SQ Scraps 11 Year Old 777-300

LAX772LR · Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:42 am

Quoting diverted (Reply 49):
and you found a 773 with GE's

Which you won't.

All 773As were delivered with either RR or PW engines.

Viscount724 · Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:23 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 12):
Quoting United787 (Reply 7):
How many non-ER 773s were delivered? I tried to do a User Defined Report on Boeing's website, but you can only search currently offered model series, not past ones... the 772 and 773 are no longer available...

You can, you just select "All models" = 777 and it will list all 777 variants.

Yes you can get a list of all models but you can no longer get a list only showing specific models no longer produced, so you have to manually count those from the complete list. Until Boeing changed their website a year or so ago, you could easily obtain a list of just the model you were interested in going back to the 707. Now it requires much more work to extract the data for models that are out of production..

RayChuang · Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:38 am

I believe that Boeing designed the original 777-300 primarily to replace the special domestic route 747's flown by JL and NH, plus regional east Asian routes by other airlines. I believe the 773's are still with both of these airlines.

Asiaflyer · Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:16 am

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 36):
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 16):It seems to be a general misunderstanding that depreciation in the books is related to when SQ sells or retires planes. Quick depreciation just gives the airline lower taxes the first years of ownership of the planes. To me it is more of a subsidy from the government that allows SQ to defer taxes.
The reason for the shorter depreciation in Singapore is nothing to do with tax. It is to encourage companies to renew and have the latest equipment and technology to be competitive in the market.
Just look at it: SQ flying 20 year old planes would be absolutely butchered by the ME3.

Sorry my friend, but I have to disagree with you and this is what I meant when I called it a misunderstanding.
The pace of depreciation in the books just regulates how fast the cost of the asset can be amortized from tax point of view. In almost all cases, assets are fully depreciated long before end of its lifetime.
The difference between sales price and book value causes a realized gain or loss, which is taxable or deductable.
Airlines sells the planes when they finds it suitable for many other reasons but how fast they are depreciated does not matter.

AirbusA6 · Tue Mar 15, 2016 9:38 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 38):
This seems to be a modern trend. There's almost no point in building an aircraft like the DC-8 with heavy gauge aluminum, certified for twenty billion cycles. Because of rapid advances in technology and efficiency, aircraft these days need to be thought of as disposable items. Probably only a matter of time before the'll require refrigeration overnight, lest they spontaneously biodegrade.

Also not good for the engine manufacturers, whose plans revolved around selling new engines cheaply and making money on servicing and selling parts for older engines.

na · Tue Mar 15, 2016 11:17 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 47):
Let's step out of fantasy-land and back to reality, shall we?

Show me an airline, any airline, with more than a half-dozen hubs that even bothers with 747s, much less A380s.
I'll wait, give it a shot.

Because when your traffic flows are dispersed by that many different connecting points, you don't need a large aircraft to funnel it. You will be doing nothing but discounting to fill surplus seats, and that's even more ridiculous than the premise of your post.

So we agree US airlines cant fill VLAs. Cant do what the competition does. Cant offer their passenger the most comfortable plane out there.

AVFCdownunder · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:15 pm

Correct me of I am wrong but if this frame is owned by and leased from AerCap, then have SQ simply not just returned it to the lessor as surplus to requirements? I would of thought the issue as to whether it is stored, scrapped, sold or re-let is a matter for AerCap, not SQ?

bennett123 · Tue Mar 15, 2016 12:47 pm

Really, the difference is capacity vs frequency.

The US prefer to have hordes of RJ, whereas in Europe ony small airlines have any smaller than a A319/B737.

They also tend to have less airport/airspace constraints.

Polot · Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:08 pm

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 57):
The US prefer to have hordes of RJ, whereas in Europe ony small airlines have any smaller than a A319/B737.

I never knew AF/KLM/BA/LH/IB/LX were small airlines in Europe.

US airlines have larger RJ fleets sure, but they have larger narrow body fleets in general due to the size of the US domestic market versus the intra-Europe market (LH has ~150 733s, A319s, A320s, and A321. UA has ~550 73Gs, 738s, 739s, A320s, A319s, 752s, and 753s- and UA has one of the smaller domestic mainline fleets of the US3).

zkojq · Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:18 pm

All of the Transaero 777-300nonERs have been sitting in the desert at Teruel since the airline went broke, so I guess there never was much hope for -SYK.

Quoting frigatebird (Reply 14):
Anyway, this news will make member NA feel like being on !

Haha.

