Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
caverunner17
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 6:09 pm

Something I've always been curious about:

Boeing lists the 777-200ER's max range as 7065nm (8130 statute miles)

2 of UA's flights (ORD-HKG and EWR-HKG) have actual flight paths that both exceed this (8214sm and 8592sm)

ORD
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KORD/VHHH

EWR
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KEWR/VHHH

I was on UA895 last November and loads in F/J seemed full and Y was probably 95% full with only a handful of middle seats open in Y+. I also watched pallets being loaded into the cargo holds. I realize it's a polar flight, but how is UA accomplishing this? I'd assume there's next to no margin of error due to winds, ground delays, or airport congestion at HKG without dipping into reserves.
 
User avatar
mbm3
Posts: 764
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 10:54 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:57 pm

wn676 wrote:
caverunner17 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
I believe Boeing assumes a certain payload, configuration, and estimated winds in their published range figure. That's probably what the difference is here.


The EWR-HKG flight path is prone to vary day by day based purely on the winds aloft. UA wants to take advantage of the jetstream as much as possible, so sometimes it is a polar route, sometimes it curls over Alaska, sometimes its curls over Russia/China.
Let Me Tell You, Landing A 772ER Is Harder Than It Looks!
 
codc10
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:50 pm

ORD/EWR-HKG often go out with full pax loads and a modest volume of freight. UA's (Sabre) flight planning software is much more sophisticated than the Boeing marketing range charts and will incorporate all inputs to optimize payload on a flight-by-flight basis.
 
gon2fly
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:20 pm

The ORD flight is operated with a lUAL 77B and will occasionally have weight restrictions and limitations. The EWR flight is operated with a lCAL 77C and normally has no limits or issues. When the 77Ws start showing up in a few months, the majority of them will fly missions out of EWR, freeing up several of the lCAL C models to fly missions currently being flown by lUAL B models with limitations (ORD-HKG, etc).
 
BostonBeau
Posts: 547
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 11:55 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:26 pm

I don't know about United, but I understood that Pan Am's early New York-Tokyo B747 flights were filed as New York-Fairbanks, and then if the remaining fuel was sufficient when approaching Fairbanks, the flight plan was modified en route to New York-Tokyo.
 
gon2fly
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 9:46 pm

BostonBeau wrote:
I don't know about United, but I understood that Pan Am's early New York-Tokyo B747 flights were filed as New York-Fairbanks, and then if the remaining fuel was sufficient when approaching Fairbanks, the flight plan was modified en route to New York-Tokyo.


This is still a very common practice....called a Re-dispatch release. FARs require international flights to carry 10% fuel reserve (among other amounts). For a 10 hour flight from London to SAN Francisco for instance, that would require one hour of gas to satisfy that requirement (10% of total planned burn). If on the other hand, the flight is dispatched from London to NY on a redispatch release....say five hours just to make my example easy....the flight would be required to carry only 30 minutes of fuel to cover that 10% requirement (10% of 300 minutes burn, vice 600 minute total burn). Approaching NY, the crew and the dispatcher agree that they have sufficient fuel to continue flying NY to SFO, and thus they do.....saving the requirement to otherwise have carried that several extra couple thousand pounds of fuel (30 minutes on the 777 ends up being about 7,000 #'s, so in reality, it can make a huge difference).
 
caverunner17
Topic Author
Posts: 267
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:40 pm

gon2fly wrote:
BostonBeau wrote:
I don't know about United, but I understood that Pan Am's early New York-Tokyo B747 flights were filed as New York-Fairbanks, and then if the remaining fuel was sufficient when approaching Fairbanks, the flight plan was modified en route to New York-Tokyo.


This is still a very common practice....called a Re-dispatch release. FARs require international flights to carry 10% fuel reserve (among other amounts). For a 10 hour flight from London to SAN Francisco for instance, that would require one hour of gas to satisfy that requirement (10% of total planned burn). If on the other hand, the flight is dispatched from London to NY on a redispatch release....say five hours just to make my example easy....the flight would be required to carry only 30 minutes of fuel to cover that 10% requirement (10% of 300 minutes burn, vice 600 minute total burn). Approaching NY, the crew and the dispatcher agree that they have sufficient fuel to continue flying NY to SFO, and thus they do.....saving the requirement to otherwise have carried that several extra couple thousand pounds of fuel (30 minutes on the 777 ends up being about 7,000 #'s, so in reality, it can make a huge difference).

Would it be common for there to be a diversion to that intermediary airport, or is it more of a paperwork exercise?
 
