I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

Like everything, A.net tends to think anything that isn’t 6 months new is old, dilapidated and should be scrapped.

There are what, 400 200ERs still flying and not counting A models? Still lots of life in all of them. The newest one hasn’t even hit its 10th birthday

UA444 wrote:

Like everything, A.net tends to think anything that isn’t 6 months new is old, dilapidated and should be scrapped.

There are what, 400 200ERs still flying and not counting A models? Still lots of life in all of them. The newest one hasn’t even hit its 10th birthday

Hold on. I need to pick up my new iPhone 14 haha. Having finally flown the 200 twice in the last year I fell in love with the aircraft. And I was, the 787 is my new favorite airplane when it rolled out!

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

I think BA’s 8 or 9 parked/stored figure includes thing undergoing normal heavy maintenance or refurbishment. The number held in reserve/out of use is very low.

UA444 wrote:

Like everything, A.net tends to think anything that isn’t 6 months new is old, dilapidated and should be scrapped.

There are what, 400 200ERs still flying and not counting A models? Still lots of life in all of them. The newest one hasn’t even hit its 10th birthday

I'm not saying that at all...what I am saying is I'm surprised at the volume of 777-200ERs still in active service given the ongoing deliveries of newer aircraft in that category...I would have expected a lesser number of active frames...

I'm neither a hater or lover of any aircraft in particular or an A vs B fan...just an observer...


Faro

Always liked the 200ERs with the Trent engines. A quiet and comfortable ride.

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

I’m not sure what a 778-9 is. Do you mean a 777-8 and/or a 777-9? If so, no one can answer as they are not in service yet and won’t be for another couple of years.

Let me tell you, when you have a paid off asset, in this case a plane, it takes a loooong time for fuel to be the determining factor on whether not it’s ‘efficient’. Almost always, the prohibiting issue is maintenance cost and source of available parts.
Not having a ‘mortgage payment’ (plane note) is nearly priceless.

The same goes for a personal automobile. When paid off, it virtually never makes sense to buy a new one that is more ‘fuel efficient’ just to save on fuel. You simply don’t get the return on investment for most folks and average driving patterns. That’s why we have two fully paid for SUV’s. Frankly, it doesn’t matter how expensive gas gets, it still beats going and buying a $85,000 electric vehicle. The same goes for planes.

I was browsing on Flighradar24 and saw an El Al 77E leaving Phuket. I thought they retired them!

A lot of airlines later added 777-300ER aircraft , but kept (part of ) their 777-200ER's, an ideal solution for destinations with less passenger demand.
Also you can change from a 200ER to a -300ER and back at the same destination, depending daily passengers demand (e.g. weekends high demand , monday and tuesday less demand.)
Also most interiors are made identical and are upgraded to the later purchased 777-300ER lay-out.
Same cockpit crew, only different number of cabin crew, 200ER aircraft have a relative low book value, so low ownership costs or low lease rates, compared to the new 787 series aircraft.

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

I’m not sure what a 778-9 is. Do you mean a 777-8 and/or a 777-9? If so, no one can answer as they are not in service yet and won’t be for another couple of years.

Let me tell you, when you have a paid off asset, in this case a plane, it takes a loooong time for fuel to be the determining factor on whether not it’s ‘efficient’. Almost always, the prohibiting issue is maintenance cost and source of available parts.
Not having a ‘mortgage payment’ (plane note) is nearly priceless.

The same goes for a personal automobile. When paid off, it virtually never makes sense to buy a new one that is more ‘fuel efficient’ just to save on fuel. You simply don’t get the return on investment for most folks and average driving patterns. That’s why we have two fully paid for SUV’s. Frankly, it doesn’t matter how expensive gas gets, it still beats going and buying a $85,000 electric vehicle. The same goes for planes.

My bad...I simply meant a 789...should have paid more attention to the coding...

Your point re fully-paid off aircraft is duly taken. That is certainly one significant factor.

But perhaps I should have been more specific with my post: the point I have re AF's afore-mentioned F-GSPM is this. F-GSPM was delivered on 14.11.2000 and has now seen 21.5 years of service. As I mentioned, it seemed to have been painted relatively recently. This means that AF is looking to pursue operations with this frame for another what, 2-3 years? This I also find quite surprising given the age of the frame.


