Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
pabloeing
Topic Author
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:28 pm

Ethan Klapper
@ethanklapper

Some cool 787-10 news. United will be flying it as UAL807 from IAD to PEK, a flight of 6,014 nm. The 787-10 can do that with a bit of a weight restriction, and today's load is less than full.
United will be flying it as UAL807 from IAD to PEK, a flight of 6,014 nm. The 787-10 can do that with a bit of a weight restriction, and today's load is less than full.

My understanding is that this is the longest revenue 78X flight to date
Last edited by SQ22 on Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Please do not write title in capital letters
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1121
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:39 pm

Its merely a last minute swap from scheduled -8.

Not an issue as the flight will have nearly 100 open seats.
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
Eugenewats
Posts: 5
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:04 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 3:51 pm

No need to downplay the OP's interest in this. As it is the longest 78X flight to date, it is not as mundane an occurrence as you would like to believe.
 
gsg013
Posts: 575
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:49 pm

janders wrote:
Its merely a last minute swap from scheduled -8.

Not an issue as the flight will have nearly 100 open seats.


Wow never thought I would see the 787-10 flying to China almost always thought it would stay on North America--Europe routes.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3001
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:53 pm

I bet they’ll be keen to see its real world performance on something like this.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:10 pm

But,but,but.....i thought the 787-10 had no range? :x Over 6000nm westbound? But here at a.net folks said it was barely about to cross the Atlantic.

I mean....go figure....right? It must be magic or some kind of Boeing conspiracy.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:17 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
But,but,but.....i thought the 787-10 had no range? :x Over 6000nm westbound? But here at a.net folks said it was barely about to cross the Atlantic.

I mean....go figure....right? It must be magic or some kind of Boeing conspiracy.


I’m pretty sure people are referring to fully loaded vs half empty planes. Not sure what you’re point is?
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:24 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
But,but,but.....i thought the 787-10 had no range? :x Over 6000nm westbound? But here at a.net folks said it was barely about to cross the Atlantic.

I mean....go figure....right? It must be magic or some kind of Boeing conspiracy.


I’m pretty sure people are referring to fully loaded vs half empty planes. Not sure what you’re point is?



You know what my point is. The 78J has far more range than many here on a.net will admit. Boeing says 6000nm with full pax and bags. I believe them.

Second, you have no idea how full this flight is. Pretending that you do is kind of foolish.
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 19300
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:29 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
you have no idea how full this flight is. Pretending that you do is kind of foolish.


Nor do you, so claiming it's something wonderful is equally foolish.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
CO787EWR
Posts: 167
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 11:10 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:42 pm

IAD-PEK is a polar route, should be doable with pax and bags only. IAD-PEK is further away from max range then LAX-SIN was and they have the added benefit of less winds.
 
kiowa
Posts: 779
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:45 pm

Cool aircraft, weird thread.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:55 pm

ElroyJetson wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
But,but,but.....i thought the 787-10 had no range? :x Over 6000nm westbound? But here at a.net folks said it was barely about to cross the Atlantic.

I mean....go figure....right? It must be magic or some kind of Boeing conspiracy.


I’m pretty sure people are referring to fully loaded vs half empty planes. Not sure what you’re point is?



You know what my point is. The 78J has far more range than many here on a.net will admit. Boeing says 6000nm with full pax and bags. I believe them.

Second, you have no idea how full this flight is. Pretending that you do is kind of foolish.


An earlier post said it’d have over 100 open seats. Ymmv
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3633
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:56 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
I bet they’ll be keen to see its real world performance on something like this.


Thats my thought. The did this swap just to get real world flight data with 100+ fewer passenger. Will give them better data on possible premium layout use.
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 531
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 5:59 pm

rbavfan wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I bet they’ll be keen to see its real world performance on something like this.


Thats my thought. The did this swap just to get real world flight data with 100+ fewer passenger. Will give them better data on possible premium layout use.

Wrong. Originally aircraft was out of service.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:02 pm

6014 nm westbound? Shouldn't have to block too many seats. I'm sure it could go out with fewer than 100 empty. Glad to see the airplane stretching its legs a bit!
 
Austin787
Posts: 424
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:39 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:05 pm

rbavfan wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I bet they’ll be keen to see its real world performance on something like this.


Thats my thought. The did this swap just to get real world flight data with 100+ fewer passenger. Will give them better data on possible premium layout use.

Or, maybe the 787-8 originally scheduled developed a mechanical issue, and a 787-10 was available.
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:13 pm

kiowa wrote:
Cool aircraft, weird thread.