VC10er
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:02 pm

Sort of a related question: When UA was flying to HK from JFK, I recall they had purchased new 747-400's just for that extra long non-stop. I flew them when they were brand new and they had KENNETH COLE PJ's for the first few flights and other goodies. There was even an article in the NYT's about the flight. Is a 747-400 more capable than the 772?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
n92r03
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 10:46 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:40 pm

VC10er wrote:
Sort of a related question: When UA was flying to HK from JFK, I recall they had purchased new 747-400's just for that extra long non-stop. I flew them when they were brand new and they had KENNETH COLE PJ's for the first few flights and other goodies. There was even an article in the NYT's about the flight. Is a 747-400 more capable than the 772?


Back in the day the ORD-HKG was one of the longest routes for the 744, IIRC, the aircraft was towed by tug to the runway (perhaps an urban legend?). I did ORD-HKG-ORD back in 2001 and was told they blocked off seats so they could take cargo. Almost no outside rows were full with many people on the inside laying down for some sleep. Good luck finding that today. Anyway, that was a long time ago and the advances of the twins have since made the 77E and 77W commonplace on these routes.
 
gon2fly
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:07 am

caverunner17 wrote:
Would it be common for there to be a diversion to that intermediary airport, or is it more of a paperwork exercise?


Diversions are fairly rare, and it is indeed a paperwork waving of the wand that allows you to carry less gas....and more payload. To the OPs original question, there are very creative ways that extend the capabilities and profitability of the jet.
 
globalcabotage
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:42 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:58 am

77Ws are now a 744 replacement and will be SFO based. Only possible exceptions are HKG to EWR and ORD where this is desperately needed.

But will be SFO based crews.
 
DC8FanJet
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:25 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:09 am

gon2fly wrote:
The ORD flight is operated with a lUAL 77B and will occasionally have weight restrictions and limitations. The EWR flight is operated with a lCAL 77C and normally has no limits or issues. When the 77Ws start showing up in a few months, the majority of them will fly missions out of EWR, freeing up several of the lCAL C models to fly missions currently being flown by lUAL B models with limitations (ORD-HKG, etc).


Not sure what you refer to as a 77C..Both UA & CO brought 777-200ER's to the merger, the CO united have a bit more thrust from their GE90's,but MTOW are the same.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:20 am

More interesting, UA's forthcoming 77W's (777-300ER) are some of the first to incorporate a new PIP package which further reduces fuel burn / increases efficiency. They will be even more capable on these ultra long haul routes, ie carrying full pax (almost 100 more than 772) and potentially even more cargo.

That said, it helps tremendously that both airports are equipped with long runways at sea level and no obscales. Twin-engine long haul performance is best with these conditions. They tend to struggle with more operating restrictions (read: payload restrictions, less revenue) as field performance or climb out performances increase from altitude, hot ambient temperatures, or terrain. Quads see less restrictions in these more challenging environments despite being less efficient with optimal condition.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:24 am

globalcabotage wrote:
77Ws are now a 744 replacement and will be SFO based. Only possible exceptions are HKG to EWR and ORD where this is desperately needed.

But will be SFO based crews.


Really, ONE 77W at EWR for the HK route being discussed here? I thought there was going to be more of a split between EWR and SFO?

With such competition out of JFK to very premium heavy destinations, and the flood of POLARIS ads here in NYC and at EWR, that surprises me. (not to forget the big Polaris Lounge underway)

Seems like UA should order more 77W's or put Polaris outfitted 787's at EWR.

So confusing!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:26 am

globalcabotage wrote:
77Ws are now a 744 replacement and will be SFO based. Only possible exceptions are HKG to EWR and ORD where this is desperately needed.

But will be SFO based crews.


The 77Ws will be EWR and SFO based. As of now the 77Ws will be staffed with sub UA FAs from the EWR & HKG bases.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:30 am

VC10er wrote:
globalcabotage wrote:
77Ws are now a 744 replacement and will be SFO based. Only possible exceptions are HKG to EWR and ORD where this is desperately needed.

But will be SFO based crews.


Really, ONE 77W at EWR for the HK route being discussed here? I thought there was going to be more of a split between EWR and SFO?

With such competition out of JFK to very premium heavy destinations, and the flood of POLARIS ads here in NYC and at EWR, that surprises me. (not to forget the big Polaris Lounge underway)

Seems like UA should order more 77W's or put Polaris outfitted 787's at EWR.

So confusing!


He is incorrect 77W's will be flown out of both EWR and SFO instead of mostly EWR. Expect EWR-NRT/PVG/PEK/BOM/DEL/TLV/HKG to go 77W once more come online.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
VC10er
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:39 am

CONTACREW wrote:
VC10er wrote:
globalcabotage wrote:
77Ws are now a 744 replacement and will be SFO based. Only possible exceptions are HKG to EWR and ORD where this is desperately needed.

But will be SFO based crews.


