AA2MM

Flight:UA99
Aircraft: Boeing 777-300
Fare Class: United BusinessFirst (R)
Seat map still shows as a 789.

wxguy

I'm seeing a 789 on united.com. And I'm seeing it's PN9, R9!

kevanyalowitz

If this ends up being true, it is 1) fantastic news and 2) makes me think that management may actually be listening to what UA HVF want. ^

Kacee

That's an IT error. .com will sometimes show an A330, too.

halls120

That is indeed good news.

tuolumne

I've been listening to this " death of 3-class F" since the early 00s, mostly from DL/NW/CO fliers who were after defending their airlines 2-cabin strategy (excluding the fact that UAL/AMR were the two largest flag carriers with rights to LHR, UAL competing in premium business routes to Asia/Europe, etc. - larger more premium focused networks that they both still have today).

The proponents jumped on the severe dip in F capacity during the global financial crisis, and the adoption of lie flat J, as the final death blows. Now that we are no longer in recession lows, and it's making a comeback, it seems some are unable/unwilling to admit reality - that F is soaring in the gulf and Asia, has been right-sized in Europe to meet demand, and is undergoing being right-sized in the states to remain on the markets where it makes sense.

sbm12

Source?

Total seats or ASMs?

Madone59

Sooooooooo how about them Boeing 777-300ERs?

WineCountryUA

Good reminder of thread topic.
773ER and possible cabin configurations.

A number of OT posts have been removed.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

Singapore_Schwing

I can't speak for the gulf much, but SQ suites for example do quite well (and are HEAVILY limited in SQ saver availability, so they're not giving them away). At the same time, I don't think anyone would pay for UA GF when SQ C is much better.

I like the idea of 3 class on principle, but if UA were to add the same tired GF on the new birds vs adding more Y and C, it would be no better than today, where GF is the home for saver mileage redemptions, non revs, and for C fliers to burn GPUs.

UA_Flyer

I am not an airplane techie, so could someone explain to me the differences in capacity，range and efficiency between 77W and A350-1000?

It seems odd to me or am I just confused that UA's plan to replace 744 with A350-1000 has been not been well thought through. Why all the sudden realize 77W is a better fit?

EWR764

Acquisition cost is a major component of the aircraft's projected cash flow, and Boeing probably came along with a very sweet deal that brings the 77W a little closer to the anticipated A35J numbers. Up until recently the 77W was an extremely expensive aircraft to buy, even with customary discounts. Plus, it has a great deal of commonality with existing GE90-powered 772ERs, so it's really only a minor evolution for the fleet.

The A35J will be an outstanding airplane, but is still 3+ years away and the 77W allows UA to begin to pull down the 747 fleet incrementally as they approach HMVs and replace that capacity with a similarly-sized airplane that is not currently available in the fleet.

JC1120

Yep, 3+ years and will probably have some teething issues, which I'm sure UA will be keen to avoid after the 78X. Not that anyone is expecting the 1000 series to have anywhere near as many issues, but you'd still be getting an early serial number as the North American Launch Customer, whereas with the 77W you're getting a plane that's been proven by everyone else and is probably in revision 2 or 3 by the time UA gets theirs. So especially if the earliest A35J's don't meet spec, a great deal on the 77W may be more attractive.

nerdbirdsjc

The premium cabin configs will no doubt be interesting, as the 77Ws would be coming in earlier than the originally planned rollout of the BF suite-style seats (which are supposed to roll out with the 35J and/or legacy UA 787 fleets around 2017/2018-ish). Using the current GF/BF seats might well be the stopgap measure if the new BF suites are not ready in time for the 77W's arrival.

Longboater

The A350-1000 was designed to be a replacement for the A340-600/77W. Its basically a lighter, more fuel efficient 77W. It carries slightly fewer passengers and can only go 3-3-3 in the rear. The A350-1000 will have slightly more range than 77W so SFO-SIN on this plane won't be happening. The 77W still has more powerful engines and thrust. Due to the engines, its possible the 77W could be used to start EWR/IAD-JNB nonstop as the two GE engines carry almost the same amount of thrust SAL has with their A340-600s. The 77W has just over 200 miles more range than SAL's A340-600s. If United decides to fly to ZA, the 77W might be the plane to do the job rather than the 787-9. What matters for JNB is thrust of engines compared to MTOW. The 77Ws two GE engines have enough thrust to equal the thrust of the 747-300s four engines. The 787-9, while lighter and has plenty of range, still would have to be greatly restricted as its engines are powerful enough for MTOW out of JNB. Ok, slight tangent, but United could use the 77W for slightly different missions than the A350-1000.