Just childish responses from both sides of the coin, bu hey, that's what to expect in most threads now isn't it :scratchchin:

Was just a simple post about the -10 doing a relatively long flight.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24822
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:20 pm

Yeah bit of an odd thread.

Indeed an aircraft swap covering for planned 787-8, and hardly full load.

Same happened last week when 787-10 ran a SFO-Europe flight.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
drdisque
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:31 pm

distance in flight plan is 7,149 miles. Flight went out with 90 open seats according to flight status seat map
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 867
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:31 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Yeah bit of an odd thread.

Indeed an aircraft swap covering for planned 787-8, and hardly full load.

Same happened last week when 787-10 ran a SFO-Europe flight.

And a 788 did the SFO-SIN non stop few weeks back, albeit with a huge payload penalty on the westbound, although it did well on the return.
 
pabloeing
Topic Author
Posts: 594
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2014 3:00 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:36 pm

 
blockski
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 6:37 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:

I’m pretty sure people are referring to fully loaded vs half empty planes. Not sure what you’re point is?



You know what my point is. The 78J has far more range than many here on a.net will admit. Boeing says 6000nm with full pax and bags. I believe them.

Second, you have no idea how full this flight is. Pretending that you do is kind of foolish.


An earlier post said it’d have over 100 open seats. Ymmv


The flight is usually a 788, and United's 788's have 219 seats. Their 78Js have 318 seats...
 
drdisque
Posts: 1366
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 9:57 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:01 pm

So it went out with 228 seats full, slightly higher than a normal 788 flight's capacity, It only took 3 standby's so that's interesting that it had 225 seats sold. Perhaps there were some reaccoms from yesterday.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:24 pm

Useful data point: a real-world 78X is flying 6212 nm into the wind with 228 passengers and bags. That means the same aircraft could almost certainly fly at least 5500 nm westbound with a full passenger load. All TATL routes should be in reach.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3633
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:30 pm

Austin787 wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I bet they’ll be keen to see its real world performance on something like this.


Thats my thought. The did this swap just to get real world flight data with 100+ fewer passenger. Will give them better data on possible premium layout use.

Or, maybe the 787-8 originally scheduled developed a mechanical issue, and a 787-10 was available.


Not disputing what the cause was. Just noting it using a -78X will give them needed real world info on what a more premium layout will do. At the 237 est seats based on it pssibly going out with 100 empty seats puts nearly middle to the 788 & 739 premium layout. 788 has 219 seats, 789 has 252 seats & itt's flying with est 237 seats. I would use it for the flight just for mining the data for future use.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 7:57 pm

Regardless, sweet upgrade for pax with everyone getting an open middle seat as there are 90 open seats.

Overall, UA does use the 787's well testing limits and getting the most use out of the range of these a/c. It's an interesting, opposite approach to AA using them, especially 788's, on TATL routes. I'd sure like to know the results of the 78J's performance.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3028
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:20 pm

UA807 departed with 226 total passengers on board and 16,811 pounds of cargo of which 8,640 pounds were passengers bags.
Gate fuel was 169,400 pounds which does include 900 pounds of taxi fuel, making the cleared fuel 168,500 pounds.
The ZFW was 355,142 pounds, (MZFW is 425,000) and the TOG was 523,642 pounds (MTOG is 560,000).
If everything goes according to plan UA807 will arrive in PEK with 14,800 pounds of fuel remaining in the tanks.

Looking at these numbers this aircraft probably do this route with a slightly higher load factor but probably not completely full because a higher payload would require a higher fuel load and today we were only 36,358 pounds away from MTOG.
Even if we were to eliminate the 8,171 pounds of cargo (freight and mail) the additional bags from the additional passenger would increase our pit weights. I'm going to estimate with a full passenger count the weight of the bags alone would probably be somewhere between 10,000 pounds and 11,000 pounds because today with 226 passenger our bags alone weighed 8,640 pounds. With a full passenger load I'm going to estimate the increase fuel load would probably put us over MTOG.
 
jagraham
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:42 pm

jayunited wrote:
UA807 departed with 226 total passengers on board and 16,811 pounds of cargo of which 8,640 pounds were passengers bags.
Gate fuel was 169,400 pounds which does include 900 pounds of taxi fuel, making the cleared fuel 168,500 pounds.
The ZFW was 355,142 pounds, (MZFW is 425,000) and the TOG was 523,642 pounds (MTOG is 560,000).
If everything goes according to plan UA807 will arrive in PEK with 14,800 pounds of fuel remaining in the tanks.

Looking at these numbers this aircraft probably do this route with a slightly higher load factor but probably not completely full because a higher payload would require a higher fuel load and today we were only 36,358 pounds away from MTOG.
Even if we were to eliminate the 8,171 pounds of cargo (freight and mail) the additional bags from the additional passenger would increase our pit weights. I'm going to estimate with a full passenger count the weight of the bags alone would probably be somewhere between 10,000 pounds and 11,000 pounds because today with 226 passenger our bags alone weighed 8,640 pounds. With a full passenger load I'm going to estimate the increase fuel load would probably put us over MTOG.


Perhaps the bags were a little light, and 3000 lb more is not enough for bags if 80 more pax are accommodated. I would guess 4000 lb more bags and 12000 lb more in actual pax weight. 16000 lb more payload. Add 8000 lb more fuel and the total is 24000 lb more versus 36358 lb headroom to MTOW. It looks tight but doable to me.
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6607
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Thu Feb 14, 2019 9:49 pm

Thank you so much for sharing the numbers! I think you may be a bit pessimistic on your conclusion.

The flight had 16.4 t of TOW to spare. Drop the 3.7 t of cargo and that gives 20.1 t to play with.

92 more passengers and their bags would eat up about 10 of those 20 t before you account for fuel. I don't think adding 6 net t of payload (after dropping the cargo) would result in ~13% worse fuel consumption over the entire route, so I don't think you'd need 10 more t of fuel to carry those passengers and their bags. These numbers are telling me that on this particular day the 78X could have carried a full passenger and bags load, with no cargo, on this route with a little bit of margin. You might even be able to squeeze the mail on.

Edit: For a fun mental exercise, now imagine a 787-10-Ultrafan with a 10% SFC improvement flying the same flight. You could offload 8-9 t of fuel in favor of cargo, or, alternately, fly 1.5 hours farther. The 78X MAX is going to be a true transpacific aircraft.
 
JustSomeDood
Posts: 469
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2017 9:05 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 5:59 am

seabosdca wrote:
Thank you so much for sharing the numbers! I think you may be a bit pessimistic on your conclusion.

The flight had 16.4 t of TOW to spare. Drop the 3.7 t of cargo and that gives 20.1 t to play with.



Fill her up to MTOW and with 2.5 hrs flight time the 787-10 should pretty easily surpass ~7200+nm GC with ~25t payload, using the real life operations data provided. That tracks very well with ACAPs charts, if not slightly better.
 
User avatar
Irehdna
Posts: 413
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:40 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:41 pm

AFAIK the longest 787-10 flight planned will be UA's EWR-TLV. I believe this is not until late March, however. IIRC the 77W currently on this route will move to TLV-SFO.

Any plane's range is going to be significant higher if the cabin is only ~half full. At least TLV-EWR will be in the night so the plane should not have too many issues on the sector.
 
NOVAIAD
Posts: 51
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2017 5:07 pm

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:54 pm

Austin787 wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
I bet they’ll be keen to see its real world performance on something like this.


Thats my thought. The did this swap just to get real world flight data with 100+ fewer passenger. Will give them better data on possible premium layout use.

Or, maybe the 787-8 originally scheduled developed a mechanical issue, and a 787-10 was available.


There was a 787-10 sitting at a remote stand at IAD last Wednesday. Saw it parked there as my BA flight was taxing to 30 for departure
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: UNITED B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 1:55 pm

scbriml wrote:
ElroyJetson wrote:
you have no idea how full this flight is. Pretending that you do is kind of foolish.


Nor do you, so claiming it's something wonderful is equally foolish.


I never claimed to know, I was responding to someone who did. You need to read more carefully. :D
707 717 727 72S 737 733 737-700 747 757 753 767-300 764 A319 A320 DC-9-10 DC-9-30 DC-9-50, MD-82 MD-88 MD-90 DC-10-10 DC-10-40 F-100
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3642
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:00 pm

jayunited wrote:
UA807 departed with 226 total passengers on board and 16,811 pounds of cargo of which 8,640 pounds were passengers bags.
Gate fuel was 169,400 pounds which does include 900 pounds of taxi fuel, making the cleared fuel 168,500 pounds.
The ZFW was 355,142 pounds, (MZFW is 425,000) and the TOG was 523,642 pounds (MTOG is 560,000).
If everything goes according to plan UA807 will arrive in PEK with 14,800 pounds of fuel remaining in the tanks.

Looking at these numbers this aircraft probably do this route with a slightly higher load factor but probably not completely full because a higher payload would require a higher fuel load and today we were only 36,358 pounds away from MTOG.
Even if we were to eliminate the 8,171 pounds of cargo (freight and mail) the additional bags from the additional passenger would increase our pit weights. I'm going to estimate with a full passenger count the weight of the bags alone would probably be somewhere between 10,000 pounds and 11,000 pounds because today with 226 passenger our bags alone weighed 8,640 pounds. With a full passenger load I'm going to estimate the increase fuel load would probably put us over MTOG.