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 41):
I think BA should have looked at the 773 in the late 1990s when it was cancelling 744s for 77Es. It might be ANet heresy but BA might have done better having the 773 in place of some of those late build 744s. When you look at the routes it is keeping the Super Hi-J 744s for, e.g. West Africa, Middle East and NE USA, these would have been good for the 773.

I've often wondered about this too. Given that: A) most transatlantic traffic these days is flown with A330s or 767s which have a similar (~6,000 nm) range to the -300nonER and B) BA already has a small subfleet of 777-200nonERs, I'm sure that it could have worked.

CX Flyboy · Tue Mar 15, 2016 1:52 pm

Quoting francoflier (Reply 19):
Had they had the resources, they might have been interested in getting a few of these from SQ, who knows. CX's -300A are configured with close to 400 seats and are real breadwinners on the regional network. A few might have allowed to get rid of the -200A which can't really compete on economics with the A333 for a similar lift.
Problem is, they can hardly crew their current T7 fleet as it is...

Cathay are indeed in the market for 773As and have identified 5 frames they are interested in. They will enter the fleet as one for one replacements of the five 772s in the CX fleet. They aren't ex-SQ but if the crewing issue gets sorted out it would not surprise me to see CX taking an interest in these ex-SQ ones as well.

hOMSaR · Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:15 pm

Quoting na (Reply 55):
So we agree US airlines cant fill VLAs. Cant do what the competition does. Cant offer their passenger the most comfortable plane out there.

Comfort generally has little to do with the plane and a lot to do with the configuration.

Watch airlines start cramming 11 across into the A380 and then tell me it's the most comfortable plane out there.

N1120A · Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:39 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 6):
Someone like Delta could have acquired them in they desired more capacity on shorter transatlantic flights, but in general the range is not enough to make them very attractive.

I actually think either Delta or United could benefit from having 773A models in their systems for certain flights.

hOMSaR · Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:50 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 62):
I actually think either Delta or United could benefit from having 773A models in their systems for certain flights.

The problem with "certain" flights is that the number generally isn't large enough to justify the fleet due to the lack of flexibility, especially if those flights are spread across multiple hubs.

A more capable plane, such as the 77W, could operate any flight the 773 could, plus a bunch more, making it easier to justify ordering a fleet with built-in slack in the schedule without an excessive spare ratio.

EPA001 · Tue Mar 15, 2016 3:53 pm

Quoting HOmSAR (Reply 63):
A more capable plane, such as the 77W, could operate any flight the 773 could, plus a bunch more, making it easier to justify ordering a fleet with built-in slack in the schedule without an excessive spare ratio.

I guess this is the main reason for SQ to send this B773 to VCV so relatively soon. Their B77W's can do the same job if necessary.

LAX772LR · Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:05 pm

Quoting na (Reply 55):
So we agree

Of course not.

If I ever caught myself agreeing with you on something fleet-related, I'd immediately stop and try to assess where I went wrong.

Quoting na (Reply 55):
US airlines cant fill VLAs.

They COULD fill them. But why on earth SHOULD they attempt to do that, when it'd do nothing but lower yield?

Quoting na (Reply 55):
Cant do what the competition does.

Flow all traffic through one, maybe 2 at the most, hubs?
....no, they certainly can't do that.

Quoting na (Reply 55):
Cant offer their passenger the most comfortable plane out there.

"Comfort" is entirely subjective. If I were forced to take a trip in steerage, I'd much rather be in the 2 window-side seats offered in an A330 or 767, than anywhere in the back of an A380 or 747.

J is a draw, regardless of airframe.

Quoting HOmSAR (Reply 63):
The problem with "certain" flights is that the number generally isn't large enough to justify the fleet due to the lack of flexibility, especially if those flights are spread across multiple hubs.

True, but with incredibly low acquisition cost, and foreknowledge that you're going to keep them until retirement/scrapping, perhaps the case could be made.

N1120A · Tue Mar 15, 2016 6:32 pm

Quoting HOmSAR (Reply 63):
The problem with "certain" flights is that the number generally isn't large enough to justify the fleet due to the lack of flexibility, especially if those flights are spread across multiple hubs.

That really depends. If you have the critical mass of flights to run between hubs and spokes, especially with triangles, using the cheaper, lighter air frame makes a lot of sense.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 65):
True, but with incredibly low acquisition cost, and foreknowledge that you're going to keep them until retirement/scrapping, perhaps the case could be made.

Not to mention Lower costs due to lighter weights and freeing up longer range planes for more suitable routes.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 65):
J is a draw, regardless of airframe.

