Feb 20, 2014, 8:54 am

FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides

LAX-MEL on the new 787-9, 6x weekly

SYD-MEL-SYD tag-on is being dropped.

The 789 is sCO, delivery expected in the summer.

UA options to Australia will now be:

SFO-SYD - 3-class sUA 777
LAX-SYD - 3-class sUA 777
LAX-MEL - sCO 2-class 789 with 48J/88Y+/116Y 252 seats total
GUM-CNS - sCO 2-class 738 (2x per week)

LAX - MEL schedule:

98 LAX - MEL (will not operate on Tuesdays)
10:30p 9:15a+2 1545 (Except Thursday)
9:30p 8:15a+2 1545 (Thursdays Only)
(Operated by a 789 on Sundays, Thursdays, & Saturdays)
(Operated by a 788 on Mondays, Wednesdays, & Fridays)

99 MEL - LAX (will not operate on Thursdays)
11:15a 6:50a 1435 (Except Saturday)
3:15p 10:50a 1435 (Saturdays Only)
(Operated by a 789 on Mondays, Tuesdays, & Saturdays)
(Operated by a 788 on Sundays, Wednesdays, & Fridays)

UA to Start LAX-MEL (787-9) Service, Effective 26-Oct-2014

Closed Thread Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 20, 2014, 8:57 pm

#196

787fan

Suspended

Join Date: Jun 2012

Programs: UA PP, AA, DL, BA, CX, SPG, HHonors

Posts: 2,002

Quote:

Originally Posted by mduell

Ok, from looking at the pictures I thought you had to step over the feet to get out from the inside seat.

How can you get out from the window without stepping over the aisles feet?

I did correct the percentage to 57% not 50%.

The feet will be resting very low at sleeping position .... Anyone can climb over without interrupting the aisle pax

Feb 20, 2014, 9:03 pm

#197

LordTentacle

Join Date: Mar 2012

Location: Syd

Programs: UA 1k 1MM, VA G

Posts: 886

Quote:

Originally Posted by uastarflyer

The comment you responded to was about C generally, not a specific route.

Within say 3 years, X% of DL and Y% of AA fleet will have a modern all aisle access C. Z% for UA. Z=0.

My point is that why would UA put a new product onto the market when the existing hard product is the same or better then most of the existing capacity within a market

Airlines that fly from the island to the mainland are
QF/VA/DL/UA

QF is 2/2/2 (flatbed) or 2/3/2 (angle) depening on the plane
VA is 2/3/2
UA is 2/2/2
DL is 1/2/1

QF just finished a cabin refresh and is unlikly to change layout within 3 years
VA has a standard product
UA has a standard product
DL has a standard product

Feb 20, 2014, 9:09 pm

#198

mduell

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: May 2007

Location: Houston

Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold

Posts: 12,720

Quote:

Originally Posted by 787fan

The feet will be resting very low at sleeping position .... Anyone can climb over without interrupting the aisle pax

No lower than any other lie-flat seat?

Even low, it's not direct aisle access if you're stepping over someone.

Last edited by mduell; Feb 20, 2014 at 9:55 pm

Feb 20, 2014, 9:53 pm

#199

5khours

Join Date: Sep 2009

Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP

Posts: 9,357

Quote:

Originally Posted by uastarflyer

And just one 2/3 filled ramekin. Better not drop it.

The current sCO C is Fine TODAY. That same 787 in 5 years, not so much. Which is why a new fleet add could have used a new C.

Just for the record. The sCO flat bed in the 777 was originally designed for the 787. It ended up in the 777 first because of all the delays on the 787 program.

Feb 20, 2014, 10:03 pm

#200

mahasamatman

A FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)

Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis

Posts: 52,227

Quote:

Originally Posted by mduell

I did correct the percentage to 57% not 50%.

Where does 57% come from? Shouldn't it be 67%?

Feb 20, 2014, 10:19 pm

#201

mduell

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: May 2007

Location: Houston

Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold

Posts: 12,720

Quote:

Originally Posted by mahasamatman

Where does 57% come from? Shouldn't it be 67%?

4 of the 7 seats abreast have direct aisle access. 4/7=.57

Feb 20, 2014, 10:31 pm

#202

spin88

Join Date: Feb 2008

Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT

Posts: 6,526

Quote:

Originally Posted by Col Ronson

Boeing states the range of the 789 to be 8000-8500nm. I'd imagine any westward flight would have to stop in BNE just like how QF flies DFW-BNE-SYD on a 747-400ER which has a lesser range. I think in terms of great circle distance, ORD and DFW are not too far apart so my reasoning was if a 747 could do it, a 789 was more than capable. My guess though if UA was to attempt a ULH route as hilarious as this they'd do IAH instead. But this probably will never come to fruition.

As my mommy always said, we can all have our own opinions, but not our own facts...

I have no idea where "Boeing states" the range of the 787-9 to be "8000-8500nm" The figure I quoted was the correct one, and is from... Boeing. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commerc...787-9prod.page

If you add a tech stop, then there is little reason to try to fly it "non-stop" if you can service it, with a shorter (and therefore much less on a CASM basis) flight from LAX/SFO.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pi7473000

with really small foot wells

That is the undoing for me. The foot well is so small, I can't get my size 12 feet into it. So the effective bed size is less than my 6'2" height. That footwell makes it the worst "lie flat" Biz seat I have ever flown in, and CO will never get a sale from me on CO equipment again. Yes, I know row 1 is better, but with UAL/SHARES moving seats randomly, its not a risk I will take.

That has to be the dumbest feature of the CO seat...

