Boeing Video Shows United 777-300ER

kaitak744 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:45 pm

http://www.newairplane.com/777/design_highlights/#/home

Click "View Elites Video" on the top right.

Around 3:28, there is a United 777-300ER..... Is that some detail that slipped, or just some marketing people messing up?

kaitak744 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:48 pm

And there are 8 unidentified 777-300ER orders on Boeing's website. Though there are all placed 1 or 2 at a time.

codc10 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:53 pm

I'm sure it's been pitched, but unless it's the next-gen 777, I doubt UA will be a customer.

srbmod · Sat Sep 01, 2012 2:56 pm

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
Around 3:28, there is a United 777-300ER..... Is that some detail that slipped, or just some marketing people messing up?

Looks to be a computer generated image to me.

Stitch · Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:06 pm

Quoting srbmod (Reply 3):
Looks to be a computer generated image to me.

It is a CGI model, but one wonders why Boeing chose to animate a UA 777-300ER and show it.

Polot · Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:11 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
It is a CGI model, but one wonders why Boeing chose to animate a UA 777-300ER and show it.

Its also in the modified livery they put on the 787, so it was done relatively recently too.

LH526 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:14 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 4):
It is a CGI model, but one wonders why Boeing chose to animate a UA 777-300ER and show it.

The same reason they showed a LH B777 tail in the beginnign of the video

Polot · Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:19 pm

Quoting lh526 (Reply 6):
The same reason they showed a LH B777 tail in the beginnign of the video

LH Cargo has 777Fs on order, so the LH tail isn't much of a surprise.

VC10er · Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:23 pm

Why wouldn't have UA ordered 777-300's? Could they have served as 747 replacements or not?

United1 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:47 pm

Quoting VC10er (Reply 8):
Why wouldn't have UA ordered 777-300's? Could they have served as 747 replacements or not?

They could have replaced the 744's with the 300ER but the decision was made by the time UA would be ready to start retiring the 744's the next generation of aircraft would be available...ie the A350.

hnl-jack · Sat Sep 01, 2012 3:54 pm

The video refers to 777 customers and is not model specific and of course UA was one of the launch customers for the aircraft. However, the CG generated illustration is a 300 model with the modified livery. I doubt that including it in this video is a mistake. Inflight video of UA''s 200er in the post merger livery is available and could have been used. Boeing would not have used this without UA's authorization and therefore, I suspect announcement is not far off. UA needs the aircraft before the 350's will be there, even if it isn't delayed further.

kngkyle · Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:18 pm

Article from June saying that United is indeed shopping for a VLA and will not be replacing the 747s with A350-900s as previously planned.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_06_29_2012_p01-01-472305.xml

It says the 77X, 748, and A3510 are being considered, not the 77W, but who knows what could happen at the negotiating table.

[Edited 2012-09-01 09:18:45]

fun2fly · Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:22 pm

I can certainly see UA w/ a 777-800. Not sure about the 77W as pictured, but it sure is interesting and recent due to the paint scheme. Perhaps the A350 is further delayed.

Stitch · Sat Sep 01, 2012 4:36 pm

Quoting kngkyle (Reply 11):
It says the 77X, 748, and A3510 are being considered (by UA), not the 77W, but who knows what could happen at the negotiating table.

Assuming UA is still prepared to start 747-400 retirements in 2016, the 777-300ER would be available by then, as would the 747-8.

BA and AA seem to be doing okay with their new 777-300ERs, so perhaps UA is re-evaluating the model.

kc135topboom · Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:43 pm

The B-747-822 would look great in the new UA livery that is on the B-787-822.

JAAlbert · Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:49 pm

The livery depicted is also the brand spanking new 787 style wavy gold line livery. Something may indeed be afoot.

Quoting kaitak744 (Thread starter):
Is that some detail that slipped, or just some marketing people messing up?

I can't imagine it's a mistake - the marketing folk must have hundreds of hours of United 777-200 stock film laying about in their computer data base. I think something's afoot! I also can't imagine that Delta and United would allow AA to purchase a gaggle of 777-300s without responding in kind.

ghifty · Sat Sep 01, 2012 5:57 pm

Most, or all, of the CGI aircraft were 777-300's. Probably rendered the video that way for simplicity's sake, as not many people would point that out.

And, of course, it makes sense that Boeing has created some stock renders of UA 77W, 77L, 77E, etc. since they're a current customer.

Slightly off-topic, but: All the published "new orders" videos are actually the same video, with the carrier's livery. It's easier and more cost-effective to have just one model/video and change the textures.

[Edited 2012-09-01 10:58:12]

phxa340 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:01 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 16):
It's easier and more cost-effective to have just one model/video and change the textures.

