Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why UAL Didn't Order 777-300s?  
User currently offlineMatt777 From Cayman Islands, joined Oct 2001, 503 posts, RR: 6
Posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1468 times:

Hi Everyone,

The title says it all. Why didn't UA didn't order any 777-300s (before Sept 11)? They where the lunch customer of the 777 and have the biggest fleet of 777s but
Isn't the 200 fully compatible with the 300 series.
It is ovious though that this is before Sept 11, no one would buy a plane after you got a 1.2 billion loss in a quarter.

Hope UA recovers soon  Insane
Regards from Argentina  Big thumbs up
Matt.

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineMatt777 From Cayman Islands, joined Oct 2001, 503 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1384 times:

Any suggestions?
Thanks anyway...
Matt.


User currently offlineSin777er From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1369 times:

I've heard that US airports can't handle the 773.
Can somebody confirm this?


User currently offlineZK-NBT From New Zealand, joined Oct 2000, 5359 posts, RR: 11
Reply 3, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1346 times:

Why would US airports not be able to handle the 773.
Of course they can.

UA obviously didn't see the need to operate such an aircraft being that they have such a large fleet of 744's of which some are now sitting in the desert! For some of UA's long hauls to Asia I doubt that the 773 would have the rangeand they would probably rather use a 4 engine aircraft on such long flights. I no they use 772's on some Asian flights but they have a longer range than the standard 773. Personally I don't think UA will order the 773 at least not in about the next 5 years.

Scott.  Smile


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16367 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1341 times:

Once traffic rebounds and the existing 744/772 fleet is fully utilized, UA will probably look to the 773 (or the 773ER) to add capacity on routes outgrowing the 772.

AA, DL, CO will also probably order the 773 later this decade.

Neil



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 1293 times:

Gee they can support a 747-400 and not a 777-300 where in heavens sake did you get that from?

User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1276 times:

Why on earth do they need the B 777-300? They already have the B 747-400, as well as the B 777-200.

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1260 times:

I don't think AA & DL will order the GE90 777-300ER being that their current fleet of 777-200ERs are RR Trent 800 powered.

User currently offlineDynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1866 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 1242 times:

UAL was interested in the B777-300ER. Some negotiations had been going on. With UAL's current financial health, I don't think they will go back to the negotiation table anytime soon.

User currently offlineThe Coachman From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1230 times:

Tedski,

Please do not think that engine commonality is the biggest factor in a fleet decision. I've noticed that engines feature prominently in your posts on fleet decisions. Who cares if the B777-300ER is GE90 powered and the B777-200ER's are RR Trent 800 powered? Are you suggesting that AA, DL will order the A340-600 because they're RR Trent 500 powered?

And UA's B777's are PW powered PW407x and 409x series. Does that mean that UA is not going to get the B777-300ER? No. If they want to trim on costs, they can start phasing out 744's if they don't need that capacity. By the time this economic downturn goes back the other way, the 744's may be up to 15-18 years old. I agree with Yyz717 for once.

This is all assuming that these US majors survive the current crisis.

The Coachman



M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1201 times:

There had been talk about AA possibly going for the RR Trent 500 powered A340-500 or 600 because they did not like the exclusive engine deal that Boeing made with GE to have only the GE90 engine on the new 777-300ER.

User currently offlineJiml1126 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1199 times:

Give UAL the money, and they'll order it.

User currently offlineCba From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 4531 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 1178 times:

"There had been talk about AA possibly going for the RR Trent 500 powered A340-500 or 600 because they did not like the exclusive engine deal that Boeing made with GE to have only the GE90 engine on the new 777-300ER."

Where the hell did you get this from? AA has an exclusivity agreement with Boeing. Get it straight. Engine commonality is not everything. Training mechanics is cheaper than retraining pilots for a new type.


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1153 times:

Where the hell I got this information from, was from this forum a few month ago!

User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 1154 times:

AA does not have an exclusivity agreement with Boeing! They fly the A300-600R don't they Cba?

User currently offlineLuckySevens From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1152 times:

Boeing signed exclusivity contracts with DL, AA, and CO in 1994 or 1995. When they bought MDD, the EU forced them to cancel the agreements. Boeing continues to give the airlines discounts on their planes. AA is not going to go buy the A340 series.