Faro

Faro wrote:

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

I’m not sure what a 778-9 is. Do you mean a 777-8 and/or a 777-9? If so, no one can answer as they are not in service yet and won’t be for another couple of years.

Let me tell you, when you have a paid off asset, in this case a plane, it takes a loooong time for fuel to be the determining factor on whether not it’s ‘efficient’. Almost always, the prohibiting issue is maintenance cost and source of available parts.
Not having a ‘mortgage payment’ (plane note) is nearly priceless.

The same goes for a personal automobile. When paid off, it virtually never makes sense to buy a new one that is more ‘fuel efficient’ just to save on fuel. You simply don’t get the return on investment for most folks and average driving patterns. That’s why we have two fully paid for SUV’s. Frankly, it doesn’t matter how expensive gas gets, it still beats going and buying a $85,000 electric vehicle. The same goes for planes.

My bad...I simply meant a 789...should have paid more attention to the coding...

Your point re fully-paid off aircraft is duly taken. That is certainly one significant factor.

But perhaps I should have been more specific with my post: the point I have re AF's afore-mentioned F-GSPM is this. F-GSPM was delivered on 14.11.2000 and has now seen 21.5 years of service. As I mentioned, it seemed to have been painted relatively recently. This means that AF is looking to pursue operations with this frame for another what, 2-3 years? This I also find quite surprising given the age of the frame.


Faro

In plane terms, 20 years old isn’t really old at all. Delta and many others have planes that are 25 or 30+ years old.

The 777 still has support (i.e. Parts are easy to come by). Really, it will come down to maintenance costs as the years go on. Like a car, if you keep it in good shape, they will last a long, long time. The great part about planes is that you can retrofit the interior, slap some paint on it snd it’ll look like it was built yesterday.

I have no idea what AF is planning on doing, but as far as fuel cost and a paid for 777, that is multiple rung’s down the list of importance. Sure, a 787-9 would burn less fuel, but they come with a high monthly ‘plane note’ to pay as well. It wouldn’t be surprising if their 777-200ER’s stay around for another 3-10 years.

Faro wrote:

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

I’m not sure what a 778-9 is. Do you mean a 777-8 and/or a 777-9? If so, no one can answer as they are not in service yet and won’t be for another couple of years.

Let me tell you, when you have a paid off asset, in this case a plane, it takes a loooong time for fuel to be the determining factor on whether not it’s ‘efficient’. Almost always, the prohibiting issue is maintenance cost and source of available parts.
Not having a ‘mortgage payment’ (plane note) is nearly priceless.

The same goes for a personal automobile. When paid off, it virtually never makes sense to buy a new one that is more ‘fuel efficient’ just to save on fuel. You simply don’t get the return on investment for most folks and average driving patterns. That’s why we have two fully paid for SUV’s. Frankly, it doesn’t matter how expensive gas gets, it still beats going and buying a $85,000 electric vehicle. The same goes for planes.

My bad...I simply meant a 789...should have paid more attention to the coding...

Your point re fully-paid off aircraft is duly taken. That is certainly one significant factor.

But perhaps I should have been more specific with my post: the point I have re AF's afore-mentioned F-GSPM is this. F-GSPM was delivered on 14.11.2000 and has now seen 21.5 years of service. As I mentioned, it seemed to have been painted relatively recently. This means that AF is looking to pursue operations with this frame for another what, 2-3 years? This I also find quite surprising given the age of the frame.


Faro

What's the downside of a 77E other than that it's not the most fuel efficient frame out there? Virtually all parts and maintenance procedures are common with the 77W, so it'll be a long time before support becomes an issue.

Not at all surprised. Didn't the 77W "overperform" after EIS? From what I recall the unexpectedly good performance of the 77W is what led to the slowdown in 77E orders. But the 77E is still a very capable plane.

To determine a route profitability is a complex affair. B772 are almost certainly paid off by most legacy airlinew bringing operating costs down. They also burn a lot a less fuel than quads and carry substantial amount of cargo. Don't forget some city pairs can be profitable just on a cargo only basis. Don't forget airlines generated plenty of profit on B772 for many years before 787s came about.

B772 is still a winner on shorter long haul routes where fuel saving isn't as substantial. Operating leases on 787s can be quite high these days.

