Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 747-400 Replacement  
User currently online1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6586 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16976 times:

A common discussion on these boards are what will United replace their 767s with. Most consider the 787 to be more likely than the A350, as some have considered the A350 to be too large to replace their 767s. What about United's 747-400 replacement? The 747-8I is larger, while the 777-300ER is smaller. I don't really see United ordering the A380, but it is hard to figure out what will United replace their 747-400 with.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
86 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSiouxATC From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 386 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16969 times:

It wont happen for awhile. But I really cant see them going with anything else beside the 747-8. A380 will not happen. It would be cool tho.

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16939 times:

United have 7 routes that require a daily VLA: SFO-NRT, SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, ORD-PEK, and ORD-PVG. All other UA routes now served by the Jumbo could be served by B787s or B777s flying increased frequencies. To serve these 7 routes daily, UA would need 12 aircraft. That's a minimum. UA could decide to use a VLA on other routes rather than increase frequency. So, expect UA to order at least 12 B747-8I SuperJumbos (or perhaps WhaleJets).

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16859 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I believe UA can make an economic case for the 747-8I, especially if they merge with CO. Such a merger would shift a great deal of SkyTeam codeshare traffic to Asia directly to UA/CO. It would also open the NYC-LON market to UA again and they could probably use the extra capacity. UA does, however, have at least three LHR slots available to them that are currently on five-year lease to VS, as well as CO's slots at LGW, so increased NYC-LON traffic would not require them to use a VLA.

I tend to think the 777-300ER will not have a home with UA, as the 787-10, while smaller, will offer better CASM and RASM. However, a merged CO/UA might require more lift and as both operate 777-200ER aircraft, the 777-300ER would logically fit.

And if Zvezda is correct and by 2012-2013 the actual and projected arrival of 787-10/787-11 and A359X and A35010X may kill the 773ER's sales prospects, UA could get exceptional (50%+ discount) pricing on a dozen or a score depending on how well the 777F program is keeping the line going (since Boeing is not going to sacrifice highly-profitable 777F slots to sell barely-profitable 77Ws).


User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8145 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16849 times:

I wouldn't rule out the A380. United one of Airbus' biggest customers, so there's obviously a relationship. And for the routes listed above (California to China and Japan), UA need the biggest plane they can get their hands on, and I think it's a more efficient and better choice than the 747 if it's payload and cost per mile efficiency you're after. I think the 747NG is a good choice for airlines who are also buying the A380 (eg Lufthansa or Emirates) who could use something in the gap between the A380 and the next biggest thing (in Lufty's case, the A340-600, in Emirates case, the 777-300).


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineORDRyan28 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16843 times:

Quoting SiouxATC (Reply 1):
I really cant see them going with anything else beside the 747-8.

Exactly. They're a loyal boeing customer, and they certainly would not order the whalejet. As nice as UA's colors would look on it, it won't happen. The 748, on the other hand, I would put my money on.



Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8145 posts, RR: 54
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16821 times:

Quoting ORDRyan28 (Reply 5):
They're a loyal boeing customer

No they're not! They're the biggest operator of the A320 in the world!

Quoting ORDRyan28 (Reply 5):
they certainly would not order the whalejet

Why not? What if they want to lift the most number of people possible, and the biggest cargo payload, and burn as little fuel as possible in the process? Still "certainly not" A380s?



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offline777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16793 times:

Quoting SiouxATC (Reply 1):
It wont happen for awhile. But I really cant see them going with anything else beside the 747-8.

I agree. In fact, depending on the way UA's reorganization and Boeing's 748i sales go (don't go), it's conceivable that UA could swoop in with a nice order at a substantial discount. A larger aircraft would reduce the need to add frequencies on some of the routes mentioned and, in turn, could free up 777s for other international routes that are currently served by 763s.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
United have 7 routes that require a daily VLA: SFO-NRT, SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, ORD-PEK, and ORD-PVG.

