Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ordryan28
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:24 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:30 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 41):
Hold the phone now - just when did the A-380 get the nickname "whale?"

upon the launch. I did not coin the term, but I do realize the 747 was called the whale well before the 388. I guess people call it because it's gargantuan and white. If you look at it head on, I think it does resemble (slightly) a whale. I mean not exactly, but you could make a decent comparison. I wouldn't be surprised if Airbus had the intention of dubbing the term "whalejet" to the 380...haha!

-Ryan
Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:43 pm

UA will likely order the B 787 to replace the B 767s and the B 747-8 to replace the B 747-400s

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 6):
No they're not! They're the biggest operator of the A320 in the world!

I suppose UA is moving towards an ALL AIRBUS narrowbody fleet and an ALL BOEING widebody fleet. But again they might order the B 737 replacement aircraft when Boeing launches it

Quoting Luvflng (Reply 13):
What makes you think that United is not Super Premium Airline? In the US it is considered one of the super premium airlines offering First and Business cabins in selected transcon routes (P.S.).

Actually UA is one of the best airlines in the world in my opinion. I have had many of my very best trips with best service on UA. I suppose UA will come up with a revolutionary product when it comes to full First/Business/Economy class seats replacement
 
787kq
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:52 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 1:57 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12):
Quoting 777fan (Reply 7):
Let's not forget about LAX/SFO to SYD! Those require a VLA with ETOPS considerations as well.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 11):
LAX/SFO- SYD require a 747

I didn't forget them. I believe UA could operate increased frequencies of B787s to SYD.

Given Sydney's overnight curfew, the planes all arrive in a narrow window. It makes sense to have a larger aircraft.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 3:45 pm

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 46):
what about ORD-HKG?



Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 47):
....and SFO-HKG. UA must have consistent load factors of 100% on HKG routes.

These could be better served by increased frequency using the A350 or 787. I know there are slot issues at ORD, but UA have more slots than anyone and this would be a good use of them compared to sending turboprops to BFE.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 48):
Initial cruise altitudes and cruise profiles are already known for the A380 Superjumbo, you can see the technical route proving profiles on the airbus web site for 14-16 hr flights.

Thrust is not the only issue for the 747-8 Intercontinental, it is the high and low mach buffets that are a function of mass and wing design. The 747-8 Intercontinental suffers from a wing that does not match the aircraft, even Boeing admits that.

Boeing already have increased the thrust to weight ratio up by 20% to try and get decent runway performance, this thrust is not the sea level static, it is the takeoff thrust (normally a 5 or 10 min limit). The thrust is significantly less at altitude.

Thank you for that explanation.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 48):
I would like you to define what TSFC would be acceptable, as the A380 Superjumbo would be the best on the market. If the A380 Superjumbo is suffering, any other aircraft must be crippling.

You know better than that. It not a question of acceptable or not acceptable. It's a question of better. The GEnx is now reportedly projected at 0.485. The Trent 970 is reportedly at 0.561. That's a big difference.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 48):
This is incorrect.

Telling a man that something he's already done is impossible is just ... silly.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 48):
I do not think SQ wanted their F upstairs when they had a look at it, forward on the main deck.

That may be so, but F upstairs works well for LH.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 51):
Actually UA is one of the best airlines in the world in my opinion.

!!! Have you flown CX or NH or SQ? In the opinion of this UA MillionMiler, UA's 3 (out of 5) star rating at Skytrax is spot on. With the exception of very poor IFE, UA cabins are well appointed. The biggest problem is the poor service.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:06 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 37):
UA might decide on some 2 class 787-3s for SFO/LAX/DEN-HNL and for hub-hub flights to replace the MD configuration 767-300s and the XA configuration 777s.

I'm wondering if that's a good idea... for example, you could fly the couple of routes you listed but what about the ORD-HNL ones? You'd be in a situation like DL had after the retirement of the L15s - successful routes with no planes to fly on them, except this time the fix won't be a crew rest agreement.

I continue to believe the 787-3 is an ill-conceived plane for the North American market and neither UA nor AA will be able to benefit from it on their cash routes to Hawaii, the Caribbean, and northern South America.

On a windy day, can a full 787-3 even fly DEN-HNL reliably?

