Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
LGeneReese
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:36 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:31 pm

xxcr wrote:
Max Q wrote:
With the inauguration of SFO-DEL United can legitimately claim to have resumed round the world service


yes indeed! you can get from SFO-SFO in 3 flights haha. SFO-DEL-EWR-SFO

Technically that’s not “around“ the world, but it’s as close as we are going to get ... :bigthumbsup:
Last edited by LGeneReese on Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
flight152
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:33 pm

LGeneReese wrote:
xxcr wrote:
Max Q wrote:
With the inauguration of SFO-DEL United can legitimately claim to have resumed round the world service


yes indeed! you can get from SFO-SFO in 3 flights haha. SFO-DEL-EWR-SFO

Technically that’s not “around“ the world, but it’s as close as we are going to get ... :bigthumbsup:

How is that not around the world?
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4344
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:35 pm

flight152 wrote:
LGeneReese wrote:
xxcr wrote:

yes indeed! you can get from SFO-SFO in 3 flights haha. SFO-DEL-EWR-SFO

Technically that’s not “around“ the world, but it’s as close as we are going to get ... :bigthumbsup:

How is that not around the world?


It's more "over the top".

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=SFO-DEL-EWR- ... 0x540&PM=*
 
xxcr
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:58 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
flight152 wrote:
LGeneReese wrote:
Technically that’s not “around“ the world, but it’s as close as we are going to get ... :bigthumbsup:

How is that not around the world?


It's more "over the top".

http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=SFO-DEL-EWR- ... 0x540&PM=*



Close enough haha
 
snuggs28
Posts: 67
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:29 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:15 pm

N835UA A319 Inducted 08DEC for HVY3 Check at GYR. This will also include First Class Cabin reconfiguration.
 
x1234
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Dec 10, 2019 9:56 pm

Today's UA104 from SFO to DEL went around Russia / Kazakhstan / Afghanistan and the winds were in favour. Interesting routing and it made it in 14.5 hours: https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 4#23221014 I know the winds are variable but I seriously hope SFO-BOM will launch when the A350's arrive.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:23 pm

KFTG wrote:
Just saw a B763 depart DEN for ORD. UA336.


I’m at DEN right now and I see a 763 to ORD today as well. Is this now part of the schedule? It’s probably been five or six years since 767s have made regular appearances at DEN.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4344
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 3:56 am

intotheair wrote:
KFTG wrote:
Just saw a B763 depart DEN for ORD. UA336.


I’m at DEN right now and I see a 763 to ORD today as well. Is this now part of the schedule? It’s probably been five or six years since 767s have made regular appearances at DEN.


While not "scheduled" in the sense of long range planning, UA does operate 764's regularly as passenger flights to accommodate the Denver Bronco's charter flights. The flight will operate a passenger departure following the Bronco's arrival back into DEN.

So, regular yes - but not as part of the schedule.
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:13 am

763:
N672UA - Scheduled exit from HKG on 13-Dec/2790
 
ordpark
Posts: 645
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 3:20 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:19 am

intotheair wrote:
KFTG wrote:
Just saw a B763 depart DEN for ORD. UA336.


I’m at DEN right now and I see a 763 to ORD today as well. Is this now part of the schedule? It’s probably been five or six years since 767s have made regular appearances at DEN.


The 763 you saw today was just an equip sub.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8578
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 8:55 am

Anyone have the routing on SFO- DEL ?
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:00 pm

Max Q wrote:
Anyone have the routing on SFO- DEL ?

It’s either Polar or up thru Alaska and then Siberia and Kazakhstan.
Just look at FlightAware.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:39 pm

738:
N37290 entered AMA paint 2751/10Dec for EvoBlu livery
N37299 exited AMA paint 2692/10Dec in EvoBlu livery
 
xxcr
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 6:04 pm

when is the 1st 739, 753, 772....etc due for the new livery? it seems like UA is focusing only on the A319/320 and the 738 for the EvoBlue livery..
 
