Please continue the discussion here.

United To Order 777-300ER? (by rlo4934 Jan 19 2015 in Civil Aviation)

Ben Soriano

To me, "incremental" just means "we are not increasing our order count." It's very carefully worded.

Regarding the 77W v. 351 carrying max pax and payload over the longer range, there is also a difference in purchase price to consider between the 77W that Boeing will be looking to offer a deal on in order to fill the production gap until the 77X arrives v. the much newer 351...

In response to TWA772LR's reply 154 in thread 1:

I thought the same. Timing both in lead time and duration since last change would seem to fit nicely, but time will tell.

Quoting N328KF (Reply 1): To me, "incremental" just means "we are not increasing our order count." It's very carefully worded.

That's what I had thought initially.

Quote from Thread #1 by UA444
"They should just hold onto the 35 strong 763 fleet, outfit the rest with winglets, and fly them until they can't fly anymore. Gas is cheaper and the 767 is still quite efficient for the routes it flies. DL and AA have 763s that are in some cases 5 years older still flying. They still have several years of life in them."

AA and DL don't fly the extremely heavy premium of the UA 3 class aircraft. At 183 seats, the UA bird is 23 to 78 seats less than the several AA and DL configurations. If UA were to pull F class, move up Business and add Y, that could be competitive for a few years. Without going through a full reconfiguration, it could trade in 6 F seats and 2 Business and pick up 32Y seats, 24/183=207, bringing it closer to the 2 class 763 at 30 and 184=214.

From the user Doclightning

Quote: Admittedly this is an old slide and it's Airbus's slide, but: http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/m...de.jp

The range of the A35J has changed, not so much for the 77W.

Great slide bro, show it again. At least 10 777-300ERs are inbound to United. That's 10 airframes not called A350s. Slides are great, a future promise is wonderful but workhorse airframes now is what United wanted and received. Way to go for United and Boeing to creatively place a new variant of the proven 777 in the fleet.

I don't think anyone answered my question in the first thread, so I'm posting it here:

What effect will this have on UA's 744 retirement schedule? How many UA 747s will still be flying after all of the 77Ws are delivered, and what year can we now expect the last 744s to be retired?

Quoting Burchfiel (Reply 8): What effect will this have on UA's 744 retirement schedule? How many UA 747s will still be flying after all of the 77Ws are delivered, and what year can we now expect the last 744s to be retired?

I don't think anyone can answer this question as we don't know all of the details of the order yet...

UA is releasing Q4 and 2014 fiscal results on Thursday and generaly along with that an updated fleet plan for the year is released. I would nto be supprised if UA makes this annoucement official on Thursday as well....

Quoting Burchfiel (Reply 8): What effect will this have on UA's 744 retirement schedule?

Expect it to be expedited, unfortunately. As others have said, some are approaching their next D checks relatively soon so those will be the first to go.

My only 747 ride so far was SFO-SYD on the Sat Alliance plane. I need at least one ride in the hump and one ride to HKG (if I can knock those out in one trip that would be awesome!) before I can die in peace.

Long live the Queen.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 10): Expect it to be expedited, unfortunately.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 10): My only 747 ride so far was SFO-SYD on the Sat Alliance plane.

Took the longest most hellish UA 747 route, and can still say "unfortunately"?

There's other better options for the 747 still in service... Heck, if you're near IAH you could get the elusive Combi right?

I do wish I could be as enthusiastic about the 744 as others are.

Also, one consideration about the 744's getting ditched is that maybe the NIMBY's will be a bit calmer, particularly around SFO where they're very vocal. Those 744's are looouuud, and I can easily identify when it's a 744 flying over just from the sound it makes.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 11):

Let me give you some background on me.

