addition to full passenger load
 
Strato2
Posts: 629
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 1:17 pm

If passenger numbers remain suppressed over longer periods of time it's not a great idea to lump the fate of the A330CEO together with the 300ER. The A330 is much smaller airframe and much more versatile aircraft when demand is lower.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:47 pm

lightsaber wrote:
We'll see more converted to freighters. I expect IAI Bedek will be busy. i expect 200 to 500 conversions, how many dependent upon the economy and that discussion quickly goes off topic.


200 to 500 is way too much. IAI Bedek themselves say they expect 150 orders by 2030, and will run 3 lines converting 2 to 3 aircraft annually.

https://www.flightglobal.com/mro/gecas- ... 17.article

https://www.aircargonews.net/services/f ... -upgrades/
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3922
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 4:48 pm

Thus far, only former 9W B77Ws have been scrapped. I'd be surprised if any others get scrapped as opposed to be converted to freighters. JL, as an example of B77Ws with low cycles, would do well to line up a sale for freighter conversion. (They have the oldest B77W in the world at 18 years.) AF examples could also be ideal for freighter conversion, unless AF plans to fly them for 30 years.

Now, regarding the A330ceo, it's the 233t examples which could have a freighter conversion future, but not any GE-powered units. Some lower MTOW units are also being converted, but many of the lower MTOW units have been flown to near expiration. There are also A332s to convert, but many of them are being flown to expiration. The scrapped MT A332s were extremely close to expiration at almost 100,000 hours over 20-21 years.
 
VSMUT
Posts: 5497
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:24 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
Thus far, only former 9W B77Ws have been scrapped. I'd be surprised if any others get scrapped as opposed to be converted to freighters. JL, as an example of B77Ws with low cycles, would do well to line up a sale for freighter conversion. (They have the oldest B77W in the world at 18 years.) AF examples could also be ideal for freighter conversion, unless AF plans to fly them for 30 years.


There are too many 777-300ERs hitting the market for the cargo conversion to absorb them. As I wrote above, it is up to 9 a year once it is up and running at full speed. You will see a lot of 777-300ER being scrapped, not just the Jet Airways aircraft. The Air France examples are also the oldest in the world, so probably not the most suitable for cargo conversion once they are finally retired.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Mar 02, 2021 6:05 pm

zeke wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Less than 20 tonnes that is around 40,000 LBS are you sure about this on a 77W?


Yes, very sure, pharma pallets are not heavy and also limited by how much dry ice can be carried. Not sure what the dry ice limits are on your 777 aircraft, I suspect it will be around 800 kg total in the cargo hold. Pharma needs so much dry ice per container.

jayunited wrote:
Now during the pandemic UA's 77Ws cargo only flights routinely depart with over 100,000 LBS or 50 tonnes.


Which is only a 787 load, hence the same observation, it is inefficient in that role compared to a passenger 787 carrying the same payload under floor, which is also inefficient compared to dedicated freighter.

jayunited wrote:
Now many of UA's cargo only flights out of Asia and our GRU-ORD cargo only flight are taking off with a belly load between 112,000 LBS or 56 tones and 120,000 LBS or 60 tonnes.


That is still inefficient compared to a freighter, a 77F would take about 50 tonnes more that that for about the same fuel burn.


Okay zeke I thought of you when I saw this internal report and thought okay I have to eat a slice of humble pie.

United operates cargo only flights between FRA-ATL-FRA on a 78X. In February we had multiple 78Xs operate FRA-ATL with at least 100,000 LBS but there were days when we exceed the 100,000 LBS. Looking at the report for February the one day/flight that stands out happen about 2 weeks ago on the FRA-ATL leg where a UA 78X operated the leg with 113,200 LBS of cargo. The first thing I thought of was damn that pretty close to our 77Ws this despite the fact the 78X has one less pallet position than the 77W. Granted FRA-ATL is a much shorter flight than lets say NRT-ORD, but GRU-ORD is only a slightly longer route around 300 NM or so. It is conceivable that the 78X could operate GRU-ORD as a cargo only flight and still carry the same amount of cargo UA is loading on our 77Ws out of GRU.

You are correct on short and mid-range long haul cargo only flights the 78X can do exactly what the 77W can do but at a lower cost. The 77W is not efficient if it has to go head to head with a 78X on a route the 78X was designed to handle.
 
Opus99
Topic Author
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:01 pm

jayunited wrote:
zeke wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Less than 20 tonnes that is around 40,000 LBS are you sure about this on a 77W?


Yes, very sure, pharma pallets are not heavy and also limited by how much dry ice can be carried. Not sure what the dry ice limits are on your 777 aircraft, I suspect it will be around 800 kg total in the cargo hold. Pharma needs so much dry ice per container.

jayunited wrote:
Now during the pandemic UA's 77Ws cargo only flights routinely depart with over 100,000 LBS or 50 tonnes.


Which is only a 787 load, hence the same observation, it is inefficient in that role compared to a passenger 787 carrying the same payload under floor, which is also inefficient compared to dedicated freighter.

jayunited wrote:
Now many of UA's cargo only flights out of Asia and our GRU-ORD cargo only flight are taking off with a belly load between 112,000 LBS or 56 tones and 120,000 LBS or 60 tonnes.


That is still inefficient compared to a freighter, a 77F would take about 50 tonnes more that that for about the same fuel burn.


Okay zeke I thought of you when I saw this internal report and thought okay I have to eat a slice of humble pie.

United operates cargo only flights between FRA-ATL-FRA on a 78X. In February we had multiple 78Xs operate FRA-ATL with at least 100,000 LBS but there were days when we exceed the 100,000 LBS. Looking at the report for February the one day/flight that stands out happen about 2 weeks ago on the FRA-ATL leg where a UA 78X operated the leg with 113,200 LBS of cargo. The first thing I thought of was damn that pretty close to our 77Ws this despite the fact the 78X has one less pallet position than the 77W. Granted FRA-ATL is a much shorter flight than lets say NRT-ORD, but GRU-ORD is only a slightly longer route around 300 NM or so. It is conceivable that the 78X could operate GRU-ORD as a cargo only flight and still carry the same amount of cargo UA is loading on our 77Ws out of GRU.

You are correct on short and mid-range long haul cargo only flights the 78X can do exactly what the 77W can do but at a lower cost. The 77W is not efficient if it has to go head to head with a 78X on a route the 78X was designed to handle.

This 78X continues to surprise me
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 16358
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Wed Mar 03, 2021 2:02 pm

jayunited wrote:
Okay zeke I thought of you when I saw this internal report and thought okay I have to eat a slice of humble pie.


I know other operators taking as much cargo under floor on the A330 as the 77W, the limit really has nothing to do with the weight or volume the aircraft can carry, its due to the type of cargo. For example I have been watching some of the updates on the blancolirio youtube channel regarding the UA 777 blade failures, Juan Browne has been posting from around the world, I remember one of his recent ones he said he carried around 100,000 lb of Asparagus from SFO to the LHR. Not exactly high value cargo, probably running that a loss.
 
PhilipBass
Posts: 53
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2021 6:30 pm

Re: 777-300ER Relevance

Thu Mar 25, 2021 2:32 pm

If you have a mission which requires only 3 to 4000 NM range is there a way to reduce weight on a 777-200 ER or 777-300. Are there excess in-built fuel tanks which can be temporarily removed and replaced when the plane is returned to Lessor or sold?
Basically to close the efficiency gap to modern planes like 330Neo, A350 77X what can you do cheaply?
de-rate engines. remove tanks?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos