Will We See UA's Possible Order Of 77W?

speedbird0125 · Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:53 pm

I wonder if there's any chance that UA will order 77W in the near future. Their 777s are mostly 77A or 772ERs. I guess UA needs to add newer version of 777 such as 77L or 77W to their fleet to compete with DL or AA's recent order of 77W. Maybe UA is doing pretty well with their 777s now but I just want to see their brand new 77W with sharp raked winglets. What do you guys think? Is it going to happen soon?

Stitch · Tue Nov 13, 2012 4:54 pm

I see no reason. They have a large 747-400 fleet that has just undergone cabin refurbishment and will comfortably take them into the latter part of this decade when they have multiple newer-generation aircraft options to use as replacements.

LAXintl · Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:00 pm

Chance - absolutely.

But there is a chance they might go for larger A350s, 748, or even A380.

However the 77W is the lower risk, and easier integration of the bunch.

I'm sure Mr. Boeing has a nice proposal on the desk of someone at UA.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
They have a large 747-400 fleet that has just undergone cabin refurbishment and will comfortably take them into the latter part of this decade when they have multiple newer-generation aircraft options to use as replacements.

I don't know how you define "comfortable", but the 744s are becoming an ever larger operational liability.
Just look at the new schedules with the type being pulled from ORD and other markets to be centered out of SFO solely now (except LAX-SYD & HNL-NRT) to aid with reliability.

Stitch · Tue Nov 13, 2012 5:32 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
I don't know how you define "comfortable", but the 744s are becoming an ever larger operational liability.

UA knew they needed them to last until the end of the decade (until the A350-900s could start arriving) so I expect that is why they invested in the new cabins and whatever heavy maintenance checks might have been needed to keep them in operation.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Just look at the new schedules with the type being pulled from ORD and other markets to be centered out of SFO solely now (except LAX-SYD & HNL-NRT) to aid with reliability.

The 747-400 only makes sense on routes you can consistently fill it with passengers. Also, between uprating the MTOW on the pmUA 777-200ERs and the addition of pmCO 777-200ERs (which already had higher MTOWs), the need for the 747-400 on a range basis is no longer as acute so UA can now pull them out of ORD (at least during the low season).

BlueSky1976 · Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:16 pm

No. 77W order will not happen.

777-8X or -9X on the other hand... is entirely different story. I actually expect UA to be the launch customer of this model.

brilondon · Tue Nov 13, 2012 6:52 pm

I expect a UA order for the 77W to come just after the order for the A380.

kaitak · Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:26 pm

To be honest, as much as I'd love to see a 77W flying for UAL, I suspect the time has past. UA has A359s on order and a top up could come in the shape of an A350-1000 order, though I think the 777X will be of great interest to them. UA will certainly enjoy playing the two against each other ...

LAXintl · Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:34 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
UA knew they needed them to last until the end of the decade (until the A350-900s could start arriving) so I expect that is why they invested in the new cabins and whatever heavy maintenance checks might have been needed to keep them in operation.

Unfortunately that plan is not holding up. The 744 fleet is becoming a growing reliability handicap, and quite a nuisance to the new management team at UA.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
The 747-400 only makes sense on routes you can consistently fill it with passengers. Also, between uprating the MTOW on the pmUA 777-200ERs and the addition of pmCO 777-200ERs (which already had higher MTOWs), the need for the 747-400 on a range basis is no longer as acute so UA can now pull them out of ORD (at least during the low season).

Also unfortunately the move to center 744 ops at SFO was not based on market demands, but based on reliability issues and clearly spelled out so the company memos. Along with it goes the ORD 744 crew base permanently.

Without these ongoing issues we would see the 744 at IAH or EWR already, but stretching the fleet out would only leave room for further failure.

So I ultimately suspect something interim will happen as the 744 fleet wont last till post 2018.

Stay tuned as they say !

