UAX Update:

E175:
N87319 parked at OKC

E170:
N633RW exited the fleet, sold to Envoy

CR2:
Skywest N930SW returned to flying
Skywest N932SW parked TUS
Air Wis N467AW parked at ROW
Air Wis N466AW parked at ROW
Air Wis N465AW exited fleet, ferried FTW for paint/transfer to AA

CALTECH wrote:

BB78710 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Delta has to focus more on branding, because they do not have the luxury of the largest prime markets like UA, and to a lesser extent AA. If you live in ATL, MSP or DTW, you fly DL, if you live in some of the other largest markets in the US, you have to be convinced to fly DL.

I always hope that this doesn't make UA complacent, but I think UA's branding is going fine. The measure of success of branding is 1) Do people know and have an impression of your brand? and 2) Do they have an impression of your brand that you would like them to?

I think UA has done a good job in the last several years for staying out of the news for negative reasons, like some of the meltdowns that AA and WN have had, and I think the name is known and respected on the whole.

I fly with both United and Delta and I disagree with one statement you made which is Delta doesn't have the luxury of being in the largest prime markets. I think prime markets is a subjective term. No one would argue that LAX, NYC, SFO and MIA are prime markets. ORD depending on who you ask in no longer a prime market, I don't know if IAD, DEN or IAH have ever been considered prime markets by the general public. Out of NYC and LAX both United and Delta are neck and neck operationally

Well,....they are prime markets

Top Airports in The USA by passenger volume all airlines

(UAL Hubs)

2. Los Angeles
3. Denver International Airport
4. O’Hare International Airport
7. San Francisco international
12. Newark International
14. Houston Bush International
25. Washington (Dulles) International Airport

Forget airport size by volume, UA has hubs in the first (EWR), second (LAX), third (IAD), fourth (ORD), fifth (SFO), and eighth (IAH) largest CSAs, all of which I would consider to be prime markets.

The Domestic non-ER aircraft have only 28 F seats and have lavs and a big galley, all before Door 2. This allows 336Y seats. The newer 772ER HD unit has 32 and it looks like Polaris could be installed with maybe a minor galley change.
UA could do a much cheaper/quicker mod on the GE 772ERs by starting with the international config, dumping the Polaris seats behind Door 2, moving PP up (maybe removing a row) - that would give you about 80 to 90 Y seats vs. the current international setup.
So, the comparisons would be something like this:
International------ 50 Polaris, 24 PP, 202E+/Y, total 276
Proposed --------- 32 Polaris, 20PP, 282E+/Y, total 334
Current Density - 28 Old lie flats, 336E+/Y, total 364
Current HD ER - 32 Old lie flat, 330E+/Y, total 362
Another choice -- 32 Old lie flats, 24PP and 290E+/Y, total 346
Since Mod to the 772 non-ER Domestic config would mean the lavs and galleries are moved again assume 772ER HD config would be used.
The advantage of the Proposed Polaris config is standardized Polaris, PP and high density that could serve international routes like DUB and BCN with the international standard UA has set. It also adds PP for domestic flights all at very little cost by pulling Polaris seats and adding Y seats which UA would have as surplus when the PW units are retired. The question is if UA would be better off giving up 50 Y seats with the Polaris config that also adds PP and 4 F seats. With more demand for premium seats and PP along with international flexibility and standardization, it would probably be worth it.
"

DeSpringbokke wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

DeSpringbokke wrote:

The PW powered 772s are all going. Not sure if has been officially confirmed here but the GE powered 772s will be converted to a high-density configuration to replace the domestic configured 772s.

Does that mean the ancient 2-4-2 J seats would be installed? I wonder how that’d be handled.

No, why would they rip out the Polaris seats, which seat 32 between D1 and D2, and then place in seats that are nearing 20 years old? The new Domestic 772s will have slightly fewer seats overall but have 32 upfront.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The Domestic non-ER aircraft have only 28 F seats and have lavs and a big galley, all before Door 2. This allows 336Y seats. The newer 772ER HD unit has 32 and it looks like Polaris could be installed with maybe a minor galley change.
UA could do a much cheaper/quicker mod on the GE 772ERs by starting with the international config, dumping the Polaris seats behind Door 2, moving PP up (maybe removing a row) - that would give you about 80 to 90 Y seats vs. the current international setup.
So, the comparisons would be something like this:
International------ 50 Polaris, 24 PP, 202E+/Y, total 276
Proposed --------- 32 Polaris, 20PP, 282E+/Y, total 334
Current Density - 28 Old lie flats, 336E+/Y, total 364
Current HD ER - 32 Old lie flat, 330E+/Y, total 362
Another choice -- 32 Old lie flats, 24PP and 290E+/Y, total 346
Since Mod to the 772 non-ER Domestic config would mean the lavs and galleries are moved again assume 772ER HD config would be used.
The advantage of the Proposed Polaris config is standardized Polaris, PP and high density that could serve international routes like DUB and BCN with the international standard UA has set. It also adds PP for domestic flights all at very little cost by pulling Polaris seats and adding Y seats which UA would have as surplus when the PW units are retired. The question is if UA would be better off giving up 50 Y seats with the Polaris config that also adds PP and 4 F seats. With more demand for premium seats and PP along with international flexibility and standardization, it would probably be worth it.
"

DeSpringbokke wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

Does that mean the ancient 2-4-2 J seats would be installed? I wonder how that’d be handled.