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

In plane terms, 20 years old isn’t really old at all. Delta and many others have planes that are 25 or 30+ years old.

The 777 still has support (i.e. Parts are easy to come by). Really, it will come down to maintenance costs as the years go on. Like a car, if you keep it in good shape, they will last a long, long time. The great part about planes is that you can retrofit the interior, slap some paint on it snd it’ll look like it was built yesterday.

I’ve worked on a lot of aircraft over the years, including some on their first stop after delivery, and some on their last stop before the scrapper, and this is exactly true. Over time aircraft become a bit of a ship of Theseus. The frame remains mostly the same, but pretty much everything else is updated. When I was with an airline, we had 25 year old 744s on their way to the desert that looked newer than some of the 2 year old 77w.

I’m actually pretty familiar with the aircraft in question, FGSPM. A few years back you’d have thought it was an old aircraft ready for retirement, at least on the surface level. A new coat of paint and updated interior and suddenly it’s looking brand new. But everything it needed still worked exactly as it should, regardless of appearances.

As for the AF 772 fleet…as the 359s come online, the 772s will slowly be retired as necessary.

FGITD wrote:

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

In plane terms, 20 years old isn’t really old at all. Delta and many others have planes that are 25 or 30+ years old.

The 777 still has support (i.e. Parts are easy to come by). Really, it will come down to maintenance costs as the years go on. Like a car, if you keep it in good shape, they will last a long, long time. The great part about planes is that you can retrofit the interior, slap some paint on it snd it’ll look like it was built yesterday.

I’ve worked on a lot of aircraft over the years, including some on their first stop after delivery, and some on their last stop before the scrapper, and this is exactly true. Over time aircraft become a bit of a ship of Theseus. The frame remains mostly the same, but pretty much everything else is updated. When I was with an airline, we had 25 year old 744s on their way to the desert that looked newer than some of the 2 year old 77w.

I’m actually pretty familiar with the aircraft in question, FGSPM. A few years back you’d have thought it was an old aircraft ready for retirement, at least on the surface level. A new coat of paint and updated interior and suddenly it’s looking brand new. But everything it needed still worked exactly as it should, regardless of appearances.

As for the AF 772 fleet…as the 359s come online, the 772s will slowly be retired as necessary.

Thank you for the confirmation of F-GSPM's recent paint job and interior update, it looks very bright and smart today...very much appreciated

That CDG-YYZ flight was nominal...everything does indeed work exactly as it should...with a noted plus on the appearance front...


Faro

But perhaps I should have been more specific with my post: the point I have re AF's afore-mentioned F-GSPM is this. F-GSPM was delivered on 14.11.2000 and has now seen 21.5 years of service. As I mentioned, it seemed to have been painted relatively recently. This means that AF is looking to pursue operations with this frame for another what, 2-3 years? This I also find quite surprising given the age of the frame.


Faro[/quote]


There are hundreds of A330 just as old or older than the B777 but no one seems to think they are too old.

Johnv707 wrote:

But perhaps I should have been more specific with my post: the point I have re AF's afore-mentioned F-GSPM is this. F-GSPM was delivered on 14.11.2000 and has now seen 21.5 years of service. As I mentioned, it seemed to have been painted relatively recently. This means that AF is looking to pursue operations with this frame for another what, 2-3 years? This I also find quite surprising given the age of the frame.


Faro

There are hundreds of A330 just as old or older than the B777 but no one seems to think they are too old.[/quote]



As I said in my clarification, my initial post should have been focused on F-GSPM specifically which is 21.5 years old...I doubt there are hundreds of A330's older than that, although I may be wrong...


Faro

A 777-200ER can't match the CASM or range of a 787-9 but that doesn't make them functionally obsolete, no more than a 321neo makes every 321ceo obsolete. Regularly refresh interiors and AVOD do a lot to cover aircraft age.

MIflyer12 wrote:

A 777-200ER can't match the CASM or range of a 787-9 but that doesn't make them functionally obsolete, no more than a 321neo makes every 321ceo obsolete. Regularly refresh interiors and AVOD do a lot to cover aircraft age.

What made the 777-200ER avoid obsolescence compared to other models, like the 767-300ER, for example? Couldn't this argument also be used regarding those?

Faro wrote:

FGITD wrote:

AAPilot48Heavy wrote:

In plane terms, 20 years old isn’t really old at all. Delta and many others have planes that are 25 or 30+ years old.

