Should nostalgia be part of UA's master fleet plan? As long as the 747 family can prove its worth financially then great. If not, be prepared to have a single-deck-only fleet.

It shouldn't. However that doesn't void my personal nostalgic desires. I'm wouldn't worry too much that UA senior management is considering FTers plane preferences too strongly. :D

Huh??
 

I believe GE and PW quote max continuous at different flight conditions, GE is static and PW may be at a higher MN. Higher MN = lower thrust. See the respective TCDS for both engines. If MCT was quoted at the same flight conditions they would be close. Regardless of engine, the aircraft needs a certain thrust to fly, its just physics. And besides MCT is only used in an engine out situation, max climb is thrust is really what it's all about, time to climb etc.

As for the engines: A PW4090 is a PW4090...theres no derate involved on the base engine. However a PW4077D or a PW4074D is a derated PW4090 that is used by some operators where the routes dont require full thrust (Japan) or the aircraft is not capable of that thrust rating. A PW4077 is a PW4077, the original engine on the 777-200. Its a physically different engine than the PW4090. The PW4090 has extra LPT and LPC stages vs the PW4077.

Careful on how you mix these and on what aircraft. It all depends on what capability was bought, on a tail number basis.

747-8
 

I would love to see UA get a deal on this plane & add it to the fleet. I had a chance to fly on an LH 747-8 in March, it's a great plane.

I agree with you but SQ did it and sorta hasn't looked back...

The 787-9 is the "longer" as in stretched version, it is not designed as a longer range version (as e.g. the 772LR is to the 772ER). Boeing cites a range of 8000 to 8500nm (with 250 to 290 passengers) for hte 787-9 and a range of 7650-8200nm (with 210 to 250 passengers) for the 787-8. The max range listed is with the fewest passengers, the lower range is with the maximum passengers. The 787-9 has a higher fuel capacity, hense the slightly (200-300 nm) higher range.

United has 219 on the airplane, so they should be able to go to nearly 8200nm, but keep in mind that effective range is dictated by winds (flying into a 200nm wind for 10 hours shaves off 2000nm of range). For some routes UA might like to fly (e.g. SFO-SIN, NYC-SIN, ORD-SDY) they would need the range of a 772LR (which is 9395nm).

The problem for UA is that there are a lot of city pairs that UA might like to fly that the 788 has the range for (NYC-HKG, NYC-Dubai, LAX/SFO-SDY) but its too small of an aircraft. The 773ER has the same range as the 787-8, yet it seats a max of 386 and in a three class configuration like AA has 310.

For a flight like this you have the same 4 pilots, only a few extra FAs on the 773ER (you need one for every 50 passengers) and about the same per passenger fuel burn as the 788 . So the 773ER has a substantially lower per seat operating cost if you can fill the plane. And on many of these routes, UA could fill the larger plane now while in the past CO could not, and UA could only do so via some discounting.

Expect UA to

Are you mixing NM with SM? GC map shows SFO-SIN as 7340NM.

I am not. As you noted I said these ranges were effected by winds. Going West (e.g. SFO-SIN) you get major jet steam and prevailing winds which are going east. These winds can be 100 or more MPH, which reduces the effective range substantially. Up to, if not more than 1000NM on a route like this. On a good day you could make SIN-SFO, but SFO-SIN would either have to refuel in China or it would crash.

I don't think they could do SFO-BKK either, perhaps could make SEA-BKK, but would be weight limited going West (which might not be such a problem as that direct likely has no cargo.)

Only the 772LR or the A340-500 can do that long of a route.