No, why would they rip out the Polaris seats, which seat 32 between D1 and D2, and then place in seats that are nearing 20 years old? The new Domestic 772s will have slightly fewer seats overall but have 32 upfront.

You always seem pretty good at figuring this stuff out….how many seats could you get in a domestic -10?

I think this maybe the ultimate solution.

CriticalPoint wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The Domestic non-ER aircraft have only 28 F seats and have lavs and a big galley, all before Door 2. This allows 336Y seats. The newer 772ER HD unit has 32 and it looks like Polaris could be installed with maybe a minor galley change.
UA could do a much cheaper/quicker mod on the GE 772ERs by starting with the international config, dumping the Polaris seats behind Door 2, moving PP up (maybe removing a row) - that would give you about 80 to 90 Y seats vs. the current international setup.
So, the comparisons would be something like this:
International------ 50 Polaris, 24 PP, 202E+/Y, total 276
Proposed --------- 32 Polaris, 20PP, 282E+/Y, total 334
Current Density - 28 Old lie flats, 336E+/Y, total 364
Current HD ER - 32 Old lie flat, 330E+/Y, total 362
Another choice -- 32 Old lie flats, 24PP and 290E+/Y, total 346
Since Mod to the 772 non-ER Domestic config would mean the lavs and galleries are moved again assume 772ER HD config would be used.
The advantage of the Proposed Polaris config is standardized Polaris, PP and high density that could serve international routes like DUB and BCN with the international standard UA has set. It also adds PP for domestic flights all at very little cost by pulling Polaris seats and adding Y seats which UA would have as surplus when the PW units are retired. The question is if UA would be better off giving up 50 Y seats with the Polaris config that also adds PP and 4 F seats. With more demand for premium seats and PP along with international flexibility and standardization, it would probably be worth it.
"

DeSpringbokke wrote:

No, why would they rip out the Polaris seats, which seat 32 between D1 and D2, and then place in seats that are nearing 20 years old? The new Domestic 772s will have slightly fewer seats overall but have 32 upfront.

You always seem pretty good at figuring this stuff out….how many seats could you get in a domestic -10?

I think this maybe the ultimate solution.

I think you are correct on the 78J = perhaps the first ones in 2024 will sport the domestic config to replace the 77As? 77A's consistently ranked the worst longhaul flying experience in customer surveys was once reported on this site. Even if not true, I'd agree that those flights to Hawaii w/o PTV's are not desirable.

fun2fly wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The Domestic non-ER aircraft have only 28 F seats and have lavs and a big galley, all before Door 2. This allows 336Y seats. The newer 772ER HD unit has 32 and it looks like Polaris could be installed with maybe a minor galley change.
UA could do a much cheaper/quicker mod on the GE 772ERs by starting with the international config, dumping the Polaris seats behind Door 2, moving PP up (maybe removing a row) - that would give you about 80 to 90 Y seats vs. the current international setup.
So, the comparisons would be something like this:
International------ 50 Polaris, 24 PP, 202E+/Y, total 276
Proposed --------- 32 Polaris, 20PP, 282E+/Y, total 334
Current Density - 28 Old lie flats, 336E+/Y, total 364
Current HD ER - 32 Old lie flat, 330E+/Y, total 362
Another choice -- 32 Old lie flats, 24PP and 290E+/Y, total 346
Since Mod to the 772 non-ER Domestic config would mean the lavs and galleries are moved again assume 772ER HD config would be used.
The advantage of the Proposed Polaris config is standardized Polaris, PP and high density that could serve international routes like DUB and BCN with the international standard UA has set. It also adds PP for domestic flights all at very little cost by pulling Polaris seats and adding Y seats which UA would have as surplus when the PW units are retired. The question is if UA would be better off giving up 50 Y seats with the Polaris config that also adds PP and 4 F seats. With more demand for premium seats and PP along with international flexibility and standardization, it would probably be worth it.
"

You always seem pretty good at figuring this stuff out….how many seats could you get in a domestic -10?

I think this maybe the ultimate solution.

I think you are correct on the 78J = perhaps the first ones in 2024 will sport the domestic config to replace the 77As? 77A's consistently ranked the worst longhaul flying experience in customer surveys was once reported on this site. Even if not true, I'd agree that those flights to Hawaii w/o PTV's are not desirable.