Really, ONE 77W at EWR for the HK route being discussed here? I thought there was going to be more of a split between EWR and SFO?

With such competition out of JFK to very premium heavy destinations, and the flood of POLARIS ads here in NYC and at EWR, that surprises me. (not to forget the big Polaris Lounge underway)

Seems like UA should order more 77W's or put Polaris outfitted 787's at EWR.

So confusing!


He is incorrect 77W's will be flown out of both EWR and SFO instead of mostly EWR. Expect EWR-NRT/PVG/PEK/BOM/DEL/TLV/HKG to go 77W once more come online.


OK, that makes much more sense to me. I have only experienced the new blanket and pillow on domestic flat bed seat from DEN to EWR, much nicer. I hope it was just a very tiny hint at much more.
I know there is another thread somewhere here about this, but what is next for Polaris "everything", the 772's or 767's or both?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:52 am

The initial 77Ws will be based out of SFO, however some will be based at EWR to take over those routes.
 
MPadhi
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 5:33 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:53 am

codc10 wrote:
ORD/EWR-HKG often go out with full pax loads and a modest volume of freight. UA's (Sabre) flight planning software is much more sophisticated than the Boeing marketing range charts and will incorporate all inputs to optimize payload on a flight-by-flight basis.


How sophisticated is the software? Is it ever the case that a flight might need to divert close to the destination to refuel?
 
codc10
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:54 am

DC8FanJet wrote:
gon2fly wrote:
The ORD flight is operated with a lUAL 77B and will occasionally have weight restrictions and limitations. The EWR flight is operated with a lCAL 77C and normally has no limits or issues. When the 77Ws start showing up in a few months, the majority of them will fly missions out of EWR, freeing up several of the lCAL C models to fly missions currently being flown by lUAL B models with limitations (ORD-HKG, etc).


Not sure what you refer to as a 77C..Both UA & CO brought 777-200ER's to the merger, the CO united have a bit more thrust from their GE90's,but MTOW are the same.


-222ERs with PW4090 are rated 648k MGTOW, -224ERs are 656k with slightly higher-power GE90 motors.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7362
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:04 am

CONTACREW wrote:
VC10er wrote:
globalcabotage wrote:
77Ws are now a 744 replacement and will be SFO based. Only possible exceptions are HKG to EWR and ORD where this is desperately needed.

But will be SFO based crews.


Really, ONE 77W at EWR for the HK route being discussed here? I thought there was going to be more of a split between EWR and SFO?

With such competition out of JFK to very premium heavy destinations, and the flood of POLARIS ads here in NYC and at EWR, that surprises me. (not to forget the big Polaris Lounge underway)

Seems like UA should order more 77W's or put Polaris outfitted 787's at EWR.

So confusing!


He is incorrect 77W's will be flown out of both EWR and SFO instead of mostly EWR. Expect EWR-NRT/PVG/PEK/BOM/DEL/TLV/HKG to go 77W once more come online.


There are all kinds of projections for the new 77W fleet. Only 14 are coming as of today but the way people are predicting UA needs double or triple that. IF these plane do 13 hours flights they can only fly about 8 routes which could be done by either SFO or Newark alone. The 77W look like they are going to be busy In the Pacific. Besides Newark or Chicago to Hong Kong the 77W range and capacity is needed in San Framcisco.
 
globalcabotage
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 10:42 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:39 am

EWR was the proposed first 77W base. New management changed this and made it clear it was a 744 replacement to retire the 744 fleet ASAP. Not sure why people are hung up on SFO / EWR fleet base. Crew base, on the other hand will be EWR and SFO.

Things change. The 787 was CO and went to SFO. The EWR lovers will not accept the fact that their beloved 787 and 77W went to SFO where they make the most sense.
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 3:04 am

globalcabotage wrote:
EWR was the proposed first 77W base. New management changed this and made it clear it was a 744 replacement to retire the 744 fleet ASAP. Not sure why people are hung up on SFO / EWR fleet base. Crew base, on the other hand will be EWR and SFO.

Things change. The 787 was CO and went to SFO. The EWR lovers will not accept the fact that their beloved 787 and 77W went to SFO where they make the most sense.



Don't know where your getting your info but that's incorrect. Not all 77W's will be SFO based just like they won't be all EWR based. Crews for the sub UA 77W's will be EWR & HKG based. The sub CO 77Ws will be staffed with NTA/NLS crews.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:10 am

VC10er wrote:
When UA was flying to HK from JFK, I recall they had purchased new 747-400's just for that extra long non-stop.

No they didn't. Besides, they flew that route for only a few months circa 2001.

Just 744s that they already had, with up to 8 rows blocked on the worst days.



