Northwest727 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, RR: 1 Posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8959 times:
Question...I recall reading that after the fiasco of UAL232 in 1989, United and GE pointed fingers at each other as to who's fault it was (GE said UA didn't properly inspect the fan disks, UA said that there was a manufacturing flaw in the CF-6's fan disk). Apparently after that, UA and GE held a grudge at each other, and UA never ordered another airplane with GE engines installed on it again (UA 777s have PW4000s, their A320's have IAE V2500's, a combo of RR+PW and others).
If this is really true, then what is to become of CO's mostly GE-powered fleet? Will the old grudge be dropped due to a mix of new management?
777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3055 posts, RR: 3 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8914 times:
It's not going anywhere. And UA has an affinity for PW products as they're both owned by the same parent company - so it's not so much that they're boycotting GE so much as they're loyal to a sister subsidiary.
BOSSAN From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 255 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8802 times:
UA and P&W, along with Boeing, were owned by the same parent company (United Aircraft and Transport Corporation) from 1929 until 1934, when the Air Mail contracts were torn up and reawarded. They have not had mutual ownership since.
laphroig From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8767 times:
Quoting 777STL (Reply 1): And UA has an affinity for PW products as they're both owned by the same parent company
Eh? I dont believe there is any remaining connection between these two companies.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8787 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8745 times:
While there was a GE vs UA rift, it has since passed. UA was soliciting power by the hour agreements from both GE and RR on the 787s after the airplanes were ordered. UA was not planning on doing in house maintenance and overhauls on the new engines, so that really frees them up from any ties towards a manufacturer.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
globaldude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 237 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8636 times:
The new United is really Continental. United in name only. The GE planes are safe
Pbb152 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 595 posts, RR: 1 Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8479 times:
Quoting globaldude (Reply 5): The new United is really Continental. United in name only. The GE planes are safe
Oh jeez! Did you really just open up that can of worms? Prediction--less than 10% of the responses (starting with this one) will now be about the topic, and the rest will be arguing over reply #5.
homsar From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 827 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8457 times:
What will the new UA do with CO's GE fleet?
Fly them, just like they will with the rest of the fleet of the two carriers.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7410 posts, RR: 7 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8458 times:
The GE powered airplanes, 767 and 777 from Continental, are among the best and newest planes in the United fleet.
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19 Reply 9, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8409 times:
You have it backwards, the real question is what will the Continental management of United do with their old P&W fleet ? .
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26956 posts, RR: 83 Reply 10, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8380 times:
With P&W effectively out of the large commercial airliner powerplant business, at least for the time being, the future direction of UA's fleet will by necessity have to be RR or GE.
Now if Airbus does launch the A320 NEO with the PW1000G family...
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8787 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8333 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 9): You have it backwards, the real question is what will the Continental management of United do with their old P&W fleet ? .
UA has one of the most advanced engine overhaul facilities in the entire world at their SFO maintenance base. They put the capital infrastructure together to build it which is why they are extremely loyal to PW. They even do overhaul maintenance on Air Force engines. The 777, 767 and 747 engines are hear to stay until the airplanes are retired.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19 Reply 12, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8201 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 11):
UA has one of the most advanced engine overhaul facilities in the entire world at their SFO maintenance base. They put the capital infrastructure together to build it which is why they are extremely loyal to PW. They even do overhaul maintenance on Air Force engines. The 777, 767 and 747 engines are hear to stay until the airplanes are retired.
No argument their overhaul facility is impressive, but, as Stitch has pointed out P&W's days as a big jet engine maker are
all behind them.
Investing in the future is what's important.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1863 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8128 times:
They are not going to do anything. There are enough of each type in the fleet so that there will not be a huge hassle having mechanics for both GE and PW at the hubs.
Quoting 777STL (Reply 1): And UA has an affinity for PW products as they're both owned by the same parent company
They were part of the same company which also included Boeing but they were split by the Air Mail Act of 1934, so they have now been separate for 76 years. After the breakup UA had some special deals with Boeing and PW but it did not prevent them from purchasing DC-3s after the Boeing 247 became obsolete.
Going forward, UA will go with the best deal although ordering GE engines might signal vindication for GE after they sued each other over the Sioux City DC-10 crash. As a result, GE might have to offer a slightly better deal to get the contract.
MakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 520 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8075 times:
The bigger question is if UA will use them interchangeably, or have separation like BA's 777 fleet (RR vs. GE). Obviously the 777As will continue to operate domestic, Hawaii, and shorter trans-Atlantic routes, so they might have three distinct fleets.
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8044 times:
Quoting MakeMinesLAX (Reply 14): The bigger question is if UA will use them interchangeably, or have separation like BA's 777 fleet (RR vs. GE).
Unless the GE vs. PW aircraft have vastly different performance characteristics, they will be used interchangeably. Breaking out sub-fleets is a PITA, especially if you look at how CO traditionally handled their ops.
MakeMinesLAX From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 520 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7998 times:
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 15): Unless the GE vs. PW aircraft have vastly different performance characteristics, they will be used interchangeably.
I was thinking in terms of HKG, PEK, BOM and DEL, for which I understand the GE 777s would be a better fit.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 15): Breaking out sub-fleets is a PITA, especially if you look at how CO traditionally handled their ops.