A HD -10 should be able to make it from anywhere in CONUS with a full load with the exception of OGG.

fun2fly wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The Domestic non-ER aircraft have only 28 F seats and have lavs and a big galley, all before Door 2. This allows 336Y seats. The newer 772ER HD unit has 32 and it looks like Polaris could be installed with maybe a minor galley change.
UA could do a much cheaper/quicker mod on the GE 772ERs by starting with the international config, dumping the Polaris seats behind Door 2, moving PP up (maybe removing a row) - that would give you about 80 to 90 Y seats vs. the current international setup.
So, the comparisons would be something like this:
International------ 50 Polaris, 24 PP, 202E+/Y, total 276
Proposed --------- 32 Polaris, 20PP, 282E+/Y, total 334
Current Density - 28 Old lie flats, 336E+/Y, total 364
Current HD ER - 32 Old lie flat, 330E+/Y, total 362
Another choice -- 32 Old lie flats, 24PP and 290E+/Y, total 346
Since Mod to the 772 non-ER Domestic config would mean the lavs and galleries are moved again assume 772ER HD config would be used.
The advantage of the Proposed Polaris config is standardized Polaris, PP and high density that could serve international routes like DUB and BCN with the international standard UA has set. It also adds PP for domestic flights all at very little cost by pulling Polaris seats and adding Y seats which UA would have as surplus when the PW units are retired. The question is if UA would be better off giving up 50 Y seats with the Polaris config that also adds PP and 4 F seats. With more demand for premium seats and PP along with international flexibility and standardization, it would probably be worth it.
"

You always seem pretty good at figuring this stuff out….how many seats could you get in a domestic -10?

I think this maybe the ultimate solution.

I think you are correct on the 78J = perhaps the first ones in 2024 will sport the domestic config to replace the 77As? 77A's consistently ranked the worst longhaul flying experience in customer surveys was once reported on this site. Even if not true, I'd agree that those flights to Hawaii w/o PTV's are not desirable.

A lot of new variables with a high density 78J. One would be do they try to keep the Polaris and PP seat between doors 1 and 2? Another is if they opt for a new Polaris seat altogether for a high density plane?

nonrevelite wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

You always seem pretty good at figuring this stuff out….how many seats could you get in a domestic -10?

I think this maybe the ultimate solution.

I think you are correct on the 78J = perhaps the first ones in 2024 will sport the domestic config to replace the 77As? 77A's consistently ranked the worst longhaul flying experience in customer surveys was once reported on this site. Even if not true, I'd agree that those flights to Hawaii w/o PTV's are not desirable.

A lot of new variables with a high density 78J. One would be do they try to keep the Polaris and PP seat between doors 1 and 2? Another is if they opt for a new Polaris seat altogether for a high density plane?

Or they just put in standard domestic first class recliners. Don’t really need Polaris for hub to hub and Hawaii.

Legiath wrote:

Or they just put in standard domestic first class recliners. Don’t really need Polaris for hub to hub and Hawaii.

Also possible, I would speculate that won't happen. If that was done, UA would loose the ability to schedule the planes on routes where a flat bed is needed, like a EWR-LAX route. The HD 777s have been routed on TATL before.

nonrevelite wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

On Twitter, JonNYC posted something from a Senior Customer Experience Manager at UA that said they expect to have 100 planes retrofitted with Next by the end of this year. Given that the first retrofit won't even be done by March...how is this possible?

The first aircraft to be modified always take longer due to a myriad of reasons. The pace will pick up.

# 4001 is scheduled to be done 07 Feb 2023, then await STC Approval...

CALTECH wrote:

nonrevelite wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

On Twitter, JonNYC posted something from a Senior Customer Experience Manager at UA that said they expect to have 100 planes retrofitted with Next by the end of this year. Given that the first retrofit won't even be done by March...how is this possible?

The first aircraft to be modified always take longer due to a myriad of reasons. The pace will pick up.

# 4001 is scheduled to be done 07 Feb 2023, then await STC Approval...

Man that was fast. 1 month for a first-time tip to tail refurb prototype seems impressive. Let’s hope it’s truly tip to tail. Sidewalls, lighting, PSUs, etc.

CALTECH wrote:

nonrevelite wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

On Twitter, JonNYC posted something from a Senior Customer Experience Manager at UA that said they expect to have 100 planes retrofitted with Next by the end of this year. Given that the first retrofit won't even be done by March...how is this possible?

The first aircraft to be modified always take longer due to a myriad of reasons. The pace will pick up.

# 4001 is scheduled to be done 07 Feb 2023, then await STC Approval...

Hoping that STC approval comes quick.

752 RTS:
N18119 ROW-IAH 2/6 #2716

753 RTS:
N57857 returned to flying 21 Jan, had 2 flights, then on the 3rd she had problem leaving IAH with a ground or air return. 2 weeks later 857 is back on the sched. IAH-LAX today 2/7 #1813. Curious what the problem was after going through 4-5 months of RTS Mx at ILN.