LGeneReese
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:36 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Dec 11, 2019 10:44 pm

xxcr wrote:
when is the 1st 739, 753, 772....etc due for the new livery? it seems like UA is focusing only on the A319/320 and the 738 for the EvoBlue livery..

As I understand it each aircraft is inspected every so often and it’s appearance is given a numbered score.. the higher the number the worse the plane looks. I presume this is what’s driving the current pattern. Of course there are most likely other factors involved as well... example being all the 319s thus far are new inductions from CZ.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 12:31 am

The 739s are newer, but that doesn't mean some need paint as much as 320s and 738s. However, could it be that the holidays will be over at the beginning of the year and the extra seats offered by the 739 and 753 can make UA more money before the first of the year? Also, the first unit of a type probably needs more time to measure so maybe sticking with 738s and 320s for the first few weeks is a good idea.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 599
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 4:39 pm

Saw someone post 787-8 and 787-9 Polaris seat maps.

Interesting both aircraft will have more seats than today, and also how different the premium cabin seat counts are between versions.

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELj9ljzUcAA0qV9.jpg

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELj9mLBUwAE639_.png
I fly your boxes
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:18 pm

UPlog wrote:
Saw someone post 787-8 and 787-9 Polaris seat maps.

Interesting both aircraft will have more seats than today, and also how different the premium cabin seat counts.


I think this gives us all a great indication of where and how the 787s will be deployed. Other than the fact the 777 can carry more cargo the 787-9 with this configuration is dang near a 1:1 replacement. The 777 will stay on routes, or takeover routes that demand the cargo and the -9 will backfill and take the routes that don’t need the 2 extra Polaris seats and a lighter load in back.

I’m excited with the configuration of the -8 I think it’ll open up some new trial markets that premium loads may be light on.

I think these configurations probably mean an upgauge to DEN-NRT/FRA/LHR with will be interesting with weight restrictions in July and August. This will also upgauge IAD-PEK too but I’m not sure about SFO/IAD-CDG in the winter. That route is traditionally a -8 and before that a 767-300ER.

I have heard a rumor that PPT is going to a -9 and possibly daily next year. So the only other current -8 route is CTU and I think it will stay that way, and it will be an even better performer with the new configuration. When I used to fly it the back was full and the belly was full but Polaris was open sometimes wide open.

It’ll be fun to watch, it’s a great time to be a United employee!!
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 5:43 pm

UPlog wrote:
Saw someone post 787-8 and 787-9 Polaris seat maps.

Interesting both aircraft will have more seats than today, and also how different the premium cabin seat counts are between versions.

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELj9ljzUcAA0qV9.jpg

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELj9mLBUwAE639_.png


So the 787-9 will have only 14 more seats than the 787-8, but three extra lavs? Sounds like a much more comfortable ride!
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 6:31 pm

FSDan wrote:
UPlog wrote:
Saw someone post 787-8 and 787-9 Polaris seat maps.

Interesting both aircraft will have more seats than today, and also how different the premium cabin seat counts are between versions.

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELj9ljzUcAA0qV9.jpg

Image
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELj9mLBUwAE639_.png


So the 787-9 will have only 14 more seats than the 787-8, but three extra lavs? Sounds like a much more comfortable ride!

Yeah, wow 61 people per lavatory!, and really nearly 100 per lavatory in Y. When one malfunctions in flight... one diaper down a Y toilet and you could be in the middle of the Pacific with 200 people sharing 1. In my opinion it is unacceptable. The only planes that are more per lav are regional jets that fly hour long flights.
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:14 pm

That can't be right. An earlier version of the 787-8 Polaris configuration had a pair of lavs at doors 3, which was to be the on-board accessible lav like the forthcoming 787-9 (with collapsible divider, curtains and larger door). My bet is that's what we end up with, not this nonsense.
 
CAL
Posts: 458
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:33 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:09 pm

That diagram for the 78H is incorrect. It will be updated. Like you said there will be lavs between doors 3L/R. Similar to the 78P.
 
77H
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:19 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
UPlog wrote:
Saw someone post 787-8 and 787-9 Polaris seat maps.