Quoting United Airline (Reply 51):
UA will likely order the B 787 to replace the B 767s and the B 747-8 to replace the B 747-400s

Great insight. What are the reasons for that?

NS
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:14 pm

Quoting 787KQ (Reply 52):
Given Sydney's overnight curfew, the planes all arrive in a narrow window. It makes sense to have a larger aircraft.

I fail to see the relationship between SYD's curfew and UA's flights to and from there. Upon first glance, I would venture to guess that UA's flights to SYD are flown at the times scheduled because they're the easiest departure/arrival slots to procure, the most convenient in terms of pax connecting to them, and because it's relatively easy to adjust to; a 14-hour "red eye" gives you plenty of time to catch up on some sleep.

I'm guessing that UA flies the 744 down under in part because of ETOPS considerations, but also because of its capacity. The CASM allows them to jam 400+ pax into one 744 vice running two daily 772 departures from both LAX and SFO with 80% capacity. FWIW, as much as I love the Triple Seven, I'd still rather fly a holy-four over that much water.

777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:18 pm

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 54):
I'm wondering if that's a good idea... for example, you could fly the couple of routes you listed but what about the ORD-HNL ones?

How urgent is it to retire the 777s? Surely the 767s and 747s will go first. Also, it's certainly possible to configure a small fleet of 2 class B787-10s for Hawaii and hub-to-hub flying as well and that would take care of ORD-HNL.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 54):
I continue to believe the 787-3 is an ill-conceived plane for the North American market

I would agree if it were not for the gate spacing issue.

Quoting Gigneil (Reply 54):
On a windy day, can a full 787-3 even fly DEN-HNL reliably?

Sure, the only question is load. On a very bad day, it would go out with some empty seats.
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:30 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 12):
I didn't forget them. I believe UA could operate increased frequencies of B787s to SYD.

What advantage is there in increasing frequency on the SYD/MEL-LAX/SFO routes?

QF are flying B744 almost wing tip to wing tip non stop across the Pacific. They leave SYD at 11:35*, 12:05 & 15:20. The return from LAX is even more compressed with departures at 22:30, 23:45 & 23:55*[Flights marked * are non-daily] Thats why they have 20 A380s on order & 4 options.

If higher frequency was an advantage you would think QF spread things out a bit more to take advantage of these advantages! IMHO the route is too long, thin and other wise constrained for multipul frequencies to gain a carrier an advantage.

I can see where UA may find it more efficient, for them, to fly 2x B787, but I can't see any overall advantage in the multipul frequencies.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
Danny
Posts: 3752
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2002 3:44 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 5:51 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9):
The WhaleJet and the B747-8I SuperJumbo will be very close in terms of CASM, though it looks like the SuperJumbo will beat the WhaleJet by a few percent.

Absolutely ridiculous statement.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:28 pm

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 57):
What advantage is there in increasing frequency on the SYD/MEL-LAX/SFO routes?

If the number of seats is held constant, RASM increases with frequency. If two flights are only an hour apart, RASM still goes up, just not as much as if the times are more diverse.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:37 pm

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 57):
QF are flying B744 almost wing tip to wing tip non stop across the Pacific. They leave SYD at 11:35*, 12:05 & 15:20. The return from LAX is even more compressed with departures at 22:30, 23:45 & 23:55*[Flights marked * are non-daily] Thats why they have 20 A380s on order & 4 options.

Also the A380 Superjumbo can land and depart at LHR between 2300-0700 local (as it is certified below 95.9 EPNdB) so it gives QF the option to hub through SIN twice a day, and have a midnight and arrival at LHR, turn around and be back in SIN in the morning again.

QF, SQ, EK can pickup some very cheap slots into LHR between 2300-0700 local time.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 6:41 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
The only way I can see Boeing have come up with their numbers is they have kept the A380 Superjumbo at the same cruise altitude as the 747-8 Intercontinental over a sector.

The A380 Superjumbo achieves approximately 6000 ft higher initial and cruise altitude (which account for some of its better fuel burn), on most sectors it will fly between FL350 and FL420. If Boeing have adopted the optimum 747-8 Intercontinental cruise profile for the A380 Superjumbo it would account for a 5-10% difference between the manufacturers numbers.

