spin88

The economics of the B788 are not good. Too much airplane for too few seats, and running ULH flights on the plane is just not economical. Parker evidently got a screaming deal to take another 25 of them and use them on shorter TATL runs (which was as much about blocking Airbus as anything) but I don't see UA getting any more. Outside of a flight for corporate accounts, unless UA can operate a B789 efficiently, they are not going to add a TPAC flight.

Kmxu

Kacee

Yes, that's why UA converted the remainder of its 788 order to 781.

spin88

I don't think a business plan built around buying new A/C, fitting them with only a few premium seats, and then flying them on long tourist routes, is going to fly... It is beyond me why UA would fit an A/C that has a high per/seat fuel burn for a leisure route (I would think they would use them on a few high value, but low volume routes, perhaps EWR-EDI, EWR-Berlin, my best guess is that they did not know what else to do with them, and did not want to find themselves using them on the same routes at the 789/772, where a sub for a 788 would cause a serious VDB/IDB situation. So shunted them off...

Kacee

Well this is not inconsistent with what NH has done with many of its 788s - fitting them out high density for short-haul routes. NH's domestic version is 12J 323Y

CIT85

I cringe every time I look for RIC-PVG/ICN UA flight options. SFO connections are almost impossible even with 6 AM departures in RIC. Late evening departures from SFO/LAX will give me plenty of options for RIC-SFO/LAX, and potential reasonable P/Z airfares. I had to over night in SFO last time in order to get a reasonable RIC-ICN airfare, $2100 vs $4700 one way.

EWR764

"Not good" compared to what? I would agree with you versus the 787-9/10 or A350-1000, but definitely not the 772 (~ a cent lower CASM), or other types close to it in capacity like the 763ER or A330-200. In terms of block-hour costs, the United 788 is lower than the 763ER by about 5-7%.

The reason the 789 is preferred to the 788 is because block hour costs are within single-digit %s of each other while the 789 has more seats (lower CASM/higher cash flow) and better performance. Basically, everything the original 788 can do, the 789 can do better, for incrementally greater acquisition cost, which is why orders/deliveries for the -8 dried up until AA launched a slightly revised model (more commonality with -9/-10). That doesn't make it a *comparative* dog...

With respect to UA not adding a TPAC flight, I assume you mean "with the 788"?

spin88

Yes, and Yes. The 788 is "not good" re fuel burn compared to the 787-9 (I don't know re the 10, not seen anything) or the A350-9. When the 788 burns almost as much fuel as the 789, its "not good". The B772, A332, and 763 are all last gen aircraft. While the 788 may have better fuel burn than them, they are fully amortized, they are not $200M aircraft.

My guess is that UA is going to use it only on midrange routes, NOT long TPAC flights as was being suggested. The economics, particularly with a small J cabin, don't support what people are suggesting (SGN, BKK - which would also have a range issue). As you noted, AA got a modified version of the 788, and also reportedly got it basically at cost from Boeing. Similar deal to UA taking a bunch of 77W, screaming deal... The economics of an aircraft are very different when the manufacturer is not making much if any profit on it.

And note that cutting the deal it did for AA, Boeing ate into some of the possible sales of the 797 - if that ever gets off the ground with Boeing's current issues.

EWR764

Re: "fuel burn" (your usage), the 788 burns about 10% less per block hour than the 789. I know you mean CASM, but the 788 indeed has lower fuel burn than the 789. I can only respond to what you write.

Total cost per available seat mile (including ownership costs) of the 788 is lower than the 772/A332/763, just a fact. Capex is allocated and accounted differently.

It's a tremendous stretch to say the operating economics of the 788 are "not good".

I don't see United going into SGN or BKK, but I can see this configuration operating to CTU, PPT, KIX, off-season South America, etc. It would probably be a better platform for XIY or HGH, too, not that I expect UA to re-enter. Other performance-intensive 763 markets, like EWR-ATH/VCE, or cargo-heavy routes like IAH-LIM, would be candidates.

I'm interested to see if DEN-NRT keeps the -8 or upgauges to -9.

One thing you fail to consider is whether the 21 Premium Plus seats overcome the loss of 8 (possibly marginal, upgrade or unsold) business class seats. By all accounts, premium economy cabins are generally successful and UA is seeing good results with the product. It may indeed be an optimized configuration for the markets UA intends to serve.

We'll see. American's need to replace the 767s was more imminent than a NMA anyway, and Boeing was developing the 788 upgrades to reduce production cost and increase commonality with the 789/10 anyway.

HkCaGu

PsiFighter37

Maybe UA could try LAX-HKG? (I know, I know, they've done it and failed previously, so it won't happen). I wonder if they would ever try a second EWR-HKG frequency, or bother starting IAD-HKG or IAH-HKG.

Boghopper

I think United has tried a couple of times before, never worked out. Back when SFO-HKG was a hard upgrade popping down to LAX was a good option because upgrades were plentiful (not a good sign for UA).

Kacee

Just like SIN.

dkc192

Selfishly, as a LAX/SE Asia-based traveler, I would love to see a nonstop from LAX to somewhere in Asia past NRT/PVG--could be SIN, HKG, or TPE (or heck, BKK or some crazy new thing like that). But I've mostly made peace with the fact that a route like that isn't coming anytime soon, and I'm very excited at the addition of more nighttime US-Asia flights!

Kmxu

Someone used "DOA" (dead on arrival) to describe this new SFO-HKG flight due to low demand (led to suspension of ORD-HKG flight as of Sept. 8) in another thread. There are exactly two months left before the new flight starts (if the prediction is wrong). What do you think of the likelihood of DOA?