The numbers are interesting to see. The numbers help us see how close to reality the 6400nm official range figure is. It’s telling us over 5000nm is doable, but a regularly scheduled 6,000nm flight will likely have weight restrictions. This flight wasn’t at max capacity and didn’t have to have fuel for a far away alternate.

The 787 and A350 are both great planes. The chatter or range superiority or the importance of cargo can get a bit pendantic at times.
 
User avatar
ElroyJetson
Posts: 850
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 5:04 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 2:02 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Thank you so much for sharing the numbers! I think you may be a bit pessimistic on your conclusion.

The flight had 16.4 t of TOW to spare. Drop the 3.7 t of cargo and that gives 20.1 t to play with.

92 more passengers and their bags would eat up about 10 of those 20 t before you account for fuel. I don't think adding 6 net t of payload (after dropping the cargo) would result in ~13% worse fuel consumption over the entire route, so I don't think you'd need 10 more t of fuel to carry those passengers and their bags. These numbers are telling me that on this particular day the 78X could have carried a full passenger and bags load, with no cargo, on this route with a little bit of margin. You might even be able to squeeze the mail on.

Edit: For a fun mental exercise, now imagine a 787-10-Ultrafan with a 10% SFC improvement flying the same flight. You could offload 8-9 t of fuel in favor of cargo, or, alternately, fly 1.5 hours farther. The 78X MAX is going to be a true transpacific aircraft.



Thank you for the information. Boeing has consistently said the 787-10 can do 6000nm with full pax and bags. Not sure why so many still question it.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3001
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 7:17 pm

N14001 will again operate UA807/808 tomorrow.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3028
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:05 pm

seabosdca wrote:
Thank you so much for sharing the numbers! I think you may be a bit pessimistic on your conclusion.

The flight had 16.4 t of TOW to spare. Drop the 3.7 t of cargo and that gives 20.1 t to play with.

92 more passengers and their bags would eat up about 10 of those 20 t before you account for fuel. I don't think adding 6 net t of payload (after dropping the cargo) would result in ~13% worse fuel consumption over the entire route, so I don't think you'd need 10 more t of fuel to carry those passengers and their bags. These numbers are telling me that on this particular day the 78X could have carried a full passenger and bags load, with no cargo, on this route with a little bit of margin. You might even be able to squeeze the mail on.

Edit: For a fun mental exercise, now imagine a 787-10-Ultrafan with a 10% SFC improvement flying the same flight. You could offload 8-9 t of fuel in favor of cargo, or, alternately, fly 1.5 hours farther. The 78X MAX is going to be a true transpacific aircraft.


Perhaps I am being a bit pessimistic but you are right it would be interesting to see what Boeing would do to improve on the 78J down the road. Although it is smaller than the 77W if Boeing so desired could the 78J be a potential replacement for the 77W in the future especially seeing that the 779 is larger than the 77W?

Looking at the post flight report for UA807-14 IAD-PEK, the flight landed with 11,100 pounds in the tanks about 3,700 pounds less than planned. Looking at the flight plan vs the actual flight it seems as if the increase fuel burn is do to the fact ATC held the aircraft at a much lower altitude than planned over the Northeastern U.S. and Southeastern part of Canada. Dispatch planned for a FL350 but ATC held the aircraft anywhere between FL253 - FL330. Once clear of congested airspace the flight went up to FL350 as planned it ultimately ended up at FL391 arriving at PEK 20 minutes early. What was interesting is looking at the post flight information there were areas where the actual fuel burn was much lower that planned but the damage was already done. Even with the lower fuel burn on parts of the polar route section of the flight there was no way to recover from the 3,700 additional pounds burned earlier during the flight.
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:10 pm

Irehdna wrote:
AFAIK the longest 787-10 flight planned will be UA's EWR-TLV. I believe this is not until late March, however. IIRC the 77W currently on this route will move to TLV-SFO.

Any plane's range is going to be significant higher if the cabin is only ~half full. At least TLV-EWR will be in the night so the plane should not have too many issues on the sector.


Actually the B78X is replacing a pmCO B772 on UA84/5. UA 90/1 remains a B77W. The plane is coming from FRA-EWR though.

