Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

UA Orders Boeing 777-300ERs / 77Ws w/ 1-2-1 Polaris Business, 3-4-3 Economy

Old Dec 9, 2016, 11:15 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
Last edit by: FlyHighInTheSky


https://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/inflight/aircraft/777/300/default.aspx
Print Wikipost

UA Orders Boeing 777-300ERs / 77Ws w/ 1-2-1 Polaris Business, 3-4-3 Economy

Old Jan 20, 2015, 9:44 am
  #61  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP, US Silver
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by warreng24
I agree with this. The 77W would be a cost-effective way to upgage equipment. Especially on slot controlled airports.

I can see SFO-NRT, one of the EWR-LHR's, SFO-HKG, SFO-PVG, SFO-PEK, and ORD-HKG going 77W...
I agree partially. I see this as a cost controlling exercise, so they would be deployed on the 5 longest 744 routes.

Complete loss of GF cabin to SYD and HKG can potentially be problematic in the future.
jetsetEWR is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 10:56 am
  #62  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,007
Originally Posted by drewguy
Not sure what the delivery timeframe is for these, but if it's in ~3-4 years that would be about time for a full refresh of the 777 cabins anyway, no?

Either these will be delivered with the new cabins, or they'll start retrofitting existing 772s with the new cabins that will also be installed in these.
Aside from losing BF seats, I am wondering how much of a risk we're looking at with 10 across Y cabins across the 777 fleet with the 17" Y seat now on the 787 or a narrow variant of that seat - that would be the final nail in the coffin for many of us who fly UA longhaul. Unless I can confirm my upgrade at booking, there is no way I would risk 10+ hours in a 16" wide Y seat aside from the wasted money on a W fare.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 10:57 am
  #63  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Programs: All of them, UA-Plat, 1MM*G
Posts: 880
For those of you wondering why UA might be going for 777-300's rather than waiting for 777X's, it's all about net price. The 300s will be available 3-5 years before the X's; and even though the X's may have better fuel efficiency, the 300's have a lot better fuel efficiencies than the 744's and 777-200's that they may be replacing.

So you add the fuel savings you will get for the 3-5 years before the X's would arrive to the price discount you get from buying 300s rather than X's -- and this likely tips the scale in the 300's favor.
seenitall is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:01 am
  #64  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SEA, WAS, PEK
Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM
Posts: 2,176
Originally Posted by jetsetEWR
I agree partially. I see this as a cost controlling exercise, so they would be deployed on the 5 longest 744 routes.

Complete loss of GF cabin to SYD and HKG can potentially be problematic in the future.
I have to think these would go on 744 routes with less GF demand. I've heard from a number of sources that UA does in fact sell a number of GF seats to markets like LHR/FRA/HKG/SYD/NRT.
kevanyalowitz is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:13 am
  #65  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 6km East of EPAYE
Programs: UA Silver, AA Platinum, AS & DL GM Marriott TE, Hilton Gold
Posts: 9,582
Originally Posted by LAXative
Not even one row of GF? What would be wrong with that?
Originally Posted by RJNYC
I agree. Why not have a small 4 seat F cabin?
Like AF 772's ^
Madone59 is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:22 am
  #66  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,067
Originally Posted by LaserSailor
Indeed. It's a bowl of soup, not a cup.
As of a couple weeks ago, it was more along the lines of a ramekin of soup.


Originally Posted by seenitall
For those of you wondering why UA might be going for 777-300's rather than waiting for 777X's, it's all about net price. The 300s will be available 3-5 years before the X's; and even though the X's may have better fuel efficiency, the 300's have a lot better fuel efficiencies than the 744's and 777-200's that they may be replacing.