Looking at a 78X in really high density, if Polaris was pulled, between Doors 1 and 2 could be 35 PP seats and probably 81 E+/Y seats, Door 2 to Door 3 144Y seats, Door 3 to Door 4 stays at 157 E+/Y seats. That would be a total of 417. Crazy!

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Looking at a 78X in really high density, if Polaris was pulled, between Doors 1 and 2 could be 35 PP seats and probably 81 E+/Y seats, Door 2 to Door 3 144Y seats, Door 3 to Door 4 stays at 157 E+/Y seats. That would be a total of 417. Crazy!

If UA pulled out Polaris and the planes were being used on TRANSCONs and/or Hawaii, I'm guessing UA could sell a lot more than 35 PP seats. I'd double that.

417 passengers would be a nightmare at most UA domestic gates.

DreamDriver wrote:

753 RTS:
N57857 returned to flying 21 Jan, had 2 flights, then on the 3rd she had problem leaving IAH with a ground or air return. 2 weeks later 857 is back on the sched. IAH-LAX today 2/7 #1813. Curious what the problem was after going through 4-5 months of RTS Mx at ILN.

I believe it was a "communications equipment" issue.

739:
N36444 sked to ferry RFD-EWR 2752/6Feb to exit mx:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N36 ... /KRFD/KEWR

amtravels wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

nonrevelite wrote:

The first aircraft to be modified always take longer due to a myriad of reasons. The pace will pick up.

# 4001 is scheduled to be done 07 Feb 2023, then await STC Approval...

Man that was fast. 1 month for a first-time tip to tail refurb prototype seems impressive. Let’s hope it’s truly tip to tail. Sidewalls, lighting, PSUs, etc.

I was on two 320 segments this weekend which made me wonder...

Do we know if bulkheads and lav sidewalls are being replaced in this refurbishment? If those get some TLC in addition to gray seat covers going to blue, these aircraft will be indistinguishable from new.

jetblastdubai wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Looking at a 78X in really high density, if Polaris was pulled, between Doors 1 and 2 could be 35 PP seats and probably 81 E+/Y seats, Door 2 to Door 3 144Y seats, Door 3 to Door 4 stays at 157 E+/Y seats. That would be a total of 417. Crazy!

If UA pulled out Polaris and the planes were being used on TRANSCONs and/or Hawaii, I'm guessing UA could sell a lot more than 35 PP seats. I'd double that.

417 passengers would be a nightmare at most UA domestic gates.

UA is competing with AA and DL on premium transcon service between the coasts. Having a polaris-type cabin would be important to keep pace along with allowing these aircraft to serve Western Europe in the northern summer. Higher density yes but also with premium up front.

UA has made a point of many of their widebodies being more premium heavy. That doesn't help the folks in the back of the plane and I'd rather take fewer flights in Prem Econ or Polaris rather than 10 or 11 hours stuffed in coach.

Legiath wrote:

nonrevelite wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

I think you are correct on the 78J = perhaps the first ones in 2024 will sport the domestic config to replace the 77As? 77A's consistently ranked the worst longhaul flying experience in customer surveys was once reported on this site. Even if not true, I'd agree that those flights to Hawaii w/o PTV's are not desirable.

A lot of new variables with a high density 78J. One would be do they try to keep the Polaris and PP seat between doors 1 and 2? Another is if they opt for a new Polaris seat altogether for a high density plane?

Or they just put in standard domestic first class recliners. Don’t really need Polaris for hub to hub and Hawaii.

No way United goes back to that configuration on their widebodies. Recliners will not cut it on widebody flights to Hawaii from ORD, DEN, IAH, EWR, or IAD. And seeing that these aircraft would also be utilized on transcon routes out of EWR and probably IAD having recliners instead of a true Polaris product on any brand new 78J would would not be competitive at all.

I think United's current layout on their 78Js is great, it doesn't have as many seats as their HD 772/ERs but 318 seats is still a healthy number for Hawaii and transcon routes.

If United wants more seats on a domestic configured 78J then they could reduce the number of Polaris seats so that both Polaris and Premium Plus fits between doors 1L/R and 2L/R and the rest of the aircraft could be devoted to economy plus and coach that could probably get them close to 350 seats on a domestic 78J.

