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, 12:43 pm
#76
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP; UA 1K, AS 75K, LT Titanium, Globalist
Posts: 625
Jacobin777, nice post.
Are you saying, as other have suggested, that an ORD-DXB could be done using current equipment and few if any weight restrictions? Combined with Open Skies, as well as the new airport in Jebel Ali opening eventually, along with many other things (route scarcity, OW penetration in the market, etc) this could actually happen.
As someone who flies to DXB for business every once in a while, I'm always forced to make the terrible choice to connect in Amman or take the more than comfortable Etihad or EK flights. For those that have done the AMM connection, while it's not totally painful, the arrival timing makes it tough to be even remotely coherent when you get in DXB extremely late at night.
Are you saying, as other have suggested, that an ORD-DXB could be done using current equipment and few if any weight restrictions? Combined with Open Skies, as well as the new airport in Jebel Ali opening eventually, along with many other things (route scarcity, OW penetration in the market, etc) this could actually happen.
As someone who flies to DXB for business every once in a while, I'm always forced to make the terrible choice to connect in Amman or take the more than comfortable Etihad or EK flights. For those that have done the AMM connection, while it's not totally painful, the arrival timing makes it tough to be even remotely coherent when you get in DXB extremely late at night.
Jan 14, 2011, 12:50 pm
#77
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 467
Yeah, next to FNJ and MGQ - its downright peachy. By any other measure, it isn't.
Jan 14, 2011, 12:54 pm
#78
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Greenville, SC
Programs: AA EXP, SPG Platinum, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 201
As someone who flies to DXB for business every once in a while, I'm always forced to make the terrible choice to connect in Amman or take the more than comfortable Etihad or EK flights. For those that have done the AMM connection, while it's not totally painful, the arrival timing makes it tough to be even remotely coherent when you get in DXB extremely late at night.
Not terrible, though.
Jan 14, 2011, 12:56 pm
#79
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, 1:06 pm
#81
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
That's not an answer. Which basically suggests that you have no basis or basis only on your own conjecture that AA wouldn't consider DXB.
Jan 14, 2011, 1:15 pm
#82
Moderator: American AAdvantage
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NorCal - SMF area
Programs: AA LT Plat; HH LT Diamond, Maître-plongeur des Muccis
Posts: 62,948
I'm sure you are correct - nowadays, things like parts rotable exchange services, engines leasing, etc. do make it easier. Engines are expensive! I was noting a recycler in the UK has three AF 744s, minus the engines (either AF or lessor owned) and the difference is: used 744, $35<; without engines, $10-12. 
Frankly, with the retreating dates of 787 coming online, a 773ER might be an answer, and yes, RR has a huge stake (maybe the QF experience and effects even make the situation even more critical making them less likely to deal). I'll speculate and defer to MAH4546 and you for perhaps more enlightened speculation.
No doubt the 777-300ER has increased payload and range over the 772 that will better enable it to handle those nasty headwinds - as you and another member have said - but they still exist, and I remember SN's NYC-SIN experience and subsequent flying with aircraft significantly below Gross.
Frankly, with the retreating dates of 787 coming online, a 773ER might be an answer, and yes, RR has a huge stake (maybe the QF experience and effects even make the situation even more critical making them less likely to deal). I'll speculate and defer to MAH4546 and you for perhaps more enlightened speculation.
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.
No doubt the 777-300ER has increased payload and range over the 772 that will better enable it to handle those nasty headwinds - as you and another member have said - but they still exist, and I remember SN's NYC-SIN experience and subsequent flying with aircraft significantly below Gross.
Originally Posted by N830MH
Sure they can. The 772ER can barely handle enough more range to reachable in LOS. That's is right choice for AA. I think 772ER will able flying nonstop DFW-LOS is 6,573 miles. Due to weight restrictions. Because it will have a problems due to strongs high headwinds gusts. It'll will work.
Jan 14, 2011, 1:17 pm
#83
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: AUS / DXB
Programs: BA Silver | AA LT Gold | EY Silver | Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 1,838
Congratulations. It really shows. 
And how is this in conflict with what I was saying?
Your assumption of "fact" is incorrect.
What speculation of mine, exactly?
What speculation of mine, exactly?
Jan 14, 2011, 1:21 pm
#84
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: AUS / DXB
Programs: BA Silver | AA LT Gold | EY Silver | Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 1,838
On what basis do you make your guarantee?
Jan 14, 2011, 1:24 pm
#85
Moderator: Alaska Mileage Plan
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 12,320
Perhaps "Rank Speculation" could be added to the thread title.
Jan 14, 2011, 1:25 pm
#86
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, 1:26 pm
#87
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 467
I'll stop interrupting the nonsense now, back to your JNB/DXB/SYD fantasy camp, kids. Apologies for trying to inject some facts.
Jan 14, 2011, 1:28 pm
#88
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
But guess what EaglesOhThree, you have yet to explain to us WHY AA isn't or wouldn't consider DXB? All you do is demean other posters, who at least claim to have credible information.
Hyperacusis, if you could please provide the basis for such information, I think it would also benefit the FT community.
Jan 14, 2011, 1:32 pm
#89
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: AUS / DXB
Programs: BA Silver | AA LT Gold | EY Silver | Marriott LT Titanium
Posts: 1,838
To provide background, I heard about it from a (fairly inebriated) AA exec sitting next to me on a DFW-BOS last year. The sense I got was basically that AA considered the route too risky, given their conservative route strategy. Another route that was also apparently considered quite seriously was BOM, but that was dropped as well.
See above.
Not that I have seen a single fact coming from you so far in this thread, but yes, please do stop interrupting.
Not that I have seen a single fact coming from you so far in this thread, but yes, please do stop interrupting.
Jan 14, 2011, 1:34 pm
#90
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
To provide background, I heard about it from a (fairly inebriated) AA exec sitting next to me on a DFW-BOS last year. The sense I got was basically that AA considered the route too risky, given their conservative route strategy. Another route that was also apparently considered quite seriously was BOM, but that was dropped as well.
So EaglesOhThree, any data you have which would suggest that AA wouldn't consider the route again? Not like any given route consideration is a now or never proposition.....
Last edited by sts603; Jan 14, 2011 at 1:45 pm