The 777 still has support (i.e. Parts are easy to come by). Really, it will come down to maintenance costs as the years go on. Like a car, if you keep it in good shape, they will last a long, long time. The great part about planes is that you can retrofit the interior, slap some paint on it snd it’ll look like it was built yesterday.

I’ve worked on a lot of aircraft over the years, including some on their first stop after delivery, and some on their last stop before the scrapper, and this is exactly true. Over time aircraft become a bit of a ship of Theseus. The frame remains mostly the same, but pretty much everything else is updated. When I was with an airline, we had 25 year old 744s on their way to the desert that looked newer than some of the 2 year old 77w.

I’m actually pretty familiar with the aircraft in question, FGSPM. A few years back you’d have thought it was an old aircraft ready for retirement, at least on the surface level. A new coat of paint and updated interior and suddenly it’s looking brand new. But everything it needed still worked exactly as it should, regardless of appearances.

As for the AF 772 fleet…as the 359s come online, the 772s will slowly be retired as necessary.

Thank you for the confirmation of F-GSPM's recent paint job and interior update, it looks very bright and smart today...very much appreciated

That CDG-YYZ flight was nominal...everything does indeed work exactly as it should...with a noted plus on the appearance front...


Faro

For what it’s worth, when I say recent I mean in terms of aircraft repainting. So it’s probably be at least 5 or so years since it was redone.

Faro wrote:

Faro wrote:

Johnv707 wrote:

But perhaps I should have been more specific with my post: the point I have re AF's afore-mentioned F-GSPM is this. F-GSPM was delivered on 14.11.2000 and has now seen 21.5 years of service. As I mentioned, it seemed to have been painted relatively recently. This means that AF is looking to pursue operations with this frame for another what, 2-3 years? This I also find quite surprising given the age of the frame.


Faro

There are hundreds of A330 just as old or older than the B777 but no one seems to think they are too old.

As I said in my clarification, my initial post should have been focused on F-GSPM specifically which is 21.5 years old...I doubt there are hundreds of A330's older than that, although I may be wrong...


Faro

Not really apples to apples though, as early A330s - particularly 300s - were not even remotely as capable as later ones. An 333 of ~2000 vintage was not really a competitor of a 772ER as the 333 of that era only had ~4000 nm of range, whereas the 772ER was around 7000nm. Much different story today, of course, but that's a huge reason you don't see tons of older A330s - the 300s of that era lacked range and the -200s lacked efficiency.

Airlines will operate aircraft for as long as they plan on doing so.

The 777-200ER isn't going away anytime soon. Yes it may be old, but it's still reliable. In the future of course airlines will phase it out, but there is nothing wrong with it for right now. Nothing suprising.

3D101CA wrote:

Airlines will operate aircraft for as long as they plan on doing so.

The 777-200ER isn't going away anytime soon. Yes it may be old, but it's still reliable. In the future of course airlines will phase it out, but there is nothing wrong with it for right now. Nothing suprising.

You are absolutely right, yes...I suppose that my surprise at there being so many active frames still around also arose from the fact that many airlines have already phased out the aircraft, including SV, CZ, SQ, DL, NZ, EY and MS...


Faro

FGITD wrote:

Faro wrote:

FGITD wrote:

I’ve worked on a lot of aircraft over the years, including some on their first stop after delivery, and some on their last stop before the scrapper, and this is exactly true. Over time aircraft become a bit of a ship of Theseus. The frame remains mostly the same, but pretty much everything else is updated. When I was with an airline, we had 25 year old 744s on their way to the desert that looked newer than some of the 2 year old 77w.

I’m actually pretty familiar with the aircraft in question, FGSPM. A few years back you’d have thought it was an old aircraft ready for retirement, at least on the surface level. A new coat of paint and updated interior and suddenly it’s looking brand new. But everything it needed still worked exactly as it should, regardless of appearances.

As for the AF 772 fleet…as the 359s come online, the 772s will slowly be retired as necessary.

Thank you for the confirmation of F-GSPM's recent paint job and interior update, it looks very bright and smart today...very much appreciated

That CDG-YYZ flight was nominal...everything does indeed work exactly as it should...with a noted plus on the appearance front...