Marketing videos are made for the masses who wouldn't even know the difference between a 77W vs 772. I think us A.net folk are just reading too much into it. Or there is a very cruel Boeing marketing individual out there that likes to mess with us.

But , I will never say never. Way more bizarre things have happened.

jcwr56 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:29 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 16):
And, of course, it makes sense that Boeing has created some stock renders of UA 77W, 77L, 77E, etc. since they're a current customer

Perhaps, but why use a very specific paint scheme for the 787 on a CGI model 777 the carrier doesn't even operate, let alone own?

If other airlines are looking to purchase, wouldn't you (or in this case Boeing) want to make sure you're showing factual information in a promo piece?

LH526 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:30 pm

Quoting Polot (Reply 7):
LH Cargo has 777Fs on order, so the LH tail isn't much of a surprise.

Those on order where originally intended for AeroLogic, not for LHC

only just recently it's officially that indeed the planes will carry the LHC livery which might coincide with the date of the video ...

Stitch · Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:38 pm

Well Boeing has inadvertently let the cat out of the bag before: during the 787 roll-out ceremony, the tail of QR appeared as part of the "display of customers". I think Boeing also pre-maturely announced a QR 777 order at an air show and then there was the temporary appearance of Hong Kong Airlines as a 747-8 customer.

[Edited 2012-09-01 12:29:29]

hiflyer · Sat Sep 01, 2012 6:49 pm

I would suggest that just perhaps there has been a Boeing presentation on the 773 to United in the recent time that this CGI was originally developed for. Mebbe even a 748 one also? grin.

perhaps.

rikkus67 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 7:33 pm

screen capture from Boeing website. Possible 773 order for United?

A screen capture from the video...

ebj1248650 · Sat Sep 01, 2012 7:52 pm

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 22):
A screen capture from the video...

That would be one beautiful bird. It's interesing that such a picture would be publicized unless both Boeing and United want to "leak" an upcoming order. Here at A.net it obviously stirs a wealth of excitement.

VC10er · Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:05 pm

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 22):

Seeing this screen grab for the first time I have to admit I got very aroused

buy the United "CO livery"

Since many here believe that the CO livery is dated looking, as do I, here it seems like they made some changes with a metallic paint.

This is NO accident, this had to have been approved by UA. Hmmmm!

pnwtraveler · Sat Sep 01, 2012 9:45 pm

Every sales pitch is probably equiped with pics of aircraft in question in airline livery. Not just signed sales. I am sure Boeing has pitched 777's many times and then could have done so recently in the new livery. That doesn't necessarily mean an order is immanent. However, it could if the conspiracy lovers above are right. Time will tell

.

kaitak744 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 1:29 am

Yes it is entirely possible that Boeing made this image to place it in a sale pitch to United. However, it just does not make sense that they would release it like this.

SXDFC · Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:15 am

So if pictures mean a definite order then what do the models mean?

WN 787-8H4

IB 787-856

cosyr · Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:54 am

Quoting phxa340 (Reply 17):
Marketing videos are made for the masses who wouldn't even know the difference between a 77W vs 772. I think us A.net folk are just reading too much into it.

The only people that would notice this more than a.net are the people at Boeing that touch the planes all day.

A lot of people speculated about new liveries after the merger was complete. I personally thought the current livery would be around a while, because they're in the middle of spending the money to repaint them, but maybe only making the line wavy wouldn't cost too much to change the existing fleet.

I don't hate the wavy line, but separating the gold and the grey with white makes all the colors seem to disappear. I prefer it the way it is. If you want to update, change it a little more than that.

hnl-jack · Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:17 am

UA kept the revised livery under wraps until just before the roll out of their 787. UA has not indicated that any other aircraft will carry the revised scheme. The UA livery has been a very sensitive issue since the announcement of the merger and Boeing is well aware of it. It's not just the fact that it is a 777-300ER, but that it contains this version of the livery that makes this interesting. There has to more to this story and more than likely UA is in on it otherwise the revised livery would not have been used. I doubt it is a just a confidence that this rendering goes public not long after Smisek announced they were looking at additional wide-body aircraft. Sort of the same strategy as with their narrow-body search, with word and renderings of the 738MAX started appearing before the order was announced. My bet would be that we are within a few weeks of a new order.

EK413 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:29 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):

Wasn't aware AA received their

B77W

While on the subject when is the first delivery scheduled...?

What a shame QF did not see the advantages by introducing the B777... Many carriers have clearly introduced the aircraft as the flag carrier...

EK413

[Edited 2012-09-02 00:34:19]

mauriceb · Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:21 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 30):
While on the subject when is the first delivery scheduled...?

Hey, they will receive the first frame in late November/December, with another one entering the fleet before Jan 1. End of March 2013 they will have five 777W's

Looking at the UA 77W, it would be stunning... i know they sort of ruled out the 300ER, but isn't there a possibility that they have changed theire mind due to the constant delay's of Next Gen planes and the growing sactisfaction among current 77Ws customers?