Feb 20, 2014, 10:35 pm

#203

mduell

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: May 2007

Location: Houston

Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold

Posts: 12,720

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin88

As my mommy always said, we can all have our own opinions, but not our own facts...

I have no idea where "Boeing states" the range of the 787-9 to be "8000-8500nm" The figure I quoted was the correct one, and is from... Boeing. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commerc...787-9prod.page

Page two.

Also a prior version of the page you linked to.

Not sure why they'd revise it to a single number, a range makes more sense.

Feb 20, 2014, 10:39 pm

#204

sbm12

A FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Apr 2001

Location: PSM

Posts: 69,232

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz

QF operates an A380 daily on the route with 14 closed first class seats and 64 business class seats. If that is not indicative of a premium route then I don't know what is.

What do QF's books look like right now? Are they making money flying the route with that config or does it just happen to be the aircraft they have on the operation?

Feb 20, 2014, 10:46 pm

#205

spin88

Join Date: Feb 2008

Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT

Posts: 6,526

Quote:

Originally Posted by mduell

Page two.

Also a prior version of the page you linked to.

Not sure why they'd revise it to a single number, a range makes more sense.

The page you link from was written in 2011. The page I linked to is current. If the engine trusts are the same for GE/RR (and I believe they are) then the max range will be a single number, not a range. [And note, ranges are given in stationary air, so winds will increase or decrease the actual range.] I am guessing that Boeing put out a range at first as the actual fuel burn, and therefore range, could not be precisely given before the plane actually flew and its final assembled weight was known.

regardless, on a non-polar W/E routing, an A/C can get nothing close to its max range, especially in the winter. ORD-SYD is not gonna happen.

Last edited by spin88; Feb 20, 2014 at 10:55 pm

Feb 20, 2014, 10:51 pm

#206

rob_flies_ua

Join Date: Apr 2009

Location: SFO

Programs: UA 1K/MM, AA GLD

Posts: 1,709

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin88

The page you link from was written in 2011, look at the bottom. The page I linked to is current. If the engine trusts are the same for GE/RR (and I believe they are) then the max range will be a single number, not a range. [And note, ranges are given in stationary air, so winds will increase or decrease the actual range.] I am guessing that Boeing put out a range at first as the actual fuel burn, and therefore range, could not be precisely given before the plane actually flew and its final assembled weight was known.

How about, from October 2013 http://www.newairplane.com/787/787-9/frontiers/

Quote:

The 787-9 has a range of about 8,500 nautical miles (9,800 miles, or 15,700 kilometers), or some 300 nautical miles (350 miles, or 555 kilometers) more than the 787-8.

I think the aspect you might not be taking into account is that Boeing typically specifies ranges at given seating capacities, so at 280 seats the range might be around 8100nm, but with 30 less seats, the range might be around 8500nm. With 290 seats, the range might be 8000nm.

Feb 20, 2014, 10:53 pm

#207

mduell

FlyerTalk Evangelist

Join Date: May 2007

Location: Houston

Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold

Posts: 12,720

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin88

Even ignoring wind, range depends an awful lot on load which is why posting a range makes sense. The 787-9 won't make it to 8185 nm fully loaded, but rather 5-6k nm like the 787-8 does. Posting a range of ranges to cover typical airline payloads makes sense to me.

Feb 20, 2014, 10:56 pm

#208

mahasamatman

A FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)

Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis

Posts: 52,227

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin88

If the engine trusts are the same for GE/RR (and I believe they are) then the max range will be a single number, not a range.

Thrust and fuel burn. I suspect they're not identical in both attributes.

Feb 20, 2014, 11:09 pm

#209

docbert

Join Date: Jul 2007

Location: San Francisco/Sydney

Programs: UA 1K/MM, Hilton Diamond, Marriott Something, IHG Gold, Hertz PC, Avis PC

Posts: 8,179

Quote:

Originally Posted by Always Flyin

Let's not forget that QF dropped all service to SFO. QF apparently didn't see the demand at SFO either.

Not all that relevant, given that they replaced it with flights to DFW - a major hub for their partner AA with over an order or magnitude more connecting flights available than in SFO.

Feb 20, 2014, 11:16 pm

#210

Col Ronson

Join Date: Jun 2008

Location: Everywhere you wanna be

Programs: AA EP | UA 1K

Posts: 1,657

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin88

As my mommy always said, we can all have our own opinions, but not our own facts...

I have no idea where "Boeing states" the range of the 787-9 to be "8000-8500nm" The figure I quoted was the correct one, and is from... Boeing. http://www.boeing.com/boeing/commerc...787-9prod.page

If you add a tech stop, then there is little reason to try to fly it "non-stop" if you can service it, with a shorter (and therefore much less on a CASM basis) flight from LAX/SFO.

Like i said QF flies DFW-BNE-SYD; dont sell it as a tech stop as much as a through flight. UA did LAX-SYD-MEL simply because they can't fly LAX-MEL direct with their current fleet.

i got my range figures from this article: http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/10/travel...zealand-787-9/

Obviously the range will depend on the specific config/MTOW loadout dependent on the airline but 8000-8500nm is a fare guestimate.

Boeing's figure is probably an average. The less passengers you have, the longer the range obviously and we know UA isn't arranging the 787 in a high density loadout like some airlines (see norwegian and JQ)

Quote:

Originally Posted by docbert

Not all that relevant, given that they replaced it with flights to DFW - a major hub for their partner AA with over an order or magnitude more connecting flights available than in SFO.

Pretty revelvant. You have DL, VA, QF, NZ, UA all flying from AU to LAX while only one flight from SYD to SFO. It stands to reason there is a lot more demand to LAX than SFO...and there is. i already established a few pages back a lot more tourists visit LA than SF every year.