Aug 1, 2013, 5:57 pm
Last edit by: Exec_Plat
Wikipost - signed in members can minimize or maximize this wikipost using the upper right corner [-] or [+] buttons and edit the post.
FWAAA post 382: In the 10-K filed on February 20, 2013, AA confirmed that it now has ordered a total of 20 77W; two delivered in 2012, eight more in 2013, six more in 2014 and two each in 2015 and 2016 for a total of 20:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....5fUEFHRSZleHA9
16 total 77Ws by the end of next year plus at least four more after that.
Scheduling information: AA 777-300ER / 77W Schedule, Routes (consolidated)
777 family range (Boeing)
Both of AA's 777s are -ER (Extended Range) models, the common 777-223ER and new 777-323ER. Not much range difference, but significant capacity difference. No 200-LRs (Long Range, AKA "Worldliner",) in the future at this time.
777-300ER:
N717AN 7LA
N718AN 7LB
N719AN 7LC
N720AN 7LD
N721AN 7LE
N722AN 7LF
N723AN 7LG
N724AN 7LH
N725AN 7LJ
N726AN 7LK
N727AN 7LL
Updated from planespotters.net:
N728AN 7LM
N729AN 7LN
N730AN 7LP
N731AN 7LR
N732AN 7LS
N733AR 7LT
Based on this data there are 17 77Ws in service Oct 2015.
FWAAA post 382: In the 10-K filed on February 20, 2013, AA confirmed that it now has ordered a total of 20 77W; two delivered in 2012, eight more in 2013, six more in 2014 and two each in 2015 and 2016 for a total of 20:
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....5fUEFHRSZleHA9
16 total 77Ws by the end of next year plus at least four more after that.
Scheduling information: AA 777-300ER / 77W Schedule, Routes (consolidated)
777 family range (Boeing)
Both of AA's 777s are -ER (Extended Range) models, the common 777-223ER and new 777-323ER. Not much range difference, but significant capacity difference. No 200-LRs (Long Range, AKA "Worldliner",) in the future at this time.
777-300ER:
N717AN 7LA
N718AN 7LB
N719AN 7LC
N720AN 7LD
N721AN 7LE
N722AN 7LF
N723AN 7LG
N724AN 7LH
N725AN 7LJ
N726AN 7LK
N727AN 7LL
Updated from planespotters.net:
N728AN 7LM
N729AN 7LN
N730AN 7LP
N731AN 7LR
N732AN 7LS
N733AR 7LT
Based on this data there are 17 77Ws in service Oct 2015.
AA Boeing 777-300ER / 77W orders, 20 orders + deliveries confirmed as of 2013
Jan 14, 2011, 8:48 am
#61
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
As unlikely as an order for 777-300ERs might be, it's far more likely than any AA metal flight to DXB. AA will fly LIT-NRT (and probably LIT-Moon) before AA flies to DXB.
Jan 14, 2011, 9:06 am
#62
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SJC/SFO & ORD
Programs: LT Gold/BA Executive Club/AS MP/Marriott
Posts: 1,646
American and Qantas are applying with Australian authorities for immunity today, which would merger their U.S.-Australia operations just like AA/JAL to Asia and AA/IB/BA for EU. It's an interesting move, because AA does not fly to Australia, but if it were to, it would have metal neutrality with Qantas. So maybe its something we'll see in the long term future, using an AA plane for a third daily LAX-SYD.
Thanks Mark..^
Given the QF/BA JSA and of course given the AA/BA/IB JV/ATI I guess its not surprising. The next steps might be to get CX-AA and CX-QF (tough one) and CX-JL as well as JL-QF to start getting more close.
Which routes would these be? AA has sat on their a$$..s for so long that the fungus named DL has spread to almost every market. There are no more monopoly markets in this day and age. Its now time for AA to learn how to do things the old fashioned way and develop markets like they did in South America.
With Comair providing feed, AA should have sustainable traffic on both sides of MIA-JNB.
With Comair providing feed, AA should have sustainable traffic on both sides of MIA-JNB.
I wouldn't be surprised if AA eventually deals with TLV/Israeli Govt. situation at some time.
Increase of secondary European routes. Seasonal routes such as ORD-ATH during the summer would do well IMHO.
As weak as ORD-FRA was, I'm still surprised AA had cut ORD-FRA. I guess it is what it is.
AA hasn't really been "sitting on their a$$". They finally have JV/ATI with BA..that took literally a decade. They prevented JL from "bolting" to SkyTeam-that would have been a big loss for AA and possibly OneWorld. They are working with QF for "metal neutrality" as MAH4546 stated.
They still haven't filed for BK (though some believe they should have-hindsight is 20/20).