User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1143 times:

In the long term, I see that United will be a carrier that relies on the 777 for their international traffic. The 773ER (not 773) would provide United with enough range to do trans-pacific crossings. With new ETOPS standards, routes that require a four engine plane are going away. Sooner or later, almost any route in the world will be able to be flown by a twin instead of a quad.

If United orders the 773ER, I belive that it would serve as a replacement for the 744. Many people argue that United Airlines needs their 744s for Asia becuase of the high amount of lift. People fail to realize that United's 744s seat close to 350 passengers, which is less than a 773ER from the factory.

If United were to operate the 773ER, my guess is that it would seat somewhere in the lines of 14 in first, 73 in business, and 230 in back. This is the same premium cabin layout as the 744, and a reduction of 30 seats in economy. You can reduce the number of people paying cheap tickets on the flights, by reducing the amount of seats. It has to do with supply and demand; People will pay more for it, if there is a smaller supply.

Some other factor's that promote the 773ER, and the ellimination of the 744 are:
-reduced fleet type (747)
-maintence support
-crew training
-increased cargo capacity
-flight deck common with 772
-lower pay scales for pilots (777 wages, not 744 wages)
-passenger prefrence
-route flexability and equipment swaping with 772s


By reducing the 747, the amount that it costs to staff it, support it, and to actually operate it cease to exist. Operating a four engined plane is more costly than an twin. The 777 burns less fuel, than the 747. The loss of the 747 in terms of pax capacity can be made up with the increased amount of cargo capacity.

It now goes down to the theory of "You can kill two birds with one stone."

With the 773ER, and the 772ER or even 772LR, the role of the 747 is no longer important. You can carry the same amount or more passengers with the 777s flying on the same routes. The airline spends less on each flight, than they would on 744 flights, and as a result of these lower costs, more money can be kept in terms of revenue.

Some may argue the point about the engine type. If you operate 40 of one type, you set up the engine shop to handle the GE90 as well as the PW4000. That does not alter the cost ballance that much to make it an un-worthy choice. Adding and supporting the A346 with PW engines would cost the airline more.

So, with all of these advantages to operating just the 777 for long hauls as opposed to the 777 and the 747, you've killed two birds with one stone. You have also lived up to something that I belive firmly in..."Less is More." Less types, means more flexability, and lower overall costs.

I L U V 7 6 7





User currently offlineDouglas DC-9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 303 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1100 times:

There going out of buisness, it wouldn't make sence to buy more aircraft

User currently offlineGt1 From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1098 times:

The sad truth is engine commonality is not given as much importance as it should have. Accountants run airlines, and they know nothing about airplanes. It just makes life alot easier on the technical side when there is one engine per aircraft type, or even one engine maker over several fleet types.

As for the 777LR having the GE90 only: shame on Boeing for letting GE twist their arm. You can have that airplane any way you want, as long as it's GE's way.


User currently offlineMatt777 From Cayman Islands, joined Oct 2001, 503 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1068 times:

Thanks all for your comments,
I totaly agree with ILUV767, You've won to be the first one to be in my "respected users list",congrats...
Anyway, does UA fill up their 744s in the LAX/SFO - SYD/AKL routes ? Wouldn't be more effective to use a 777ER or a LR instead?

Thanks,
Regards from Argentina  Big thumbs up
Matt.


User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (13 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1062 times:

Douglas DC-9 wrote:
There going out of buisness, it wouldn't make sence to buy more aircraft

Aside from what our past CEO said, we are not going out of business. In responce to my post, I am talking in the future, when things start to stablize out at United.

Gt1 wrote:
The sad truth is engine commonality is not given as much importance as it should have. Accountants run airlines, and they know nothing about airplanes. It just makes life alot easier on the technical side when there is one engine per aircraft type, or even one engine maker over several fleet types.


At United, almost all of our wide-bodies are equiped with the PW4000 engine. The only exception is the 762 with the JT9D.

Matt777 wrote:
Thanks all for your comments,
I totaly agree with ILUV767, You've won to be the first one to be in my "respected users list",congrats...
Anyway, does UA fill up their 744s in the LAX/SFO - SYD/AKL routes ? Wouldn't be more effective to use a 777ER or a LR instead?