At what altitude would you expect a 747-8 departing at MTOW to initially level off? Assume typical conditions.
 
planetime
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Mar 15, 2006 3:16 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:03 pm

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 36):
I think the 747-8i and 787 will join the UA fleet both coming as a result of some shrewd negotitions on UA's part. For Airbus, at best they will see UA continue any orders with them for their short haul fleet.

Very good point. 748 and 787 if Boesing does their work right does seem to be in UAL future options and I would not rule out a mix of 777ER's also in that order.

In that same context 380 does seem fit for some of UA's route also.... but somehow I feel is not likely to happen... although I would imagine Airbus to give a very tempting offer on their side.

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 57):
What advantage is there in increasing frequency on the SYD/MEL-LAX/SFO routes?

Most likely I do not see that route coming a 787 route.... more like a 748 route or 380 route whichever they end up getting. Remember on top of passengers there is a lot of cargo $$$$ on that route also. ALso remember they have to compete against QF's 380 on that route shortly.

Does anyone have any idea how profitable this SYD/MEL route is to UA as compared to the Far East routes?
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:06 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60):
Also the A380 Superjumbo can land and depart at LHR between 2300-0700 local (as it is certified below 95.9 EPNdB) so it gives QF the option to hub through SIN twice a day, and have a midnight and arrival at LHR, turn around and be back in SIN in the morning again.

QF, SQ, EK can pickup some very cheap slots into LHR between 2300-0700 local time.

The 748I is supposed to meet the same requirements as the RR powered 380. However, I'm not sure the Alliance powered 380's will have the same flexibility as the RR ones.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 48):
Hence SQ have come out and said they are not interested in the 747-8 Intercontinental and ordered more A380 Superjumbos.

And at other times, they have said the door was still open...
Fly fast, live slow
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:22 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 61):
At what altitude would you expect a 747-8 departing at MTOW to initially level off? Assume typical conditions.

I would expect it to perform no better than the current generation 744.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:24 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 60):
Also the A380 Superjumbo can land and depart at LHR between 2300-0700 local (as it is certified below 95.9 EPNdB) so it gives QF the option to hub through SIN twice a day, and have a midnight and arrival at LHR, turn around and be back in SIN in the morning again.

QF, SQ, EK can pickup some very cheap slots into LHR between 2300-0700 local time.

LHR still have the night quota system in place between 2330 and 0600. To be exempt, the WhaleJet would need to be certified below 84 EPNdB.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...ents/page/dft_aviation_611809.hcsp
 
Gemuser
Posts: 5084
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2003 12:07 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:41 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 59):
If the number of seats is held constant, RASM increases with frequency.

What's your evidance that this happens, on routes of this length AND time zone displacement? Up to around 8 hours I'll grant you, but over that? very very unlikely, simply because the advantages more frequency gives you are much reduced to non existant on flights that take a substantial fraction of a day, or more to complete.

Gemuser
DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 7:51 pm

Quoting Gemuser (Reply 66):
What's your evidance that this happens, on routes of this length AND time zone displacement? Up to around 8 hours I'll grant you, but over that? very very unlikely, simply because the advantages more frequency gives you are much reduced to non existant on flights that take a substantial fraction of a day, or more to complete.

That's easy. Take a look at flights of roughly similar length with multiple flights per day e.g. LHR-SIN and FRA-SIN. If you look at the loads on those flights, you'll find that passengers have preferences for when they would like to travel. Not just that, but that different passengers have different preferences.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:05 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 63):
The 748I is supposed to meet the same requirements as the RR powered 380. However, I'm not sure the Alliance powered 380's will have the same flexibility as the RR ones.

Part of the SQ engine selection for the 380 was to meet QC2 for late night arrivals and departures at LHR. EA had to increase the fan size on the GP7200 by a little over 10 cm to get a comfortable buffer (about 3dB) under the required level, with that they are able to push 81.5 klb of thrust out.

The 787/350 also have large fans, with the smaller fan on the 747-8i, I will eagerly await the tests result in 4-5 years.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 8:10 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 68):
The 787/350 also have large fans, with the smaller fan on the 747-8i, I will eagerly await the tests result in 4-5 years.

