flyinbob

Something I've noticed in shopping for international flights over the past month. It seems more and more of United's 777 flights are going mechanical than ever before. I noticed today (7/4) 2 long-hauls I used to take, and used to be 744s, went mechanical and cancelled, UA 840 SYD-LAX, and UA 896 HKG-ORD.

I also noticed a few other such cancellations in the past couple of weeks, especially on the SYD routes. Also the SFO to Asia flights seem to be impacted the same. I thought switching to the 777 from the 744 was supposed to improve the cancellation record?

So are United's 777s getting too old, or is this a reflection of something else? I thought the 777 was a workhorse, and should have a better record that what I'm seeing.

UA-NYC

It's not just the UA 777s...seems like there are never-ending cancellations with both subsidiaries, on all sizes of int'l A/C.

swm61230

Well that 2billion has to be saved somewhere. So instead of doing maintenance more frequently kind of like preventive maintenance to make sure your fleet is in good health they seem to be waiting for breakdowns or manufacture suggested maintenance plan.

I know they always had some breakdowns before but it really does seem that they are cutting corners where ever they can while still claiming to be safe.

cova

Or could it be that if a flight is not full enough, it is more cost effective to cancel then fly the flight. - and find a minor item to go mechanical?

BearX220

They are hardly "too old" -- on average, they're relatively youthful. Have a look at this fleet list:

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/U...ctive-b777.htm

The most elderly 772 dates from 1995, but most joined the line since 2000. There are numerous 772s that are less than five years old.

But even a new car will start showing you warning lights if you don't change the oil or check the tire pressure.

The problem is not fleet age but overscheduling plus deferred maintenance. Policy seems to be to ignore things that are deteriorating, not perform preemptive maintenance, but wait until something breaks at the gate, then fix it while you're waiting to go somewhere. It's not unsafe, I don't think, but it's infuriating.

BearX220

Well, because at-the-gate mechanicals are so endemic these days, they are likely to perform aircraft swaps and cancel the flight(s) with the lightest loads or least problematic connections aboard. But I don't think they invent a mechanical reason to cancel a flight, because that creates a compensation onus. Instead they invent weather-related reasons to cancel flights so they don't have to buy you a hotel room.

JDS747

That website just shows when the plane were "delivered" to United. Those that are showing less then five years old were "delivered" to United in the merger. That is not their true age. Click on one of the "newer" ones (2010 and newer) and you'll see what I mean.

entropy

5 years? CO got a pair of 777s in the late 90's, all the rest are quite a bit older.

EWR764

Not quite. The two most recent CO 777s date from 2010, two others came in 2007, and the rest are 1998-2002. UA took 777s on a relatively consistent basis from 1995-2002. About 1/3 the fleet was delivered post-2000.

FriscoHeavy

Entropy,

CO took a multiple 777s in the mid 2000s. Most of theirs are pretty new. In fact, I think the oldest CO 777s are from 1999 and all the rest are newer.

flyinbob

If they're not too old, why all the mechanical issues? I can't believe a company would actually cut back on maintenance on planes that fly long distances, over open water and arctic wasteland. But I can't think of WHY this would be happening so much more often. Are the flights that are now using the 744s that were transferred from the SYD and HKG flights doing better? Where did they go?

JOSECONLSCREW28

CO took delivery of 6 777s in 1998 (Tails 001 - 006), 7 in 1999 (Tails 007 - 014), 2 in 2000 (Tails 015 & 016), 2 in 2002 (Tails 017 & 018), 2 in 2007 (Tails 019 & 020) and the final 2 were delivered in 2010 (Tails 021 & 022)

MatthewLAX

^ Always a wealth of information.

kluau88

I think the issue is really two fold. Yes planes break even when proper maintenance is done. Besides maintenance issues that arise another issue to factor in is crew legality issues. While they might be able to fix the plane when the crew times out sometimes there really isn't a way to get a replacement set even with airport standbys.

RobotDoctor

Are you suggesting the new "United Airlines" is not quite as honest with us as we would like to think? Hmmmmmm