Faro

For what it’s worth, when I say recent I mean in terms of aircraft repainting. So it’s probably be at least 5 or so years since it was redone.

Thanks for the clarification...when I flew on it in any case it looked unblemished and sparkling clean...kudos to AF's washing crew...


Faro

Faro wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

Airlines will operate aircraft for as long as they plan on doing so.

The 777-200ER isn't going away anytime soon. Yes it may be old, but it's still reliable. In the future of course airlines will phase it out, but there is nothing wrong with it for right now. Nothing suprising.

You are absolutely right, yes...I suppose that my surprise at there being so many active frames still around also arose from the fact that many airlines have already phased out the aircraft, including SV, CZ, SQ, DL, NZ, EY and MS...


Faro

Most of these airlines had very small 77E fleets except for SV which had one of the oldest 77E fleets and were partly replaced by the young 333 fleet and also 788 and 789. Also I don't believe EY operated the 77E but rather the 77L which is getting parked and even some of the DL frames are getting freighter conversions.

JohanTally wrote:

Faro wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

Airlines will operate aircraft for as long as they plan on doing so.

The 777-200ER isn't going away anytime soon. Yes it may be old, but it's still reliable. In the future of course airlines will phase it out, but there is nothing wrong with it for right now. Nothing suprising.

You are absolutely right, yes...I suppose that my surprise at there being so many active frames still around also arose from the fact that many airlines have already phased out the aircraft, including SV, CZ, SQ, DL, NZ, EY and MS...


Faro

Most of these airlines had very small 77E fleets except for SV which had one of the oldest 77E fleets and were partly replaced by the young 333 fleet and also 788 and 789. Also I don't believe EY operated the 77E but rather the 77L which is getting parked and even some of the DL frames are getting freighter conversions.

Correct, EY only operated 77L's, not 77E's...my bad...thanks for the DL frames feedback, I thought only 77W's were being converted to freighters given their more powerful -115B powerplants...


Faro

Faro wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

Airlines will operate aircraft for as long as they plan on doing so.

The 777-200ER isn't going away anytime soon. Yes it may be old, but it's still reliable. In the future of course airlines will phase it out, but there is nothing wrong with it for right now. Nothing suprising.

You are absolutely right, yes...I suppose that my surprise at there being so many active frames still around also arose from the fact that many airlines have already phased out the aircraft, including SV, CZ, SQ, DL, NZ, EY and MS...


Faro

Sure, but those are almost all carriers (excepting DL) that tend to buy almost exclusively new aircraft and then move them on midway through their useful lives. There's an army of second-user carriers out there that often add a decade or more onto used SQ frames, for example. AF tends to buy new and keep the frames for their entire lives or nearly so, which is why they have a lot of fairly old 772ERs. Those planes are long since paid off and they have a sizable fleet to keep parts economical and available, so they're a lot more competitive on an all-in cost basis than one might suspect. People tend to focus only on operating costs; you still have to buy or lease and maintain the things, too.

I mean, heck, I just finished a 4-leg round trip on DL's narrow body fleet where the newest frame I was on was over 20 years old.

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

The new generation of 777s are still a while away from entry into service. The 772 is a very capable aircraft and still has plenty of service life left, particularly at AA and UA, the two US carriers that fly the plane and have significant fleets. AA has 47 and UA has over 70. The earliest 777s to come off the assembly line went to UA but the fleet there has a mix of 777-222As and PW-powered 772s (legacy UA) and GE-90 powered 772s (legacy CO). AA uses the RR Trent on the 772 fleet. Both AA and UA have invested heavily in maintaining and upgrading their 772s. AA put them all through a cabin refresh starting around 2013 or 2014 when they removed Flagship First. UA has also upgraded theirs with the Polaris installation and the Premium Plus cabin format, except those used for high density, hub to hub and some Hawaii markets.

I'd have to think the 777-200 will be flying at least another 8 to 10 years in the AA and UA fleets. If you look at the life span of the 767-300ER at DL and UA, many of those frames are 1990s builds. The 777-200 entered service at UA in 1995, at AA in 1999, and at DL in I think, 1997 or 1998 (DL retired all of their -200ER and -200LRs in 2020). Seems probable that at UA and AA, the 772 will fly on for quite a bit longer.