[Edited 2012-11-13 11:35:05]

roseflyer · Tue Nov 13, 2012 7:39 pm

The 77W is great for airlines that need widebodies in the near term for growth. UA's short term widebody needs should be taken care of by 787 deliveries. They should have 10 by the end of next year. With the domestic 14 2-class 767-300s being moved to international duties, that more than counteracts the loss of 10 762s being retired. UA in the near term should be ok. In 5 years or so, they should actively be taking A350s and 787s, so their midterm needs are also taken care of.

UA doesn't need airplanes in the near term, so the advantage of the 77W isn't that useful to UA. The 747s and 767s may be less efficient and aging, but they don't need replacement ASAP. UA can pick and choose the best airplane for their fleet from all the options. That includes 77W, A330, 787-8/9/10, A358/9/10, 777X and A380. I don't think that an airline like United which keeps their airplanes in service until they get parked in the desert would be best suited by purchasing 77Ws right now. In 20 years the 77W will be considered a fuel hog, and UA only has to wait a few more years to get the next generation of widebodies.

Stitch · Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:25 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
So I ultimately suspect something interim will happen as the 744 fleet wont last till post 2018.

Well if the 747's can't last past 2018, that effectively negates the rumors of a UA A350-1000 order, since those can't arrive before 2018.

And that would make the 777-300ER the only available option. There are 7 UFOs ordered in 2011 and 2012... Maybe Boeing will lease them some 77Ws in exchange for UA to become a 777-9X launch customer.

[Edited 2012-11-13 12:29:07]

SonomaFlyer · Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:35 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Well if the 747's can't last past 2018, that effectively negates the rumors of a UA A350-1000 order, since those can't arrive before 2018.

And that would make the 777-300ER the only available option. There are 7 UFOs ordered in 2011 and 2012... Maybe Boeing will lease them some 77Ws in exchange for UA to become a 777-9X launch customer.

The addition of the 787's and conversion of the domestic 767's gives UA a lot of operational flexibility with their existing fleet. They have 50 787's on firm order with it likely they will have a mix of -9's and possibly -10's plus the options they hold. They also have 25 firm orders for the 359 which can be converted to the 351 if they wish.

The 744's are a liability and they will get rid of them as soon as can be justified given the investment in refurbishments and maintenance. I just don't see the value in ordering the 77W (which means they'd wait 18-24 months to receive) and the capital costs associated with them when they have 75 firm wide body orders already on aircraft which will work just great for their route structure.

FriendlySkies · Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:38 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
So I ultimately suspect something interim will happen as the 744 fleet wont last till post 2018.

I wouldn't be so sure...they are isolating them to a maintenance base essentially, and the aircraft are about as old as the oldest 777s. I think they will probably try to shift a few more to spares to help with reliability issues, and perhaps they could even shift some 777s to 744 routes as more of the 763 and 764 mods come online.

The only other realistic option would be a ~5 year lease on 20 or so 773ERs, which I suppose is possible but would probably cost more than it's worth.

Does anyone know why these aircraft have become so unreliable? Does it have anything to do with moving the heavy checks to HKG?

Stitch · Tue Nov 13, 2012 8:41 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 10):
I just don't see the value in ordering the 77W...

Neither do I, but that was based on an assumption that the 747-400 fleet would remain through the transition to the 787 and A350, which LAXintl appears to be implying will not be the case.

fun2fly · Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:04 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Well if the 747's can't last past 2018, that effectively negates the rumors of a SA)">UA A350-1000 order, since those can't arrive before 2018.

And that would make the 777-300ER the only available option. There are 7 UFOs ordered in 2011 and 2012... Maybe Boeing will lease them some 77Ws in exchange for SA)">UA to become a 777-9X launch customer.

Why not 10 or so 77W's on a EK type 10-12 year lease? Allows for exit mid 2010's when ample supply of 77X or A351 are around.

Now back to facts, are any more of the 744's leased and does anyone know the lease expiration plans for the 744's?