Thanks, BB78710
Don't get me wrong, I was not proposing UA remove first-class seating, just show possibilities.
But, I think Polaris could be pared back on the 78X for domestic/Hawaii and low premium international services with Polaris and PP forward of Door 2. If we compare configurations:

772A has 8.3% premium (no PP)
772ER Dom at 9.7% premium (no PP)
78X 13.8% Polaris, 20.4% with Polaris plus PP
788 11.5% Polaris, 20.1% with Polaris plus PP
78X HD 9.0% (32 Polaris), 14.9% with 21 PP (if that will fit in front of Door 2). Estimate 301E+/Y in back two sections. Total would be 354.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Thanks, BB78710
Don't get me wrong, I was not proposing UA remove first-class seating, just show possibilities.
But, I think Polaris could be pared back on the 78X for domestic/Hawaii and low premium international services with Polaris and PP forward of Door 2. If we compare configurations:

772A has 8.3% premium (no PP)
772ER Dom at 9.7% premium (no PP)
78X 13.8% Polaris, 20.4% with Polaris plus PP
788 11.5% Polaris, 20.1% with Polaris plus PP
78X HD 9.0% (32 Polaris), 14.9% with 21 PP (if that will fit in front of Door 2). Estimate 301E+/Y in back two sections. Total would be 354.

calpsafltskeds - I think you are right on with the 78J HD version estimate. At approximately 354 pax, what a CASM killer and should ensure we can fly into Hawaii for $1000 or less for the next 20 years! The only "glitch" I see is that the new 78J's would be in the IGHW (or whatever it is) version and you'd probably want those in longhaul format and the 77A's need to go out soon!

fun2fly:
Even though a proposed conversion would require an STC, it should not be a huge deal to convert all 21 78X units to High Density if the lavs and galleys aren't moved. Just pull off a few rows of Polaris and use them on newer HGW units. If the units had the same galleys/lavs, they could be converted back to the standard seating configuration in the future without issue.

Wow, just 10 seats fewer than the 772A with Polaris and PP to boot - fabulous replacement - less fuel, 27% more cargo capacity, 2,400nm more range with only 15,000 lbs more MTOW than the 772A. No weight restrictions ORD-HNL and East Coast-Hawaii are well within range. Better passenger experience.

If this happens, I assume it's a convenient coincidence that UA's 21 78X units match the numbers of the 19 772A and 2 772ERs in Domestic configuration and that range will not be an issue with these unit's future routes of Domestic and Hawaii, plus the potential of limited International flying.

Would it not be more efficient to just convert more 77E to an HD configuration while they still have plenty of cycles left and retire the A model 777s as more 787s arrive ?

United is the only of the US3 to fly high density wide bodies, right?

Why do they / why don’t the others?

jonahsachs wrote:

United is the only of the US3 to fly high density wide bodies, right?

Why do they / why don’t the others?

AA used to with their A300's to Puerto Rico, primarily. Many people were surprised that with MD-11's and 777's, the A300 was their most dense aircraft. DL has always had a shortage of widebodies for these purposes, but they did have domestic 767's.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Thanks, BB78710
Don't get me wrong, I was not proposing UA remove first-class seating, just show possibilities.
But, I think Polaris could be pared back on the 78X for domestic/Hawaii and low premium international services with Polaris and PP forward of Door 2. If we compare configurations:

772A has 8.3% premium (no PP)
772ER Dom at 9.7% premium (no PP)
78X 13.8% Polaris, 20.4% with Polaris plus PP
788 11.5% Polaris, 20.1% with Polaris plus PP
78X HD 9.0% (32 Polaris), 14.9% with 21 PP (if that will fit in front of Door 2). Estimate 301E+/Y in back two sections. Total would be 354.

That seems like a good config. We get too many PAX and the range will drop to the point where the plane can’t make the islands from the east coast.

[photoid][/photoid]Hi All!

Was up in Kelowna, BC (YLW) this past week and saw two UA 737s in the latest paint scheme parked at what looked like an MRO. One was definitely a MAX but I’m pretty sure the other one was as well. I know there’s a company there that does cargo conversions but I can’t imagine they were undergoing a conversion! Anyone have any idea what they’re doing there?

They are Maxes, probably undelivered white tails. 9 left to deliver - One shown as ready for delivery (N27283).

FlyingLaw1 wrote:

[photoid][/photoid]Hi All!

Was up in Kelowna, BC (YLW) this past week and saw two UA 737s in the latest paint scheme parked at what looked like an MRO. One was definitely a MAX but I’m pretty sure the other one was as well. I know there’s a company there that does cargo conversions but I can’t imagine they were undergoing a conversion! Anyone have any idea what they’re doing there?

Thanks for posting, tough to get intel up there at YLW. You saw only two? I think four are up there at YLW, and that's not a huge ramp. Were they in the barn, and did they look like anything was being done to them? Those two are likely 2 of 4 ex-Hainan/Changan/Rwandair 38M a/c (278 283, 286, 288) that are currently up there. 278 has been up there since NOV, so not sure what they are doing but I'd guess it's something that takes a while like new interiors or cockpits, maybe winglets. All of the remaining 38M white tails (9), have now been positioned at either YLW, GYR, or VCV. 7 of the 9 have flown within the last month, and a few just this week. Could also be YLW is getting to work on them, and the GYR/VCV birds are in storage. The fact that a lot of them are flying tells me they are in process towards induction. I'm sure Boeing wants to jettison those 9 asap.