Let's not forget about LAX/SFO to SYD! Those require a VLA with ETOPS considerations as well.

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 4):
United one of Airbus' biggest customers, so there's obviously a relationship

Hardly. Look at UA's history with Boeing and you'll see that the A319/20 fleet barely registers on its radar. Yes, UA still has options on some Airbii, but it's hardly as if Airbus is anxiously waiting for them to pick them up. Consider any number of Airbus-heavy fleets: AF, AC, US, just to name a few.


777fan



DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31124 posts, RR: 85
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16794 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 4):
I wouldn't rule out the A380...UA need the biggest plane they can get their hands on (for certain routes)...

It depends on how much UA wishes to expand in Asia. It's a growth market for them, but the long stage-lengths and low aircraft utilization are only bringing in single-digit annual revenue growth on a percentage basis. Now, with UA's strong revenue base, even single-digit growth is good growth, but with their domestic competition seeing double-digit growth across the Atlantic and to Central and South America, UA may feel that smaller planes launching new services to Europe, India, and South America may be a more prudent revenue-growing strategy then adding another 100 seats on their once-daily NRT-BKK and NRT-SIN flights and twice/thrice-daily LAX/SFO-NRT services.

Quote:
...and I think it's a more efficient and better choice than the 747 if it's payload and cost per mile efficiency you're after.

That remains to be seen, as some on this board have put forward statistical evidence favoring the 747-8I on both counts, though in-service data for either type is not yet available.

Quote:
I think the 747NG is a good choice for airlines who are also buying the A380...who could use something in the gap between the A380 and the (A346/773ER)...

I agree, but once the 787-10/787-11 and A350X-1000 enter service, I am starting to agree with Zvezda that the 747-8I, 777-300ER and A346 will all be squeezed out of revenue passenger service by the smaller plane's significant CASM reductions and RASM additions.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 12 hours ago) and read 16793 times:

The WhaleJet and the B747-8I SuperJumbo will be very close in terms of CASM, though it looks like the SuperJumbo will beat the WhaleJet by a few percent. UA and Airbus have a great relationship, which I can attest to firsthand. I think it's more likely UA will buy the SuperJumbo not because of the relationships, but because it appears to have better operating economics than the WhaleJet. How either aircraft looks in UA colors will not be a factor in the decision.

User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 16680 times:

UA is not a super-premium airline, so the A380 holds no attraction to them, in the absence of UA private suites in First Class etc.

User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7693 posts, RR: 25
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 16664 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
United have 7 routes that require a daily VLA: SFO-NRT, SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, ORD-PEK, and ORD-PVG.

LAX/SFO- SYD require a 747 and ORD-PVG is operated on a 777.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 16611 times:

Quoting 777fan (Reply 7):
Let's not forget about LAX/SFO to SYD! Those require a VLA with ETOPS considerations as well.



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 11):
LAX/SFO- SYD require a 747

I didn't forget them. I believe UA could operate increased frequencies of B787s to SYD.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 11):
ORD-PVG is operated on a 777.

Yes, but the demand is growing steadily and UA plan to upgauge it soon to a Jumbo. UA won't get another frequency for ORD-PVG, so by the time UA could take delivery of a dozen VLAs, they would need them for the route.


User currently offlineLuvflng From Costa Rica, joined Nov 2000, 178 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 11 hours ago) and read 16512 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 10):

What makes you think that United is not Super Premium Airline? In the US it is considered one of the super premium airlines offering First and Business cabins in selected transcon routes (P.S.).
Where they fly mainline jets you always will have First, and Y+ cabins. Also, on TED you have Y+ configuration which caters to premium customers. In addition to that, some of the UAX flights offer an EXPlus which can be considered a first class cabin on an RJ or ERJ.

All international flights operated with B747 and B777 have United First Class that consists of a suite. Only B767 have somewhat super business seat marketed as the first class. However, that will all change coming Q4 2007 when the whole long haul fleet will be furnished with the new first class suite.