Interesting both aircraft will have more seats than today, and also how different the premium cabin seat counts.


I think this gives us all a great indication of where and how the 787s will be deployed. Other than the fact the 777 can carry more cargo the 787-9 with this configuration is dang near a 1:1 replacement. The 777 will stay on routes, or takeover routes that demand the cargo and the -9 will backfill and take the routes that don’t need the 2 extra Polaris seats and a lighter load in back.

I’m excited with the configuration of the -8 I think it’ll open up some new trial markets that premium loads may be light on.

I think these configurations probably mean an upgauge to DEN-NRT/FRA/LHR with will be interesting with weight restrictions in July and August. This will also upgauge IAD-PEK too but I’m not sure about SFO/IAD-CDG in the winter. That route is traditionally a -8 and before that a 767-300ER.

I have heard a rumor that PPT is going to a -9 and possibly daily next year. So the only other current -8 route is CTU and I think it will stay that way, and it will be an even better performer with the new configuration. When I used to fly it the back was full and the belly was full but Polaris was open sometimes wide open.

It’ll be fun to watch, it’s a great time to be a United employee!!


The 789 carries more cargo than the 77E but less than the 77W from a positional standpoint.

UA’s WB fleet from a positional standpoint are as follows:

763: 30 LD2 positions
764: 38 LD2 positions

788: 28 LD3 positions
77E: 32 LD3 positions
789: 36 LD3 positions
78X: 40 LD3 positions
77W: 44 LD3 positions

77H
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:36 pm

77H wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
UPlog wrote:
Saw someone post 787-8 and 787-9 Polaris seat maps.

Interesting both aircraft will have more seats than today, and also how different the premium cabin seat counts.


I think this gives us all a great indication of where and how the 787s will be deployed. Other than the fact the 777 can carry more cargo the 787-9 with this configuration is dang near a 1:1 replacement. The 777 will stay on routes, or takeover routes that demand the cargo and the -9 will backfill and take the routes that don’t need the 2 extra Polaris seats and a lighter load in back.

I’m excited with the configuration of the -8 I think it’ll open up some new trial markets that premium loads may be light on.

I think these configurations probably mean an upgauge to DEN-NRT/FRA/LHR with will be interesting with weight restrictions in July and August. This will also upgauge IAD-PEK too but I’m not sure about SFO/IAD-CDG in the winter. That route is traditionally a -8 and before that a 767-300ER.

I have heard a rumor that PPT is going to a -9 and possibly daily next year. So the only other current -8 route is CTU and I think it will stay that way, and it will be an even better performer with the new configuration. When I used to fly it the back was full and the belly was full but Polaris was open sometimes wide open.

It’ll be fun to watch, it’s a great time to be a United employee!!


The 789 carries more cargo than the 77E but less than the 77W from a positional standpoint.

UA’s WB fleet from a positional standpoint are as follows:

763: 30 LD2 positions
764: 38 LD2 positions

788: 28 LD3 positions
77E: 32 LD3 positions
789: 36 LD3 positions
78X: 40 LD3 positions
77W: 44 LD3 positions

77H


Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:06 pm

CAL wrote:
That diagram for the 78H is incorrect. It will be updated. Like you said there will be lavs between doors 3L/R. Similar to the 78P.


The 2L/R galleys appear to be modified, too, compared to the first version. What's going on with this LOPA?
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:12 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:

Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.

Is it a question of less capable, or different capability? I think the 787 might be more like a van that is more fuel efficient than a truck, and may actually be able to hold more from a volume standpoint, but the truck can hold heavier things. Also, a truck may have less fuel efficiency, but as long a range as the van, because of a larger fuel tank.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:29 pm

cosyr wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.

Is it a question of less capable, or different capability? I think the 787 might be more like a van that is more fuel efficient than a truck, and may actually be able to hold more from a volume standpoint, but the truck can hold heavier things. Also, a truck may have less fuel efficiency, but as long a range as the van, because of a larger fuel tank.