Interesting to find this in the Q3 10Q - not sure what that means:

6-1162-RCN-1888 Use of Aircraft – Boeing 747-800 and 787 Flight Test Training SA 53

817Dreamliiner · Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:14 pm

I would like to see them order a few 77Ws, even for a short term lease, especially if they used the livery they have on the 787

. But like many others have said, its likely not to happen with the number of A350s and 787s they already have on order. Remember also that the A350 was intended to be (not sure if it still is) the 747 replacement. Plus I can see them being a potential operator of the 777X in the future.

SXDFC · Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:17 pm

I am surprised no one else seemed to mention that Boeing video that surfaced a few months back showing a 77W wearing the UA "787 Scheme".. Certainly would be nice to see..

817Dreamliiner · Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:25 pm

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 15):
I am surprised no one else seemed to mention that Boeing video that surfaced a few months back showing a 77W wearing the UA "787 Scheme".. Certainly would be nice to see..

Yes I remember that, was quite nice to see IMO. Would be great to see one painted in the livery for real though.

Lufthansa · Tue Nov 13, 2012 9:33 pm

Some of the talk of the 747 needing replacement can actually be done by the 787.
At least in the south pacific, we could see instead of LAX/SFO-SYD-MEL both LAX and SFO getting melbourne direct and possibly even Brisbane as well, negating some of the need. That being said, There is definitely heading east still a market for it. If you can fill it, its cost are still low, so if United have a few spare sitting around SFO and not pushing them to the max all the time, it should be fine. One or two go tech, there's always another there waiting to take over.

Although Id say on routes to places like hong kong there is a business case for them, they might not bother with anything larger than the A350, but since that one is coming fully expect the -1000 to end up at UAL.

N62NA · Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:15 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
he 744s are becoming an ever larger operational liability.
Just look at the new schedules with the type being pulled from ORD and other markets to be centered out of SFO solely now (except LAX-SYD & HNL-NRT) to aid with reliability.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Without these ongoing issues we would see the 744 at IAH or EWR already, but stretching the fleet out would only leave room for further failure.

I don't think there ever really was much of a chance that UA would run 744s out of EWR. For some reason, nobody does (except for the one LH flight). Kind of strange when just across the river you have JFK which sees quite a few 744 and A380 operations.

roseflyer · Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:22 pm

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 13):
Why not 10 or so 77W's on a EK type 10-12 year lease? Allows for exit mid 2010's when ample supply of 77X or A351 are around.

The board of directors would never agree to putting that much debt on the balance sheet and then amortizing it away. That would commit the airline to posting paper losses every quarter.

If they tried to lease them, the lease rate would be so high that UA would need 95% load factors to cover their ownership/acquisition costs. With the way UA structures its balance sheet, it has some of the lowest airplane ownership costs in the industry. US accounting rules aren't friendly to replacing airplanes like how Ryanair, Emirates or Singapore do.

PHX787 · Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:07 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 1):
I see no reason. They have a large 747-400 fleet that has just undergone cabin refurbishment and will comfortably take them into the latter part of this decade when they have multiple newer-generation aircraft options to use as replacements.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
But there is a chance they might go for larger A350s, 748, or even A380.

I see larger A350s and possibly 748i's in the future; but the A380??? That's a huge stretch to me.

If the 77x gets off the ground well enough, maybe UA would order it as a 772 replacement.

captainstefan · Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:14 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
and quite a nuisance to the new management team at UA.

Kinda like how the new management team has become a nuisance to most of the 'coworkers'?

akelley728 · Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:21 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Unfortunately that plan is not holding up. The 744 fleet is becoming a growing reliability handicap, and quite a nuisance to the new management team at UA.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 10):
The 744's are a liability and they will get rid of them as soon as can be justified given the investment in refurbishments and maintenance.

What is the root cause of these reliability issues? I don't hear of such issues with DL's 744 fleet.