I was practically born into this industry. All of the airlines I have grown up with are either gone or I literally moved away from. I "inherited" United through the merger, yes I am a Continental brat. CO is gone now. And I see the shambles of what the airline I have come to idolize is in and I want to fix it to make it grand again. As an avgeek, the holy grail of flying for me was flying on a jumbo jet. Not only did I do that on the airline I love, I did it with 3 guys whom I will be best friends for life during the trip of a life time. Hell, half the trip for me going overseas is just flying on a big plane, just ask my friends! I'm 22 years old, I'm a young and dumb college kid who still lives with his parents. I cannot shell out thousands of dollars just to fly on an airplane. All of my trips are nonrev, and unlike most people on here, I'm happy just to get a middle seat, and I'm 6'2" 264lbs.

So before you go slamming my decision to persue something I love, think twice my friend. Someone could turn around and do it to you.

Rant off.   Sorry to hijack the thread.

[Edited 2015-01-20 21:18:45]

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 12): I "inherited" United through the merger, yes I am a Continental brat.

Finally, someone who feels the same way I do!   

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 10):

"My only 747 ride so far was SFO-SYD"

I'm glad you enjoyed and appreciated the flight, and not all of us are so jaded about the Queen that we can't still look upon her fondly. Don't let anyone ruin your buzz!

I had my first 777-300ER flight this past year (ANA), and I am thrilled United will be adding the 77W to their fleet. I can't wait to see her in United colors.

[Edited 2015-01-20 21:24:48]

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 10): I need at least one ride in the hump and one ride to HKG (if I can knock those out in one trip that would be awesome!) before I can die in peace.

As a 23-year-old, I totally understand you! The two 747 trips I remember going on are a UA NRT-SFO leg in 2008 and a HKG-TPE leg on a BR combi last year. Great experiences. I'd love to fly on the 744 even just one more time. I like to think that even if I were a seasoned 744 traveler, I'd still be sad to see them go!

Other widebodies are great too -- they're just not the same as the Queen!

I'm hoping that UA or DL will schedule a domestic 744 flight sometime this year (DL has had a couple the last few years, I think). That may be my best opportunity. There's also the possibility that UA or DL will have domestic 'farewell flights' when they retire their 744 fleets. Otherwise, I hear that BA and LH are still going to fly their 744s for many years to come -- even until 2023 in BA's case. So perhaps by then, I'll be able to go to Europe on one.

I really enjoyed my visit to HKG (the airport and the city), and I hope you'll have a great time too.

Good luck!

[Edited 2015-01-20 21:47:56]

Looks like it's a straight conversion of 787-9 orders:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/...nited-boeing-idUSKBN0KU01R20150121
http://www.wsj.com/articles/united-n...er-jets-1421793008?KEYWORDS=boeing

Quoting bobdino (Reply 16):

Not to be confused with cancellations right?!?

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 12): So before you go slamming my decision to persue something I love, think twice my friend. Someone could turn around and do it to you.

Woooah there, I wasn't slamming you! I was questionning the widespread affinity for the UA 744 (and the seeming disregard for other 744's), I'd have thought that a trip in a UA 744 would have the potential to leave a bit of a bitter taste through a SFO-SYD flight in Y. I'm much in the same boat in that I'd sure like to fly in the 744 for its overall significance, but I for one would sure rather avoid a UA 744 since by the 5th hour, I'd likely forget the novelty of the craft I'm in since I can't exactly get a 3rd person view of it from within (unless it's equipped with one of those nifty camera systems through the IFE, if any 744's have that... Maybe LH's 748's).

Simple conflict of opinion there as we likely have different priorities, that's all. But I'd like to better understand just why so many love that particular craft of that particular airline, especially since my opinion differs so strongly on it.

However, I do wonder if my point about the 747 and its noise levels does hold much significance, particularly around SFO.

...Anyhow...
More on topic. Any thoughts on why UA chose to change some 789 orders over to 77W? That seems odd, considering that it appeared as though the 789 was going to further act as a 772 or 763 replacement rather than a 77W replacement. Could be tied to the retrofit of what was it... 10 763's to 2 class?