Thank you for adding me to your respected list.  Smile

About the loads going to asia, right now, most flights are not going out full. The smaller capacity 777 would work to drive up the yeilds on the route.

I L U V 7 6 7


User currently offlineMatt777 From Cayman Islands, joined Oct 2001, 503 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1028 times:

777-300 will look nice in UA colours!

User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 22, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1026 times:

UAL doesn't need the 777-300 because if they run out of room on a 777-200 they will use the 747-400.

It's that simple.



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8037 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1019 times:

ILUV767,

However, given the relatively young age of the UA 747-400 fleet, don't expect UA to buy any 777-300ER's anytime soon.

The 744's will serve UA's transpacific routes until at least 2012. I expect that by 2005 UA may D-check a whole bunch of 744's with 777-style interiors and possibly upgraded engines for lower noise and lower fuel burn.


User currently offlineThe747Man From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1010 times:

I agree completely with Vafi88 and RayChuang, UAL is not going to purchase 773s anytime soon.

The 747-400s do not need to be replaced ILUV767.

In terms of capacity, you say UAL's current 744s have less seats then a factory 773. What's your point? Then, you say that if United were to operate the 773, it would still have less capacity than the 744. Why lower capacity at all on United's busy Asian routes?????

The 773ER (not 773) would provide United with enough range to do trans-pacific crossings.

747-400 Range: 7,325 nautical miles (13,570 km)
777-300LR Range: 7,250 nautical miles (13,430 km)

(DIRECT FROM WWW.BOEING.COM)

All I have to say regarding that sentence.

Some other factor's that promote the 773ER, and the ellimination of the 744 are:
-reduced fleet type (747)
-maintence support
-crew training
-increased cargo capacity
-flight deck common with 772
-lower pay scales for pilots (777 wages, not 744 wages)
-passenger prefrence
-route flexability and equipment swaping with 772s


Now, some of these might be correct I'll give you that. But I'm telling you, if you weren't so baised on the 777, you'd see how the 773 and 744 are very much different aircraft. Look at CX, SQ, ect, they seem to be doing very well with the two types of the planes in their fleet, don't they? Can United do the same? Probably so.

With the 773ER, and the 772ER or even 772LR, the role of the 747 is no longer important. You can carry the same amount or more passengers with the 777s flying on the same routes. The airline spends less on each flight, than they would on 744 flights, and as a result of these lower costs, more money can be kept in terms of revenue.

 Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud  Laugh out loud The role of the 747 is not important anymore if there are 777s you say? WRONG.

The 777 cannot do a 744s job, GET IT STRAIGHT.

Sure, the 777s could carry as much as 744s, if you make the seats the size for babies!

The airlines would spend more money on a 744, but they would also get higher income from the flight than the 777. (if both flights are full)


-----------------------------------------------


After all that, I still don't see why you have such a problem with the 747-400 with United. It is very modern, efficient, and it serves United well. If United sold all their 744s, they would be very lucky to get half the money it would take to buy new 773s from Boeing. You are so much in love with the 777, that you don't see that, United would lose so much money "replacing" 744s with 773s, even if it saves them a little having a reduced fleet type, on maintenence, etc, but not flights. It's not going to happen.















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...
Why Didnt CO Order The 777-200LR? posted Mon Jul 30 2007 02:55:27 by CO787EWR
Why No 777-300s In The U.S.? posted Tue Aug 12 2003 19:52:28 by Chgoan
No P&W Engines For B 777-300s. Why? posted Tue Mar 6 2001 07:12:29 by United Airline
Why East Europe Airlines Don´t Order 777 Or A340? posted Sun Dec 31 2000 16:43:29 by Dellatorre
Why Did Southwest Order 737-500s? posted Tue Feb 26 2008 08:16:54 by TranStar
Why Did Emirates Order The A340-500? posted Mon Jan 28 2008 01:01:25 by UAL747
Swiss Order 9 A330-300s posted Mon Aug 20 2007 11:27:19 by FCKC
Why Did BA Order The A320 Family Over The 737NG? posted Sat Aug 18 2007 02:07:23 by BHXDTW
Why Did Airlines Order The B 747-300? posted Wed Aug 1 2007 05:50:00 by United Airline
Why AA Won't Order Boeing (for Now). posted Thu Jun 21 2007 18:16:02 by FXramper