While smaller planes and increased frequencies are the continuing mantra of USA-based airlines, this is one area where I predict that UA will not replace 744s with 772s. On ultra-long flights like Australia, crew costs are substantial (what with four pilots and easily a dozen FAs), and downgauging the flight to a 772 spreads those costs over a smaller passenger base.

QF is replacing 744s with A380s; crew costs are about the same yet plenty of passengers to pay those labor costs. I'm not saying that UA will order A380s but I do think that the replacement for UA's 744s to Australia will be larger than 772s.

The logical twin-engine replacement for the 744, the 777-300ER, features a lot more cubic feet of cargo capacity beneath the floor and, in most cases, more cargo payload capacity than a 744.

That is a huge factor here. In recent bloomberg article about transporting cars the size of the 777 is noted as restricting AA from cashing in on this market.

I would love to see it as well but not sure how I would like a 2 cabin version with 10 accros in Y (or maybe 11) and those horrible BF seats jammed upstairs and in the nose. LH did a great job with theirs but they are LH and UA is UA. Now if they were to do a 3 cabin version, that would be wonderful but only way that would happen is if new mgmnt took over first and that aint happening.

That makes two of us!

I didn't know that, learn something new every day ^

Maybe UA is waiting to see what the 777X variant looks like and whether it could be a viable replacement. If the first delivery dates for the 777X are 2019 / 2020, I think UA would be content trying to stretch the 744 until then and being the 777X domestic launch partner (I would think after the 787 debacle UA might be able to extract some pretty good concessions on price).

Sucks for UA then, not having any 77Ws. Perhaps they should convert those 744s into cargo planes and run 772s for pax service.

Good timing- United could really take advantage of the lack of buyers of the 747-8i, Boeing should give them a great deal to keep that production line moving.

You are 110% on target. If you have the load, then flying a larger plane vs. a smaller one make a big difference in crew costs. UA could replace the 744 with two 787-800s, get roughtly the same capacity, and be paying 8 pilots, not 4 and a few more FAs as well. They would also pay two gate and landing fees, not one (although landing fees are usually weight based).

UA did its fleet prep as a stand alone company and the B787-800 made good sense to replace the 767-300, which needed immediate replacement. Next up, the 744 there was no logical replacement that got much better fuel economy. The best "current" replacement would be the 777-300ER, but, given that UA wanted these planes 5-6 years from now, it made more sense to wait for the A350-900 which would have slightly less capacity, but better fuel burn.

Now, the airline has 40% more traffic with CO tossed in, meaning that these big trunk routes need a new airliner, and likely a bigger one than the A350-900 (which is between the size of a 777-200 and -300).

My guess is that United would take the 747-800 if they got a screaming deal, if Boeing gets the specs done on the 77X UA might consider that. But for now, I don't think they see anything that would justify the Cap-ex for the next 5 years, so they will wait, change if something better turns up, or go with the A350-900 as planned.

I think this is exactly what they are doing, waiting and seeing how the A350-900 comes out (it is shortly to get its first flight) and then reassess in light of what Boeing is offering re the 777x

True, but at least a UA 748 would have E+ as a consolation prize when your upgrade doesn't clear. Regular Y on the LH 748 looked pretty cramped.

three of us :D

Four, but can they justify running what would essentially be a dedicated subfleet for Australia only? AFAIK no other route on the network screams for a VLA.

Given how COdbaUA is chasing away VFFs that is so true.

FRA and NRT would be the only other strong possibilities, 2 of them are revenue shares so can "coordinate" frequencies. For example cut from 2x daily to 1x on SFO-NRT.

HKG and LHR are iffy.

Guam? No.

I thought it was because of the GE engine that disintegrated in flight on a DC-10 over Iowa and the subsequent lawsuits United filed against GE that followed.

I think an arrangement can be made in favor of an "Australian sub fleet." I will admit I don't think I am the person to best make this case but I will try.

In pre-merger UA the route SFO/LAX-JFK had a sub fleet. The market called for, if not demanded a three cabin 'premium' product. In pre-merger CO the 752's were a sub fleet serving thin routes to many European cities. Yes these A/C made a turn to FLL or IAH but their purpose was to make thin NYC-EU route profitable.

Reducing the number of 744s by using a combination of 748, 77x and 781 A/C makes sense over time. Each one of those planes can replace, fill or enhance some great niche routes or planes.

I knew about the incident and that MD sued GE and UA. I am sure everyone sued everyone, but that is generally not a reason to not do business. But it's possible.

Could be both of us are wrong according to this 1995 P+W Press Release P+W had the only 180 ETOPS certified engines when the 777 entered into service. As UA was one of the launch customers for the 777 that may have been their only choice.