So, yes they are a super premium airline relative to the North American market, and if they were to get in some parallel world an A380, it would have a first class suite in it.

luvflng



Radar Contact Terminated, Squawk VFR
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9159 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 16451 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9):
The A380 Superjumbo and the 747-8 Intercontinental will be very close in terms of CASM, though it looks like the 747-8 Intercontinental will beat the A380 Superjumbo by a few percent.

The initial cruise fuel flows I have see show that the A380 Superjumbo are lower than our 744s when departing MTOW, i.e. less than 13t/hr. For Boeing to claim to have the advantage they claim, the 747-8 Intercontinental will need to be burning 10-11t/hr, which would be very impressive for an aircraft that size.

The only way I can see Boeing have come up with their numbers is they have kept the A380 Superjumbo at the same cruise altitude as the 747-8 Intercontinental over a sector.

The A380 Superjumbo achieves approximately 6000 ft higher initial and cruise altitude (which account for some of its better fuel burn), on most sectors it will fly between FL350 and FL420. If Boeing have adopted the optimum 747-8 Intercontinental cruise profile for the A380 Superjumbo it would account for a 5-10% difference between the manufacturers numbers.

Time will tell, I do not think UA will replace the 744s in any great hurry.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 16383 times:

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
The A380 Superjumbo achieves approximately 6000 ft higher initial and cruise altitude (which account for some of its better fuel burn), on most sectors it will fly between FL350 and FL420. If Boeing have adopted the optimum 747-8 Intercontinental cruise profile for the A380 Superjumbo it would account for a 5-10% difference between the manufacturers numbers.

That could make up for a large part of the inferiority the WhaleJet suffers in SFC and in structural efficiency. We'll see what the cruise profile turns out to be. Is it possible that Boeing could reduce fuel consumption by increasing thrust in order to achieve better climb performance?


User currently offlineORDRyan28 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 16
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 10 hours ago) and read 16318 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 6):
Why not? What if they want to lift the most number of people possible, and the biggest cargo payload, and burn as little fuel as possible in the process? Still "certainly not" A380s?

because, by the time the 748 is put into service, it will be equal to, if not better than the whalejet in most noticeable categories...I just can't see UA's colors on the 380.



Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
User currently offlineSupa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 16197 times:

Quoting Luvflng (Reply 13):
So, yes they are a super premium airline relative to the North American market, and if they were to get in some parallel world an A380, it would have a first class suite in it.

If so, they will order the A380 because the 748i simply cannot contain their lavish premium product. That is the situation with SQ and EK. I just don't think UA has outgrown the 747 in the same way.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 16153 times:

Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 17):
If so, they will order the A380 because the 748i simply cannot contain their lavish premium product. That is the situation with SQ and EK.

No, SQ's new premium product would fit very nicely on a B747-8I SuperJumbo. I played with seating configurations and can fit 13F upstairs in a 1-1 configuration, 50C ahead of door 2 in a 1-2-1 configuration and 344Y aft of door 2 in a 3-4-3 configuration. Note that the F and C products would be even more spacious with even wider aisles than on the WhaleJet. If SQ were really serious about providing a high-quality premium product, this would be it.


User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 984 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 16140 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 6):
No they're not! They're the biggest operator of the A320 in the world!

And how does that diminish the fact that they are also one of the largest operators of the Boeing 757, 767, 777 ?

The value of their Boeing fleet easily exceeds that of their Airbus fleet

Quoting Luvflng (Reply 13):
What makes you think that United is not Super Premium Airline? I

Not in the sense that you are implying.

Quoting Luvflng (Reply 13):
Also, on TED you have Y+ configuration which caters to premium customers

Terrible example, removing domestic first and replacing it with economy plus does not cater to premium customers in any way/shape/form.


User currently offlineIPFreely From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 239 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 16070 times:

Isn't UA still prohibited from buying new aircraft under their bankruptcy protection?