Not really. Wider aircraft can usually take a wider, heavier seat. Also, the upper deck and nose of the 747 offer a great experience.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 65):
Comfort" is entirely subjective. If I were forced to take a trip in steerage, I'd much rather be in the 2 window-side seats offered in an A330 or 767, than anywhere in the back of an A380 or 747.

Rather be on the A380 or 747 in coach than a 787 or 10 abreast 777.

LAX772LR · Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:07 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 66):
Wider aircraft can usually take a wider, heavier seat

"Heavy" seat bearing capability has nothing to do with the width of the airframe. Just ask QF.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 66):
Also, the upper deck and nose of the 747 offer a great experience.

No thanks. I'd rather be in the front of a 752, than that.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 66):
Rather be on the A380 or 747 in coach than a 787 or 10 abreast 777.

I'd take the 787 if I had to choose between any of the horrors above... may as well have the higher humidity and higher pressure.

A380 would be next. 777 would be last. I don't ride 747s for any reason, so that's out.

[Edited 2016-03-15 12:16:07]

TedToToe · Tue Mar 15, 2016 8:23 pm

Quoting HOmSAR (Reply 63):

A more capable plane, such as the 77W, could operate any flight the 773 could, plus a bunch more, making it easier to justify ordering a fleet with built-in slack in the schedule without an excessive spare ratio.

As an example, I've regularly seen SQ 77W's in MNL.

lutfi · Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:44 am

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 60):

My understanding is that the reconfiguration costs of the SQ B773A into CX is prohibitively expensive, due to different galley set up

DL_Mech · Wed Mar 16, 2016 12:53 am

Quoting md11sdf (Reply 39):
Can anyone tell me why there have not been any Pax-to-Freight conversions on the 773?

Probably the same reason no 772's have been converted to freighters. The composite floor beams cannot take the dense weight demands of a freighter.

Viscount724 · Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:23 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 66):
Also, the upper deck and nose of the 747 offer a great experience.

No thanks. I'd rather be in the front of a 752, than that.

There's no comparison with the nose First Class cabin of a 747. Nothing else matches it in my experience, and certainly not any narrowbody.

UA444 · Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:19 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 71):
here's no comparison with the nose First Class cabin of a 747. Nothing else matches it in my experience, and certainly not any narrowbody

If he could nuke every 747 he would. Don't take it too seriously.

LAX772LR · Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:29 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 71):
There's no comparison with the nose First Class cabin of a 747

Indeed, which is why it likely couldn't pass certification today if the design weren't already grandfathered.

If you'll recall: Airbus couldn't resist taking jabs at that, during the 748i's cert period... can't say I blame them.

But yeah, no thanks. Flat wall in front gives a total claustro feeling, IMO. Hate it.

Schweigend · Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:38 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 66):
If you have the critical mass of flights to run between hubs and spokes, especially with triangles, using the cheaper, lighter air frame makes a lot of sense.

I agree, critical mass makes a big difference. One would need at least half a dozen 773s to make it happen.

That is exactly why UA is intending to deploy its 19 772A models on U.S. domestic hub-hub and Hawaii plus HNL-GUM-NRT flights. As we know, 9 of these birds are already doing U.S. - Hawaii - Guam - NRT routings....and in the future, the extra ten will fly between UA's hubs -- LAX / SFO / DEN / ORD / IAH / IAD / EWR.

It seems to me a perfect re-purposing of the 772A aircraft, and it will be a gorgeous return of widebodies to domestic use for United. However, UA's 772As have far fewer cycles than the 773s we are talking about.

Less than 80 772As remain in service, and only 60 773s were ever built.

hongkongflyer · Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:46 am

Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 60):
Cathay are indeed in the market for 773As and have identified 5 frames they are interested in. They will enter the fleet as one for one replacements of the five 772s in the CX fleet. They aren't ex-SQ but if the crewing issue gets sorted out it would not surprise me to see CX taking an interest in these ex-SQ ones as well.

It is the first time I heard CX is interesting in second hand 773A, especially to replace their 772 fleet.
Yes CX tried to sell 772s (which explaned why they were one of the last to get cabin refurbishment)
but failed and finally these planes got refurbished into latest cabin standard,
which means those 772s will stay in CX fleet for a period of time.

In addition, following the delivery of 350s (huge number of 350s are coming in the next few years),
330; 772; 773A (for regional routes) and 77W (for certain thin long haul) will be replaced
so some (older) 77W will be redeployed to regional routes so no point for CX to spend $$$ to get SQ 773A into their fleet.

LAX772LR · Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:50 am

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 74):
and only 60 773s were ever built.