At other airlines that fly them in passenger service, it's probable some will be retired. Some will be converted to cargo haulers. I don't have a full list of all 772 operators, but someone here mentioned LY. They had withdrawn them during the pandemic and are bringing them back given the demand. Not sure for how long.

I'd guess the US airlines are probably going to be among the last to operate the 772 in large quantities, baring another industry shock.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

The new generation of 777s are still a while away from entry into service. The 772 is a very capable aircraft and still has plenty of service life left, particularly at AA and UA, the two US carriers that fly the plane and have significant fleets. AA has 47 and UA has over 70. The earliest 777s to come off the assembly line went to UA but the fleet there has a mix of 777-222As and PW-powered 772s (legacy UA) and GE-90 powered 772s (legacy CO). AA uses the RR Trent on the 772 fleet. Both AA and UA have invested heavily in maintaining and upgrading their 772s. AA put them all through a cabin refresh starting around 2013 or 2014 when they removed Flagship First. UA has also upgraded theirs with the Polaris installation and the Premium Plus cabin format, except those used for high density, hub to hub and some Hawaii markets.

I'd have to think the 777-200 will be flying at least another 8 to 10 years in the AA and UA fleets. If you look at the life span of the 767-300ER at DL and UA, many of those frames are 1990s builds. The 777-200 entered service at UA in 1995, at AA in 1999, and at DL in I think, 1997 or 1998 (DL retired all of their -200ER and -200LRs in 2020). Seems probable that at UA and AA, the 772 will fly on for quite a bit longer.

At other airlines that fly them in passenger service, it's probable some will be retired. Some will be converted to cargo haulers. I don't have a full list of all 772 operators, but someone here mentioned LY. They had withdrawn them during the pandemic and are bringing them back given the demand. Not sure for how long.

I'd guess the US airlines are probably going to be among the last to operate the 772 in large quantities, baring another industry shock.

Thanks for the interesting feedback...I suppose AA and UA will indeed be among the last carriers to fly the 777-200ER...

I wonder though, if AF's F-GSPM mentioned above is 21.5 years old, how long will they operate them for?...25 years, 30 years?...and what would that represent in terms of operating cycles?...


Faro

3D101CA wrote:

Airlines will operate aircraft for as long as they plan on doing so.

The 777-200ER isn't going away anytime soon. Yes it may be old, but it's still reliable. In the future of course airlines will phase it out, but there is nothing wrong with it for right now. Nothing suprising.

Exactly right. The 777-200ER is a reliable workhorse with a known lifecycle. There is nothing wrong with using the second half of that lifecycle.

Faro wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

The new generation of 777s are still a while away from entry into service. The 772 is a very capable aircraft and still has plenty of service life left, particularly at AA and UA, the two US carriers that fly the plane and have significant fleets. AA has 47 and UA has over 70. The earliest 777s to come off the assembly line went to UA but the fleet there has a mix of 777-222As and PW-powered 772s (legacy UA) and GE-90 powered 772s (legacy CO). AA uses the RR Trent on the 772 fleet. Both AA and UA have invested heavily in maintaining and upgrading their 772s. AA put them all through a cabin refresh starting around 2013 or 2014 when they removed Flagship First. UA has also upgraded theirs with the Polaris installation and the Premium Plus cabin format, except those used for high density, hub to hub and some Hawaii markets.

I'd have to think the 777-200 will be flying at least another 8 to 10 years in the AA and UA fleets. If you look at the life span of the 767-300ER at DL and UA, many of those frames are 1990s builds. The 777-200 entered service at UA in 1995, at AA in 1999, and at DL in I think, 1997 or 1998 (DL retired all of their -200ER and -200LRs in 2020). Seems probable that at UA and AA, the 772 will fly on for quite a bit longer.

At other airlines that fly them in passenger service, it's probable some will be retired. Some will be converted to cargo haulers. I don't have a full list of all 772 operators, but someone here mentioned LY. They had withdrawn them during the pandemic and are bringing them back given the demand. Not sure for how long.

I'd guess the US airlines are probably going to be among the last to operate the 772 in large quantities, baring another industry shock.

Thanks for the interesting feedback...I suppose AA and UA will indeed be among the last carriers to fly the 777-200ER...

I wonder though, if AF's F-GSPM mentioned above is 21.5 years old, how long will they operate them for?...25 years, 30 years?...and what would that represent in terms of operating cycles?...