User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 16015 times:

Quoting IPFreely (Reply 20):
Isn't UA still prohibited from buying new aircraft under their bankruptcy protection?

No, the prohibition was on increasing the size of the fleet for three years. No restrictions on orders, but deliveries must be matched by retirements for the first three years after exiting BK.


User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 9 hours ago) and read 16008 times:

Quoting IPFreely (Reply 20):
n't UA still prohibited from buying new aircraft under their bankruptcy protection?

No. United has been out of bankruptcy and profitable since last February. However, its CEO, Glenn Tilton, has stated that United will not order new aircraft until its debt to equity improves...estimated to be late 2007.


User currently offlineFA4UA From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 812 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 15893 times:

I highly recommend looking at the Dec 12th Investors Presentation that speaks about fleet replacement.

On slide 92 it shows our fleet age compared with industry peers. It shows that CO has the youngest fleet at 8.8 yrs, US in second place at 11.3 and UA in a close third place with average age at 11.5 yrs.

On slide 93 it validates that our 747 is the oldest fleettype compared with our 772's and 763's. In 2014 we will have 2 that will reach the ripe old age of 25 yrs old. In 2015 we'll see 6 reach that age, and onward. 25 yrs old is often thought of as reaching the end of optimal life but as we see at NW, airlines can run them longer.

I again highly recommend checking out that link above! It's VERY interesting to see the plan! No mention of what aircraft will replace the 747 specifically. In fact the presentation only talks about two types to replace the "widebody" fleet- the A350 and the 787. I think we all will agree that neither of these vehicles will be a good replacement for the 744 in terms of lift, but interesting none the less!



The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8428 posts, RR: 7
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 8 hours ago) and read 15882 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

UA's 744 fleet still has 5 to 10 years before its "OLD". The replacements will be a few years away wether its two or four engines. UA's China markets are probably going to get increased frequency and bigger airplanes.