Quoting S75752 (Reply 11): Took the longest most hellish UA 747 route, and can still say "unfortunately"? There's other better options for the 747 still in service... Heck, if you're near IAH you could get the elusive Combi right? I do wish I could be as enthusiastic about the 744 as others are. Also, one consideration about the 744's getting ditched is that maybe the NIMBY's will be a bit calmer, particularly around SFO where they're very vocal. Those 744's are looouuud, and I can easily identify when it's a 744 flying over just from the sound it makes.

Having a look at your profile, you are young and obviously tainted by the "appeal" of modern aircraft, ie: boring twins. There is no such thing as a hellish 747 ride, even when I took my first 747 from SYD/LHR at the age of 10, via SIN/KUL/BAH/ATH, that was anything but hellish. I've done the SFO/SYD on UA, with only the "big screen" entertainment, boring yes, hellish, no way. Besides, a new or recently refurbished 747 would provide everything on board that any contemporary aircraft will.

I've had the privilege of flying pretty much every variant of the 747 besides the "8", which I will do, over countless flights and with 8 different airlines, never has a ride been hellish. In fact, I'm due for another soon and thanks to QF for the rescheduling of the QF 11 and the QF 17, I will soon get to have another flight on the 744 and the most pleasing aspect is that I will get to take my partner and our 4 kids and they will get to experience a truly revolutionary aircraft, that over the decades, has transformed intercontinental flying. The 747 maybe in her twilight years, but she is the Queen of the Skies and always will be.

As for your NIMBYS around SFO, stuff em. If they think, or for that matter, you think a 744 is loud, consider winding the clock back a few decades. The 744 is quiet compared to early 747-100's and consider also that the 70's and 80's were dominated by the following types 707,727,737, DC8's and 9's, MD80's, BAC 1-11s, F28's, VC10's, Caravelles, a plethora of Soviet types and not forgetting turboprops, which in some instances, were noisy than the jets. Modern aviation is unfortunately, poorer, although obviously far better environmentally, than how it used to be. The days of being able to still see where an aircraft was, a few minutes after take off just by following the smoke trail was a treat. I'm sure those NIMBYS would love to rewind the clock just to be reminded how good they've got it now.

From the first thread.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 192): Quoting scbriml (Reply 190): 60% discount off list. That's the sort of deal they're going to have to do to fill the 777 line until the -9s & -8s start rolling off the line. On the plus side, if they can keep the line at 8.3 per month with those deals, they'll be able to continue to leverage the lower production costs which will help protect margins.

Absolutely, it would be a huge bonus for Boeing if they can do it and they're confident they can. However, every analyst I've read has the view the rate will have to drop and filling the line will obviously get harder the closer they get to producing -8s and -9s. The last few 77Ws off the line will likely be very cheap.

Obviously, Airbus is in exactly the same position with the A330 and has already announced a rate cut to 9/month starting next year.

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 17): Not to be confused with cancellations right?!?

If United switches existing 787 orders to 77Ws, then yes, Boeing will book a cancellation of 10 787s and add 10 77Ws.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 2): Regarding the 77W v. 351 carrying max pax and payload over the longer range, there is also a difference in purchase price to consider between the 77W that Boeing will be looking to offer a deal on in order to fill the production gap until the 77X arrives v. the much newer 351...

Yup, there's no way you can buy an A350-1000 for $120 million.

Quoting scbriml (Reply 20): If United switches existing 787 orders to 77Ws, then yes, Boeing will book a cancellation of 10 787s and add 10 77Ws.

That's driven by standard accounting practice at both Boeing and Airbus, yes? (I'm definitely not an accountant).

Quoting bobdino (Reply 22): That's driven by standard accounting practice at both Boeing and Airbus, yes? (I'm definitely not an accountant).

Yes, both Airbus and Boeing do the same thing if an airline switches an order between families (e.g. 787 to 777 in this case or even A320ceo to A320neo). Model changes within a family are not normally booked as a cancellation and new order (e.g. switching from A320 to A321 or 737-700 to 737-800).