Maurice

EK413 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 8:29 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
Assuming UA is still prepared to start 747-400 retirements in 2016, the 777-300ER would be available by then, as would the 747-8.

Quoting MauriceB (Reply 31):
Looking at the UA 77W, it would be stunning... i know they sort of ruled out the 300ER, but isn't there a possibility that they have changed theire mind due to the constant delay's of Next Gen planes and the growing sactisfaction among current 77Ws customers?

With retirement of the B744 fleet planned for 2016 I wouldn't rule out the B77W as a replacement especially taken into account UA was behind the designing process of the B777 aircraft...

Let's just wait and see what UA have installed...

EK413

fun2fly · Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:02 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 32):
With retirement of the B744 fleet planned for 2016 I wouldn't rule out the B77W as a replacement especially taken into account UA was behind the designing process of the B777 aircraft...

UA has already dropped a few 744's (2 units?). Anyone know how many will exit in 2014 and 2015? If they can accelerate the retirement of these and pick up 77W's, they would be crazy not to. AA has proven even a fleet of 8 or 10 makes sense. Perhaps a mix of the 77W to hold them over for 2014-2017 retirements and then the 777-800 2018+. Smisek has publicly stated that UA's 744's are not competitive inside and costly to run. It is interesting to note the divergent paths that UA and DL are on where UA plans to get ouf of their 744's and DL is revamping theirs.

Everyone at A.net sure seem to feel that UA will drop their A350 order. I just don't see it and they sure have defended the order. Until something happens with these, we can only speculate. However, a few year delay in these may be the reason UA is shopping for a 77W as an interim bird for the 744's. .

EK413 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:45 am

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 33):

A B77W has proven to be a perfect candidate as a B744 replacement and SQ have demonstrated it with the B77W order and top up order...VA operate a fleet of 5 aircraft across the Pacific and so do DL... Without a doubt I wouldn't be surprised If UA announced an order of 8-10 frames as an interim measure shall a delay occur with the A350...

EK413

CXB77L · Sun Sep 02, 2012 11:57 am

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 22):

That looks magnificent

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 33):
Everyone at A.net sure seem to feel that UA will drop their A350 order.

I don't think they'll cancel their A350-900 order, but that doesn't mean they can't order the 777-300ER as well.

Quoting EK413 (Reply 34):
Without a doubt I wouldn't be surprised If UA announced an order of 8-10 frames as an interim measure shall a delay occur with the A350...

I would add that regardless of what happens with the A350, I wouldn't be surprised to see UA order the 77W. The A350-900 and 777-300ER can co-exist in the same fleet.

columba · Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:20 pm

Quoting lh526 (Reply 19):
Those on order where originally intended for AeroLogic, not for LHC only just recently it's officially that indeed the planes will carry the LHC livery which might coincide with the date of the video ...

No, the planes were ordered by LH unlike the Aerologic planes which are leased so it was always more likely that the planes will end up with LHC. Although LH often said that these planes could be used by either LH or AeroLogic.

Quoting rikkus67 (Reply 22):
A screen capture from the video...

Stupid question, is this really a 77W or could it be a 777X ?

EK413 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 12:31 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 36):

Do we even have any renderings of the B777X...?

EK413

SWALUV · Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:17 pm

Quoting EK413 (Reply 34):
B77W order and top up order...VA operate a fleet of 5 aircraft across the Pacific and so do DL...

Isn't the 77W a 777-300? DL doesn't operate the 300's they operate the 200's. Looked online and it says the 77W is the 777-300, just asking.

Polot · Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:23 pm

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 38):
Isn't the 77W a 777-300? DL doesn't operate the 300's they operate the 200's. Looked online and it says the 77W is the 777-300, just asking.

Yes, the 77W is the -300ER and DL has none. They do operate a fleet of 772LRs though, which is probably what EK413 was thinking of.

EK413 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 2:39 pm

Quoting SWALUV (Reply 38):
Isn't the 77W a 777-300? DL doesn't operate the 300's they operate the 200's. Looked online and it says the 77W is the 777-300, just asking.

Depends which variant...

The stretched 777-300 was designed as an A-market replacement for 747-100s and 747-200s...

The 777-300ER ("ER" for Extended Range) is the B-market version of the −300. It features raked and extended wingtips, a new main landing gear, reinforced nose gear, and extra fuel tanks... Several airlines have acquired the −300ER (better known as B77W) as a 747-400 replacement...

Quoting Polot (Reply 39):
Yes, the 77W is the -300ER and DL has none. They do operate a fleet of 772LRs though, which is probably what EK413 was thinking of.

My bad... I meant to say DL operate the -200LR Long Range...