Fortunately, many of them have PW4000s, an engine UA already operates. Helps.

TXspotter · Wed Mar 16, 2016 1:57 pm

Quoting na (Reply 17):
No one said so. But its reported that parting out is the reason why its going to VCV.

The title suggests its

Looks like a 777-300ER, 9V-SWP just landed in VCV too. Could be the first -300ER to be retired

ckfred · Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:37 pm

Quoting diverted (Reply 49):
Even if your airline operated 77W's, and you found a 773 with GE's, the GE90-92/94B is significantly different the a GE90-115B1 (over 20,000lbs thrust difference, bigger fan on the -115 etc)

True, but you have AA with 77Ws and 77Es, even though the -200ERs have RR Trents. BA has a mix of -200ERs with RR and GE engines, so taking some -300ERs with GE engines wasn't that big of an issue.

CX Flyboy · Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:42 pm

Quoting hongkongflyer (Reply 75):
In addition, following the delivery of 350s (huge number of 350s are coming in the next few years),
330; 772; 773A (for regional routes) and 77W (for certain thin long haul) will be replaced
so some (older) 77W will be redeployed to regional routes so no point for CX to spend $$$ to get SQ 773A into their fleet.

We aren't looking at SQ's 773A. We are looking at different ones. Undoubtedly they are very cheap and an easy way to increase regional capacity.

hOMSaR · Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:28 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 76):

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 74):
and only 60 773s were ever built.

Fortunately, many of them have PW4000s, an engine UA already operates. Helps.

How is that "fortunate?" UA isn't buying any used 773s, regardless of engine type (unless they were to buy one just to take the engines off and put them on a 772).

Norcal773 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 1:50 am

Quoting TXspotter (Reply 77):
Looks like a 777-300ER, 9V-SWP just landed in VCV too. Could be the first -300ER to be retired

This was determined to be a FlightRadar error, SWP took off in SIN and landed back in SIN after a test flight since it just went through a cabin retrofit.

Viscount724 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:15 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 73):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 71):
There's no comparison with the nose First Class cabin of a 747

Indeed, which is why it likely couldn't pass certification today if the design weren't already grandfathered.
If you'll recall: Airbus couldn't resist taking jabs at that, during the 748i's cert period... can't say I blame them.

But yeah, no thanks. Flat wall in front gives a total claustro feeling, IMO. Hate it.

What airliner cabin doesn't have a flat wall or other flat divider at the front of the cabin? The difference in the nose cabin on the 747 is that the aisle is very wide apart from the first row or two with plenty of space to move around. And lots of headroom with no center bins. And if you're seated in the first row you can almost look straight ahead due to the curve of the fuselage at the nose. Also no traffic through the cabin since there's nowhere to go at the front.

deltal1011man · Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:23 am

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 6):
Someone like Delta could have acquired them in they desired more capacity on shorter transatlantic flights, but in general the range is not enough to make them very attractive.

DL was trying to get the EK 773As a while ago. The 380 being late caused EK to up the leases though.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 62):

I actually think either Delta or United could benefit from having 773A models in their systems for certain flights.

DL doesn't want anything that big anymore. 772/359 is about as big as they will get.

Much rather outsource the big jets to its JV partners.

tortugamon · Thu Mar 17, 2016 3:39 am

Quoting gasman (Reply 38):
This seems to be a modern trend. There's almost no point in building an aircraft like the DC-8 with heavy gauge aluminum, certified for twenty billion cycles. Because of rapid advances in technology and efficiency, aircraft these days need to be thought of as disposable items.

With CFRP I wonder if we are going to see engine replacements on existing 787/A350s. Not a neo but adding new engines to existing frames...

Could be interesting.

tortugamon

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:33 am

Quoting HOmSAR (Reply 80):
How is that "fortunate?"

Read the post it was in response to. It was a hypothetical of what UA could do if they acquired aircraft like that.

Schweigend · Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:02 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 85):
Read the post it was in response to. It was a hypothetical of what UA could do if they acquired aircraft like that.

Hardly. I mentioned UA's 772A usage as an example of what an airline might do with a "critical mass" of older, range-limited frames like the 773.

I did not suggest (nor do I believe) that UA should get any 773s, and I was mystified by your response:

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 76):

Fortunately, many of them have PW4000s, an engine UA already operates. Helps.

Especially since I also said, "However, UA's 772As have far fewer cycles than the 773s we are talking about."

Scottie

UA444 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:49 am

UA could've made the 773 work pretty well when it was offered. Im kind of surprised they never ordered it

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:35 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 82):
What airliner cabin doesn't have a flat wall or other flat divider at the front of the cabin?

