Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Could United Fly Their 777's To Australia?  
User currently offlineJoffie From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 806 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 14761 times:

This had just struck me, so why not.

United have their 744's fly from Melbourne-Sydney-LAX however these AC, apprantly, from what i have heard have very warn out interiors ect


Now, in this day and age people seem to bitch and moan about PTV'S which the UA 744's dont have cause they (cant afford them???)

Now, they fly their 777's transalantic which is what? 8-9 hours?? which have roughly the same number of seats as the 744

SYD-LAX is around 14 hours, and heck who knows what the pax would be doing for that long....

So, have UA ever thought about swapping the 744 from Aust routes to UK routes and 777 to MEL-SYD?? BA have done so for the season.

Now, i dont know what the load factors are like, but just a thoiught

61 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineDispatchguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1249 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 14651 times:

Well, the B744 has a higher pax capacity than the 777, however, they have ran the B777 down to AKL. I am not sure if the route LAXSYD has the required 207 minute ETOPS coverage (180 minutes + 15%)


Nobody screws you better than an airline job!
User currently offlineNickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1485 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14592 times:

It's also down to economics. QF and UA need the larger amount of pax and cargo capacity of the 744 to make the long thin routes from LAX/SFO-SYD and MEL work.

User currently offlineLevg79 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 14564 times:

Quoting Joffie (Thread starter):
Now, they fly their 777's transalantic which is what? 8-9 hours?? which have roughly the same number of seats as the 744

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but B744 has more seats than B772. And also, as Dispatchguy pointed out, ETOPS regulations might be an issue to conduct the direct flight.

Leo.



A mile of runway takes you to the world. A mile of highway takes you a mile.
User currently onlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2691 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14355 times:

According to Great Circle Mapper, you only need to be 180 ETOPS for LAX-SYD and SFO-SYD

LAX - SYD 6,507 nm
SFO - SYD 6,445 nm

According to Boeing, the 777-200ER has a range of 7,730 nm.


User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4506 posts, RR: 53
Reply 5, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14308 times:

I believe the answer to this quesiton is no - UA's PW powered lower MTOW 772ER's cannot make it to Australia from the West Coast of the United States with the ETOPS restrictions.

Has been discussed a long time ago, maybe 2004...suggest a search.



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineSlovacek747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14308 times:

Also have to keep in mind that UA 777 have derated engines which would more than likely make the route unprofitable using that aircraft. I know the 744 already has a tough time making because of the engines and often takes payload cuts. What can I say.. shoulda gone with the stronger engines.

Slovacek747


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 30613 posts, RR: 84
Reply 7, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14308 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

UA used to fly their 777s LAX-AKL, but found the payload restrictions to be too high to make the route economical year-round.

User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14308 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 4):
According to Great Circle Mapper, you only need to be 180 ETOPS for LAX-SYD and SFO-SYD

ETOPS 180 is, for whatever reason, not available down to the South Pacific. I am unsure of why.

UA's 777s are the worst in the world in terms of performance.

NS


User currently offlinePlanetime From Singapore, joined Mar 2006, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14246 times:

Quoting Dispatchguy (Reply 1):
Well, the B744 has a higher pax capacity than the 777, however, they have ran the B777 down to AKL. I am not sure if the route LAXSYD has the required 207 minute ETOPS coverage (180 minutes + 15%)

Also the demand for US-SYD is stronger also than the US-NZ market. Yes they did run the 777 to AKL for a bit downgrading it from a 744 before that. But now its all been axed a victim of Chap 11.


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 4876 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14227 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8):
ETOPS 180 is, for whatever reason, not available down to the South Pacific. I am unsure of why.

I am not sure what you are getting at but QF and NZ's 767-300ER fleets are ETOPS180 and they fly them all over the Pacific.
NZ has to fly around the ETOPS180 limit on the LAX-PPT route but it only adds about 100 +- nm to the route.


User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 11, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 14147 times:

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 8):
ETOPS 180 is, for whatever reason, not available down to the South Pacific. I am unsure of why.

180 min ETOPS is available world wide, including the South Pacific.