DC8FanJet wrote:
Both UA & CO brought 777-200ER's to the merger, the CO united have a bit more thrust from their GE90's,but MTOW are the same.

No they aren't. CO's birds are 656,000lb MTOW.
UA's are restricted to 648,000lbs, as would any US-based PW operator. Big reason that NW rejected the 772ER.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
VC10er
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:17 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
VC10er wrote:
When UA was flying to HK from JFK, I recall they had purchased new 747-400's just for that extra long non-stop.

No they didn't. Besides, they flew that route for only a few months circa 2001.

Just 744s that they already had, with up to 8 rows blocked on the worst days.

Ok, I bet you do know more than I do, but please allow me to tell you this story; I was taken out to the tarmac by a UNITED Red Carpet Club employee I had become friendly with so he could show me "the brand new 747 that was going to fly the new HK route and it had just arrived that day" he told me lots of things as we walked around her, one comment of his I vividly recall was "look at how shiny the new metal is around the engines, almost straight from the Boeing plant" (this was obviously pre 9/11)...I was not on that 747 that day, I believe I was off to Tokyo (if memory serves) on an older 747 parked next to this new one- and it's bare metal was grey, (although the paint was shiny), I also think it was "battleship". Before that day when he showed off the 747, he had previously given me an engraved invite to a launch party for that route held at the new KENNETH COLE shop in Rockefeller Center, and I went. A lot of champagne, caviar and reporters! There were some speeches from UA and Boeing and there were discussions of modifications to the 747, but can't recall what specifically. There was a lot of fanfare around that launch as it was either considered the longest flight in the world or the longest flight from the USA at that time, overtaking CO out of Newark by just a wee bit! I recall being very sad that the route it didn't last long...but that was a loooong time ago, so surely my memory could be faulty.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 8:41 pm

VC10er wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:
VC10er wrote:
When UA was flying to HK from JFK, I recall they had purchased new 747-400's just for that extra long non-stop.

No they didn't. Besides, they flew that route for only a few months circa 2001.

Just 744s that they already had, with up to 8 rows blocked on the worst days.

Ok, I bet you do know more than I do, but please allow me to tell you this story; I was taken out to the tarmac by a UNITED Red Carpet Club employee I had become friendly with so he could show me "the brand new 747 that was going to fly the new HK route and it had just arrived that day" he told me lots of things as we walked around her, one comment of his I vividly recall was "look at how shiny the new metal is around the engines, almost straight from the Boeing plant" (this was obviously pre 9/11)...I was not on that 747 that day, I believe I was off to Tokyo (if memory serves) on an older 747 parked next to this new one- and it's bare metal was grey, (although the paint was shiny), I also think it was "battleship". Before that day when he showed off the 747, he had previously given me an engraved invite to a launch party for that route held at the new KENNETH COLE shop in Rockefeller Center, and I went. A lot of champagne, caviar and reporters! There were some speeches from UA and Boeing and there were discussions of modifications to the 747, but can't recall what specifically. There was a lot of fanfare around that launch as it was either considered the longest flight in the world or the longest flight from the USA at that time, overtaking CO out of Newark by just a wee bit! I recall being very sad that the route it didn't last long...but that was a loooong time ago, so surely my memory could be faulty.


For a while United had a couple of specially configured 747-400s for JFK-NRT and a few other long range routes. The airplanes were configured 36 F / 123 J / 142 Y with only 301 seats on board. The low density seating allowed more range.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1772
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Thu Dec 15, 2016 11:11 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
VC10er wrote:
LAX772LR wrote:

No they didn't. Besides, they flew that route for only a few months circa 2001.

Just 744s that they already had, with up to 8 rows blocked on the worst days.

Ok, I bet you do know more than I do, but please allow me to tell you this story; I was taken out to the tarmac by a UNITED Red Carpet Club employee I had become friendly with so he could show me "the brand new 747 that was going to fly the new HK route and it had just arrived that day" he told me lots of things as we walked around her, one comment of his I vividly recall was "look at how shiny the new metal is around the engines, almost straight from the Boeing plant" (this was obviously pre 9/11)...I was not on that 747 that day, I believe I was off to Tokyo (if memory serves) on an older 747 parked next to this new one- and it's bare metal was grey, (although the paint was shiny), I also think it was "battleship". Before that day when he showed off the 747, he had previously given me an engraved invite to a launch party for that route held at the new KENNETH COLE shop in Rockefeller Center, and I went. A lot of champagne, caviar and reporters! There were some speeches from UA and Boeing and there were discussions of modifications to the 747, but can't recall what specifically. There was a lot of fanfare around that launch as it was either considered the longest flight in the world or the longest flight from the USA at that time, overtaking CO out of Newark by just a wee bit! I recall being very sad that the route it didn't last long...but that was a loooong time ago, so surely my memory could be faulty.