EK413

Stitch · Sun Sep 02, 2012 3:54 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 36):
Stupid question, is this really a 77W or could it be a 777X?

As noted, I do not believe Boeing has issued any renderings of the 777X. Also, the 777-9 should have a longer forward fuselage (one expects that is where the plug will be to not affect the rotation angle) and wings that will probably have 787-style wingtip extensions.

Hamlet69 · Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:07 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 20):
Well Boeing has inadvertently let the cat out of the bag before: during the 787 roll-out ceremony, the tail of QR appeared as part of the "display of customers".

Indeed. In fact, both QR and RBS were present in that video, neither one of which had publically announced their orders for the aircraft until much later (RBS, sadly, only announced they had ordered it on the day they cancelled those orders).

As to the 'significance' of the model, it's honestly impossible to say one way or another. It's not the only 'error' in the video - in the "progression of tails" at the begining, they also show Gulf Air (who leased a few Jet frames, but have long-since returned them) as well as Garuda (who've had the 777 on order for ages, but seem determined to keep postponing delivery). So it might very well be a simple error.

OTOH, as noted, this is clearly a very, very recent CGI rendering for the on-going UA campaign. How did it get in there, when one considers they must have hours and hours of 'real' UA 777-200ER footage? And indeed, taken the video as a whole, most of it is live footage, not CGI. . .

Regards,

Hamlet69

VC10er · Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:18 pm

As much as I love a 777 and so impressed by it's success and safety, I love her razor sharp lines; the 3 tail fins and perfect straight tube and wings etc. She is beautiful inside too. However, what will we all do without the 747? Occasionally sitting in the nose or upstairs in that smaller more private space. Her exterior beauty in flight with a graceful hump and giant vertical stablizer.

In 10 years the vast amount of aircraft will be 2 engine birds from the E190 to A320 and 737 all the way up to the 787, 777 and A350-- with some A380's and even less 748. Variety is the spice of life but it seems like A and B have discovered that basically there is ONE basic platform of small to VLA: twin engine aircraft with only slight difference between one or another.

The world needs engineering dreamers to break with convention!

N766UA · Sun Sep 02, 2012 6:24 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 16):
Most, or all, of the CGI aircraft were 777-300's. Probably rendered the video that way for simplicity's sake, as not many people would point that out.

Yep, I doubt this is positively indicative of any kind of order. Pretty jet, though.

tdscanuck · Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:22 am

Quoting VC10er (Reply 43):
it seems like A and B have discovered that basically there is ONE basic platform of small to VLA: twin engine aircraft with only slight difference between one or another.

No kidding...that's because they're all up against the same laws of physics. A solution that works is a solution that works.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 43):
The world needs engineering dreamers to break with convention!

Why? They don't make them all look the same because of convention, they make them all look the same because that's the configuration that works. Every single time there is a technology change that enables a better configuration, it happens. This is why we don't fly wire-stabilized biplanes anymore. The problem isn't lack of engineering dreamers, it's lack of enabling technologies. *That's* what's needed.

And it's not that the technologies are missing because nobody's trying...they're trying really really hard. But all the easy stuff was done long ago. The problems that are left are very very hard.

Tom.

columba · Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:27 am

Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):

Quoting columba (Reply 36):

Do we even have any renderings of the B777X...?

not yet

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 45):
No kidding...that's because they're all up against the same laws of physics. A solution that works is a solution that works.

Still a few years ago there was a lot more difference in aircraft designs, T-tail, rear mounted engines, wing mounted engines, wings on top of the fuselage (Bae 146 e.g.), 2 engines, 3 engines, 4 engines now all aircraft become more and more alike except for small differences which is kind of sad speaking from an enthusiast point of view

EK413 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:34 am

Quoting columba (Reply 46):

I hate you

lol

Have Boeing set a EIS date for the B777X...?

EK413

CXB77L · Mon Sep 03, 2012 12:39 pm

Quoting EK413 (Reply 47):
Have Boeing set a EIS date for the B777X...?

It's tentatively set for 2019 although Boeing hasn't specified whether it's the 777-9X or -8X that will EIS first. I would imagine that the -9X would be the more popular version, thus the -9X will EIS in 2019 with the -8X following a year or two later.

BlueSky1976 · Mon Sep 03, 2012 3:39 pm

Quoting columba (Reply 36):
Stupid question, is this really a 77W or could it be a 777X ?

Quoting EK413 (Reply 37):
Do we even have any renderings of the B777X...?

Quoting columba (Reply 46):
not yet

Actually, there were some conceptual drawings, showing the aircraft face - front, just to highlight the difference between wingspan. I thinkg Flightglobal.com had them posted around this year's Farnborough show.

No 3D rendering, however, I imagine the wings would end up looking close to those of 787 (scaled up, of course!) and the tailcone would be similar to the 787 as well.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net