None. They have aisles that you can see/walk through, lavs, galleys, etc. Not a flat wall that you can't see past.
Despise how cooped it makes the cabin feel.

Quoting Schweigend (Reply 86):
Hardly. I mentioned UA's 772A usage as an example of what an airline might do with a "critical mass" of older, range-limited frames like the 773.

Can you explain to me how that's different than what I just said, after familiarizing yourself with the definition of "hypothetical" of course?

scbriml · Thu Mar 17, 2016 8:37 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
may as well have the higher humidity and higher pressure.

You can get that on A380 and A350 as well.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 71):
There's no comparison with the nose First Class cabin of a 747.

It's great if you like noisy flying.

LAX772LR · Thu Mar 17, 2016 9:29 am

Quoting scbriml (Reply 89):
You can get that on A380

Interesting... what is A380's cabin altitude?

tjh8402 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 12:25 pm

Quoting ckfred (Reply 45):

Wouldn't the fact that non-ER -300s could come with GE, RR, or P&W engines complicate a resale of aircraft. All -300ERs have GE engines. So, if an airline had -300ERs, buying a used -300 would be problematic, if the aircraft had RR or P&W engines.

The RR engines would seem to be a challenge with UA's 77a's all being P&W powered and them currently only having 752s with RR engines (all the widebodies are GE and P&W till the A350s arrive).

Quoting N1120A (Reply 62):
I actually think either Delta or United could benefit from having 773A models in their systems for certain flights.

Engines aside, I would think that this would've been a good option for UA. They clearly know how to keep old 777s going. With EWR and LHR being slot constrained, I would've thought it could've at least helped up capacity on those routes (it has the range for it). If the 744s fly anywhere to Europe from ORD they could also replace 744s there. It will have the advantage of having the same cabin size as the 77W, so as the new planes come on, the two aircraft could be used interchangeably as needed assuming the 773 had sufficient range for the trip.

DL would'v seemed like a good buyer with their used aircraft affection, preference for not having excessive capacity, and RR commonality with their 77E's. However, as others have pointed out, DL seems to be moving away from airplanes this size. Too bad DL's adopted son VS isn't a fan of used planes. These would seem to be a pretty good replacement for the LGW 744 leisure fleet (they could have similar number of seats, enough range for TATL, and burn a lot less fuel).

neutrino · Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:58 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 90):

This is from Wiki, so take it what you will...with whatever amount of salt you fancy.
"One study of 8 flights in Airbus A380 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 6,128 feet (1,868 m), and 65 flights in Boeing 747-400 aircraft found a median cabin pressure altitude of 5,159 feet (1,572 m)."

7BOEING7 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:50 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 90):
Interesting... what is A380's cabin altitude?

At max altitude (43,100) it was 8000ft but along with the 330 and 340 is now 7500ft. The 744 has an 8000ft cabin at it's max altitude (45,100) which means at similar altitudes the 744 would have a slightly lower cabin altitude. As for humidity the A380 claims "increased humidity" but the only A380's with active humidification are DLH and only in first-class.

Basically any heavy long haul flight will spend most if not all of it's profile well below the maximum altitude so the cabin will be as indicated in Reply 92.

Viscount724 · Thu Mar 17, 2016 7:33 pm

Quoting scbriml (Reply 89):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 71):
There's no comparison with the nose First Class cabin of a 747.

It's great if you like noisy flying.

Never noticed that. The upper deck is fairly loud on 747s due to the lack of any space between the cabin walls and the exterior fuselage.

KarelXWB · Fri Mar 18, 2016 9:37 am

Quoting 7BOEING7 (Reply 93):
Basically any heavy long haul flight will spend most if not all of it's profile well below the maximum altitude so the cabin will be as indicated in Reply 92.

So in reality, where most jets fly at FL380, there's no real difference between and A330 and 787 regarding cabin altitude?

tjh8402 · Fri Mar 18, 2016 12:06 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 95):
So in reality, where most jets fly at FL380, there's no real difference between and A330 and 787 regarding cabin altitude?

No the 787 will haven an even lower cabin. The advantage continues as altitude drops. You see the extreme version of this with the Gulfstream G650. It has a 4850 ft cabin at its FL510 ceiling. At 410, that drops to a 2800 ft cabin. At 310 it's sea level. If the 787 has a 6000 ft cabin at FL430, then I would expect a cabin altitude at least a thousand feet lower in the 30s. A quick check of flight aware shows most airborne 787s currently between 350 and 400.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net