For a while United had a couple of specially configured 747-400s for JFK-NRT and a few other long range routes. The airplanes were configured 36 F / 123 J / 142 Y with only 301 seats on board. The low density seating allowed more range.


Wow, that is a premium configuration! Are there pics of that? What corp contracts did they have to fill that? I suppose with less 1 stop and non stop competition, they could skim the high paying customers.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3641
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:02 am

Off topic, but here is the 1990s version of an ultra long haul configuration

Image
 
coolian2
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 3:34 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 12:15 am

caverunner17 wrote:
gon2fly wrote:
BostonBeau wrote:
I don't know about United, but I understood that Pan Am's early New York-Tokyo B747 flights were filed as New York-Fairbanks, and then if the remaining fuel was sufficient when approaching Fairbanks, the flight plan was modified en route to New York-Tokyo.


This is still a very common practice....called a Re-dispatch release. FARs require international flights to carry 10% fuel reserve (among other amounts). For a 10 hour flight from London to SAN Francisco for instance, that would require one hour of gas to satisfy that requirement (10% of total planned burn). If on the other hand, the flight is dispatched from London to NY on a redispatch release....say five hours just to make my example easy....the flight would be required to carry only 30 minutes of fuel to cover that 10% requirement (10% of 300 minutes burn, vice 600 minute total burn). Approaching NY, the crew and the dispatcher agree that they have sufficient fuel to continue flying NY to SFO, and thus they do.....saving the requirement to otherwise have carried that several extra couple thousand pounds of fuel (30 minutes on the 777 ends up being about 7,000 #'s, so in reality, it can make a huge difference).

Would it be common for there to be a diversion to that intermediary airport, or is it more of a paperwork exercise?

I got very close to ending up flying DFW-AKL....on a DFW-BNE-AKL itinerary.
Q300/ATR72-600/737-200/-300/-400/-700/-800/A320/767-200/-300/757-200/777-300ER/
747-200/-300/-400/ER/A340-300/A380-800/MD-83/-88/CRJ-700/-900
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:44 am

VC10er wrote:
Ok, I bet you do know more than I do, but please allow me to tell you this story; I was taken out to the tarmac by a UNITED Red Carpet Club employee I had become friendly with so he could show me "the brand new 747 that was going to fly the new HK route and it had just arrived that day"

There has to have been something lost in translation, as the last 747 ever delivered to UA was on May 12, 2000... and it went into service that same month.

So perhaps he considers 11-months-old to be "brand new," which is definitely fair; but the ship certainly didn't "just arrive that day," unless he meant arrived out of mtx or back from retrofit.



VC10er wrote:
There was a lot of fanfare around that launch as it was either considered the longest flight in the world or the longest flight from the USA at that time, overtaking CO out of Newark by just a wee bit! I recall being very sad that the route it didn't last long...but that was a loooong time ago, so surely my memory could be faulty.

Technically, it was neither. SA's ATL-JNB nonstop at the time was longer in both distance and time.
But that flight was eastbound only, making UA's JFK-HKG the longest westbound flown from the USA (not that that ever stopped their or CO's marketing department). ;)
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:53 am

Okcflyer wrote:
More interesting, UA's forthcoming 77W's (777-300ER) are some of the first to incorporate a new PIP package which further reduces fuel burn / increases efficiency. They will be even more capable on these ultra long haul routes, ie carrying full pax (almost 100 more than 772) and potentially even more cargo.

That said, it helps tremendously that both airports are equipped with long runways at sea level and no obscales. Twin-engine long haul performance is best with these conditions. They tend to struggle with more operating restrictions (read: payload restrictions, less revenue) as field performance or climb out performances increase from altitude, hot ambient temperatures, or terrain. Quads see less restrictions in these more challenging environments despite being less efficient with optimal condition.


Is the PIP 77W specific or can it be utilized by that 772/E fleet as well?
 
77H
Posts: 1570
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:59 am

LAX772LR wrote:
VC10er wrote:
When UA was flying to HK from JFK, I recall they had purchased new 747-400's just for that extra long non-stop.

No they didn't. Besides, they flew that route for only a few months circa 2001.

Just 744s that they already had, with up to 8 rows blocked on the worst days.



DC8FanJet wrote:
Both UA & CO brought 777-200ER's to the merger, the CO united have a bit more thrust from their GE90's,but MTOW are the same.

No they aren't. CO's birds are 656,000lb MTOW.
UA's are restricted to 648,000lbs, as would any US-based PW operator. Big reason that NW rejected the 772ER.


Sorry for all the questions in a row but why are the 4090's restricted to 648K in the US?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 9:06 am

77H wrote:
Sorry for all the questions in a row but why are the 4090's restricted to 648K in the US?