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 5):
I believe the answer to this quesiton is no - UA's PW powered lower MTOW 772ER's cannot make it to Australia from the West Coast of the United States with the ETOPS restrictions.

There are no ETOPS restrictions for SYD-LAX. The great circle route can be flown with 180 min ETOPS, as has been pointed out. The only reason ETOPS might come into play is if wind conditions favored a more easterly route.

UA 777's restrictions on this route would be a result of their fleet decisions in terms of MTOW and engine type selections.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineSshank From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13970 times:

Any one know why did UA spec'ed the low MTOW versions for thier 772s? Or was there no other option when they ordered given that they were the launch customer?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 11):
There are no ETOPS restrictions for SYD-LAX. The great circle route can be flown with 180 min ETOPS, as has been pointed out. The only reason ETOPS might come into play is if wind conditions favored a more easterly route.

UA 777's restrictions on this route would be a result of their fleet decisions in terms of MTOW and engine type selections.


User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4028 posts, RR: 11
Reply 13, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13955 times:

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 11):
UA 777's restrictions on this route would be a result of their fleet decisions in terms of MTOW and engine type selections.

Keep in mind UA was the launch customer for the 777. I would think in order to make this route viable on any 777 air frame it would either have to be a 772LR or a 773ER. The 772 ER just doesn't quite have the ability to do this one.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineWalter747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1440 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13915 times:

Quoting Joffie (Thread starter):
Now, in this day and age people seem to bitch and moan about PTV'S

got that right. what would they do 20 years ago.



Hussel, Hussel, Husel, Grind, Grind, Grind
User currently offlineBrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4136 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13901 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 10):
I am not sure what you are getting at but QF and NZ's 767-300ER fleets are ETOPS180 and they fly them all over the Pacific.
NZ has to fly around the ETOPS180 limit on the LAX-PPT route but it only adds about 100 +- nm to the route.

Do they not stop the 767 in HNL for refueling? I know AC does this when flying from YVR, of course it is further then LAX to SYD but I don't know by how far.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21474 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13901 times:

Quoting SLCUT2777 (Reply 13):
The 772 ER just doesn't quite have the ability to do this one.

Sure it does. A new one does, at least. A brand spanking new 772ER with highest rated engines and MTOW has over 7700nm, much further than the 744 non-ER UA flies now. Somehow CO makes it work EWR-HKG, much further.

But UA doesn't have the latest, greatest 777. That's the point.

ETOPS 207 restrictions only come into play when trying to fly to DFW or MIA or ATL, as they cross over the MID-pacific dead zone, with no islands at all to land on. To get around that, those flights would need to overfly SAN or close to it (actually Baja, but why pay Mexico for overflight when SAN is so close?)



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineMEACEDAR From Lebanon, joined Oct 2006, 753 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13882 times:

Why not just upgrade the interiors?

User currently offlinePlanetime From Singapore, joined Mar 2006, 719 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13838 times:

Quoting MEACEDAR (Reply 17):
not just upgrade the interiors?

I think UAL is thinking about redoing their 744's. I beleive that its only business and first class that they are planning to remodel. Not really sure about Economy. It is a shame that UAL lags behind many or most carriers in terms of offerings on their 744's. I flew their 777's and its better than their 744's but far behind most other carriers 777 in terms of standard.


User currently offlineManu From Canada, joined Dec 2004, 406 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13754 times:

I'm looking forward to go to AKL from LAX on Air New Zealand's flight #1, a 777-200 ER. I picked that flight specifically to get on the twin in hopes of getting a better look at the new bird. I have only been on a 777 once, AA's from ORD-DFW in early 2001.

But I also avoided any UA flights because of their outdated IFE systems on the 744. Proof you lose customers on flights like this because of services.


User currently onlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2691 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13742 times:

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 5):
I believe the answer to this quesiton is no - UA's PW powered lower MTOW 772ER's cannot make it to Australia from the West Coast of the United States with the ETOPS restrictions.

I have a hard time believing that UA's 772ER PW engines have 1,200 nm less of a range than the highest rated 772ER engine. Is that true?