HA well done
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Dec 12, 2019 11:29 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
77H wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

I think this gives us all a great indication of where and how the 787s will be deployed. Other than the fact the 777 can carry more cargo the 787-9 with this configuration is dang near a 1:1 replacement. The 777 will stay on routes, or takeover routes that demand the cargo and the -9 will backfill and take the routes that don’t need the 2 extra Polaris seats and a lighter load in back.

I’m excited with the configuration of the -8 I think it’ll open up some new trial markets that premium loads may be light on.

I think these configurations probably mean an upgauge to DEN-NRT/FRA/LHR with will be interesting with weight restrictions in July and August. This will also upgauge IAD-PEK too but I’m not sure about SFO/IAD-CDG in the winter. That route is traditionally a -8 and before that a 767-300ER.

I have heard a rumor that PPT is going to a -9 and possibly daily next year. So the only other current -8 route is CTU and I think it will stay that way, and it will be an even better performer with the new configuration. When I used to fly it the back was full and the belly was full but Polaris was open sometimes wide open.

It’ll be fun to watch, it’s a great time to be a United employee!!


The 789 carries more cargo than the 77E but less than the 77W from a positional standpoint.

UA’s WB fleet from a positional standpoint are as follows:

763: 30 LD2 positions
764: 38 LD2 positions

788: 28 LD3 positions
77E: 32 LD3 positions
789: 36 LD3 positions
78X: 40 LD3 positions
77W: 44 LD3 positions

77H


Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.


777 has higher gross weights, but has to carry more fuel to go the same distance. All that matters is available payload... greater volume means nothing if you can't fill the containers.
 
77H
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:18 am

codc10 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
77H wrote:

The 789 carries more cargo than the 77E but less than the 77W from a positional standpoint.

UA’s WB fleet from a positional standpoint are as follows:

763: 30 LD2 positions
764: 38 LD2 positions

788: 28 LD3 positions
77E: 32 LD3 positions
789: 36 LD3 positions
78X: 40 LD3 positions
77W: 44 LD3 positions

77H


Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.


777 has higher gross weights, but has to carry more fuel to go the same distance. All that matters is available payload... greater volume means nothing if you can't fill the containers.


It’s not that simple. The importance of payload vs capacity is market/lane dependent. Aircraft with higher payloads at range are important in markets that see a lot of dense freight like perishables.
Aircraft with more capacity are more useful in markets with lower density freight.

There are plenty of flights outbound fron my market where I could always use more capacity, but payload is rarely an issue. The exact opposite is true inbound to my market.

77H
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:41 am

77H wrote:
codc10 wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.


777 has higher gross weights, but has to carry more fuel to go the same distance. All that matters is available payload... greater volume means nothing if you can't fill the containers.


It’s not that simple. The importance of payload vs capacity is market/lane dependent. Aircraft with higher payloads at range are important in markets that see a lot of dense freight like perishables.
Aircraft with more capacity are more useful in markets with lower density freight.

There are plenty of flights outbound fron my market where I could always use more capacity, but payload is rarely an issue. The exact opposite is true inbound to my market.

77H


Of course... the issue of cube out/gross out and cargo density is another matter entirely.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 2:23 am

cosyr wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.

Is it a question of less capable, or different capability? I think the 787 might be more like a van that is more fuel efficient than a truck, and may actually be able to hold more from a volume standpoint, but the truck can hold heavier things. Also, a truck may have less fuel efficiency, but as long a range as the van, because of a larger fuel tank.


This is a tough issue to address because there are so many variables one has to consider which will effect the capability of each one of these aircraft.

If we go to the extreme meaning a cargo ferry flight UA's 77E's record was 83,362 LBS, whereas the 789 as a cargo ferry lifted a record 81,638 LBS.

On a regular every day passenger flight the record haul for UA's 77Es is 52,663, whereas the 789 on a the record haul on a passenger flight was 51,289 LBS.

On an average UA cargo heavy route our 77Es our lifting about 35,000 pounds of cargo with about 6 or 8 LD3s for bags.
On an average cargo heavy 789 route that aircraft is 32,000 pounds with 8 LD3s for bags.