Faro

It’s not apples to apples, but they kept the last of the 744s about 25 years.

Faro wrote:

I recently flew CAI-CDG-YYZ with AF and was surprised that both legs were on 777-200ERs (the outbound trip had been on an A359 and a 77W). I was also surprised at the state of the aircraft, both seemed in very good upkeep, with one of them, F-GSPM on the YYZ leg, looking like it had a new paint job relatively recently.

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones. Of the 7 stored frames 4 have been stored during COVID-19 and are not destined to be scrapped. I would have thought that with its new 778-9s and A359s coming onstream, AF's 777-200ER count would have dwindled down to single digits.

The situation is more manifest at BA, with 39 active frames and only 8 parked/stored.

What is the fuel consumption delta per seat-mile between a 777-200ER and, say, a 778-9 on a representative 3,300nm TATL route? How long can the 777-200ER be expected to soldier on with airlines in these times of high fuel prices?


Faro

ecause a newer model is on the market you'd expect the older model to be parked? I find that amazing! Did the -200 get you there and was it comfortable? An airliner that costs close to $200M new is an investment they would need to get their worth out of and CDG to YYZ is not much more than a cakewalk for the -200ER.

The world's 777-200ER fleet will be with us another 10 years, especially if they have GE or RR engines. The Pratt ones are more questionable. The large operators like AA and BA have nothing yet to replace them with, yet. Replacements could be 787 or A350, all good options to have.

Faro wrote:

UA444 wrote:

Like everything, A.net tends to think anything that isn’t 6 months new is old, dilapidated and should be scrapped.

There are what, 400 200ERs still flying and not counting A models? Still lots of life in all of them. The newest one hasn’t even hit its 10th birthday

I'm not saying that at all...what I am saying is I'm surprised at the volume of 777-200ERs still in active service given the ongoing deliveries of newer aircraft in that category...I would have expected a lesser number of active frames...

I'm neither a hater or lover of any aircraft in particular or an A vs B fan...just an observer...


Faro

they're flying? Because it's a return on the investment.

Might be a bit off topic but why do people here say 77E, where did this term even originate from? It's neither the icao nor iata type code and I also don't see anyone specifying whether it's A330-300 or A330-300X, A340-300 or A340-300E and any other similar upgrades so how come the 200ER gets special treatment.

Aseem747 wrote:

Might be a bit off topic but why do people here say 77E, where did this term even originate from? It's neither the icao nor iata type code and I also don't see anyone specifying whether it's A330-300 or A330-300X, A340-300 or A340-300E and any other similar upgrades so how come the 200ER gets special treatment.

I think the 77E came from internal use and just started to stick on A.net. The reason for the difference between the 777-200 (77A) and the 777-200ER (77E) here is because of the age and performance difference. The 77A has limited service now while 77E is still going.

Doing a quick look at Wikipedia’s list, not the best I know, I get to around 260-270 active 77E’s. Some I’m not sure about and never heard of but the 400 mentioned by the op certainly seemed optimistic.

Like a lot of aircraft the numbers are significantly boosted by a small number of majors that still have large numbers of them.

UA 55
AA 47
BA 43

Next I think is
AF 18
KL 15

Take out those 5 and you would be left with 75-80 or so.

Still a good solid aircraft that had significantly more range than the 763ER and allowed some very long ETOPS routes to come into existence and in it’s time made some marginal 747/767 routes possible.

I remember when UA first flew it AKL-LAX in 2002, it was all 747 up until then, one 77E flew 192mins on 1 engine after an engine shut down.

The -200ERs are relatively new. The first of them entered service in 1998. If there are still scores of 767-300ERs and 757-200s still flying tirelessly, I don't see why the 777-200ERs would be gone. I can see the 777-200ERs will continue to fly with even the larger reputable carriers for 10+ years, although they may be used for less prominent routes by then. For example, ANA has been sending the 777-200ERs onto domestic routes or leisure oriented routes within Asia, instead of flying them on longer routes as they were originally intended for.

It's a very good aircraft that can soldier on with good maintenance and care, plus refurbishment. Can also be flown alongside 77Ws quite happily, engines aside it seems there's a fair amount of synergy. Airlines like BA, AF, AA and UA (+LH, DL etc. who don't have 77Es) tend to hold onto aircraft for a long time anyway.

