Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA 763 Why No Winglets?  
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 2694 times:

I was just wondering what with other legacies and airlines adding them why UA has not added winglets to its 763 fleet in particular the International configured aircraft. Surely they would benefit from it or does it come down to the initial capital expenditure on the work that would be undertaken?

5 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4006 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2538 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting UAL777UK (Thread starter):
I was just wondering what with other legacies and airlines adding them why UA has not added winglets to its 763 fleet in particular the International configured aircraft. Surely they would benefit from it or does it come down to the initial capital expenditure on the work that would be undertaken?


Thanks for starting this thread, UAL777UK. I've been asking the same thing for quite a while now and no one has offered an answer as to why. We all know UA would definitely benefit by having blended winglets installed on the 763ERs they have, if not all of them, then have a subfleet of 76Ws that operate UA's longest 767 flights.


User currently offlineRJ111 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

How long does it take for the cost of the winglets to be paid off in fuel savings?

User currently offlineSeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1325 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 2488 times:

I was at the Eco-Aviation Conference in Washington a few weeks ago, and this is something that UA was asked about. My understanding is that the plane downtime was a big issue, but the downtime has been reduced over the past couple of year. The price of fuel is high enough to justify adding the winglets. Finally, there is the extra several feet of wingspan on each side that does create some logistical gate issues at a few of the hub airports. My impression, though, was that UA was finally at a point where they could justify installing them. We'll have to see.

User currently offline71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 2362 times:

Quoting RJ111 (Reply 2):
How long does it take for the cost of the winglets to be paid off in fuel savings?

Not just fuel savings but also the ability to lift more payload; AA claims an additional 12,000 lbs.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...american-flies-boeing-767-300.html

Quote:
The airline said the 11-foot-tall winglets can reduce fuel consumption per airplane by up to 500,000 gallons, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 277,000 metric tons, extend the airplane's range by up to 360 nautical miles and increase payload by up to 12,000 pounds.

They expect to save some 30 million gallons of fuel or about $60 million annually and then factoring in the increased revenue from additional cargo, won't be long paying off the approx $150 million investment (58 aircraft x $2.5 mil ea).



The good old days: Delta L-1011s at MSY
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 2121 times:

Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 4):
Not just fuel savings but also the ability to lift more payload; AA claims an additional 12,000 lbs.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...american-flies-boeing-767-300.html

Quote:
The airline said the 11-foot-tall winglets can reduce fuel consumption per airplane by up to 500,000 gallons, reduce carbon dioxide emissions by up to 277,000 metric tons, extend the airplane's range by up to 360 nautical miles and increase payload by up to 12,000 pounds.

They expect to save some 30 million gallons of fuel or about $60 million annually and then factoring in the increased revenue from additional cargo, won't be long paying off the approx $150 million investment (58 aircraft x $2.5 mil ea).

Well when you take all that into account with AA I would have thought it would be a no brainer for UA to start the process ASAP.


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...
DHL B763-F (G-DHLE) Why No Winglets? posted Thu Sep 24 2009 03:59:41 by A380Heavy
Air Senegal Int'l B737NG: Why No Winglets?! posted Thu Apr 10 2008 07:00:06 by BrightCedars
Why No Winglets For The 737-400? posted Fri Nov 9 2007 12:31:51 by 1337Delta764
Dreamlifter 2: Why No Winglets? posted Sat Feb 24 2007 19:55:49 by Bluewhale18210
Why No Winglets For UAL? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 20:27:49 by Highliner2
Why No Winglets For 737-900? posted Thu Nov 30 2006 05:55:25 by UncGSO
Why No Winglets On British Registered B757's? posted Wed Nov 22 2006 12:06:25 by KA501
Why No Winglets For Every 737-700/800? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 23:48:32 by LY777
Why No Winglets On 787! posted Sat Oct 7 2006 20:27:37 by Bringiton
Why No Winglets For The 737-600? posted Tue Jul 11 2006 11:35:41 by LY777