Do they have a lot of problems (such as various contracts with the pilots union, F/A union, etc.)? Yes. Have they been slow to implement new routes/strategies? Yes. Have they been slow to address the competition and ever-changing aviation landscape? Yes.
That being said, lets not forget AA still have a huge pax base in many large cities and have been started to expand a little bit more recently.
I agree their "over-conservatism" has hurt them but at least they didn't expand like crazy only to lose a lot of money and cut routes right away (besides ORD-DME).
Too afraid of competition with Delta? Seriously? When AA has a partnership with Qantas and is far stronger in Los Angeles?
Furthermore, Qantas and American Airlines today applied for anti-trust immunity with the Australian government. If approved by Australia and the U.S. DOT, they will be one airline between the U.S. and Australia/New Zealand, and if AA were to start service to Australia, AA would be profit-sharing, not competing, with Qantas.
Furthermore, Qantas and American Airlines today applied for anti-trust immunity with the Australian government. If approved by Australia and the U.S. DOT, they will be one airline between the U.S. and Australia/New Zealand, and if AA were to start service to Australia, AA would be profit-sharing, not competing, with Qantas.
I did email AA 6 years ago to fly ORD-DXB. I think this route would have been well established by now-even with the ORD-AUH Etihad codeshare. I still think AA could do well serving the route.
I thought we'd need at least ETOPS 120, as I was imagining a TATL crossing.
However, when I plotted this on the GC Map, it appears to be almost a polar routing.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dfw-dxb&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60
Jacobin777 is correct, ETOPS is probably not necessary for this route. However, I would suspect that political reasons may limit the number/location of diversion airports in the vicinity of DXB. I would also expect, on-ground logistics would limit the number of diversion airports over Greenland/Iceland/NE Canada as well (in case diversion was necessary).
Also, I'm not sure what the winds are like on this route, but it appears that the 77W could make it eastbound. There would most likely need to be a westbound fuel stop (or westbound payload restrictions).
However, when I plotted this on the GC Map, it appears to be almost a polar routing.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dfw-dxb&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60
Jacobin777 is correct, ETOPS is probably not necessary for this route. However, I would suspect that political reasons may limit the number/location of diversion airports in the vicinity of DXB. I would also expect, on-ground logistics would limit the number of diversion airports over Greenland/Iceland/NE Canada as well (in case diversion was necessary).
Also, I'm not sure what the winds are like on this route, but it appears that the 77W could make it eastbound. There would most likely need to be a westbound fuel stop (or westbound payload restrictions).
Maybe you can list a few places where AA wouldn't be able to stop as a diversion? I'm quite curious (not in a mocking manner at all-genuinely curious)...
There are plenty of ways for an engine manufacturer to minimize, if not essentially eliminate, the incremental costs of bringing a new engine model into the fleet.
A bigger challenge would be if AA were to agree with Boeing to convert any outstanding 772ER orders into 773ERs. This would likely violate AA's contract with Rolls and, in my experience, Rolls is pretty aggressive in these situations (rightly so, IMO). Nothing that cannot be worked-out, but it would be an additonal hurdle.
A bigger challenge would be if AA were to agree with Boeing to convert any outstanding 772ER orders into 773ERs. This would likely violate AA's contract with Rolls and, in my experience, Rolls is pretty aggressive in these situations (rightly so, IMO). Nothing that cannot be worked-out, but it would be an additonal hurdle.
Last edited by Jacobin777; Jan 14, 2011 at 9:14 am
Jan 14, 2011, 9:14 am
#63
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL, AA 1MM LT GLD, SPG PLAT, National Exec Selc, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 8,278
Jan 14, 2011, 11:06 am
#64
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: TUS and any place close to a lav
Programs: UA 1.6MM
Posts: 5,423
Looking at the route on the GC Map, going eastbound the route takes you over Iran. I would suspect that while (in a life/death situation) AA could take a diversion to an Iranian airport. However, I think that really would be a last resort.
Some of the diversion airports along the route may have zero to no available 777 ground support. For all practical purposes, it may be more practical to treat DFW-DXB as an ETOPS route.
Jan 14, 2011, 11:17 am
#65
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: South Bend, IN
Programs: AA EXP 3 MM; Marriott Bonvoy Lifetime Titanium Elite
Posts: 18,562
Jan 14, 2011, 11:23 am
#66
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold(OWE), QF LTG, MR Plat, IHG Spire, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,156
I would also not be surprised to see DFW-SYD/MEL.... Just say'n.....
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qanta...flights-2.html
<edit>
Looks like someone beat me to it.
From the rumblings I have heard from some people who should know, this certainly seems in the realms of possibility.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/qanta...flights-2.html
<edit>
Looks like someone beat me to it.
From the rumblings I have heard from some people who should know, this certainly seems in the realms of possibility.
