Raffik From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2006, 1716 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 19656 times:
The 777 is more than capable of operating the route and if that is the only aircraft they can operate whilst making a profit, then good on them. We would rather have the route operating with a 777 than no route at all.
Fun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1058 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19126 times:
Certainly and upgrade from an economy class passenger perspective, but the new lie flat business and first seats are not on the route so that's a downgrade.
With V Australia and Delta entering the market, and the economic downturn, prices for business class has plummeted. Prior $12-16k. Now search any website and you'll see $5,600 (UA) to $9000 (DL). UA's move allows them to put a premier First/Business aircraft on a route that might fill it up. I bet it stays 777.
WorldTraveler From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 19056 times:
Quoting REALDEAL (Reply 11): Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 7):
While the 777 is a newer plane and lots of people prefer it, UA is reducing capacity just as competition increases.
& that makes perfect sense.
AIRLINE MANAGEMENT 101 - don't use too big an aircraft on a route or you'll end up dumping some seats, which in turn might make another carrier do same & hey presto u have a price war !!!
but the cost comes in market share for UA and market share translates into pricing power. QF is going to stay put on capacity because it wants to remain the market leader - and it has the financial strength to stick it out. For UA, they are allowing the new entrants to command a much higher percentage of the market than they would have if UA retained all 744 service.
there were those who predicted that UA was the most vulnerable player in Australia and given the reduction of seats and the fares, UA is likely to take a big hit in revenue to the S. Pacific which will affect its entire Pacific operation.
MSYtristar From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 18796 times:
Just my opinion, but I for one consider it a downgrade. I've been in Y on the 744 and 777, and except for a small PTV with an average selection of videos, there's not much of a difference. I mean we're not talking about a spanking new 77L here with new seats in Y and AVOD. Give me a ride on the 744 any day of the week. And this is especially true if you are in C or F. I realize that UA has to do what it has to do to remain competitive on the route with QF, but I never like to see 747's get replaced by anything. Call me old fashioned, I guess.
MaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17659 posts, RR: 46
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18619 times:
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 14): while the 777 is a higher quality airplane for UA, remember that every other carrier between the US and OZ is still using airpllanes that are much newer and more capable.
DL probably has the highest CASM aircraft in the market
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 2 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 18592 times:
It makes sense - in a downturn it is easy to have too much capacity - there are capacity cuts everywhere. UA's 744 does not have a modern enough Y product to really be competitive here anymore - and they aren't really making much of an investment into the 747s. Plus, with two new airlines joining the US-oz market and AC taking the Canada market, it only makes sense.
I'm glad. The 777 is a much nicer bird than UA's 744s at the moment.
Quoting Zrs70 (Reply 5): Reply 5, posted Thu Feb 5 2009 06:17:41 your local time (2 hours 55 minutes 19 secs ago) and read 809 times:
Do the 747's have PTV's in Y yet? If not, the 777 is much better for the passenger experience!
Sure is! PTV in Y, roomy, airy, nice and pleasant. They'll be state of the industry when the upgrades are done too!
Quoting WorldTraveler (Reply 7): With 3 carriers now operating the T7 between the US and Australia, the traditional thinking about twins over the S. Pacific is falling.
3 and soon 4.
The notion about needing 4 engines is dated. An ETOPS bird has never gone down due to simultaneous and independent failure of both engines. It's much more likely that any issue that would cause both engines to shut down would be systemic, such that a 4 engine aircraft would be just as likely to have it (fuel or electronic issues, etc).
We've got Air Canada, V Australia, Delta, and now UA that are going to fly to OZ on the mighty 777 - additionally, Air New Zealand does AKL-SFO on the 777 and Qantas sometimes operates AKL-LAX with the A332.
Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 9): Can someone refresh my memory on which MTOW versions of the 777 UA operate.
UA's 77E's are 640k MTOW (lower than the max available 656k) and are powered by 90,000lb class PW4090 engines.
Before someone says anything - yes, UA's 77E's can do this route without restrictions. No, they do not have down-rated engines. In fact, UA could (and may, looking at their new portfolio of 77E routes and how long they are) have some or all of their 77E's paper-uprated to 656k MTOW. KE and OZ both have PW4090 powered 77E's which are 656k MTOW.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"