Quoting scbriml (Reply 23): Yes, both Airbus and Boeing do the same thing if an airline switches an order between families (e.g. 787 to 777 in this case or even A320ceo to A320neo). Model changes within a family are not normally booked as a cancellation and new order (e.g. switching from A320 to A321 or 737-700 to 737-800).

Thanks  

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 19): As for your NIMBYS around SFO, stuff em. If they think, or for that matter, you think a 744 is loud, consider winding the clock back a few decades. The 744 is quiet compared to early 747-100's and consider also that the 70's and 80's were dominated by the following types 707,727,737, DC8's and 9's, MD80's, BAC 1-11s, F28's, VC10's, Caravelles, a plethora of Soviet types and not forgetting turboprops, which in some instances, were noisy than the jets. Modern aviation is unfortunately, poorer, although obviously far better environmentally, than how it used to be. The days of being able to still see where an aircraft was, a few minutes after take off just by following the smoke trail was a treat. I'm sure those NIMBYS would love to rewind the clock just to be reminded how good they've got it now.

I live close enough to SFO to see and hear anything departing on the 28's...I wouldn't consider the 747 to be noticeably louder than a 777 is. In any event, I'm with you 100%...just about everyone who lives here moved here long after the airport had established itself. They either moved here knowing about the noise, or they didn't do their proper due diligence before making such a decision...as a result, I have no sympathy for NIMBY's. Besides, I think many of them are looking for excuses to have something to complain about...some of them would probably complain if a Piper Cherokee flew 5000 feet over their house   

This surprises me; I can only make sense of it by thinking that too many 747s were going to come up for D-check before the A3510's arrive, plus the fact that Boeing is offering great deals on 77Ws at this point in order to fill the line before the 777Xs start rolling off. I wonder what the long term effects are going to be; right now, the 77Ws will not be a problem as UA still has plenty of 772s still flying. But they will be long gone while the 77Ws are still in their prime; what then? 10 is a pretty small fleet for UA, and either they will offload them (which will not be easy as there will be boatloads of ex-EK 77Ws on the market as well by then), or they intend to buy the 779. I really was not expecting them to do so with the A3510 in their fleet; while the 779 is bigger, I did not think that UA really needs both. But maybe UA was between a rock and a hard place with the 744s and this was an immediate solution, and they will worry about the consequences later.

Could Delta do the same thing? Exchange the 787s they have on hold for cheap 77Ws?

Quoting atnight (Reply 27): Exchange the 787s they have on hold for cheap 77Ws?

I don't think so, DL said 77W/A351 sized airplanes are too big for their needs.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 26): This surprises me; I can only make sense of it by thinking that too many 747s were going to come up for D-check before the A3510's arrive, plus the fact that Boeing is offering great deals on 77Ws at this point in order to fill the line before the 777Xs start rolling off. I wonder what the long term effects are going to be; right now, the 77Ws will not be a problem as UA still has plenty of 772s still flying. But they will be long gone while the 77Ws are still in their prime; what then? 10 is a pretty small fleet for UA, and either they will offload them (which will not be easy as there will be boatloads of ex-EK 77Ws on the market as well by then), or they intend to buy the 779. I really was not expecting them to do so with the A3510 in their fleet; while the 779 is bigger, I did not think that UA really needs both. But maybe UA was between a rock and a hard place with the 744s and this was an immediate solution, and they will worry about the consequences later.

That's a really good summary of the situation, except for any implications for the 787-9. Are there any, or is this just a "we need the 744s out the door more than we need more 787-9s, and cancelling the 787-9s is the fastest and most capital-efficient way to do it?"

Quoting bobdino (Reply 29): That's a really good summary of the situation, except for any implications for the 787-9. Are there any, or is this just a "we need the 744s out the door more than we need more 787-9s, and cancelling the 787-9s is the fastest and most capital-efficient way to do it?"

In the context of United, they're sitting on a pile of options. As other people have stated extensively, they would need to exercise all of those and add more orders to conduct a complete 1:1 fleet refresh.