So you add the fuel savings you will get for the 3-5 years before the X's would arrive to the price discount you get from buying 300s rather than X's -- and this likely tips the scale in the 300's favor.
Add to it downward fuel cost projections, and burning a bit more gas may not be so costly after all.
channa is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:26 am
  #67  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: IAH
Programs: Marriott Plat, Hyatt Globalist, DL Plat, UA Silver
Posts: 4,043
Because the 744's are long due, the 77W is a great fit

772's are being replaced by 787's

Also the 788 or 789 might have maintenance issues going forward that causes delays on routes that can't be delayed like SFO-HKG etc. The 744 routes cannot be delayed/cancelled.
TennisNoob is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:26 am
  #68  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,007
Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz
I have to think these would go on 744 routes with less GF demand. I've heard from a number of sources that UA does in fact sell a number of GF seats to markets like LHR/FRA/HKG/SYD/NRT.
Sure, if you include the pass rider fees that employees pay to ride in GF.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:30 am
  #69  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,650
Originally Posted by seenitall
For those of you wondering why UA might be going for 777-300's rather than waiting for 777X's, it's all about net price. The 300s will be available 3-5 years before the X's; and even though the X's may have better fuel efficiency, the 300's have a lot better fuel efficiencies than the 744's and 777-200's that they may be replacing.

So you add the fuel savings you will get for the 3-5 years before the X's would arrive to the price discount you get from buying 300s rather than X's -- and this likely tips the scale in the 300's favor.
Rumor is UA is getting these for a steal to bridge the 777-777X production gap - $130MM each.
mduell is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:33 am
  #70  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: SEA, WAS, PEK
Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM
Posts: 2,176
Originally Posted by bocastephen
Sure, if you include the pass rider fees that employees pay to ride in GF.
kevanyalowitz is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:36 am
  #71  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: QLA
Programs: SBUX Gold
Posts: 14,507
Originally Posted by Always Flyin
This management just doesn't want to spend the money to reconfigure existing aircraft.

On COdbaUA? That's an easy one. 3-4-3 in coach. The only open question is whether E+ will be 9-across as it is on AA. With United? It will almost certainly be 3-4-3 in E+ as well.
But this is a new aircraft that doesn't yet exist in UA's fleet, so there is no reconfiguration, just a configuration. Can they truly be that myopic?

Even AA offers 3-3-3 MCE, would UA not even meet that bar?

Originally Posted by UNITED959
So long as Jeff et al. are driving this trainwreck bus, you won't see 3-cabin First.

I'd like to think they have enough intelligence to launch a new business seat -- not just for these Ws -- but also for the 87s and 350s. It's a crime that 787s are coming off the production line and have non-direct aisle access seats.
Well with that track record, I can see how my previous statements were "optimistic."
IceTrojan is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:45 am
  #72  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,007
Originally Posted by LAXative
...

Even AA offers 3-3-3 MCE, would UA not even meet that bar?
My AA EP friend just flew MCE HK-US on AA after missing their upgrade and they said the physical seat was the same very narrow, uncomfortable seat in the rest of the cabin, but the seats were spread out a little more for more space - but if your butt does not fit comfortably in that narrow seat, MCE won't help you.

Maybe this is an opportunity to join the rest of the industry and offer a real Premium Economy product that is 2-4-2 (oops, that's just like BF) with a physically larger and more comfortable seat, more legroom and better catering.
bocastephen is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 11:54 am
  #73  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Raddison Platinum, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 5,256
Hopefully they'll improve the BF seat by the time these arrive.

Ofcourse, based on UA's current track record when it comes to being competitive, they'll remove GF and BF and make it all Y
eng3 is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 12:01 pm
  #74  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: EWR
Posts: 2,109
Originally Posted by UNITED959
So long as Jeff et al. are driving this trainwreck bus, you won't see 3-cabin First.
The new UA Bus to get you between terminals at IAD (or the new corporate bus at Willis Tower, your pick)
steveman518 is offline  
Old Jan 20, 2015, 12:09 pm
  #75  
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP, US Silver
Posts: 68
Originally Posted by eng3
Hopefully they'll improve the BF seat by the time these arrive.

Ofcourse, based on UA's current track record when it comes to being competitive, they'll remove GF and BF and make it all Y
Say hi to United rouge. 2-4-2 Y+ and 3-4-3 regular Y. To get Y+, use GPU or miles+copay. 500 seats on 77W, global CASM king.

15 hour flight to SYD, buy-on-board.
jetsetEWR is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.