SonomaFlyer · Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:21 pm

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11):
Does anyone know why these aircraft have become so unreliable? Does it have anything to do with moving the heavy checks to HKG?

I don't think it has so much to do where the heavy checks are performed. Keep in mind UA's 744's are older so require more maintenance anyway due to the number of cycles each aircraft has flown. Some were also stored for a period of time. Finally, there were some maintenance items deferred during UA's bankruptcy that had to be addressed.

They did put $$ into refurbishing the interiors of these aircraft. Their F and J class cabins are pretty much industry standard. In Y class, its very basic but they still fill the aircraft. I'm sure UA knows how long they need to fly the a/c to make back the money invested in heavy checks and refurbishment. I believe they are due to retire one 744 sometime next year.

With all 744's based at SFO, it will be easier to give these older a/c regular maintenance attention and have a spare close at hand if an issue occurs at SFO with a scheduled aircraft.

There really isn't a business case now for the 77W. If they were ordered a few years ago (say 2005 or 06), it would be a perfect transition aircraft for their upcoming 359 order. Unfortunately, UA was not in a position to order the 77W at the optimal time.

usairways85 · Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:30 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 8):
UA doesn't need airplanes in the near term, so the advantage of the 77W isn't that useful to UA. The 747s and 767s may be less efficient and aging, but they don't need replacement ASAP. UA can pick and choose the best airplane for their fleet from all the options. That includes 77W, A330, 787-8/9/10, A358/9/10, 777X and A380. I don't think that an airline like United which keeps their airplanes in service until they get parked in the desert would be best suited by purchasing 77Ws right now. In 20 years the 77W will be considered a fuel hog, and UA only has to wait a few more years to get the next generation of widebodies.

Spot on. The 77W was the 744 replacement for the past 5 years and probably for the next 5-10 years, depending on how the 350 program goes. In the near term UA is only retiring the 762s and will continue to take 787 deliveries. When UA really needs new widebodies in 10-15 years the 77W will essentially be the 744 of the time

something · Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:58 am

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 10):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 9):
Well if the 747's can't last past 2018, that effectively negates the rumors of a UA A350-1000 order, since those can't arrive before 2018.

And that would make the 777-300ER the only available option. There are 7 UFOs ordered in 2011 and 2012... Maybe Boeing will lease them some 77Ws in exchange for UA to become a 777-9X launch customer.

The addition of the 787's and conversion of the domestic 767's gives UA a lot of operational flexibility with their existing fleet. They have 50 787's on firm order with it likely they will have a mix of -9's and possibly -10's plus the options they hold. They also have 25 firm orders for the 359 which can be converted to the 351 if they wish.

The 744's are a liability and they will get rid of them as soon as can be justified given the investment in refurbishments and maintenance. I just don't see the value in ordering the 77W (which means they'd wait 18-24 months to receive) and the capital costs associated with them when they have 75 firm wide body orders already on aircraft which will work just great for their route structure.

That is exactly what I was thinking. What airports does UA operate 744s into and are they slot restricted? (to increase frequency on smaller metal).

On another note.. 2018 may be the A350s projected delivery date. I don't believe it and neither does Tim Clark. From what I remember, he bought 50x 77W as his insurance against A350s delays. Maybe we can expect similar moves from UA. Then again, Airbus needs to sell A380s much more than Boeing 77Ws..

Stitch · Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:43 am

Quoting something (Reply 25):
On another note.. 2018 may be the A350s projected delivery date.

At the moment, the A350-1000's EIS is penciled in for 2017. The A350-800 is penciled in for 2016, but as customers continue to convert and/or defer deliveries, so there are rumblings Airbus may either bring the A350-1000 forward, if possible, or push the A350-800 EIS past 2017 to allow production slots and design resources to be given to the A350-1000.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:50 am

Like I said, believe things have come to a head especially with the 744 fleet scheduling handicap crimping things rather sooner and faster then ever wished.

