Originally Posted by UNITED959
Yes, I know UA has both the ER and regular versions of 777...but why not specify as such? Too much of a headache? Just curious as to why they go to the length of specifying "ER" when the majority of the general public probably doesn't even care...
UA only operates the 767-300ER, where as they operate both the 777-200 and 777-200ER. In fact, Boeing no longer offers the 767-300 for passenger sale, just the 767-300ER (the 767-300 is only offered as a freighter). So by both definitions, using 767-300ER is the correct designation for UA to use.
Just as when UA only operated the 767-200, calling it the "767" made sense.
Since the 777-200 (777XC) and 777-200ER (777XI and 777XP) are used on international trans-Atlantic routes, sticking with "777" as the designation is easier, since UA can swap the planes about as needed on that route. Should UA take delivery of 777-300s/777-300ERs, then I imagine those will have the full name and not be bunched together with the "777" designation.