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 11):
180 min ETOPS is available world wide, including the South Pacific.

Not over the entire South Pacific but it is available over the route from LAX to SYD.

Quoting Sshank (Reply 12):
Any one know why did UA spec'ed the low MTOW versions for thier 772s? Or was there no other option when they ordered given that they were the launch customer?

I am assuming because they won't buy any other engines but PW. I hope that changes, it seems limiting.

Quoting MEACEDAR (Reply 17):
Why not just upgrade the interiors?

I agree, this needs to be done.


User currently offlineIndio66 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 475 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 13742 times:

Quoting Manu (Reply 19):
But I also avoided any UA flights because of their outdated IFE systems on the 744. Proof you lose customers on flights like this because of services.

Agreed. I avoid LH for the very same reason.


User currently onlineOldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3476 posts, RR: 67
Reply 22, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13668 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 20):
Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 11):
180 min ETOPS is available world wide, including the South Pacific.

Not over the entire South Pacific but it is available over the route from LAX to SYD.

Please share where you think it isn't available.



Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
User currently offlineWalter747 From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 1440 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13637 times:

Quoting Planetime (Reply 18):
think UAL is thinking about redoing their 744's. I beleive that its only business and first class that they are planning to remodel. Not really sure about Economy. It is a shame that UAL lags behind many or most carriers in terms of offerings on their 744's.

sounds like LH.  laughing 



Hussel, Hussel, Husel, Grind, Grind, Grind
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (7 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 13552 times:

Someone else's 772ER's could easily do LAX or SFO to MEL or SYD. Fully rated, a 772ER has more range than a 744, or even 744ER. United and Qantas have the load factors to fill the 744s. If someone else, say CO or DL or AA, who have fully rated 772ERs, could do this route easily. (I believe all 3 operate, or plan to operate routes longer than LAX-SYD with their 772ERs anyway).