Well, CO *does* have a dedicated TATL 757 sub-fleet. Additionally, I recall the 764s had different seating configurations (e.g. high density for Hawaii).
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19 Reply 17, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7976 times:
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 15):
Unless the GE vs. PW aircraft have vastly different performance characteristics, they will be used interchangeably. Breaking out sub-fleets is a PITA, especially if you look at how CO traditionally handled their ops.
Well Continental's 777's with the GE90's have far suoerior performance to UAL's with P&W, on many of the more challenging CAL triple routes interchangeability won't be possible.
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 4290 posts, RR: 4 Reply 18, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7910 times:
The GE aircraft will most likely be used for the very longest 777 routes. In addition to the ones mentioned, they could do LAX-SYDor ORD-HKG, or restart LAX-MEL, with better results than the P&W 777s.
The really interesting question is whether they will all remain 2-class.
[Edited 2010-11-22 18:30:57]
Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
laphroig From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 38 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7787 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 17): Well Continental's 777's with the GE90's have far suoerior performance to UAL's with P&W, on many of the more challenging CAL triple routes interchangeability won't be possible.
Can someone quantify what the difference in range and/or payload is between the UA 772ER (PW) and the CO 772ER (GE)? Is it really that significant that these aircraft cant be interchanged?
Antoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1509 posts, RR: 4 Reply 20, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7707 times:
Quoting MakeMinesLAX (Reply 16): Well, CO *does* have a dedicated TATL 757 sub-fleet.
CO's 752s are all in the same internal configuration and are all ETOPS. No sub-fleets.
I'm pretty sure (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) the only place CO has maintained sub-fleets in recent years is with the Air Mike operation.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5379 posts, RR: 8 Reply 21, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 7630 times:
Quoting laphroig (Reply 19): Quoting Max Q (Reply 17):
Well Continental's 777's with the GE90's have far suoerior performance to UAL's with P&W, on many of the more challenging CAL triple routes interchangeability won't be possible.
Can someone quantify what the difference in range and/or payload is between the UA 772ER (PW) and the CO 772ER (GE)? Is it really that significant that these aircraft cant be interchanged?
Its actually a pretty minimal difference in range and payload between PW and GE engines...the biggest issue with UA using 777 on very long routes in the past was UA did not take delivery of 777 with as high of a MTOW as the aircraft was certified with. The issue was the airframe not the engine now I will say that GE equipped 777s do have a slight advantage over PW equipped aircraft but the emphasis is on slight.
UA and Boeing are upgrading all of UAs 772ERs (as well as the domestic 763ERs) with a higher, I think the highest actualy, certified MTOW as part of the UA order for 787s...which kind of foreshadows UA deploying the PW powered 777s on longer routes.
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7541 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 21): UA and Boeing are upgrading all of UAs 772ERs (as well as the domestic 763ERs) with a higher, I think the highest actualy, certified MTOW as part of the UA order for 787s...which kind of foreshadows UA deploying the PW powered 777s on longer routes.
This is great news as well as a wise move by UA. This will minimize the GE advantage and allow the maximum flexibility for UA of its existing fleet.
As was mentioned, all of CO's 752's are TATL and ETOPS.
Quoting 777STL (Reply 1): And UA has an affinity for PW products as they're both owned by the same parent company
This was prehistoric.
Loyalty has little place left in the commercial world. What makes economics sense gets the contract.
And when you have hundreds of each type of engines, commonality does not matter whatsoever. Typical misconception here that 1 airline needs planes from only 1 manufacturer with engines from a single supplier. Get over it!
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5379 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (2 years 6 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7303 times:
Quoting cloudyapple (Reply 23): Loyalty has little place left in the commercial world. What makes economics sense gets the contract.
Thats very true on how it works these days...take a look at UAs A350 order oviousely it's RR powered but UA contracted with RR for total support of the engines. Power by the hour is becoming more and more common even for an airline like UA which has an in house world class engine overhaul center.
Semper Fi
25 CALPSAFltSkeds: That page shows the 764s in International Config, not the ones in pacific/Air Mike config. If you go back to the aircraft link you'll see there are o
26 frigatebird: Has UA already announced an engine deal for their A350's? I know that right now RR is the only option, but there are a few more airlines that haven't
27 MakeMinesLAX: Sorry, I didn't realize things had changed, but there was a distinction in the past, as discussed in this thread.. Also, there was this discussion ab
29 akelley728: Umm, you realize that the thread you referenced was from NINE years ago? Umm traditional = PMCO, not ancient history![Edited 2010-11-23 06:36:16]
30 MakeMinesLAX: Here's one from FOUR years ago. Doing the math, that's at least FIVE years of operating a dedicated sub-fleet. The fact of the matter is that the new
31 SonomaFlyer: Which is why I said Air Mike has its own configs because their aircraft don't mix with COs and have their own dedicated missions.
32 RoseFlyer: I believe that Air Micronesia has its own operating certificate, so I would not imagine that they would cross aircraft easily between Continental and
33 globaldude: Air Mike and UA will both be merged into the Continental operating certificate
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 491 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Jul 2005, 2425 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