Also keep in mind the 777 has a larger bulk pit so 77E the ramp can bulk two full cans of bags and about 1000 LBS of mail and not run out of room. However the 787 (entire fleet) has a much smaller bulk pit (the bulk pit is smaller than a 767 bulk pit). The ramp can bulk more items on a 777 they can not on a 787, bulking two full cans of bags on any 787 is a recipe for disaster by itself. If you add 1000 LBS of mail into the mix and you are guaranteed to leave at least one full LD3 of bags behind.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 2:47 am

jayunited wrote:
cosyr wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.

Is it a question of less capable, or different capability? I think the 787 might be more like a van that is more fuel efficient than a truck, and may actually be able to hold more from a volume standpoint, but the truck can hold heavier things. Also, a truck may have less fuel efficiency, but as long a range as the van, because of a larger fuel tank.


This is a tough issue to address because there are so many variables one has to consider which will effect the capability of each one of these aircraft.

If we go to the extreme meaning a cargo ferry flight UA's 77E's record was 83,362 LBS, whereas the 789 as a cargo ferry lifted a record 81,638 LBS.

On a regular every day passenger flight the record haul for UA's 77Es is 52,663, whereas the 789 on a the record haul on a passenger flight was 51,289 LBS.

On an average UA cargo heavy route our 77Es our lifting about 35,000 pounds of cargo with about 6 or 8 LD3s for bags.
On an average cargo heavy 789 route that aircraft is 32,000 pounds with 8 LD3s for bags.

Also keep in mind the 777 has a larger bulk pit so 77E the ramp can bulk two full cans of bags and about 1000 LBS of mail and not run out of room. However the 787 (entire fleet) has a much smaller bulk pit (the bulk pit is smaller than a 767 bulk pit). The ramp can bulk more items on a 777 they can not on a 787, bulking two full cans of bags on any 787 is a recipe for disaster by itself. If you add 1000 LBS of mail into the mix and you are guaranteed to leave at least one full LD3 of bags behind.


Great information Jay, thank you. This just furthers my thinking that the 787-9/10 would be a perfect replacement for the 777.
 
User avatar
itripreport
Posts: 126
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 6:36 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:04 am

Does anyone have any photos of the retrofitted 757-200s?
 
77H
Posts: 1571
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:29 am

[threeid][/threeid][quote="jayunited"][quote="cosyr"][quote="CriticalPoint"]

Honest question because I don’t know......the 789 has more positions but can it lift more than the 777?

All I have to go off of is the A.net people that says the 787 is less capable.[/quote]
Is it a question of less capable, or different capability? I think the 787 might be more like a van that is more fuel efficient than a truck, and may actually be able to hold more from a volume standpoint, but the truck can hold heavier things. Also, a truck may have less fuel efficiency, but as long a range as the van, because of a larger fuel tank.[/quote]

This is a tough issue to address because there are so many variables one has to consider which will effect the capability of each one of these aircraft.

If we go to the extreme meaning a cargo ferry flight UA's 77E's record was 83,362 LBS, whereas the 789 as a cargo ferry lifted a record 81,638 LBS.

On a regular every day passenger flight the record haul for UA's 77Es is 52,663, whereas the 789 on a the record haul on a passenger flight was 51,289 LBS.

On an average UA cargo heavy route our 77Es our lifting about 35,000 pounds of cargo with about 6 or 8 LD3s for bags.
On an average cargo heavy 789 route that aircraft is 32,000 pounds with 8 LD3s for bags.

Also keep in mind the 777 has a larger bulk pit so 77E the ramp can bulk two full cans of bags and about 1000 LBS of mail and not run out of room. However the 787 (entire fleet) has a much smaller bulk pit (the bulk pit is smaller than a 767 bulk pit). The ramp can bulk more items on a 777 they can not on a 787, bulking two full cans of bags on any 787 is a recipe for disaster by itself. If you add 1000 LBS of mail into the mix and you are guaranteed to leave at least one full LD3 of bags behind.[/quote]

While the 77E uplifted 83.3k lbs was a true “cargo ferry”the 789 record was just a very light live flight so not really a fair comparison. The 77A record is less than 300 lbs off the 789 record but again, that was a true “cargo ferry”. Not sure using those data points provide a fair comparative analysis. Moreover, one has to consider the markets each type is operating in. As I mentioned above. In my market, flights often depart with a fair amount of payload to spare but we max out the positions. In other cases, there may be capacity to spare but they hit payload restriction. In other cases, payload and capacity is there but there is no cargo. Delving deeper, one would also have to consider pax loads, and external forces like weather and routing.