25 Zvezda : For most of UA's 747 routes, the A350 or 787 would be a great replacement -- though obviously not on a one-for-one basis. The exceptions, where UA ca
26 UAL777UK : Which means UA need to make an order very shortly to get slots, albeit, it would not be too far off for the 747-8, the 787 is a must order in the nea
27 Zvezda : I don't think we'll see the WhaleJet in UA colors either, but there is a better chance for UA to order the WhaleJet than for NW to and those are the
28 Stitch : I tend to think the 787 family offers more flexibility and better matches UA's current twin-engine widebody fleet in capacity, while offering more ra
29 Daron4000 : As I have said before, I think UA, along with BA and CX are the top three large airlines who will make 748 orders. They are huge Boeing operators and
30 UAL777UK : Surely Boeing are going to do all in their remit to bag an order from UA, a company based also in there "hometown" Chicago, not just for the 787 but
31 Zvezda : How so? I think the size difference between the A350 family and the 787 family is insignificant. Airlines will not choose between them based on size,
32 UAL777UK : Unless Boeing offers them at silly prices to bag the Chicago Airlines order?
33 Post contains images 777fan : Kingfisher must be a "super premium" airline, afterall, they did order the A380, didn't they?! 777fan
34 Zvezda : I'm not counting on any of the players to be silly. UA will weigh the costs and benefits. Boeing have an enormous order backlog for the 787, so they
35 Stitch : True, but you also note that RASM plays into the calculations and can favor smaller planes over larger ones. With the 787-8 being closer to a 767-300
36 UAL777UK : Dont get me wrong, I dont expect Boeing to "give them away", IMHO if Boeing got a whiff that UA was even close to being very interested in say orderi
37 Zvezda : Sure, but the RASM difference is unlikely to be significant where the size difference isn't significant. It will be factored in with all the other fa
38 Post contains links and images Keesje : If UA replaces the 744 the Asian market will be the main focus. I think in a decade rows of Asian A380s will be parked at LAX, SFO and ORD pushing up
39 Zvezda : Waiting forever is not a good business strategy. " target=_blank>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...jumbo In the context of airliners, the term J
40 777fan : Outstanding link - thanks so much. It really does give the reader an idea as to what UA's plans are. They were wise to pit the 787 vs A350; no doubt,
41 AirRyan : Hold the phone now - just when did the A-380 get the nickname "whale?" I remember referring to the 747 as the "whale" because of it's nose long befor
42 Post contains images SLCUT2777 : I think it is a rather safe assumption that Boeing looks at UA as an important North American based carrier and they will pull out all stops to keep
43 Luvflng : You took this out of context. In fact, it is a good example when a low cost airline offers a premium product! I am not saying that it is super premiu
44 Post contains images BMIFlyer : I'd love UA to order some 748's With PTV's please Lee
45 1337Delta764 : I am pretty sure they will have PTVs. UA simply doesn't want to spend the money on upgrading the IFE on their 747-400s. Pretty much all future aircra
46 Trex8 : what about ORD-HKG?
47 Bicoastal : ....and SFO-HKG. UA must have consistent load factors of 100% on HKG routes.[Edited 2006-12-31 02:54:54]
48 Zeke : Initial cruise altitudes and cruise profiles are already known for the A380 Superjumbo, you can see the technical route proving profiles on the airbu
49 WingedMigrator : It didn't... it's just that using the established nickname 'Superjumbo' offends the sensibilities of some forum members. Nicknaming is not always som
50 ORDRyan28 : upon the launch. I did not coin the term, but I do realize the 747 was called the whale well before the 388. I guess people call it because it's garg
51 United Airline : UA will likely order the B 787 to replace the B 767s and the B 747-8 to replace the B 747-400s I suppose UA is moving towards an ALL AIRBUS narrowbody
52 787KQ : Given Sydney's overnight curfew, the planes all arrive in a narrow window. It makes sense to have a larger aircraft.
53 Zvezda : These could be better served by increased frequency using the A350 or 787. I know there are slot issues at ORD, but UA have more slots than anyone an
54 Gigneil : I'm wondering if that's a good idea... for example, you could fly the couple of routes you listed but what about the ORD-HNL ones? You'd be in a situ
55 777fan : I fail to see the relationship between SYD's curfew and UA's flights to and from there. Upon first glance, I would venture to guess that UA's flights
56 Zvezda : How urgent is it to retire the 777s? Surely the 767s and 747s will go first. Also, it's certainly possible to configure a small fleet of 2 class B787
57 Gemuser : What advantage is there in increasing frequency on the SYD/MEL-LAX/SFO routes? QF are flying B744 almost wing tip to wing tip non stop across the Pac