In the context of Boeing, it's beneficial to them because they now have some 787-9 slots that they can offer up. Whether this means lessening penalties that might have to be paid to other buyers, or allowing them to now sell these ten slots, or what have you, is anyone's guess for the moment. On a much smaller scale, it is beneficial in to Boeing in the same sense that the Emirates A350 cancellation was beneficial to Airbus (those A350 slots likely had some impact on the Delta deal.)

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 10): My only 747 ride so far was SFO-SYD on the Sat Alliance plane. I need at least one ride in the hump and one ride to HKG (if I can knock those out in one trip that would be awesome!) before I can die in peace.

In my mind, there's no better place than the hump, except maybe the nose of the 747. Both of them rock.

Quoting jupiter2 (Reply 19): 've had the privilege of flying pretty much every variant of the 747 besides the "8", which I will do, over countless flights and with 8 different airlines, never has a ride been hellish.

I agree, except maybe the ride from Cape Town to Atlanta via Cape Verde, and that was a scheduling and seat issue, not a plane issue.

The 747-8 rocks. I had the upper deck on a ride to Bangalore. It's the ultimate expression of the 747. I'm bummed that relatively few will be built.

Quoting bobdino (Reply 29): That's a really good summary of the situation, except for any implications for the 787-9. Are there any, or is this just a "we need the 744s out the door more than we need more 787-9s, and cancelling the 787-9s is the fastest and most capital-efficient way to do it?"

I'm guessing switching 787 options to 77W firm is easier on UA's bookkeeping. Either way it's not affecting the 787 firm orders, but I'm still curious what UA is doing to replace 763s. The 788s are mostly (if not all) delivered, and everything else is 789 (777 routes that require yield improving or at ULH stage lengths) and 78J (777 routes that can use extra pax lift, and TATL)

It seems that Boeing has been able to place some "feed stock" 77Ws into the United fleet. Potentially garnering them additional 777 orders in the likes of 777-8/9s in the future. United could have held on to the 744s for a while longer and replaced them with the A350s. Instead, airframes were needed now and Boeing cut to the inside lane. It is a win for both the airline and manufacturer. It will be interesting to see if the 77W can continue to be used as "feed stock" for others and strengthen or build new 777 operators with tie ins for 777-8/9s.

The move helps out a long time customer with competitive lift being delivered faster. It helps keep the manufacturer's 777 line clicking until the 8/9 AND it frees up some 787 slots which have been hard to come by.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 33): I'm guessing switching 787 options to 77W firm is easier on UA's bookkeeping.

The WSJ article seems to be clear that this would be a swap of existing 787 firm orders for 77Ws, not switching 787 options to 77W.

Quoting CX747 (Reply 34): It seems that Boeing has been able to place some "feed stock" 77Ws into the United fleet. Potentially garnering them additional 777 orders in the likes of 777-8/9s in the future. United could have held on to the 744s for a while longer and replaced them with the A350s. Instead, airframes were needed now and Boeing cut to the inside lane. It is a win for both the airline and manufacturer. It will be interesting to see if the 77W can continue to be used as "feed stock" for others and strengthen or build new 777 operators with tie ins for 777-8/9s. The move helps out a long time customer with competitive lift being delivered faster. It helps keep the manufacturer's 777 line clicking until the 8/9 AND it frees up some 787 slots which have been hard to come by.

I agree with your post except the last line - the ones freed up are 787 *options* that haven't been exercised ... do those take up any slots ? or they're assigned hypothetical slots based on an assigned probability the airline would call in the options ?

Quoting a380787 (Reply 36): the ones freed up are 787 *options* that haven't been exercised

Where are you getting that these would be options rather than firm 787s?

Quoting scbriml (Reply 37): Quoting a380787 (Reply 36): the ones freed up are 787 *options* that haven't been exercised Where are you getting that these would be options rather than firm 787s?

Are these from firm 787s ? I guess I'm confused by all the rumors.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 38): Are these from firm 787s?

Yes. UA is swapping 10 firm 787-9 orders for 10 firm 777-300ER orders.