So something will give, and I can see some "interim" options being pursued as waiting till post 2018 is going to be a noose around UAs neck.

SonomaFlyer · Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:00 am

I don't think UA needs to wait till 2018 to get their 359's. I thought they were scheduled to get them in 2016 assuming the a/c isn't badly delayed. The 1000 series would be post 2018. I think UA can utilize its current wide body fleet to address the shortcomings of the 744 if need be until then. I just don't see UA taking that big a financial dive to get the 77W for this short a time frame given their current order book.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:07 am

Keep in mind getting enough frames (A359 if you wish) to replace 24 744s is not a single year event -- likely take 3.

So even if the A359 are indeed a 1:1 replacement as pmUA was thinking, it is not a quick transition.
So you will have the 744 still lingering around till close to the end of the decade.

I don't believe this is a viable plan to work off any longer..

strfyr51 · Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:25 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):

Where did you get the IDEA that the 744 is a liability??! And the A380?!? are you kidding? If the 747 is a liability then the A380 would NOT be any answer. If the A350 Can't do the job envisioned then the 747-8i would, and the problem would be put to rest. The 777W Might be an answer BUT ! It's not in assembly or even defined as of yet which it would Have to be to get here by 2016 when the A350 shows up . Glenn Tilton Rejected the 747 and 777 without much if any input. when he ordered the A350. But Tilton is no longer AT UAL and I SERIOUSLY doubt that anybody here at UAL TODAY would entertain ANY IDEA the A380 At ALL. (and if they could get away with it the A350)
These are Boeing Guys through and through. And it remains to be SEEN if the A350 is what it's cracked up to be.
We Already KNOW the 777 series can deliver. and Boeing is right down the Street.
In good conscience? Any Boeing would have an Edge at UAL.
Airbus would need a complete NEW supply chain for UAL to consider the A380 over ANY Boeing.
Even right today, we had to wait 5 days for Airbus to source a lousy fairing for an A319 that the Airplane can't fly REVENUE without. (It could ferry but with NO Passengers).. 5 days!! REALLY?!?!
Were this Boeing? They would have robbed an in production airplane so we would have put that airplane back in service in a Timely Manner. If Airbus is going to sell us more airplanes than We've already got on Order? They'd BETTER start building them "Down the Road: IN the USA Because waiting for a Lousy A319 Fairing to come from Hamburg Germany??
Is NOT giving Me much Confidence they can supply an A350, Much LESS an A380. And I'm Probably not the ONLY one at UAL S-ua OR the S-co side that feels this way. Airbus Continues to "IMPRESS" us Every Day.
I can't Wait until they "DAZZLE" us with the A350...

zeke · Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:05 am

Quoting speedbird0125 (Thread starter):
I wonder if there's any chance that UA will order 77W in the near future.

I think only a small chance.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 11):
Does anyone know why these aircraft have become so unreliable?

Do we know if they actually are, or is the lack of investment into maintenance starting to show.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 20):

I see larger A350s and possibly 748i's in the future; but the A380??? That's a huge stretch to me.

UA is one of those airlines that could operate with aircraft smaller than an A380 or 77W very easily.

Quoting something (Reply 25):
What airports does UA operate 744s into and are they slot restricted? (to increase frequency on smaller metal).

HKG, LHR, SYD.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
Even right today, we had to wait 5 days for Airbus to source a lousy fairing for an A319 that the Airplane can't fly REVENUE without. (It could ferry but with NO Passengers).. 5 days!! REALLY?!?!

Something does not sound right there, why didn't UA grab one off one of their own aircraft in maintenance ? Has UA been slow at paying their bills again ? What else is to this ? Why was it missing in the fist place ? collision ? failure of a part underneath ?

Ashburn VA is the large spares warehouse in the US, they should have the parts at hand. UA have Airbus reps in house, they should be able to sort that out.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
They'd BETTER start building them "Down the Road: IN the USA Because waiting for a Lousy A319 Fairing to come from Hamburg Germany??