GE increased the fan diameter for the 747-8 from 104" to 105". I don't know whether or not this was due to noise issues.
 
sk909
Posts: 244
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 7:38 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Sun Dec 31, 2006 10:11 pm

Quoting ORDRyan28 (Reply 16):
because, by the time the 748 is put into service, it will be equal to, if not better than the whalejet in most noticeable categories

That is presumptuous... Until both The Whalejet and SuperJumbo both in the sky, we won't know.
As mentioned previously, it also depends on the flight profil. And how you utilize the aircrafts.
What we also don't know is what kind of deal they can, from either manufacturer...
Life's for Living!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27176
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:26 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 41):
Hold the phone now - just when did the A-380 get the nickname "whale?"

According to the 2006 Seattle Times "Biz Quiz", the answer to Question 12 - "The double-decked superjumbo jet has been unflatteringly compared to:" is a) a blue whale. Big grin

Personally, I'm fine with calling the A388 the "SuperJumbo" and referring to the 748I as the "Jumbo XL".

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 47):
(UA could use a VLA on) SFO-HKG. UA must have consistent load factors of 100% on HKG routes.

I know one fellow FlyerTalker who would be ecstatic should UA resume LAX-HKG instead of up-gauging SFO-HKG from a 744 to a 748 or A388.
 
Marquis
Posts: 251
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2005 5:35 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:57 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 14):
[...]Time will tell, I do not think UA will replace the 744s in any great hurry.

That's my opinion either because of the fact that United's fleet of 744's is only 11.1 years in average. Maybe the 11 oldest ones ('89-'92) will be replaced early with 748i's, as you could retain a certain commonality between this two aircraft.

[Edited 2006-12-31 16:58:45]
Riding the radials...
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:51 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 68):
The 787/350 also have large fans, with the smaller fan on the 747-8i, I will eagerly await the tests result in 4-5 years

Hmmm EIS 2009, how does that math work?
Fly fast, live slow
 
Beeski
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:03 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:33 am

I agree that the A380 is a serious contender for UA's trans-pac fleet replacement. So many of them are slot restricted flights which makes an additional 100 seats very appealing. Since there are plenty of production slots available in 2012 onward for the A380 and 748i, I would think UA would take a few years to analyze real-world cost/performance results before placing an order.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27176
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:51 am

Quoting Beeski (Reply 74):
I agree that the A380 is a serious contender for UA's trans-pac fleet replacement. So many of them are slot restricted flights which makes an additional 100 seats very appealing.

Only if those seats can be profitably filled. UA has withdrawn from LHR quite heavily in recent years because even with 767s and 777s they can't make the economics work from many cities. And I am not sure what, if anything, is preventing UA from expanding NRT-SIN and NRT-BKK to more then single-daily service other then lack of profitable passengers to support a second flight.
 
User avatar
Siren
Posts: 775
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:50 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 4:39 pm

My take on this:

United will go 748i if they are able to get an engine option other than the GEnx engines, be it Pratts or RR Trents. United is not so much a Boeing customer, as it is a Pratt & Whitney customer - and an anti-General Electric company.

Don't forget about Sioux City - UA232. That's the whole reason they went for the Airbus A320 right there. It's because they couldn't get 737's without CFMs.

If Boeing is unable to provide a non-General Electric engine solution to UAL, UAL will not purchase the 748i...
 
777fan
Posts: 2256
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 12:09 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:15 pm

Quoting Siren (Reply 76):
Don't forget about Sioux City - UA232. That's the whole reason they went for the Airbus A320 right there. It's because they couldn't get 737's without CFMs.

Interesting tidbit - I didn't know that was the case although it makes sense. Is this a known fact or just assumed speculation? I would think that GE would at some point make an effort to regain UA as a customer.


777fan
DC-8 61/63/71 DC-9-30/50 MD-80/82/83 DC-10-10/30 MD-11 717 721/2 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 741/2/4 752 762/3 777 A306/319/20/33 AT
 
scorpy
Posts: 168
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:26 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:10 pm

Quoting Siren (Reply 76):
That's the whole reason they went for the Airbus A320 right there. It's because they couldn't get 737's without CFMs.