Fun fact for the audience, the 77A ferry flight that set the record for the type was originally loaded with 103k lbs which would have broken the record for the entire UA fleet. Unfortunately LP cut a PMC due to balance.

Lastly, not a chance in hell mail or cargo causes pax bags to get left behind. Load planning and the ramp management would have a lot of explaining to do.

77H
 
LGeneReese
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:36 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:14 am

Paint
N487UA UA2749 AMAIAH 13DEC...
 
UAinAUS
Posts: 245
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:11 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:56 pm

UAX Update:


E175SC:
N624UX has been delivered to ExpressJet
N625UX has been delivered to ExpressJet
ExpressJet E175SC fleet complete

CR5:
N152GJ ferried MLB for CR5 interior
N160GJ exited AMA in new livery, at STL awaiting interior mod
N613QX (2002 build) ferried JAX for maintenance, has CR5 interior
 
jayunited
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 1:20 pm

77H wrote:
While the 77E uplifted 83.3k lbs was a true “cargo ferry”the 789 record was just a very light live flight so not really a fair comparison. The 77A record is less than 300 lbs off the 789 record but again, that was a true “cargo ferry”. Not sure using those data points provide a fair comparative analysis. Moreover, one has to consider the markets each type is operating in. As I mentioned above. In my market, flights often depart with a fair amount of payload to spare but we max out the positions. In other cases, there may be capacity to spare but they hit payload restriction. In other cases, payload and capacity is there but there is no cargo. Delving deeper, one would also have to consider pax loads, and external forces like weather and routing.

Fun fact for the audience, the 77A ferry flight that set the record for the type was originally loaded with 103k lbs which would have broken the record for the entire UA fleet. Unfortunately LP cut a PMC due to balance.

Lastly, not a chance in hell mail or cargo causes pax bags to get left behind. Load planning and the ramp management would have a lot of explaining to do.

77H


There were no passengers on the 789 that set that record out of LHR over 2 years ago. The flight was delayed UA had already move the passengers on other flights. The 789 was a last minute roundtrip upguage subsitution IAD-LHR-IAD. Do to the extended delay out of IAD the flight crew at LHR needed to be rest re-set they were not which drove an even longer delay. LHR operations moved all the passengers onto other flights leaving just the crew (flight attendants included). While the 77E used in my example was a true cargo ferry (pilots and cargo only) this 789 flight is as close of an example as I could find the only difference was the flight attendants were onboard the 789 flight but there were no passengers.

I completely understand we have to delve deeper which is why I stated there are a lot of variables to consider which will effect the capability of each aircraft.

Lastly I never stated or implied UA is leaving passengers bags behind to accomodate mail and cargo. What I was doing was drawing attention to the fact that the 777s bulk pit is much larger and there for can accomodate at least 1000 pounds of mail and 2 full LD3 containers of bags, but the 789s bulk pit is smaller than a 767. The larger bulk pit on the 777 gives ramp and our load planners more options to either bulk mail and bags which can buy them a few extra positions for cargo in the containerized compartment instead of 8 positions for bags they can get away with 6 and bulk two LD3s of bags. The 787 with its smaller bulk pit means ramp and load planning my be forced to cut cargo from the containered compartment to be able to accomodiate 8 LD3s for bags.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 4:54 pm

319: Update on 12F config aircraft complete (tracking missed)
N807UA 12F done in SFO 11/8-15
N808UA 12F done in SFO 11/12-16
N809UA 12F done in SFO 11/16-20
N821UA 12F done in SFO 11/21-26
N829UA 12F done in SFO 12/2-6
N830UA entered SFO 2356/10Dec, sked exit 1216/14Dec with 12F