58 Danny : Absolutely ridiculous statement.
59 Zvezda : If the number of seats is held constant, RASM increases with frequency. If two flights are only an hour apart, RASM still goes up, just not as much a
60 Zeke : Also the A380 Superjumbo can land and depart at LHR between 2300-0700 local (as it is certified below 95.9 EPNdB) so it gives QF the option to hub th
61 Zvezda : At what altitude would you expect a 747-8 departing at MTOW to initially level off? Assume typical conditions.
62 Planetime : Very good point. 748 and 787 if Boesing does their work right does seem to be in UAL future options and I would not rule out a mix of 777ER's also in
63 PhilSquares : The 748I is supposed to meet the same requirements as the RR powered 380. However, I'm not sure the Alliance powered 380's will have the same flexibi
64 Zeke : I would expect it to perform no better than the current generation 744.
65 Post contains links Zvezda : LHR still have the night quota system in place between 2330 and 0600. To be exempt, the WhaleJet would need to be certified below 84 EPNdB. http://ww
66 Gemuser : What's your evidance that this happens, on routes of this length AND time zone displacement? Up to around 8 hours I'll grant you, but over that? very
67 Zvezda : That's easy. Take a look at flights of roughly similar length with multiple flights per day e.g. LHR-SIN and FRA-SIN. If you look at the loads on tho
68 Zeke : Part of the SQ engine selection for the 380 was to meet QC2 for late night arrivals and departures at LHR. EA had to increase the fan size on the GP7
69 Zvezda : GE increased the fan diameter for the 747-8 from 104" to 105". I don't know whether or not this was due to noise issues.
70 SK909 : That is presumptuous... Until both The Whalejet and SuperJumbo both in the sky, we won't know. As mentioned previously, it also depends on the flight
71 Post contains images Stitch : According to the 2006 Seattle Times "Biz Quiz", the answer to Question 12 - "The double-decked superjumbo jet has been unflatteringly compared to:" i
72 Marquis : That's my opinion either because of the fact that United's fleet of 744's is only 11.1 years in average. Maybe the 11 oldest ones ('89-'92) will be r
73 PhilSquares : Hmmm EIS 2009, how does that math work?
74 Beeski : I agree that the A380 is a serious contender for UA's trans-pac fleet replacement. So many of them are slot restricted flights which makes an addition
75 Stitch : Only if those seats can be profitably filled. UA has withdrawn from LHR quite heavily in recent years because even with 767s and 777s they can't make
76 Siren : My take on this: United will go 748i if they are able to get an engine option other than the GEnx engines, be it Pratts or RR Trents. United is not so
77 777fan : Interesting tidbit - I didn't know that was the case although it makes sense. Is this a known fact or just assumed speculation? I would think that GE
78 Scorpy : Are you sure about this? Don't you think that it could have been that the A32x family met their requirements, in particular w.r.t to performance from
79 Zvezda : I have a friend who was in fleet planning at UA at the time. I just checked with him and he laughed. Never even heard that theory before. UA bought t
80 Zeke : Did part of it have to do with the 320 having Cat 3B capability standard where the 737 didnt at the time ? Allowing for less disruption during fog an
81 Zvezda : I'll ask. That makes a lot of sense especially at SFO.
82 ZKNBX : UA will be looking at ORD-HKG as well. Add in capacity restrictions at LHR and NRT and I think the order will be more likely for 20 a/c minimum. 747-
83 Post contains images ORDRyan28 : you beat me to that, Zvezda. My neighbor is a "big shot" for UA, and he confirmed that. The 320 certainly met UA's ranges, and the price was a steal.
84 Post contains images 787KQ : You're right on this: The curfew is not the reason for the schedule currently flown (though I don't understand your argument regarding 14 hours and c
85 BosWashSprStar : They'll be losing that title to jetBlue very shortly. And no one has brought up one other "soft" factor which shouldn't play into decisions like thes
86 Stitch : Then UA won't be getting any 748Is (or 77Ws, for that matter), as they are only available with GE power.
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...
United 747-400; SFO- ORD posted Mon Jun 13 2005 20:54:41 by Superfly
United 747-400's At SEA Recently posted Thu May 20 2004 10:09:58 by Justplanesmart
United 747-400 Upper Deck Seats posted Wed May 12 2004 22:49:39 by Tallguy14
My Tribute To United's 747-400 posted Wed Mar 24 2004 06:45:02 by MSYtristar
United 747-400's Back To Heathrow posted Sat Aug 30 2003 09:46:19 by Britair
Wow, United 747-400 LAX-SFO posted Wed Oct 23 2002 23:34:16 by B737-112
United's 747-400 Another Return Service posted Sat Aug 10 2002 19:19:55 by Big777jet
Last United 747-400 To Auckland SAT 8th! posted Fri Jun 7 2002 10:05:28 by ZK-NBT
United 747-400 Routes? posted Sun Mar 24 2002 05:21:50 by 762er
United 747-400-OP (says They Are Retired) posted Wed Jan 16 2002 04:14:58 by Twa902fly