A320 series aircraft will be made in the US from 2015 onwards on the Mobile FAL. Depending on the model, some have of 50-60% of the parts from the US, Airbus is the largest export customer of the US aerospace industry. I do not know where that part is made, it might be made in the US.

PHX787 · Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:11 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
Where did you get the IDEA that the 744 is a liability??! And the A380?!? are you kidding?

Quoting zeke (Reply 31):
UA is one of those airlines that could operate with aircraft smaller than an A380 or 77W very easily.

The 77W sure, but the 380?????? On which routes? IMO, US Airlines didn't order the 380 because of the frequency over capacity ratio. Especially with the alliances, UA is probably not gonna run profitably a 380 on routes such as LAX-NRT, ORD- FRA, EWR-FRA or what have you. LH, SQ, and other airlines already have saturated the market quite a bit.

zeke · Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:26 am

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 32):

Do you understand what the sentence "could operate with aircraft smaller than an A380 or 77W very easily" means, it means smaller aircraft.

LAXintl · Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:05 am

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
Where did you get the IDEA that the 744 is a liability??!

UA's own management.
Its a growing reliability headache, while its also been a profitability headache with limited use across the network.

FlyCaledonian · Wed Nov 14, 2012 11:40 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
uprating the MTOW on the pmUA 777-200ERs

What have the engines been uprated to?

AAIL86 · Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Quoting speedbird0125 (Thread starter):
UA needs to add newer version of 777 such as 77L or 77W to their fleet to compete with DL or AA's recent order of 77W.

I wasn't aware that DL has ordered 77W .... has this recently happened?

STT757 · Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:10 pm

Quoting AAIL86 (Reply 36):
I wasn't aware that DL has ordered 77W .... has this recently happened?

The poster was referring to the 77L for DL, not the 77W. The only US carrier with 77Ws on order is AA.

Stitch · Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting FlyCaledonian (Reply 35):
What have the engines been uprated to?

I'm guessing 90,000 lbf (400 kN), assuming the MTOW has been raised to 656,000 lb (297,550 kg).

PHX787 · Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:31 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 33):
Do you understand what the sentence "could operate with aircraft smaller than an A380 or 77W very easily" means, it means smaller aircraft.

Whoops! My bad! 1 AM and about to pass out when I wrote that

roseflyer · Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:03 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 34):
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
Where did you get the IDEA that the 744 is a liability??!

UA's own management.
Its a growing reliability headache, while its also been a profitability headache with limited use across the network.

Here’s my opinion.

The 747 is a liability in that it is very expensive to operate. It’s crew, fuel and airport costs are very high. It’s hard to manage costs that high without routes that truly demand year round loads. Due to the size, geography and competition in the United States, UA has a very fragmented international network. They don’t have any core trunk routes since their primary high capacity long haul destinations are all served from multiple hubs. NRT, HKG, SYD, FRA and LHR are the only destinations that can sustain year round 747 loads. Having the airplane for such a limited number of routes is a liability.

The 747 can earn more money than any other airplane. On the correct routes it is still a cash cow. However during the winter when loads are down, it’s a huge liability since it is so costly to operate.

As far as reliability goes, I’m not sure where the rumor that it is a reliability headache came from. UA is consolidating airplanes at all its hubs for reliability and operational reasons, which is why SFO is getting the 747s, DEN 737s, IAH A320s, etc. For actual dispatch reliability, the 747 fleet is not the worst at United. It’s relatively low utilization rates helps it maintain high dispatch reliability throughout most of the year. With only 23 airplanes, it is hard to rotate them through the network if one has technical problems. The same thing is true with all the small subfleets and has only gotten worse with the merger and more fleet fragmentation.

jfk777 · Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:55 pm

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 40):
The 747 is a liability in that it is very expensive to operate. It’s crew, fuel and airport costs are very high. It’s hard to manage costs that high without routes that truly demand year round loads. Due to the size, geography and competition in the United States, UA has a very fragmented international network. They don’t have any core trunk routes since their primary high capacity long haul destinations are all served from multiple hubs. NRT, HKG, SYD, FRA and LHR are the only destinations that can sustain year round 747 loads. Having the airplane for such a limited number of routes is a liability.

