nerdbirdsjc

Outside of the early acquirers like AF, many airlines DID pay closer-than-usual-to-list-price for the 77W, largely because the marketplace afforded no other strong a/c alternative for operators desperate for that capacity level.

The 77W has sold very well, but as it nears the end of its sales life, its high acquisition cost is a burden to carriers such as UA and DL who could afford to wait, and did not want to risk going underwater on planes that will lose significant resale value as 350s and 777Xs enter service.

To NRT, PVG, and SYD, perhaps -- GF is non-rev party central to HKG and elsewhere from SFO.

But that's not the reason why you see United offering GlobalFirst today -- it's driven primarily by pmUA seat purchase agreements that contained onerous cancellation terms, and the desire to not take a significant financial hit in writing off expensive seats (and undertaking costly reconfiguration) with service life left on them.

mduell

The payload-range curves for the B77W and A35J are about the same. The A35J burns less fuel, but that can be balanced with the cheaper acquisition cost and earlier availability of the B77W.

luckypierre

I would imagine the 87 teething problems have reminded UA of the headaches inherent in being a launch customer, as they will be for the A350 North America introduction. The 300ER has proven excellent dispatch reliability and the shared flight deck with the existing fleet means an easy, headache free integration.

EWR764

Maybe, but the 787-9 service entry has been relatively painless, which is more the norm for successive variants of a proven type. The Dash 900 presumably will bear the brunt of the teething issues for the A350 series.

I think the bigger issue is that UA wants to begin to retire a number of 747s as they approach expensive D checks and such within the next three years, and in an economic upturn, does not want to sacrifice the capacity that would be lost by replacing 747s with 777/787s in the interim before the arrival of the A350s. The 77W is (now) a cost-effective solution that delivers similar pax count and a lot more cargo uplift than a 744, with greater reliability, plus it is a type (GE90 777) that is already in the fleet.

kevanyalowitz

Has it? I experienced a 789->788 swap due to 789 issues on MEL-LAX. Seems that such a swap is not that uncommon either.

EWR764

Compared to the 787-8 service entry? Abso-friggin'-lutely!

I haven't seen anything indicating that the 787-9 induction has gone any worse than the run of normal issues for the entry of a new variant. That's not to say there won't be any hiccups, but at least compared to the major service disruptions experienced in connection with the -8 (e.g., fires, system issues, extensive fixes and a long-term FAA-mandated grounding), the -9 is doing pretty well.

kevanyalowitz

Gotcha. In your original post you said the induction was relatively painless, not relatively painless compared to the 788. Makes more sense now.

TennisNoob

Would United Lease or buy the 77W's? If so what's the lease term generally?

mduell

Probably buy, could be sale-leaseback. Lease terms are generally 10 years give or take (8-12). But B77W lease for >$1MM/mo, so I'd guess UA will buy.

united4

I hope that if they order these planes they're 777-322ERs.

lenscap

No order yet, but here's an article from yesterday about potential seating options:

United faces big PaxEx decisions for Boeing 777-300ER
http://www.runwaygirlnetwork.com/201...ing-777-300er/

"With reports that United Airlines is to convert a number of its Boeing 787-9 orders to earlier deliveries of the larger 777-300ER, the USA’s third largest airline by number of passengers carried has a big decision to make about the quality of product it will provide for those passengers."

EWR764

Yup. Should've been more clear in that respect. Additionally, it is possible that the 787-9 issues, if any, are not necessarily attributable to service-entry issues, either. Because the fleet is so small at present any disruption for maintenance or otherwise will have a disproportionate effect on the schedule since there is no slack. Any aircraft could go down for unscheduled MX at the last minute, even under the best of circumstances, but with just 2* airplanes in the fleet, the likelihood of swapping like-for-like is rather limited.

*= not sure if 0952 has been delivered yet, or is in service.

kevanyalowitz

What a worthless article. It brings no new information to the table. Did the author use this thread as his primary source?

Bonehead

I see that Mr. Walton joins the chorus regarding the lousy C seats on the pmUA birds:

Business, similarly, is outdated: the unacceptably narrow seats in United’s unique toe-to-toe 2-4-2 layout provides the same seating across as other airlines offer in premium economy, and two middle seats in 2015 are inexcusable for business class.

Thank goodness the people who decided on those seats and that configuration are not making any decisions about the new planes. I hope.

Kacee

Unfortunately, the ones who decided that it's not necessary to provide footwells big enough to actually fit adult feet, nor "bed space" long enough for someone taller than about 5'-5" to lie flat (764, ps, etc.) are making those decisions.