763:
N669UA might be next one in for High J Polaris - sitting in ORD

772:
N77019 sked to exit HKG maint 862/15Dec

77W:
N2331U sked to exit XMN maint 2752/14Dec
N2333U sked to enter XMN maint 2753/15Dec
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1547
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:12 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
763:
N669UA might be next one in for High J Polaris - sitting in ORD


Interesting you say it’s in ORD. Routing shows 6669 arriving EWR from FCO in one hour and then launching for HKG on the 17th.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 6:49 pm

Oops, at least I guessed the right aircraft.
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1547
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:28 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Oops, at least I guessed the right aircraft.


No worries! Just thought it was strange if you were showing it sitting in ORD but other sources showed it in the air.
 
Delta350
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2019 12:37 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:32 pm

UAinAUS wrote:
UAX Update:


E175SC:
N624UX has been delivered to ExpressJet
N625UX has been delivered to ExpressJet
ExpressJet E175SC fleet complete

CR5:
N152GJ ferried MLB for CR5 interior
N160GJ exited AMA in new livery, at STL awaiting interior mod
N613QX (2002 build) ferried JAX for maintenance, has CR5 interior

Is there a way I could find all of the registration in new paint?
Plane Spotter from the Magic City and Hartsfield-Jackson...(ATL)
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 783
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:16 pm

Delta350 wrote:
Is there a way I could find all of the registration in new paint?

https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfleetsite/globe-evolution-progress
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B772/E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-135/140/145/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
boacboac
Posts: 18
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 8:39 pm

jayunited wrote:
77H wrote:
While the 77E uplifted 83.3k lbs was a true “cargo ferry”the 789 record was just a very light live flight so not really a fair comparison. The 77A record is less than 300 lbs off the 789 record but again, that was a true “cargo ferry”. Not sure using those data points provide a fair comparative analysis. Moreover, one has to consider the markets each type is operating in. As I mentioned above. In my market, flights often depart with a fair amount of payload to spare but we max out the positions. In other cases, there may be capacity to spare but they hit payload restriction. In other cases, payload and capacity is there but there is no cargo. Delving deeper, one would also have to consider pax loads, and external forces like weather and routing.

Fun fact for the audience, the 77A ferry flight that set the record for the type was originally loaded with 103k lbs which would have broken the record for the entire UA fleet. Unfortunately LP cut a PMC due to balance.

Lastly, not a chance in hell mail or cargo causes pax bags to get left behind. Load planning and the ramp management would have a lot of explaining to do.

77H


There were no passengers on the 789 that set that record out of LHR over 2 years ago. The flight was delayed UA had already move the passengers on other flights. The 789 was a last minute roundtrip upguage subsitution IAD-LHR-IAD. Do to the extended delay out of IAD the flight crew at LHR needed to be rest re-set they were not which drove an even longer delay. LHR operations moved all the passengers onto other flights leaving just the crew (flight attendants included). While the 77E used in my example was a true cargo ferry (pilots and cargo only) this 789 flight is as close of an example as I could find the only difference was the flight attendants were onboard the 789 flight but there were no passengers.

I completely understand we have to delve deeper which is why I stated there are a lot of variables to consider which will effect the capability of each aircraft.

Lastly I never stated or implied UA is leaving passengers bags behind to accomodate mail and cargo. What I was doing was drawing attention to the fact that the 777s bulk pit is much larger and there for can accomodate at least 1000 pounds of mail and 2 full LD3 containers of bags, but the 789s bulk pit is smaller than a 767. The larger bulk pit on the 777 gives ramp and our load planners more options to either bulk mail and bags which can buy them a few extra positions for cargo in the containerized compartment instead of 8 positions for bags they can get away with 6 and bulk two LD3s of bags. The 787 with its smaller bulk pit means ramp and load planning my be forced to cut cargo from the containered compartment to be able to accomodiate 8 LD3s for bags.


