The new 777 is facing further delays too, they just grounded the 3 test aircraft, part on the pylon not performing to specifications

 

With all of Boeings troubles, I can't help but think of the old CW McCall song, Classified. Well, the thing noses over, the pieces don't line up, the doors blow off, and the cowl could be a problem, but other than that.... she's cherry.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWHBTDb_iko

 

I work at TK too, and heard the exact same thing plus used 787-8s from the same carrier. I'm shocked they couldn't find any non -er -300s. Can you imagine that cattle car?

 

What airline are these planes coming from? ANA?

 

Because there aren’t many A model 300s flying around. There’s literally a hand full worldwide with Cathy, Singapore, ANA, JAL, KAL has solid operators in past. The rest are scattered with air carriers operating in poorer countries…

 

Well the impending displacement I think squashed any used 787 rumors

 

Any new airplane would take a year or more to paint, rebrand, and Mx check. The Chinese airbus we received a few years ago took longer because of the maintenance piece of the puzzle. This also could be BA negotiating with Boeing for future deliveries vs airbus.

 

Close the thread, we're done here. A great joke reply for a joke thread.

This is all of you dreamers' yearly reminder that we ordered A350s in..... 2010.

 

Love the joke too, and whether this comes to pass isn't of much concern to me but it's interesting to think about. The cost of adding a used WB aircraft to our fleet is generally prohibitive, but not inconceivable (remember the three used 767-300s we got from Hawaiian). Here's why this is more plausible than most TK rumors - We retired 22 747-400s that were between 15-25 years old. Operating such a small subfleet really doesn't make much sense. We have 22 300ers that are less than 10 years old, plus 4 200Cs that are about 14 years old. The rest of the 777 fleet is 22+ years old, so a lot of it is going away in the next decade with almost all of it being replaced by 787s. Adding a dozen or more lightly used 300ERs would keep the 777 fleet at an economically viable size until our current 300ERs are getting long in the tooth. By then the A350 may well have been re-engined, in which case we may yet see that thing on property... long after I retire. No matter how badly guys want to see the 777X on property, I seriously doubt we'll ever get it whether or not the 350 gets re-engined.

I find it pretty hard to believe we'd buy used 787-8s, but maybe a few for the right price in order to cover long/thin routes that the 321xlr won't be able to cover.

 

Interesting take on the 777's. You must not be on the fleet. They are not going anywhere anytime soon. Yes, the 787 people say that can replace some of the 777s. Not really. Much different capacity. Different stage lengths. One of the most profitable planes at UAL are the 777A's. Seat mile costs on the cattle car are pretty good.

Yes, they are old, but not going anywhere.

As far as used 777-300's? Cost would be possibly a D check, paint and interiors. A fraction of the cost of a new plane. Fairly cost efficient as adding capacity goes. Plus, they are available. As stated, the 777-9's are years off at best. We need more lift sooner than later. All the 777's we have now are busy and flying. We are out of lift. When the options are limited, used isn't bad.....except for used Chinese Airbi.

Non ER 777-300s? There weren't may built. Many of them have been parted out. The difference in capability with the 300ER was significant. There are some hulks out out at Roswell...pigs have been known to fly!