Are you sure about this? Don't you think that it could have been that the A32x family met their requirements, in particular w.r.t to performance from the Denver Hub and was much more advanced than the 'classic' 737.
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:48 pm

Quoting Siren (Reply 76):
Don't forget about Sioux City - UA232. That's the whole reason they went for the Airbus A320 right there. It's because they couldn't get 737's without CFMs.

I have a friend who was in fleet planning at UA at the time. I just checked with him and he laughed. Never even heard that theory before. UA bought the A320 because it had transcon range, good economics from ORD to west coast and DEN to the east coast, and Airbus offered a price that UA couldn't refuse. The transcon range requirement is the reason why UA didn't take any A321s.

UA232 was more Douglas' fault than GE's fault. Routing all three hydraulic systems were they would be taken out by an uncontained engine failure was very poor engineering.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15112
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:54 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 79):

I have a friend who was in fleet planning at UA at the time. I just checked with him and he laughed. Never even heard that theory before.

Did part of it have to do with the 320 having Cat 3B capability standard where the 737 didnt at the time ? Allowing for less disruption during fog and low weather operations.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
zvezda
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:59 pm

Quoting Zeke (Reply 80):
Did part of it have to do with the 320 having Cat 3B capability standard where the 737 didnt at the time ? Allowing for less disruption during fog and low weather operations.

I'll ask. That makes a lot of sense especially at SFO.
 
ZKNBX
Posts: 440
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 5:24 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:51 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2):
United have 7 routes that require a daily VLA: SFO-NRT, SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, ORD-PEK, and ORD-PVG. All other UA routes now served by the Jumbo could be served by B787s or B777s flying increased frequencies. To serve these 7 routes daily, UA would need 12 aircraft. That's a minimum. UA could decide to use a VLA on other routes rather than increase frequency. So, expect UA to order at least 12 B747-8I SuperJumbos (or perhaps WhaleJets).

UA will be looking at ORD-HKG as well. Add in capacity restrictions at LHR and NRT and I think the order will be more likely for 20 a/c minimum. 747-8I would be more likely IMO but wouldn't rule out a Whale Jet order.
 
ordryan28
Posts: 963
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 2:24 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:47 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 79):
UA bought the A320 because it had transcon range, good economics from ORD to west coast and DEN to the east coast, and Airbus offered a price that UA couldn't refuse. The transcon range requirement is the reason why UA didn't take any A321s.

 checkmark 

you beat me to that, Zvezda. My neighbor is a "big shot" for UA, and he confirmed that. The 320 certainly met UA's ranges, and the price was a steal. Thanks for the reliable information, Zvezda.

-Ryan
Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
 
787kq
Posts: 379
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 6:52 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Wed Jan 03, 2007 10:50 pm

Quoting 777fan (Reply 55):
I fail to see the relationship between SYD's curfew and UA's flights to and from there. Upon first glance, I would venture to guess that UA's flights to SYD are flown at the times scheduled because they're the easiest departure/arrival slots to procure, the most convenient in terms of pax connecting to them, and because it's relatively easy to adjust to; a 14-hour "red eye" gives you plenty of time to catch up on some sleep.

 checkmark 

You're right on this: The curfew is not the reason for the schedule currently flown (though I don't understand your argument regarding 14 hours and catching up on sleep). The reason for the narrow window of flights and the reason why a large plane makes sense is convenience.
 
boswashsprstar
Posts: 193
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:21 pm

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:32 am

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 6):
No they're not! They're the biggest operator of the A320 in the world!

They'll be losing that title to jetBlue very shortly.

And no one has brought up one other "soft" factor which shouldn't play into decisions like these, but might (along the lines of how the paint job would look): United and Boeing were once upon a time part of the same company--alongside, in fact, United Technologies, which owns Pratt & Whitney. Just in case that fuels any conspiracy theories.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27176
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: United 747-400 Replacement

Thu Jan 04, 2007 7:34 am

Quoting Siren (Reply 76):
My take on this: United will go 748i if they are able to get an engine option other than the GEnx engines, be it Pratts or RR Trents. United is not so much a Boeing customer, as it is a Pratt & Whitney customer - and an anti-General Electric company.

Then UA won't be getting any 748Is (or 77Ws, for that matter), as they are only available with GE power.

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