When I was growing up 777s were brand new and so futuristic, now they are somewhat antique, which is not a sign I'm happy with!

BA announced a few years ago that they would run their 772s to 30 years. That seemed way ahead at the time, but is only a few years away now for the earlier GE frames. (I know the few non-ERs have gone, 5 operated originally)

Comparing the interior of the KLM 777 fleet (16 x 777-306ER and 15 x 777-206ER), you notice no differences, only more Y seats in the back :
virtual tour 777-200ER : https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=dmNvwQQufWp
virtual tour 777-300ER : https://my.matterport.com/show/?m=apskveWvmqd
(click on the circles to inspect the whole seat configuration, incl flight deck)

Aircraft age is not that important, good maintenance and regular interior updates are more important.

Faro wrote:

According to Airfleets.net, AF has 18 active frames remaining plus 7 stored ones.

Sister airline KLM has 15 active frames. They will get a new interior including premium economy and all isle-access business class seats.
Nothing wrong with the type if they are properly maintained, and upgraded where needed.

Delaxio wrote:

I was browsing on Flighradar24 and saw an El Al 77E leaving Phuket. I thought they retired them!

4X-ECD has been reactivated for some weeks now

I flew an AF 77E with the new business 121 from CAI to CDG in june and it was quite nicer than the old 232 business on one of their 77W on the CDG to CAI trip.

JohanTally wrote:

Faro wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

Airlines will operate aircraft for as long as they plan on doing so.

The 777-200ER isn't going away anytime soon. Yes it may be old, but it's still reliable. In the future of course airlines will phase it out, but there is nothing wrong with it for right now. Nothing suprising.

You are absolutely right, yes...I suppose that my surprise at there being so many active frames still around also arose from the fact that many airlines have already phased out the aircraft, including SV, CZ, SQ, DL, NZ, EY and MS...


Faro

Most of these airlines had very small 77E fleets except for SV which had one of the oldest 77E fleets and were partly replaced by the young 333 fleet and also 788 and 789. Also I don't believe EY operated the 77E but rather the 77L which is getting parked and even some of the DL frames are getting freighter conversions.

Small flest wasn't SQ one of the biggest use of 77E

fessor wrote:

JohanTally wrote:

Faro wrote:

You are absolutely right, yes...I suppose that my surprise at there being so many active frames still around also arose from the fact that many airlines have already phased out the aircraft, including SV, CZ, SQ, DL, NZ, EY and MS...


Faro

Most of these airlines had very small 77E fleets except for SV which had one of the oldest 77E fleets and were partly replaced by the young 333 fleet and also 788 and 789. Also I don't believe EY operated the 77E but rather the 77L which is getting parked and even some of the DL frames are getting freighter conversions.

Small flest wasn't SQ one of the biggest use of 77E

SQ had 46 77E, some were derated and used on short medium haul, possibly lower MTOW? Only UA and AA had more 77E.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Doing a quick look at Wikipedia’s list, not the best I know, I get to around 260-270 active 77E’s. Some I’m not sure about and never heard of but the 400 mentioned by the op certainly seemed optimistic.

Like a lot of aircraft the numbers are significantly boosted by a small number of majors that still have large numbers of them.

UA 55
AA 47
BA 43

Next I think is
AF 18
KL 15

Take out those 5 and you would be left with 75-80 or so.

Still a good solid aircraft that had significantly more range than the 763ER and allowed some very long ETOPS routes to come into existence and in it’s time made some marginal 747/767 routes possible.

I remember when UA first flew it AKL-LAX in 2002, it was all 747 up until then, one 77E flew 192mins on 1 engine after an engine shut down.

It wasn't me who mentioned 400 aircraft still active but UA444 in reply # 2...I recall that one-engine exploit of the 77E...equally impressive for P&W was that achievement...I wonder is it the record on a one-engined diversion?...


Faro

JerseyFlyer wrote:

BA announced a few years ago that they would run their 772s to 30 years. That seemed way ahead at the time, but is only a few years away now for the earlier GE frames. (I know the few non-ERs have gone, 5 operated originally)

That is very impressive!...30 years is no joke...a tribute to what a good aircraft and meticulous maintenance can do...


Faro