washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6429 times:
I've seen a lot written on A.net over the years about the supposed differences between airlines with PW-powered 777s versus GE/RR-powered 777s. It's my understanding that there are no operational or cost differences on the majority of routes...My question is at what stage length do the GE & RR engines start to deliver more than the PW engines? In particular, I'm wondering about United's 777 fleet. PMCO 777s operate EWR-HKG/PVG/PEK/BOM/DEL. These are all pretty long routes that I imagine test the 772ER. Would PMUA 772ERs with PW engines be able to operate any/all of these routes? What penalties would there be?
Similarly, are there any United 772ER routes such as IAD-DXB or KWI, or LAX-SYD (sometimes operated by the 777) where United faces a penalty and would be better operated with a GE-powered 777?
Transpac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3139 posts, RR: 14 Reply 1, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6369 times:
No, LAX-SYD is not "sometimes" operated by the 777. It is operated by a 744; as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be...
While only anecdotal evidence, I know a CO 777 driver who says they consistently take weight hits going to China and India. It's not a question of "if", but a question of "how bad". So while UA's 777's do tend to operate shorter stage lengths transoceanically, they aren't *that* much different performance or capability wise. The increased power of the CO birds with GE motors will only be noticed out of performance-critical airports. JNB, DEN, etc.
scorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 398 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (1 year 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 6037 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Thread starter): Similarly, are there any United 772ER routes such as IAD-DXB or KWI, or LAX-SYD (sometimes operated by the 777) where United faces a penalty and would be better operated with a GE-powered 777?
I'm sure they took penalties, but UA have, on occasion operated their 777 ORD-HKG which is their longest route. (for a while it was operating the second, service that didn't run every day)
Transpac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3139 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 5806 times:
Quoting scorpy (Reply 2): I'm sure they took penalties, but UA have, on occasion operated their 777 ORD-HKG which is their longest route. (for a while it was operating the second, service that didn't run every day)
This is also incorrect. The non-daily second service was SFO-HKG, not ORD-HKG. The 2nd daily frequency was dropped when UA started their LAX-HKG service back in... I want to say 2007... which was then subsequently dropped and the 2nd frequency on SFO-HKG was never brought back.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22027 posts, RR: 51 Reply 4, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5735 times:
Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 1): No, LAX-SYD is not "sometimes" operated by the 777. It is operated by a 744; as it was in the beginning, is now, and forever shall be...
The 777 was indeed planned for SYD and even loaded in CRS. It was pulled and reverted back to the 744 about 2mos out.
And no the 744 wont be doing Australia forever.
Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 3): The non-daily second service was SFO-HKG, not ORD-HKG.
No really ORD-HKG was indeed scheduled and operated on a 777 one season. Winter 06/spring 07
Google Flyeryalk and you'll see folks discussing it that flew it, quite happily it seems for those in Y.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
scorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 398 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 5642 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4): No really ORD-HKG was indeed scheduled and operated on a 777 one season. Winter 06/spring 07
Google Flyeryalk and you'll see folks discussing it that flew it, quite happily it seems for those in Y.
Indeed. At the time, UA was flying to HK more than twice daily, with additional flights on some days from SFO and ORD. Those flights were the ones that were shifted to LAX, and the 777 did sometimes operate the ORD flight. Not sure about SFO as I never fly to Asia from there. As LAXintl says, this was the flight to take if you were going to be stuck in Y.
Transpac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3139 posts, RR: 14 Reply 6, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5611 times:
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4): And no the 744 wont be doing Australia forever.
Thank you for correcting my obviously tongue-in-cheek comment
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7631 posts, RR: 28 Reply 7, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 5565 times:
The PWs sound amazing, that's the most important difference to me. They don't look nearly as impressive, but that vacuum cleaner woo-woo-woo does it for me every single time:
N243NW From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 21 Reply 8, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5355 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7): The PWs sound amazing, that's the most important difference to me. They don't look nearly as impressive, but that vacuum cleaner woo-woo-woo does it for me every single time:
I don't know why, but I just don't find the GE90 sound to be that exciting. Give me the buzzsaw of a PW or Trent instead.
scorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 398 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (1 year 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5128 times:
Indicate that while there is a difference, it is not huge.
Taking a UA aircraft at 648,000 MTOW vs a CO aircraft and 656,000 it would appear the difference is around 300nm. So this probably means the UA aircraft take more of a hit on routes like EWR-HKG if they tried it...
this diagram shows differences in engine selection (although assuming the same MTOW)
washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (1 year 11 months 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 4577 times:
Quoting scorpy (Reply 9): The payload range charts available here:
Thanks!
Quoting scorpy (Reply 9): The difference between the GE and the PW on the 777-200ER looks even smaller. The scale makes it hard to read, but at max payload maybe 100nm...
I guess we'll see if they put a PMUA 777 on EWR-HKG!
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, RR: 24 Reply 11, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4441 times:
Quoting scorpy (Reply 5): Google Flyeryalk and you'll see folks discussing it that flew it, quite happily it seems for those in Y.
Indeed. At the time, UA was flying to HK more than twice daily, with additional flights on some days from SFO and ORD. Those flights were the ones that were shifted to LAX, and the 777 did sometimes operate the ORD flight. Not sure about SFO as I never fly to Asia from there. As LAXintl says, this was the flight to take if you were going to be stuck in Y.
I doubt the unfortunate passengers in the middle seat in the 5-abreast center section were very happy. I bellieve UA is switching from 2-5-2 to 3-3-3 on some (or all?) of their 777s, matching CO and DL. That will leave AA as one of the only 777 operators in the world with 2-5-2 seating in Y. Still better than 10-abreast.
scorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 398 posts, RR: 1 Reply 13, posted (1 year 11 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4286 times:
Quoting washingtonian (Reply 10): I guess we'll see if they put a PMUA 777 on EWR-HKG!
It will be interesting. This route may be one of the ones that the ~400nm difference starts to really come into play, given EWR is just a little further than ORD is (from HKG)....
hal9213 From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 11 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 4001 times:
Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 7): The PWs sound amazing, that's the most important difference to me. They don't look nearly as impressive, but that vacuum cleaner woo-woo-woo does it for me every single time:
Quoting N243NW (Reply 8): I don't know why, but I just don't find the GE90 sound to be that exciting. Give me the buzzsaw of a PW or Trent instead.
Whaaaat? If anything is "wooooohh"ing, thats the RR on spoolup!! And buzzing away like a sore throat is the lovely deep toned GE90-115 It makes itself noticable on startup miles away.
Haha, talk about religion... Now we got a PW4k-fan, RR700-fan and a GE90-fan, all complete.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7631 posts, 
I don't know why, but I just don't find the GE90 sound to be that exciting. Give me the buzzsaw of a PW or Trent instead.
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2011, 33 posts, 
From Germany, joined May 2009, 302 posts, 
And buzzing away like a sore throat is the lovely deep toned GE90-115 
It makes itself noticable on startup miles away. 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