They failed to pass US regulatory emissions standards at max thrust. The GE90 and Trent didn't.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
VC10er
Posts: 4268
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:29 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
VC10er wrote:
Ok, I bet you do know more than I do, but please allow me to tell you this story; I was taken out to the tarmac by a UNITED Red Carpet Club employee I had become friendly with so he could show me "the brand new 747 that was going to fly the new HK route and it had just arrived that day"

There has to have been something lost in translation, as the last 747 ever delivered to UA was on May 12, 2000... and it went into service that same month.

So perhaps he considers 11-months-old to be "brand new," which is definitely fair; but the ship certainly didn't "just arrive that day," unless he meant arrived out of mtx or back from retrofit.

Maybe what's lost are some of my brain cells. I went on to do a lot of partying in the following few years before I hung up my spandex shorts for good! Perhaps He was showing me that aircraft in May of 2000 and I got the HK part mixed in there. The most vivid part was how PROUD he was of this new 747, perhaps it was later that he gave me the invite to the HK launch party. I too was "intoxicated" by getting that close to a brand new 747...the closest I have ever gotten to a walk around ever before or ever since. Thanks for ironing out the past a bit.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Fri Dec 16, 2016 8:54 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
Something I've always been curious about:

Boeing lists the 777-200ER's max range as 7065nm (8130 statute miles)

2 of UA's flights (ORD-HKG and EWR-HKG) have actual flight paths that both exceed this (8214sm and 8592sm)


What confused me about your post is that Boeing listed 772ER's range at around 7,700 nautical miles (8,861 statute miles) on their old website, this is at MTOW and around 376,000 lbs. ZFW.

7,065 nautical mile range occurs around 395,000 lbs. ZFW at MTOW.

There's nothing odd about the 772ER doing ORD/EWR-HKG except for ETOPS/LROPS considerations on polar 1-4 routes.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:44 am

Boeing says they changed range numbers to better match what airlines were actually doing

03 AUGUST, 2015 SOURCE: FLIGHTGLOBAL PRO BY: STEPHEN TRIMBLE WASHINGTON DC
A visitor to Boeing’s web site this week will be in for a shock: the listed seat-counts and range specifications for nearly all of the company’s models have changed, some dramatically.

But Boeing officials say not to be alarmed. The underlying aircraft performance is no different. Boeing has simply updated a set of generic weight and configuration assumptions used to calculate aircraft range.

“There’s no performance change to the actual airplane. Our airplane is doing just fine, and the customers won’t see any change to their rules. This is just changing our generic philosophy to more closely represent what our customers are using,” says Jim Haas, a Boeing marketing director.

Ads by ZINC


As the first such update since the early 1990s, some of the changes appear significant. For example the predicted range for six models – 737 Max 7,737 Max 200, 787-9, 787-10, 777-9X and 777-8X – each decline by more than 500nm. Two other types, the 787-8 and the 777-300ER, lost almost 500nm of listed range.

By changing the assumptions now, Boeing finally acknowledges what most airline customers, industry analysts and rivals already knew. The standard set of assumptions Boeing has used to calculate performance for generic marketing purposes has been “obsolete” for a long time, Haas says.

“The reason we kept it so long is we look at the actual seat counts [the marketing brochures] were showing they were pretty representative of the actual seats airlines were putting in airplanes,” Haas says.

Although the numbers may have been similar, the weight of the passengers, their bags and the seats themselves have been growing substantially. At the same time, the first class cabin used in earlier assumptions has all but disappeared, replaced by more elaborate business class cabins with lie-flat seats and premium economy cabins.

As a result, there has been a growing mismatch between the numbers that Boeing presents in marketing presentations and the numbers that they show to airlines in closed-door sales discussions.

“We really wanted a set of generic ground rules that better reflected what airplanes used in operation,” says Randy Tinseth, vice-president of marketing.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ns-415293/
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:14 am

jagraham wrote:
Boeing says they changed range numbers to better match what airlines were actually doing

Which seems sorta dumb, as you now have aircraft flying ranges which Boeing's "realistic" numbers suggest they shouldn't be able to do... particularly the 789.

Would've been better off leaving the old numbers up.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 17, 2016 2:19 am

Boeing's new numbers reflect the very heavy premium products and dense configurations that some of their highest-volume customers are now installing. Old UA 77Es (both ex-UA and ex-CO) are lighter and less dense at 9Y.

Aircraft range is influenced by many, many variables. It's not too surprising if a given operator with a given configuration can beat the marketing numbers. It's also not surprising if a given operator runs into trouble well short of the marketing numbers.