Last edited by Traveloguy; Jan 14, 2011 at 11:25 am Reason: updated
Jan 14, 2011, 11:29 am
#67
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold(OWE), QF LTG, MR Plat, IHG Spire, Hertz PC
Posts: 8,156
Right. They never were. Because AA never have been in Australia/New Zealand for all of those years. Lets hope AA can do something to get more tougher competitions against QF/VA/UA. If there is enough more demands. If they will signed the treaty. If they will open-skies bilateral agreements.
If you read the QF press release, it is pretty obvious what AA and QF are about to do, and therefore I don't think I need to scream out the word the press release deliberately leaves out.
In case the penny has not dropped, QF and AA are not competitors. QF has had a series of far ranging commercial agreements with AA for decades, and with the exception of the recent ATI agreement that AA has with BA and IB, AA probably has no closer partner in oneworld than QF. I therefore can't see AA getting 'tough' with QF.
Jan 14, 2011, 11:39 am
#68
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: home = LAX
Posts: 25,934
It wasn't the wrong country necessarily, but if the right country, then the wrong city, because of no onward connection ability.
Air Berlin is coming on board, but they don't hub at FRA. So wouldn't it more likely that instead of resuming ORD-FRA, AA would start up up service to Berlin instead (whether from ORD and/or elsewhere) to match up to Air Berlin flights onward? (I think Air Berlin also has a secondary hub at Cologne, but I don't know if AA would be as interested in that as Berlin.)
Synchronizing with Air Berlin may be a while off before it's fully ready to happen, and therefore maybe a while off before it's even ready to announce, but wouldn't these new planes (even if announced within a week) be a while off in delivery too?
Air Berlin is coming on board, but they don't hub at FRA. So wouldn't it more likely that instead of resuming ORD-FRA, AA would start up up service to Berlin instead (whether from ORD and/or elsewhere) to match up to Air Berlin flights onward? (I think Air Berlin also has a secondary hub at Cologne, but I don't know if AA would be as interested in that as Berlin.)
Synchronizing with Air Berlin may be a while off before it's fully ready to happen, and therefore maybe a while off before it's even ready to announce, but wouldn't these new planes (even if announced within a week) be a while off in delivery too?
Last edited by sdsearch; Jan 14, 2011 at 11:46 am
Jan 14, 2011, 11:47 am
#69
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: AUS / DXB
Programs: BA Silver | AA LT Gold | EY Silver | Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 1,838
I thought we'd need at least ETOPS 120, as I was imagining a TATL crossing.
However, when I plotted this on the GC Map, it appears to be almost a polar routing.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dfw-dxb&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60
Jacobin777 is correct, ETOPS is probably not necessary for this route. However, I would suspect that political reasons may limit the number/location of diversion airports in the vicinity of DXB. I would also expect, on-ground logistics would limit the number of diversion airports over Greenland/Iceland/NE Canada as well (in case diversion was necessary).
Also, I'm not sure what the winds are like on this route, but it appears that the 77W could make it eastbound. There would most likely need to be a westbound fuel stop (or westbound payload restrictions).
However, when I plotted this on the GC Map, it appears to be almost a polar routing.
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=dfw-dxb&MS=wls&DU=mi&E=60
Jacobin777 is correct, ETOPS is probably not necessary for this route. However, I would suspect that political reasons may limit the number/location of diversion airports in the vicinity of DXB. I would also expect, on-ground logistics would limit the number of diversion airports over Greenland/Iceland/NE Canada as well (in case diversion was necessary).
Also, I'm not sure what the winds are like on this route, but it appears that the 77W could make it eastbound. There would most likely need to be a westbound fuel stop (or westbound payload restrictions).
I was thinking more along the lines of ORD-DXB, which a 77W could make. In fact, ORD-DXB is a lower distance than DEL, so plausibly a 772 might make it? Seeing as how EK serves IAH-DXB and JFK-DXB, DL serves ATL and UA serves IAD, ORD would make good sense for AA to serve (they might actually beat UA to a route at ORD for once!).
Of course, it'll probably never happen.
As far as diversion friendly airports go, there are actually quite a few in AUH, DWC, MCT, BAH, KWI, DOH... and TEH really is not that bad an option in a worst case scenario.
Jan 14, 2011, 12:23 pm
#71
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP; UA 1K, AS 75K, LT Titanium, Globalist
Posts: 625
PS. The moon route would only be added if AE can complete the outfit of all CR7s to the first configuration- it's just too long of a flight otherwise.