Now, referring to the OP, could it be a plant to perhaps use some TPAC from SFO?
 
global2
Posts: 518
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:50 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 9:26 pm

If Boeing says the 787-10 can do 6000nm, wouldn't this make SFO to Tokyo viable? I believe it's 5900nm.
 
ryder1650
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 8:50 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 10:39 pm

global2 wrote:
If Boeing says the 787-10 can do 6000nm, wouldn't this make SFO to Tokyo viable? I believe it's 5900nm.


SFO-HND is only 5160 miles or 4484nm.
 
User avatar
azncsa4qf744er
Posts: 347
Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2003 4:04 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Fri Feb 15, 2019 11:10 pm

This is not the first time UA send the B78J across a body of ocean. UA926 SFO-FRA have seen a few upguages in the past month between the B789 and B78J.
 
Ruscoe
Posts: 1747
Joined: Sun Aug 22, 1999 5:41 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:19 am

The published payload range chart shows the 78X can fly 35T 6000nm at MTOW.
That looks like full pax to me.

Ruscoe
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 12:24 am

A 78X doesn’t cost much more to operate than its smaller siblings correct? I wonder if, until the 788 and 789 get their Polaris and Premium plus cabins installed, there are premium routes where the Polaris hard product and W cabin bump up RASM enough to make it worth flying a 78x with those cabins and 50-100 Y seats blocked for longer range vs flying a full 788 or 789 with the old hard product.
 
B1168
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:55 am

tjh8402 wrote:
A 78X doesn’t cost much more to operate than its smaller siblings correct? I wonder if, until the 788 and 789 get their Polaris and Premium plus cabins installed, there are premium routes where the Polaris hard product and W cabin bump up RASM enough to make it worth flying a 78x with those cabins and 50-100 Y seats blocked for longer range vs flying a full 788 or 789 with the old hard product.


For routes of 6000nm, little to no seats needs to be blocked if configured in current UA configuration. As aforementioned, 35t payload will be available, and that configuration only need about 315 pax to be taken care of. If not stuffed with excessive luggage (though probably will), the plane require no seat blocking.
A typical example on the accuracy of “Wikipedia range”, though. The 78X will not be able to load as much as a 788 if flying in that 6900nm poster written range.
 
Dave05
Posts: 45
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2018 2:09 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 1:38 pm

My take after all this discussion, is the 787-10 is exactly the same capability aircraft as the A330-300 except it can carry more Passengers and more efficiently too. If needed to certain airlines will be able to fly the 78x the same range as HK- YVR, but have to forego those cargo pallets.
 
Blockplus
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:55 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 3:50 pm

Looks like UA could completely replace the 772 out of iah with these.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 4:35 pm

UA’s GE90 77E’s will just barely be able to fly EWR-HKG with 272 seats (Polaris confit) occasionally needing some seats blocked. This is a 7000nm route.

In order for the 78X to fly this, it would need roughly 10-ton more fuel for the exact same payload as the IAD-PEK flight, which had 16-ton to spare. Meaning, this same load could have been flown to HKG instead of PEK! Quite impressive although I agree it’s doubtful anyone will configure a 78X for premium heavy 225-250 seats needed to do this.

I agree with those claiming the current UA-configured 78X will be able to fly 6000nm with full pax and bags, which is the lion share of UA’s network. Versatile frame she is and imagine the opportunities after a couple of PIPs.
 
DylanHarvey
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2018 5:45 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 6:55 pm

Anybody know what the load is on the IAD-PEK 78X today?
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 689
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:12 pm

DylanHarvey wrote:
Anybody know what the load is on the IAD-PEK 78X today?


100 open Y seats
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

Re: United B78X IAD-PEK

Sat Feb 16, 2019 7:20 pm

B1168 wrote:
tjh8402 wrote:
A 78X doesn’t cost much more to operate than its smaller siblings correct? I wonder if, until the 788 and 789 get their Polaris and Premium plus cabins installed, there are premium routes where the Polaris hard product and W cabin bump up RASM enough to make it worth flying a 78x with those cabins and 50-100 Y seats blocked for longer range vs flying a full 788 or 789 with the old hard product.


For routes of 6000nm, little to no seats needs to be blocked if configured in current UA configuration. As aforementioned, 35t payload will be available, and that configuration only need about 315 pax to be taken care of. If not stuffed with excessive luggage (though probably will), the plane require no seat blocking.
A typical example on the accuracy of “Wikipedia range”, though. The 78X will not be able to load as much as a 788 if flying in that 6900nm poster written range.


I was more looking at how much longer than the 6000 nm seats full range the plane could fly with those seats blocked. Could a 78x with 75-100 Y seats blocked fly 6500-7000 nm and are there routes in UAs network that length with enough premium demand that would make it worthwhile to sub in a 78x with Polaris and W with those Y seats blocked?

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