And as for the 789,,, the lighter the bare airframe, the shallower the payload/range slope will be. And typical widebody range at max payload hasn't really changed much over the last couple decades; it tends to be 5000-5500 nm. That means that the newer and lighter aircraft are capable of flying quite long distances when lightly loaded, as is the case on UA's famously long 789 flights.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 17, 2016 4:16 am

seabosdca wrote:
And typical widebody range at max payload hasn't really changed much over the last couple decades; it tends to be 5000-5500 nm. That means that the newer and lighter aircraft are capable of flying quite long distances when lightly loaded, as is the case on UA's famously long 789 flights.

....though, to be fair, it's far more common for longhaul widebodies to be (as was somewhat exaggeratingly stated) "lightly loaded" than anywhere near max payload, so there's that. ;)
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
jagraham
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 17, 2016 8:24 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
jagraham wrote:
Boeing says they changed range numbers to better match what airlines were actually doing

Which seems sorta dumb, as you now have aircraft flying ranges which Boeing's "realistic" numbers suggest they shouldn't be able to do... particularly the 789.

Would've been better off leaving the old numbers up.



Yup. Especially with 787s doing revenue flights that match the "old" numbers.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:01 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Boeing's new numbers reflect the very heavy premium products and dense configurations that some of their highest-volume customers are now installing. Old UA 77Es (both ex-UA and ex-CO) are lighter and less dense at 9Y.

Aircraft range is influenced by many, many variables. It's not too surprising if a given operator with a given configuration can beat the marketing numbers. It's also not surprising if a given operator runs into trouble well short of the marketing numbers.

And as for the 789,,, the lighter the bare airframe, the shallower the payload/range slope will be. And typical widebody range at max payload hasn't really changed much over the last couple decades; it tends to be 5000-5500 nm. That means that the newer and lighter aircraft are capable of flying quite long distances when lightly loaded, as is the case on UA's famously long 789 flights.


Sorry. Those "extra heavy" J/possibly F seats don't count for this whole increase. BA going from Club to Club World on a 772-sized a/c was not a 20,000lb.+ penalty.

This is another oft-repeated rumor of A.net.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:09 pm

Also, technically the 777-200ER cannot fly ULH missions / C-market flights. The verbiage-creep has spread into upper B-market territory.

AFAIR, the only two truly ULH 77E flights were when it got subbed for SQ's SIN-LAX in lieu of the A345 (it stopped westbound AFAIR at KIX). Also, years ago MH ran EWR-DXB-KUL on their 77Es, and that's not even ULH. That was the first Dubai-US nonstop service...few people remember.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14144
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:25 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Also, technically the 777-200ER cannot fly ULH missions / C-market flights. The verbiage-creep has spread into upper B-market territory.

AFAIR, the only two truly ULH 77E flights were when it got subbed for SQ's SIN-LAX in lieu of the A345 (it stopped westbound AFAIR at KIX). Also, years ago MH ran EWR-DXB-KUL on their 77Es, and that's not even ULH. That was the first Dubai-US nonstop service...few people remember.


I remember that flight, if I recall correctly it got switched to a 744 that went via ARN.

Also QR's first route to the US was EWR, via GVA with an A330.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
strfyr51
Posts: 5030
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 24, 2016 2:55 pm

CONTACREW wrote:
globalcabotage wrote:
EWR was the proposed first 77W base. New management changed this and made it clear it was a 744 replacement to retire the 744 fleet ASAP. Not sure why people are hung up on SFO / EWR fleet base. Crew base, on the other hand will be EWR and SFO.

Things change. The 787 was CO and went to SFO. The EWR lovers will not accept the fact that their beloved 787 and 77W went to SFO where they make the most sense.



Don't know where your getting your info but that's incorrect. Not all 77W's won't be SFO based just like they won't be all EWR based. Crews for the sub UA 77W's will be EWR & SFO based. The sub CO 77Ws will be staffed with ALPA crews.


All this "Bricabrac" about who's going to fly the 77W is nonsense!! The Airplane is replacing the 747-400 and will more than likely be flown by pretty senior
crews no matter what. What REAL difference does it make?
I work for United and we're trying to NOT have much in differentiation. Like it or NOT?? We're moving past the "Us and Them" thing we're all in the same Boat. There's not much difference in who does what anymore and it's getting LESS so day by day.
Scott Kirby has asked some questions previous management had never considered, Worse yet? He didn't like the answers he got..
I'd look to see a LOT of changes at United by next year. And? A LOT of new faces (or a Lot of OLD faces missing)
There's a Lot of things that need addressing and between Oscar and Scott they going to mow them down, The B777=300's are but a few of the things that need addressing. We could Use some more Narrowbodies Like the A321 or the B737max 8/9 /
 
CONTACREW
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Sat Dec 24, 2016 3:24 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
CONTACREW wrote:
globalcabotage wrote:
EWR was the proposed first 77W base. New management changed this and made it clear it was a 744 replacement to retire the 744 fleet ASAP. Not sure why people are hung up on SFO / EWR fleet base. Crew base, on the other hand will be EWR and SFO.