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
25 DC8FanJet : UA ran ORD/HKG with 777ER for a time, but needed the cargo lift of the 744 Probably the same issue to Australia
26 MEACEDAR : It is a shame.
27 United787 : If you go this website and put in LAX-PPT and click on 180 min ETOPS you will see a large dark area between French Polynesia and Central America some
28 Post contains links United787 : I forgot to post the website: http://gc.kls2.com/
29 SuseJ772 : Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't this because UA refuses to ever buy another GE engine due to a conflict over some crash findings in the past (can
30 Jfk777 : It must be the curse of the Pratt & Whitney 772ER for UA ? How does Korean Air fly to Atlanta and JFK with their P&W 772ER's but poor UA can't make it
31 Post contains images Stitch : The DC-10 they lost at Sioux City, Iowa. I've heard it, as well, but seriously, UA has no real choice going forward but to accept GE or RR power for
32 Baw716 : The -200ER can make the route, no problem; however, I agree that a larger plane is needed for that route. At 6500nm, the -300ER is pretty close, but U
33 DC8FanJet : UA's ER's are nominally 656k MGTOW, capable of the distance
34 AA777223 : As far as I can remember, I think this is the story: I BELIEVE, not sure, that United and Pratt & Whitney have a long standing history under the umbre
35 Roseflyer : It isn't that UA 747s can't fly the route. The problem is when weather is bad in SYD and the flight has to list MEL as an alternate. UA's 747s can't
36 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : This has nothing to do with the availability of 180 min. ETOPS. It indicates that in this area you are more than 180 min. from a suitable airport so
37 Getdonnie : I think the issue is whether United's B777s could perform the routing LAX-SYD/AKL. I think we are all in agreement that a higher performing B777ER/LR/
38 Post contains links Viscount724 : In March 2003, while UA was using the 777 on AKL-LAX they had what I believe may still rank as the longest-ever single-engine ETOPS diversion. It was
39 MCIGuy : They'll still be around though. They make some MEAN fighter engines (F119, F135). It was a publicity flight for a 777LR
40 RoseFlyer : the 772LR did the flights as a promotional trick. I think it took about 24 hours. Never could the plane do that in service. On a promotional trip to
41 WeAreUnited : I know this hasn't been discussed in a the past few replies... but I thought I'd throw this in. UA's 744's have more seats in Economy then they do on
42 KingAirMan : can someone define what 180 etops means ?
43 Post contains links OldAeroGuy : Rather than write a long explanation, try this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETOPS
44 Post contains images Joffie : I think it means, that a plane such as a 777 can only fly for 3 hours max with one engine, therefore it must be at least 3 hours from a suitable land
45 OldAeroGuy : Not exactly. The 773ER has flown over 330 min on one engine as part of a certification demonstration, so the limitation is not the airframe/engine ca
46 Jfk777 : Its timer for United to get second generation 777 or newer 748. The Wolf era wide bodies are nearing the seventh inning strech od their lives.
47 Post contains images Turkee : PER-JNB A twin-enginer airliner would have to take a considerable detour north in order to travel this route and remain ETOPS-180. Probably the reaso
48 UnitedNRT : He knows what he's talking about. The answer is yes they could with slight payload restrictions, yet demand warrants the 2x B744.
49 Post contains images StealthZ : Indeed a Great circle route PER-JNB dips down into the 300+min ETOPS area but I thought we were discussing the Pacific here. PER-JNB via the South Pa
50 Post contains links and images Lightsaber : The basic rub: Pratt missed fuel burn on the PW4098 by 4%. Thus, the PW4098 (engine designed for the 772ER/773) is a poor range solution. The PW4090 h
51 SkyHigh777 : Read and sleep....pretty much all I did on my flight IAD-JNB which is 18 hours!
52 Gigneil : Unless you can provide evidence contrary, ETOPS 180 in the South Pacific is, and has always been case-by-case, just like ETOPS 207 over the North Pac
53 Jetfuel : To be honest UA's 747-400 fleet is amongst the worst of any airline, trust me. Old Seats, NO PTV, shabby and worn out
54 LHR777 : Would this have anything to do with the black smoke trail you always get from a UA777 and not from a GE or RR powered 777? I always notice this when
55 OldAeroGuy : Case-by-case is a big difference from unavailable. You're the one who says 180 min ETOPS is unavailable in the South Pacific. Shouldn't you be the on
56 UAL777UK : You can only be talking about Y if you mean no PTV. F & J are being refurbed in early 2007 and at best you may see some overhead monitors in Y. UA's
57 Lightsaber : Nyet. That's smoke number. The PW4090 is thrust limited on NOx. Smoke is high on the old Talon style fuel injectors admitadly. (To reduce smoke would
58 Australia1 : UA better smarten their act up soon. DJ will be flying to west coast very soon !!!
59 Mymiles2go : Actually, it was the 110 person United staff at AKL for one flight that made it unprofitable.
60 Planetime : Well is there a chance of UAL going back to AKL? I was on some of the 744's that they used to fly into them and they were absolutely full at that tim
61 Timz : Except case-by-case, you mean? Or are you saying LAX-PPT and LAX-AKL twins always stay within 138 minutes? Or does 138 apply during part of the fligh
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Does EK Ever Fly Their 340 To MAN posted Sun Nov 12 2006 02:20:24 by Fiaz
Where Do Cathay Fly Their 777s To? posted Mon Nov 28 2005 15:07:10 by Fbm3rd
Is Thomson-Fly Still Coming To Australia? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 12:51:54 by QF108
Does Emirates Fly The 777 To Manchester? posted Sun May 13 2001 18:41:09 by GF-A330
Where Do BA Fly Their 777s To? posted Mon Aug 21 2000 17:12:49 by Gtarrowhead
Where Does United Fly Their 757's? posted Fri May 26 2000 05:08:34 by Boeing747-400
Where Do Airlines Fly Their 777's? posted Tue May 9 2000 04:02:25 by Boeing747-400
Where Does United Fly To From LAX? posted Mon Jul 10 2006 18:18:55 by NotSoFrqntFlr
Why Doesn't Continental Fly To Australia? posted Sun Jan 22 2006 20:32:45 by Slovacek747
Why Varig Doesn't Fly To Australia? posted Sat Sep 17 2005 07:26:19 by USADreamliner