Max Q wrote:

Would it not be more efficient to just convert more 77E to an HD configuration while they still have plenty of cycles left and retire the A model 777s as more 787s arrive ?

I suspect this is more along the lines of what United will do

Rhal97 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Would it not be more efficient to just convert more 77E to an HD configuration while they still have plenty of cycles left and retire the A model 777s as more 787s arrive ?

I suspect this is more along the lines of what United will do

I like what has been suggested about keeping Polaris seats on the 77E's if they do that. Density could be similar, product would be elevated, and it could be more consistent across the brand, especially when UA occasionally swaps the domestic 777's in for touristy transatlantic destinations like DUB.

cosyr wrote:

Rhal97 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

Would it not be more efficient to just convert more 77E to an HD configuration while they still have plenty of cycles left and retire the A model 777s as more 787s arrive ?

I suspect this is more along the lines of what United will do

I like what has been suggested about keeping Polaris seats on the 77E's if they do that. Density could be similar, product would be elevated, and it could be more consistent across the brand, especially when UA occasionally swaps the domestic 777's in for touristy transatlantic destinations like DUB.

My thinking as well. The PW powered 772s all go, starting with the High Density birds given they tend to be the oldest/have the highest cycles. The GE powered 772s replace them one to one, well there is one fewer GE powered 772 than total number of High Density 772s but that is a moot point given all are able to do EWR-HNL-GUM without any restrictions whatsoever. Leave the front Polaris cabin alone with 32 seats upfront and replace the second Polaris cabin and Premium Plus with Economy. Total number of seats would be slightly less than the current High Density 772s but this involves the least amount of work and they'll get the job done.

Not entirely sure about the GE 777-200 replacing the High-Density PW ones. The GE 777-200s are more capable range/performance wise than the PW ones, including the ERs. Replacing with a 787-9 would result in capacity drop based on current configurations, though without weight restrictions on the longest routes. The 787-10 would have capacity, not range; though at the moment most if not all of their routes could be covered by the 787-10. In the end will come down to where will the GE powered 777 generate the most revenue. With the more powerful engines, will have less efficiency that the PW ones, including the ERs.

nonrevelite wrote:

Not entirely sure about the GE 777-200 replacing the High-Density PW ones. The GE 777-200s are more capable range/performance wise than the PW ones, including the ERs. Replacing with a 787-9 would result in capacity drop based on current configurations, though without weight restrictions on the longest routes. The 787-10 would have capacity, not range; though at the moment most if not all of their routes could be covered by the 787-10. In the end will come down to where will the GE powered 777 generate the most revenue. With the more powerful engines, will have less efficiency that the PW ones, including the ERs.

They could always derate the GE 77Es

DeSpringbokke wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Rhal97 wrote:

I suspect this is more along the lines of what United will do

I like what has been suggested about keeping Polaris seats on the 77E's if they do that. Density could be similar, product would be elevated, and it could be more consistent across the brand, especially when UA occasionally swaps the domestic 777's in for touristy transatlantic destinations like DUB.

My thinking as well. The PW powered 772s all go, starting with the High Density birds given they tend to be the oldest/have the highest cycles. The GE powered 772s replace them one to one, well there is one fewer GE powered 772 than total number of High Density 772s but that is a moot point given all are able to do EWR-HNL-GUM without any restrictions whatsoever. Leave the front Polaris cabin alone with 32 seats upfront and replace the second Polaris cabin and Premium Plus with Economy. Total number of seats would be slightly less than the current High Density 772s but this involves the least amount of work and they'll get the job done.

Where would the additional Economy seats come from? The retired 77As have different seats than the ERs.

SgtBarone wrote:

DreamDriver wrote:

753 RTS:
N57857 returned to flying 21 Jan, had 2 flights, then on the 3rd she had problem leaving IAH with a ground or air return. 2 weeks later 857 is back on the sched. IAH-LAX today 2/7 #1813. Curious what the problem was after going through 4-5 months of RTS Mx at ILN.

I believe it was a "communications equipment" issue.

Flap problems....

nonrevelite wrote:

Not entirely sure about the GE 777-200 replacing the High-Density PW ones. The GE 777-200s are more capable range/performance wise than the PW ones, including the ERs. Replacing with a 787-9 would result in capacity drop based on current configurations, though without weight restrictions on the longest routes. The 787-10 would have capacity, not range; though at the moment most if not all of their routes could be covered by the 787-10. In the end will come down to where will the GE powered 777 generate the most revenue. With the more powerful engines, will have less efficiency that the PW ones, including the ERs.

I think this is more for down the road as additional 787's come on, replacing 777 routes Internationally, and the 777 fleet draws down. Converting GE 772's to Hawaii configuration would make it easier to manage the smaller fleet. It won't test the limits of the fleet's capabilities, but 787's would be more efficient on longer routes, and allow for a consistent experience on all international routes.