Hi all,

Just need to correct this here, the 787-9 LHRIAD record wasn't a ferry flight, UA925-10th May 2017, it had 94 PAX onboard as well as crew and 10 x PMC of freight , and Mail as well.
The freight was part of a 1 Million Kg project moving from LHR-MCI.
How do I know, because I planned the load and helped along with Ops make it happen.
The 777-200 record that LHR also holds at UA with 83,362LB onboard also had PAX onboard back in 2013 (UA028) , but don't have that figure to hand right now, it wasn't classed as a 77E at the time as the 77E didn't exist at the time, it was an ex CO 77Y.
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1418
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Dec 13, 2019 9:38 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
319: Update on 12F config aircraft complete (tracking missed)
N807UA 12F done in SFO 11/8-15
N808UA 12F done in SFO 11/12-16
N809UA 12F done in SFO 11/16-20
N821UA 12F done in SFO 11/21-26
N829UA 12F done in SFO 12/2-6
N830UA entered SFO 2356/10Dec, sked exit 1216/14Dec with 12F

763:
N669UA might be next one in for High J Polaris - sitting in ORD

772:
N77019 sked to exit HKG maint 862/15Dec

77W:
N2331U sked to exit XMN maint 2752/14Dec
N2333U sked to enter XMN maint 2753/15Dec


Wow SFO is retrofitting very quickly. Nice to see this being done in-house and in the US. I know it’s probably a pretty easy mod as it’s just moving bulkheads and seats, but still an impressive rate.

UA has so many moving parts right now with their fleet.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Dec 14, 2019 1:48 am

UA has just released the updated ORD 787 European schedule.

ORD-BRU 787-10 effective March 28
ORD-FRA 787-10 effective March 28 (UA944 only)
ORD-MUC 787-9 effective March 28

Previously announced
ORD-PVG 787 service will begin in mid- May
ORD-PEK 787 service will begin in mid-June
ORD-GRU and ORD-HND 787 service will begin sometime in the fall.

For now all other ORD international widebody routes (seasonal and/or year around) will remain on either 763s or 77Es.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4344
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:02 am

The 6th EWR-LHR flight will be bookable tomorrow.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3031
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:12 am

boacboac wrote:
Hi all,
Just need to correct this here, the 787-9 LHRIAD record wasn't a ferry flight, UA925-10th May 2017, it had 94 PAX onboard as well as crew and 10 x PMC of freight , and Mail as well.
The freight was part of a 1 Million Kg project moving from LHR-MCI.
How do I know, because I planned the load and helped along with Ops make it happen.
The 777-200 record that LHR also holds at UA with 83,362LB onboard also had PAX onboard back in 2013 (UA028) , but don't have that figure to hand right now, it wasn't classed as a 77E at the time as the 77E didn't exist at the time, it was an ex CO 77Y.


Everything that I've seen so far for both flights shows no passengers on board either flight. The 789 shows booked revenue passengers but because of the extended delay required do to the crew not being rest reset those passengers are showed rebooked. Everything that I'm seeing is showing zero passengers on the final manifest for this particular flight.

However since you are claiming to have been the load planner for this particular flight and I'm not in load planning I will have to take your word for it that you were indeed the load planner for this flight. But the records I've found show no passengers and both these flights operated with cargo only however the 77E (UA's internal code for the sCO 777s is 77Y) was a true cargo flight no flight attendants while the 789 flight is showing flight attendants on board.
 
x1234
Posts: 950
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Dec 14, 2019 2:16 am

jayunited, have you heard anything about UA trying CAN because of the HKG protests/turmoil? What about SFO-MNL? Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken language in the USA of asian immigrants with Tagalog (language of the Philippines) 2nd. There is definitely a business market now.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1484
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Dec 14, 2019 3:09 am

x1234 wrote:
jayunited, have you heard anything about UA trying CAN because of the HKG protests/turmoil? What about SFO-MNL? Mandarin Chinese is the most spoken language in the USA of asian immigrants with Tagalog (language of the Philippines) 2nd. There is definitely a business market now.

Would China let them? UA had authority for CAN before and never started it.

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