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, 7:27 pm
#106
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: SJC/SFO & ORD
Programs: LT Gold/BA Executive Club/AS MP/Marriott
Posts: 1,646
I think it is right choices for AA will likely to flying nonstop LAX/DFW-SYD. Becuase the 777-300ER has increased the weight restrictions. Because 77W does not have payload restricted over further south. I think 77W will have to stop in BNE to get refuel the plane and ongoing continued the flight to SYD. It could be work out very well and it will have to do easily way to flying one-stop in BNE instead of going to flying nonstop from DFW-SYD. That will be problems the headwinds gusts over TPAC flight.
IF (and that's a big if) AA does order 77W, I'm sure it will first go to additional capacity on their most high demand routes. I'm thinking JFL-LHR, LAX-LHR, ORD-LHR, DFW-LHR, and maybe LAX-NRT or US-Brazil/Argentina.
The spare 77E from substitute 77W on those LHR routes can then rotate to the highest demand 763 routes like JFK-FCO, ORD-FCO, and CDG.
And the spare 763 from substitute 77E on those European routes can be refurbished for 3-class LAX-JFK service.
And that means the 762 can finally be retired when they are up for the next D-check.
The spare 77E from substitute 77W on those LHR routes can then rotate to the highest demand 763 routes like JFK-FCO, ORD-FCO, and CDG.
And the spare 763 from substitute 77E on those European routes can be refurbished for 3-class LAX-JFK service.
And that means the 762 can finally be retired when they are up for the next D-check.
Jan 14, 2011, 9:27 pm
#107
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP,2MM, DL Gold,Starwood PLT
Posts: 3,876
I for one just don't see AA getting the new aircraft. Several things would point against. The engine issue, that AA's strategy has clearly been to operate smaller, not larger aircraft, reduce the over all complexity of the fleet etc.
But perhaps the most important is that i would expect this would fall under the new fleet type for AA's labor agreements. They have not been able to reach agreement with labor on any issue in recent memory so this alone could spell the end of and order for the aircraft.
If AA were to order these aircraft as rumored, it would represent a pretty significant shift in strategy on several fronts. I think this could be a great thing, just not yet convinced it's true.
But perhaps the most important is that i would expect this would fall under the new fleet type for AA's labor agreements. They have not been able to reach agreement with labor on any issue in recent memory so this alone could spell the end of and order for the aircraft.
If AA were to order these aircraft as rumored, it would represent a pretty significant shift in strategy on several fronts. I think this could be a great thing, just not yet convinced it's true.
Jan 14, 2011, 10:08 pm
#108
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,295
Not to add the to rampant speculation already in place, but I heard it was AE, not AA, that actually ordered the 20 new 777. They're hoping to put them on the JFK-BOS and LGA-BOS routes, with an occasional NYC-YYZ equipment sub to make up for that lost LAN flight. 
Jan 14, 2011, 10:16 pm
#109
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: AA EXP,2MM, DL Gold,Starwood PLT
Posts: 3,876
More to the point, there are any number of carrier's worldwide that could have placed an order for 20 777W. Seems more wishful thinking it's AA.
Clearly Boeing has some new pipeline coming if they are gonna commit to to the ramp up in production..is AA adding to that i'm skeptical.
Clearly Boeing has some new pipeline coming if they are gonna commit to to the ramp up in production..is AA adding to that i'm skeptical.
Jan 14, 2011, 11:25 pm
#110
Ambassador: Japan Airlines
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: LAX
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, JMB Diamond, oneworld Emerald, Bonvoy Platinum
Posts: 16,399
I believe it was JL/CX JBV not JL/CX/AA JBV that's being brought up by JAL President.
Jan 15, 2011, 5:10 pm
#111
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold; Hilton Diamond; National C ar Executive Elite
Posts: 732
since they got rid of the 767 ORD-SFO, maybe they should replace one of these horrible 737 with a 777...I'd appreciate it! UA has a 777 flying the route...of course it's configured as a cattle car! 
Jan 15, 2011, 6:52 pm
#112
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: los angeles, calif.
Programs: Alaska Airlines Gold MVP
Posts: 7,170
Jan 16, 2011, 10:46 am
#113
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SFO/OAK
Programs: AA EXP 3.4MM, BAEC, UAMP, Skyteam (<10k) HH Gold, IHG Plat, Hertz Gold, GE/TSA TT
Posts: 2,723
IMHO, Econ+ isn't quite "cattle car", as it definitely beats AA econ.
Jan 16, 2011, 11:44 am
#115
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,630
Also AA still has some pilot contract issues (hours) as well as lack of long range planes today (777-200LR, 777-300ER, 747-400). So AA is limited to ~7500 miles NON Stop and can be weight restricted (or xtra stop) if unfavorable winds (same issues the AA 757 have from Europe to the U.S.).
Will have to see what AA does 3-5 years from now if they ever get longer range planes as the 787-9 or something else.
Last edited by zman; Jan 16, 2011 at 12:38 pm
Jan 16, 2011, 12:21 pm
#116
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ORF
Posts: 1,740
There is, though, value in having the brand name fly to Australia. And with a JBA with Qantas, the risk is significantly reduces as are the costs, because there is no need to open a station in Sydney, Qantas handles everything. I honestly do think that seeing AA fly LAX-SYD in 4-6 years is a very realistic possibility as long as AA and QF are in a metal neutral joint venture. It can use an AA 787 and be timed more for local traffic than connections.
We are going to see markets that in the new airline culture AA will have to enter to keep up with DL, such as Bombay, Dubai, Lagos and Tel Aviv. Not now, not next year, not even in 2013, but sometime by mid-decade, or AA is in trouble.
Jan 16, 2011, 12:30 pm
#117
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: ORF
Posts: 1,740
AA seems more interested in having their partners and code share's fly International Pacific (QF and JL and CX and even MU)except for the AA 6X Japan and 3X China.
Also AA still has some pilot contract issues (hours) as well as lack of long range planes today (777-200LR, 777-300ER, 747-400). So AA is limited to ~7500 miles NON Stop and can be weight restricted (or xtra stop) if unfavorable winds (same issues the AA 757 have from Europe to the U.S.).
Will have to see what AA does 3-5 years from now if they ever get longer range planes as the 787-9 or something else.
Also AA still has some pilot contract issues (hours) as well as lack of long range planes today (777-200LR, 777-300ER, 747-400). So AA is limited to ~7500 miles NON Stop and can be weight restricted (or xtra stop) if unfavorable winds (same issues the AA 757 have from Europe to the U.S.).
Will have to see what AA does 3-5 years from now if they ever get longer range planes as the 787-9 or something else.
Jan 17, 2011, 9:13 am
#118
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: NYC/SYD
Programs: Virtuoso Travel Advisor. FSPP, Ritz STARS, Rosewood Elite, Belmond BelliniClub. SPG PRO
Posts: 2,445
If we get ATIs and metal neutrality, will this mean the AA code and the CX code or JL code will all cost the same?
Jan 17, 2011, 9:48 am
#119
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 159
AA has the least international destinations compared to the new UA and DL. Something has to be done. IMO 77Ws would be a perfect solution to this and would help competing against the other two US carriers I mentioned.
Jan 17, 2011, 4:04 pm
#120
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: los angeles, calif.
Programs: Alaska Airlines Gold MVP
Posts: 7,170
The difference in international destinations or passenger carried isn't that drastic, but that's only because AA is so big to Latin America and the Caribbean. It's even the largest carrier between the United States and Mexico in terms of passengers carried, not AeroMexico or Continental. But point taken, AA needs to expand its global reach.