Jan 14, 2011, 12:27 pm
#72
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: AUS / DXB
Programs: BA Silver | AA LT Gold | EY Silver | Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 1,838
Jan 14, 2011, 12:33 pm
#73
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 467
Ive been everywhere. They're not gonna' land an AMERICAN AIRLINES plane in Iran under any circumstances - unless the other option is crashing into the Caspian - the fact that youve visited the country as a tourist and that its beautiful has nothing whatsoever to do with anything (see: 'red herring'), its the silliest notion in the world, like 90% of the rest of the ridiculous, groundless, uninformed speculation in this thread, but yours certainly takes the cake.
Jan 14, 2011, 12:37 pm
#74
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SJC/SFO & ORD
Programs: LT Gold/BA Executive Club/AS MP/Marriott
Posts: 1,646
I should have clarified. I didn't mean that AA wouldn't be able to take a diversion, I meant that some locations would be less than desirable. In a life/death situation you can pretty much put a plane down anywhere.
Looking at the route on the GC Map, going eastbound the route takes you over Iran. I would suspect that while (in a life/death situation) AA could take a diversion to an Iranian airport. However, I think that really would be a last resort.
Some of the diversion airports along the route may have zero to no available 777 ground support. For all practical purposes, it may be more practical to treat DFW-DXB as an ETOPS route.
Looking at the route on the GC Map, going eastbound the route takes you over Iran. I would suspect that while (in a life/death situation) AA could take a diversion to an Iranian airport. However, I think that really would be a last resort.
Some of the diversion airports along the route may have zero to no available 777 ground support. For all practical purposes, it may be more practical to treat DFW-DXB as an ETOPS route.
Maybe you know more than me regarding this specific issue. Want to share?...
It wasn't the wrong country necessarily, but if the right country, then the wrong city, because of no onward connection ability.
Air Berlin is coming on board, but they don't hub at FRA. So wouldn't it more likely that instead of resuming ORD-FRA, AA would start up up service to Berlin instead (whether from ORD and/or elsewhere) to match up to Air Berlin flights onward? (I think Air Berlin also has a secondary hub at Cologne, but I don't know if AA would be as interested in that as Berlin.)
Synchronizing with Air Berlin may be a while off before it's fully ready to happen, and therefore maybe a while off before it's even ready to announce, but wouldn't these new planes (even if announced within a week) be a while off in delivery too?
Air Berlin is coming on board, but they don't hub at FRA. So wouldn't it more likely that instead of resuming ORD-FRA, AA would start up up service to Berlin instead (whether from ORD and/or elsewhere) to match up to Air Berlin flights onward? (I think Air Berlin also has a secondary hub at Cologne, but I don't know if AA would be as interested in that as Berlin.)
Synchronizing with Air Berlin may be a while off before it's fully ready to happen, and therefore maybe a while off before it's even ready to announce, but wouldn't these new planes (even if announced within a week) be a while off in delivery too?
I don't think a 77W would make DXB-DFW. I know EK has tried but couldn't, so they have specially configued 77Ls for DXB-IAH.
I was thinking more along the lines of ORD-DXB, which a 77W could make. In fact, ORD-DXB is a lower distance than DEL, so plausibly a 772 might make it? Seeing as how EK serves IAH-DXB and JFK-DXB, DL serves ATL and UA serves IAD, ORD would make good sense for AA to serve (they might actually beat UA to a route at ORD for once!).
Of course, it'll probably never happen.
As far as diversion friendly airports go, there are actually quite a few in AUH, DWC, MCT, BAH, KWI, DOH... and TEH really is not that bad an option in a worst case scenario.
I was thinking more along the lines of ORD-DXB, which a 77W could make. In fact, ORD-DXB is a lower distance than DEL, so plausibly a 772 might make it? Seeing as how EK serves IAH-DXB and JFK-DXB, DL serves ATL and UA serves IAD, ORD would make good sense for AA to serve (they might actually beat UA to a route at ORD for once!).
Of course, it'll probably never happen.
As far as diversion friendly airports go, there are actually quite a few in AUH, DWC, MCT, BAH, KWI, DOH... and TEH really is not that bad an option in a worst case scenario.
@about 7,000NM and using AA's seating configuration, I still don't see DFW-DXB too much payload restricted on a B77W. Sort of a moot point right now anyway.
I wouldn't aim for DFW-DXB anyway. ORD-DXB would probably be the one to go and AA's -200ER's are more than capable.
Maybe when/if AA get the B789 and the route hasn't been developed too much (especially by EK), then AA could fly DFW-DXB nonstop.
Jan 14, 2011, 12:42 pm
#75
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London
Programs: BA GGL, AA 1MM LT GLD, SPG PLAT, National Exec Selc, Hilton Diamond, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 8,278
Isn't that what Hyperacusis meant with "worst-case scenario"? I don't think anyone would dispute the fact that AA would try to divert somewhere other than Iran if at all possible.