UA does have a significant number of 787 options, so they can exercise 10 of those later on to "recover" the ten frames they've swapped.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 5): AA and DL don't fly the extremely heavy premium of the UA 3 class aircraft. At 183 seats, the UA bird is 23 to 78 seats less than the several AA and DL configurations.

I don't know of any 261-seat DL 767-300ER international configs. Even the 764 is 246 in total. 763s are 2-class lie-flat with basic high J (36J) and low J (26J) configs with 208-226 seats total. AA's refurbed 763 with lie-flats is 209 total in two classes.

Perhaps you were thinking of DL's domestic 763s - not at all a relevant comparison.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 21): Yup, there's no way you can buy an A350-1000 for $120 million.

What's the ballpark price for a 789?

Does EK have a timeline for shedding their RR 773s? (non-ER) I'm guessing that EK won't keep their aircraft as long as many other carriers so these non-ERs probably have a lot of usable life left in them.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 41): What's the ballpark price for a 789?

Probably around 125-130 million (figuring around 50% off list).

Quoting bobdino (Reply 29): Are there any, or is this just a "we need the 744s out the door more than we need more 787-9s, and cancelling the 787-9s is the fastest and most capital-efficient way to do it?"

That would be my take on it. I am a little puzzled why they are canceling 789s to get them; I expect at some point they will exercise options or place a new order for them. I do not see where this reduces the need for them, but it probably means that UA does not need to lay out any more cash at this point. Again, this may be a shortsighted decision.

Quoting jetblastdubai (Reply 41): Does EK have a timeline for shedding their RR 773s? (non-ER) I'm guessing that EK won't keep their aircraft as long as many other carriers so these non-ERs probably have a lot of usable life left in them.

Since EK has only recently started to retire their early 777's (ln 30 & 33) after almost 20 years I don't think they'll be retiring their 773's anytime soon.

Quoting bobdino (Reply 29): Are there any (implications about the 787-9 at UA), or is this just a "we need the 744s out the door more than we need more 787-9s, and cancelling the 787-9s is the fastest and most capital-efficient way to do it?"

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 44): I am a little puzzled why they are canceling 789s to get them; I expect at some point they will exercise options or place a new order for them.

UA could be planning future route optimizations that concentrates more traffic onto fewer flights and that would favor using larger planes. UA already seems to have decided a 767-sized plane is too small for them (even with the large fleet they have at the moment) as they converted the remainder of their 787-8 orders to the 787-9 and 787-10. So UA may have been considering converting those ten 787-9s to 787-10s down the road, anyway, and by switching them over to the 777-300ER now, they can conserve some capital at the moment.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 46): UA already seems to have decided a 767-sized plane is too small for them

UA is said to be retaining 10 of 21 767-300ERs to be converted into a denser two-cabin configuration (76E at 30J/184Y). With 24 76E and 12 787-8, UA must be satisfied with its long-term fleet composition in the low-200 seat range.

Quoting codc10 (Reply 47): UA is said to be retaining 10 of 21 767-300ERs to be converted into a denser two-cabin configuration (76E at 30J/184Y). With 24 76E and 12 787-8, UA must be satisfied with its long-term fleet composition in the low-200 seat range.

Could also be that the 789 and 788 have very similar operating costs (just like the 762 vs 763), so why not opt for the larger, more flexible airframe?

Those 11 additional 76Es are still 20-25 years old (they are from the early 90s batch, the existing 14 76Es are later deliveries), so they won't be around too much longer even with conversion. I definitely think converting the 789s is short-sighted, unless there is some other deal in the works for later delivery in the 2020 time frame.

I gess they get the 777-300ER for the price of the 787-9.

Boeing gets at least free slots that in an event like the DL compaign they are more flexible for important customers.
Could also be that othr airlines also may get a deallike: give me you 787-9 slots and we deliver you a 777-300 ER for that earlier.
Just a guess of course.


Regards

Flyglobal

Wouldn't be surprised if Airbus makes similar deals (as per discount) for A380 eventually -( uuups -thats a taboo theme )