Of course with the 77W's in the fleet, mgmt might have a different use in mind for the GE772's toward their end of life. They might consolidate 777 bases in ways that don't sync with Hawaii/Domestic flying as well.

CALTECH wrote:

nonrevelite wrote:

USAirALB wrote:

On Twitter, JonNYC posted something from a Senior Customer Experience Manager at UA that said they expect to have 100 planes retrofitted with Next by the end of this year. Given that the first retrofit won't even be done by March...how is this possible?

The first aircraft to be modified always take longer due to a myriad of reasons. The pace will pick up.

# 4001 is scheduled to be done 07 Feb 2023, then await STC Approval...

Still on track for completion today, CALTECH ?

jonahsachs wrote:

DeSpringbokke wrote:

cosyr wrote:

I like what has been suggested about keeping Polaris seats on the 77E's if they do that. Density could be similar, product would be elevated, and it could be more consistent across the brand, especially when UA occasionally swaps the domestic 777's in for touristy transatlantic destinations like DUB.

My thinking as well. The PW powered 772s all go, starting with the High Density birds given they tend to be the oldest/have the highest cycles. The GE powered 772s replace them one to one, well there is one fewer GE powered 772 than total number of High Density 772s but that is a moot point given all are able to do EWR-HNL-GUM without any restrictions whatsoever. Leave the front Polaris cabin alone with 32 seats upfront and replace the second Polaris cabin and Premium Plus with Economy. Total number of seats would be slightly less than the current High Density 772s but this involves the least amount of work and they'll get the job done.

Where would the additional Economy seats come from? The retired 77As have different seats than the ERs.

I assume under these discussions, that all 777PW units are retired. The Additional Y seats for the GE 772ERs would come from the 29 772ER that would be retired. (If the international 772ER PW units are retained, they should get the HD configuration.) With those units retired, there would be 1,450 Polaris seats from the PW units and another 396 from the GE units that are behind Door 2.
I think the 772ER GE units could be an interim step for HD domestic widebodies, with the 78X taking over after a few years when the 777s are retired and more 787s arrive.
I'm not concerned about the 78X HD version making any Domestic route. The aircraft has a 6,430nm range, 1,200 more miles than the 777A. EWR-HNL no problem.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

DeSpringbokke wrote:

My thinking as well. The PW powered 772s all go, starting with the High Density birds given they tend to be the oldest/have the highest cycles. The GE powered 772s replace them one to one, well there is one fewer GE powered 772 than total number of High Density 772s but that is a moot point given all are able to do EWR-HNL-GUM without any restrictions whatsoever. Leave the front Polaris cabin alone with 32 seats upfront and replace the second Polaris cabin and Premium Plus with Economy. Total number of seats would be slightly less than the current High Density 772s but this involves the least amount of work and they'll get the job done.

Where would the additional Economy seats come from? The retired 77As have different seats than the ERs.

I assume under these discussions, that all 777PW units are retired. The Additional Y seats for the GE 772ERs would come from the 29 772ER that would be retired. (If the international 772ER PW units are retained, they should get the HD configuration.) With those units retired, there would be 1,450 Polaris seats from the PW units and another 396 from the GE units that are behind Door 2.
I think the 772ER GE units could be an interim step for HD domestic widebodies, with the 78X taking over after a few years when the 777s are retired and more 787s arrive.
I'm not concerned about the 78X HD version making any Domestic route. The aircraft has a 6,430nm range, 1,200 more miles than the 777A. EWR-HNL no problem.

The problem with the -10 is that you max out weight before you max out fuel. I used to be at max takeoff weight from FRA-EWR with only 9-9.5 hours of gas. So putting 400+ pax will really drop the range.

Of course if Boeing makes the HGW different discussion.

nonrevelite wrote:

Not entirely sure about the GE 777-200 replacing the High-Density PW ones. The GE 777-200s are more capable range/performance wise than the PW ones, including the ERs. Replacing with a 787-9 would result in capacity drop based on current configurations, though without weight restrictions on the longest routes. The 787-10 would have capacity, not range; though at the moment most if not all of their routes could be covered by the 787-10. In the end will come down to where will the GE powered 777 generate the most revenue. With the more powerful engines, will have less efficiency that the PW ones, including the ERs.

The GE90's actually have lower TSFC (thrust specific fuel consumption) than the PW4000-112 series. The problem with them is their weight, ~2,500 lbs heavier per engine, making them less efficient than the PW's during climb. On the longer sectors, such as IAH/ORD/EWR-HNL, the lower TSFC more than makes up the climb penalty. The question is whether UA at that point in time would be willing to pay the extra fuel needed on the short domestic hub-to-hub flying sectors, especially when the -200ER frame itself is already ~5,000 lbs heaver in empty weight than the -200 due to the structural strengthening used to support the higher MTOW.

