Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4629 times:
When I saw photos of UAL 777s in storage, I was shocked. Even the prototype 777 is still relatively young compared to other types. Does UAL plan to put these birds back into service, or are the 744s proving to be of more use to United than 777s. Apparently, I heard that the idea that two engines are better than four in terms of fuel economics cannot be generalized. Was I shocked to find out that the 744s were more economical than some 777s to operate. Since UA is apparently reactivating many of their gorgeous 744s, does this mean curtains for the ones in storage? Or will these 777 birds be returned to the skies to fly the many good years they have left on them?
Uadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 11 Reply 1, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 4539 times:
good thread....i was in gyr this past weekend....ual has 9 777 out here.....when ual went to judge genes courtroom in chicago...ual renegotiated the rates on all the a/c they have ...it turns out post 9-11 there is a glut of 400s and ual was able to op the 400 cheaper vs the 777 due to lower lease rates than the 777.....even though gyr has no ua 747s......there are alot of late model a/c that i wish were doing rev runs for the major lines in the usa.....my 2 pence
Na From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9599 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 4358 times:
Some of these UA 777s will no be reactivated whatever happens to UA. They are for sale or lease via Boeings website. A few are wfu for a year already (even almost new ERs since last summer!). Seems airlines are not queuing for 777s even anymore...
The 777-200ER costs about as much as a 744, and so will be the leasing rates. If you can fill them, a 744 is surely the better deal!
UAL777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1478 posts, RR: 5 Reply 3, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4210 times:
Na, I believe that MAY be incorrect. I have heard from someone at UA that they are sitting in the desert until their leases expire so that they can hand them back to the lessor because the leases on them are sky-high from what I understand.
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 6, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
I hate to think of how aircraft as valuable as these are put in storage like they are as old as the 762s. N205UA, one of the 777s in storage, is a 772ER, probably not more than seven or eight years old. The Boeing 777 is one of the most remarkable jetliners ever produced, reknown for its great fuel-efficiency, high passenger capacity, and advanced digital qualities. They are treasures that should not be sent to the desert or stored at any time now. Aircraft like the 777 probably could remain highly operated by passenger aircraft for up to well over 20 years into the future I would imagine.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 12, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2683 times:
Within the BK process companies can reject leases they deem no longer required. Thus many of the parked aircraft have leases that were rejected and currently cost United zero dollars. The are aircraft thus parked pending further disposition from their leasing companies or banks involved.
Some other stored aircraft however are still in the midst of talks regarding their leases, while the last group are parked as they require maintenance checks. Why outlay millions in expenditures to perform a check if the aircraft is really not needed for the current schedule.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6079 posts, RR: 56 Reply 13, posted (9 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2618 times:
UA's intranet, Skynet, doesn't list any 777s as "nonoperative". N766UA, N777UA (777-222s), N789UA, N205UA, N207UA and N208UA (777-222/ER) are apperently no longer a part of the UA fleet and appears to have been on capital leases and were rejected. Very sad to see this happen, particulary with N777UA since that operated the first ever 777 revenue flight.
I do agree that it may be possible for UA to negotiate lower rates for these 777s and perhaps get them back in a while, not sure how likely that is.
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....GA, T5, CI and LX 777s
Thrust From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 2673 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2148 times:
Thanks you to all the particaptors in this discussion. Hope everything turns out OK with the UA situation, and hopefully all will be brought back into service either with UA or with other airlines. Though I would really like UA to take them back, servicing any airline is much better for these aircraft than being sent to their graves at so young, modern, and useful.
Syncmaster From United States of America, joined Jul 2002, 1983 posts, RR: 14 Reply 16, posted (9 years 2 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2090 times:
Is there a possibility that the ones that have been taken "out-of" the fleet getting their respective lease cost's brought down and returned to the fleet, kind of saying we don't need the plane so you can have it back, but i'm sure we could find a use for it if you wanted to bring the cost down?