The 747 can earn more money than any other airplane. On the correct routes it is still a cash cow. However during the winter when loads are down, it’s a huge liability since it is so costly to operate.

IS a new 77W with financial payments that much cheaper then a full depreciated and owned 744 ? BA and Lufthansa love their 744's, only JAL scrapped their whole 744 fleet. If you own it the 744 seems to do ok if your passengers pay for First and J class.

Stitch · Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:09 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 41):
IS a new 77W with financial payments that much cheaper then a full depreciated and owned 744

Depending on the age of the airframe and the terms, UA is looking at probably paying $12-20 million a year for a 777-300ER lease.

UA's oldest 747-400s are currently worth around $14 million and their newest about $36 million.

brilondon · Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:12 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 30):
The 777W Might be an answer BUT ! It's not in assembly or even defined as of yet which it would Have to be to get here by 2016 when the A350 shows up .

The 77W has been in production for a while. I just rode in one from NRT last week. You are talking about the 77X project maybe?

American 767 · Fri Nov 16, 2012 5:33 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 38):
I'm guessing 90,000 lbf (400 kN)

The GE90-115B can deliver over 100000 lbs of thrust. It's on Boeing's website. It is the most powerful engine ever designed in the history of civil aviation, and it has a high bypass ratio.

817Dreamliiner · Fri Nov 16, 2012 7:17 am

Quoting American 767 (Reply 44):
The GE90-115B can deliver over 100000 lbs of thrust. It's on Boeing's website. It is the most powerful engine ever designed in the history of civil aviation, and it has a high bypass ratio.

Yes but UA has 200ERs not LRs. The GE90-115B is only applicable on the longer ranged 777s i.e. the 77W and 77L, which UA dont have.

VC10er · Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:41 pm

The day the last United 747 leaves the fleet will be a sad day for me. IMHO United is a 747 airline, not many left for US carriers. Delta's handful aquired via the NW merger have been embraced by DL in much of their advertising. For decades the 747 was the United flagship. I understand that money trumps all and I wouldn't expect UA or any other airline flying a 747 if it is not maximizing revenues.

Had the CO merger happened a few years earlier, and given CO's love affair with Boeing, do you all think they would have chosen the 748i over the A350?

As for new routes (growth) I assume that UA still has a flexible enough of a fleet to add a few new international destinations. Or add another frequency to their biggest and critical destinations?

Could they slow the retirement of intl 767's as 787's enter service in order to add destinations as the economy (HOPEFULLY) turns around. United's USP (unique selling proposition) is their network scope and frequencies, multiple route options. On this thread I started, many people listed great options. I hope some or even all come true!

Stitch · Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:55 pm

Quoting 817Dreamliiner (Reply 45):
Yes but UA has 200ERs not LRs.

UA's 777s are also powered by the Pratt & Whitney PW4090.

(And yes, I know CO's 777s are powered by the GE90, but they max out at the GE90-94b at 94k of thrust).

817Dreamliiner · Fri Nov 16, 2012 4:12 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 47):

UA's 777s are also powered by the Pratt & Whitney PW4090.

I know, I didnt forget about them

AA767LOVER · Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:45 am

Now, what I find rather interesting is UA 895 is going to operate 777's from HKG-SIN - is that a tag on, or is UA actually using a 777 from SFO-HKG and then refuel from HKG-SIN? No point to do HKG-SGN on a 777; they can keep the 738s as I'm sure the demand is not that hot to justify a 777.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net