UA Paint Update:
738 N77510 exited AMA 2755/7Feb in VeoBlu livery
739ER entered AMA 2754/7Feb for EvoBlu livery
320 N441UA exited AMA 2718/7Feb in EvoBlu livery

CriticalPoint wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

Where would the additional Economy seats come from? The retired 77As have different seats than the ERs.

I assume under these discussions, that all 777PW units are retired. The Additional Y seats for the GE 772ERs would come from the 29 772ER that would be retired. (If the international 772ER PW units are retained, they should get the HD configuration.) With those units retired, there would be 1,450 Polaris seats from the PW units and another 396 from the GE units that are behind Door 2.
I think the 772ER GE units could be an interim step for HD domestic widebodies, with the 78X taking over after a few years when the 777s are retired and more 787s arrive.
I'm not concerned about the 78X HD version making any Domestic route. The aircraft has a 6,430nm range, 1,200 more miles than the 777A. EWR-HNL no problem.

The problem with the -10 is that you max out weight before you max out fuel.

This is the case with basically every widebody

United857 wrote:

nonrevelite wrote:

Not entirely sure about the GE 777-200 replacing the High-Density PW ones. The GE 777-200s are more capable range/performance wise than the PW ones, including the ERs. Replacing with a 787-9 would result in capacity drop based on current configurations, though without weight restrictions on the longest routes. The 787-10 would have capacity, not range; though at the moment most if not all of their routes could be covered by the 787-10. In the end will come down to where will the GE powered 777 generate the most revenue. With the more powerful engines, will have less efficiency that the PW ones, including the ERs.

The GE90's actually have lower TSFC (thrust specific fuel consumption) than the PW4000-112 series. The problem with them is their weight, ~2,500 lbs heavier per engine, making them less efficient than the PW's during climb. On the longer sectors, such as IAH/ORD/EWR-HNL, the lower TSFC more than makes up the climb penalty. The question is whether UA at that point in time would be willing to pay the extra fuel needed on the short domestic hub-to-hub flying sectors, especially when the -200ER frame itself is already ~5,000 lbs heaver in empty weight than the -200 due to the structural strengthening used to support the higher MTOW.

Good information thanks! Agree there is more to placing those bird in a HD config than just being a 777. A lot will have to be factored in.

flight152 wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

I assume under these discussions, that all 777PW units are retired. The Additional Y seats for the GE 772ERs would come from the 29 772ER that would be retired. (If the international 772ER PW units are retained, they should get the HD configuration.) With those units retired, there would be 1,450 Polaris seats from the PW units and another 396 from the GE units that are behind Door 2.
I think the 772ER GE units could be an interim step for HD domestic widebodies, with the 78X taking over after a few years when the 777s are retired and more 787s arrive.
I'm not concerned about the 78X HD version making any Domestic route. The aircraft has a 6,430nm range, 1,200 more miles than the 777A. EWR-HNL no problem.

The problem with the -10 is that you max out weight before you max out fuel.

This is the case with basically every widebody

True….but it is more prominate on the -10 as it has the same weights as a -9. That’s a big reason why it’s range is less. The -9 and -10 have the same fuel capacity….but the -10 has to sacrifice load to use it.

This is also why it can fly 16hr flights when it isn’t full. People are always shocked on here when there is an equipment sub on a long flight.

amtravels wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

nonrevelite wrote:

The first aircraft to be modified always take longer due to a myriad of reasons. The pace will pick up.

# 4001 is scheduled to be done 07 Feb 2023, then await STC Approval...

Still on track for completion today, CALTECH ?

Currently tracking tight to test flight on Feb 19th. Once mod is complete, the aircraft will be issued a temporary airworthiness certificate in experimental category for flight testing. Once that is completed the regular airworthiness is reinstalled and will wait for STC approval. Also talk of getting fresh paint after mod completed as well now.

Any idea what the mod schedule will be like? Meaning, how many of each type will get mods at the same time?

Thank you all for always providing such great insight to those of us who are not in the industry.

cosyr wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

United is the only of the US3 to fly high density wide bodies, right?

Why do they / why don’t the others?

AA used to with their A300's to Puerto Rico, primarily. Many people were surprised that with MD-11's and 777's, the A300 was their most dense aircraft. DL has always had a shortage of widebodies for these purposes, but they did have domestic 767's.

DL's 764s were originally in domestic configuration and were commonly used on Hawaii, ATL-Florida, and occasionally Puerto Rico flights. DL decided to reconfigure them to international configuration in the late 2000s.

avi8 wrote:

Any idea what the mod schedule will be like? Meaning, how many of each type will get mods at the same time?

Thank you all for always providing such great insight to those of us who are not in the industry.

My understanding is "multiple mod lines for multiple fleets in multiple locations." Meaning, 2-3 mod lines at a time across 3 or more shops. I suspect as many as 10 aircraft could be out of service at a time for the Next mod, with aircraft coming in one after another for ~30 days each.