Things change. The 787 was CO and went to SFO. The EWR lovers will not accept the fact that their beloved 787 and 77W went to SFO where they make the most sense.



Don't know where your getting your info but that's incorrect. Not all 77W's won't be SFO based just like they won't be all EWR based. Crews for the sub UA 77W's will be EWR & SFO based. The sub CO 77Ws will be staffed with NTA/NLS crews.


All this "Bricabrac" about who's going to fly the 77W is nonsense!! The Airplane is replacing the 747-400 and will more than likely be flown by pretty senior
crews no matter what. What REAL difference does it make?
I work for United and we're trying to NOT have much in differentiation. Like it or NOT?? We're moving past the "Us and Them" thing we're all in the same Boat. There's not much difference in who does what anymore and it's getting LESS so day by day.
Scott Kirby has asked some questions previous management had never considered, Worse yet? He didn't like the answers he got..
I'd look to see a LOT of changes at United by next year. And? A LOT of new faces (or a Lot of OLD faces missing)
There's a Lot of things that need addressing and between Oscar and Scott they going to mow them down, The B777=300's are but a few of the things that need addressing. We could Use some more Narrowbodies Like the A321 or the B737max 8/9 /


Was talking about FAs not pilots. Some 77W's will be staffed with sub CO FAs others will be staffed with sub UA FAs.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:14 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Sorry. Those "extra heavy" J/possibly F seats don't count for this whole increase.


No, they don't, but going from 9Y to 10Y in a 777 or 8Y to 9Y in a 787 (both of which were reflected in the "new" range numbers) sure does.
 
ORDnHKG
Posts: 106
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:29 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Tue Dec 27, 2016 6:30 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:

For a while United had a couple of specially configured 747-400s for JFK-NRT and a few other long range routes. The airplanes were configured 36 F / 123 J / 142 Y with only 301 seats on board. The low density seating allowed more range.


The use of 744OP wasnt related to lower density that allowed more range, as 744OP was not being used on ORD-HKG at all, it was about routes that have high premium traffic, OP was mostly being used on ORD-NRT and SFO-HKG, neither of these routes consider as ULH. UA back then had 2 daily flights on 744 for ORD-NRT, AA was new to the Japan market and was still using the subpar MD11. NH just bought two brand new 744 that equipped with 2 business counters in business class just to start this route. SFO-HKG had a lot of premium yield pax because of dot com bubble from the silicon valley in mid-90s, even AA started SJC-NRT using brand new 777.

When UA introduce E+, both 744 OA and OP retired and reconfig into OB. OA was high density in Y, small C section. ORD-HKG usually used OA and OB. The current 744 config is OC, which is similar to what OA used to be.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Tue Dec 27, 2016 7:45 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Also, technically the 777-200ER cannot fly ULH missions / C-market flights. The verbiage-creep has spread into upper B-market territory

Couple of things:

1) there is no official nor standard definition for what is ULH or what is not

2) if we're going to use the B-market/C-market verbiage, then it should be noted that the 77E actually *can* fly some C-market routes, as Boeing (who popularized the terminology) defined it as 8000mi (not NM) or 16hr.... and routes like EWR-HKG, JFK-BOM, and EWR-BOM (all of which are/were opped in scheduled service by 77Es) fall into that.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Tue Dec 27, 2016 9:51 pm

Anything LAX-SYD (or SFO-SYD) or greater is ULH, IMO. 7500 miles. Just my definition. The definition is bacally, something that pushes the 744, 772ER, A343, or A346 hard and close to their limits. 8000 miles is certainly aggressive and I can't disagree that anything over 8000 is ULH; no one can. That is Ultra long. But I think California-Sydney counts too - it's the classic.
 
User avatar
Pellegrine
Posts: 2478
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:19 am

Re: UA's 777-200ER ULH flights

Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:45 am

STT757 wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
I remember that flight, if I recall correctly it got switched to a 744 that went via ARN.


:checkmark:

seabosdca wrote:
Pellegrine wrote:
Sorry. Those "extra heavy" J/possibly F seats don't count for this whole increase.


No, they don't, but going from 9Y to 10Y in a 777 or 8Y to 9Y in a 787 (both of which were reflected in the "new" range numbers) sure does.


I tend to disagree, since the graphs themselves didn't change. Boeing just chose to quote a range number which was higher up in ZFW. We could debate about "why", but it doesn't really matter.
We fly JETS, we don't fly donkeys.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos