Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums >
Reload this Page >

Miles&Points

Airlines and Mileage Programs

United Airlines | MileagePlus

Could COVID be UAs opportunity to order the 777X?

Could COVID be UAs opportunity to order the 777X?

Old Jul 18, 21, 9:39 pm
  #31  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by entropy View Post
The 744s are long gone and "replaced" ; the oldest 772 are what, ~25 years old? they have time left and are still perfectly fine aircraft, those will be replaced by 789/J but not for several years.
They've already said the 321 is replacing the 752.

I don't see how UA could "convert" an airbus order to a Boeing one.

Given how poorly the 77X program is progressing, and how new the 77W/787 fleet is, how B will just bend over for the sake of selling frames. There needs to be a digestion of all the retiring 767's, and then first gen 777 into freighters before the 779 is ready. Not to mention the pandemic probably taught the airlines they can leave some money on the table for the sake of greater efficiency... Why struggle to fill a 779 when you can make a higher yield on a 789.

UA could first cancel the A359 order before ordering RR 788s and 779s. Given that the PW 777 may be retired following their grounding in March. UA could replace the 77E with 77W/78Js out of ORD/EWR/IAD and 789s out of IAH. The 779 can be used on former 744 routes out of SFO as well as EWR-Asia.

Originally Posted by entropy View Post
The 744s are long gone and "replaced" ; the oldest 772 are what, ~25 years old? they have time left and are still perfectly fine aircraft, those will be replaced by 789/J but not for several years.
They've already said the 321 is replacing the 752.

I don't see how UA could "convert" an airbus order to a Boeing one.

Given how poorly the 77X program is progressing, and how new the 77W/787 fleet is, how B will just bend over for the sake of selling frames. There needs to be a digestion of all the retiring 767's, and then first gen 777 into freighters before the 779 is ready. Not to mention the pandemic probably taught the airlines they can leave some money on the table for the sake of greater efficiency... Why struggle to fill a 779 when you can make a higher yield on a 789.
Doesnt UA carry a lot of cargo in most of its routes? If so then I see the 779 being a better fit for UA.

Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jul 18, 21 at 10:09 pm Reason: merged consecutive posts by same member
UA857 is offline  
Old Jul 18, 21, 11:11 pm
  #32  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: ORD, HKG
Programs: UA*G, AA Emerald, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt explorist
Posts: 10,115
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
UA could first cancel the A359 order before ordering RR 788s and 779s.
​​​​​​
May I ask why are you so insisting on n RR 788 ?

RR Trent 1000 had proved to be a complete failure, it was a living HELL for any airlines that use RR for their 787 in the past 3 years. So despite all the known problems why would UA still want to stick it in the RR mess ???
ORDnHKG is offline  
Old Jul 18, 21, 11:23 pm
  #33  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by ORDnHKG View Post
​​​​​​
May I ask why are you so insisting on n RR 788 ?

RR Trent 1000 had proved to be a complete failure, it was a living HELL for any airlines that use RR for their 787 in the past 3 years. So despite all the known problems why would UA still want to stick it in the RR mess ???
How about ordering 788s with Trent 1000-Ten.
UA857 is offline  
Old Jul 19, 21, 1:17 am
  #34  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, SQ*PPS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 11,628
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
How about ordering 788s with Trent 1000-Ten.
The jury is still out on that engine. UA is not going to commit to new engine type without proper performance and reliability track records.

One of the main reasons amongst a number of other reasons to retire 744 was the availability of parts and maintenance capability and capacity around the globe.

If UA order 788s with Trent 1000-Ten, will there be spare parts and maintenance expertise at destinations if repairs are needed?
Use the same logic for 777X, so few airlines are planning to operate the 777X, will there be spare parts and maintenance capacity at places UA fly to?

A350 is a very popular plane and have been and will be flown by many *A airlines. Spare parts and maintenance will not be an issue. I personally love flying the a350s. More roomy and quiet than 787s.

I understand OP's interest in the 777X, but there are a lot of things have to happen such as cancelling A350 order, order more 788 with an unproven engine type, and then introduce another new plane with another engine type, etc. Why would UA go to all that trouble to order 777X that may only serve a handful of markets.
UA_Flyer is offline  
Old Jul 19, 21, 2:48 am
  #35  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Posts: 19
Originally Posted by UA_Flyer View Post
The jury is still out on that engine. UA is not going to commit to new engine type without proper performance and reliability track records.

One of the main reasons amongst a number of other reasons to retire 744 was the availability of parts and maintenance capability and capacity around the globe.

If UA order 788s with Trent 1000-Ten, will there be spare parts and maintenance expertise at destinations if repairs are needed?
Use the same logic for 777X, so few airlines are planning to operate the 777X, will there be spare parts and maintenance capacity at places UA fly to?

A350 is a very popular plane and have been and will be flown by many *A airlines. Spare parts and maintenance will not be an issue. I personally love flying the a350s. More roomy and quiet than 787s.

I understand OP's interest in the 777X, but there are a lot of things have to happen such as cancelling A350 order, order more 788 with an unproven engine type, and then introduce another new plane with another engine type, etc. Why would UA go to all that trouble to order 777X that may only serve a handful of markets.
Like what I said many 777X orders (e.g. EY and CX) are being cancelled. What Boeing needs is a lifeline for the 777X program. Its not just UA that should order the 779, QF, KE, CA, BR, AC and AI also should order the 779. By adding UA/QF/KE/CA/BR/AC/AI to the 777X customer list, there will be plenty of 777X space parts.
UA857 is offline  
Old Jul 19, 21, 4:56 am
  #36  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 8,983
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
Like what I said many 777X orders (e.g. EY and CX) are being cancelled. What Boeing needs is a lifeline for the 777X program. Its not just UA that should order the 779, QF, KE, CA, BR, AC and AI also should order the 779. By adding UA/QF/KE/CA/BR/AC/AI to the 777X customer list, there will be plenty of 777X space parts.
So the airlines should do Boeing a solid by ordering an aircraft that they have no conceivable need for in at least the next 5 years and no way to forecast any demand for this further out? And part of the justification for the order is making sure there will be enough spare parts? These orders wont happen.
travelinmanS is offline  
Old Jul 19, 21, 8:53 am
  #37  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 116
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
Like what I said many 777X orders (e.g. EY and CX) are being cancelled. What Boeing needs is a lifeline for the 777X program. Its not just UA that should order the 779, QF, KE, CA, BR, AC and AI also should order the 779. By adding UA/QF/KE/CA/BR/AC/AI to the 777X customer list, there will be plenty of 777X space parts.
Sorry, you have no idea what airlines should order. I hope the 77X is wildly successful and I think it will be to some degree, but I'm also not projecting what plane airlines need. They have the data. You and I do not.

Also, no to the RR on the 787. I'm not sure why you are obsessed with that, but the GE is the proven winner on the 787. It would be asinine to introduce a new, inferior engine to the fleet. I'm not speaking to all RR engines, but specifically the GE vs RR on the 787. Picking GE for any follow up orders is the prudent and best choice.
TravelForum is offline  
Old Jul 19, 21, 10:32 pm
  #38  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: ORD, HKG
Programs: UA*G, AA Emerald, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt explorist
Posts: 10,115
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
How about ordering 788s with Trent 1000-Ten.
There is no howabout, RR is only putting a patch on the failing Trent 1000, airlines know that and already lost confident, and RR had already shifted focus on its new ultrafan engines altogether
SPN Lifer likes this.
ORDnHKG is offline  
Old Jul 20, 21, 1:15 pm
  #39  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: UA
Posts: 1,054
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
Ummm? UA just ordered so 70 A321neos so to keep RR commitment why not convert their remaining 787 on order to the RR variant.
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
Im talking about the 78Js currently on order? Also ANA flies 787s with RR and GE engines.
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
Can UA convert the A359 order into 20 RR 788s?
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
UA just ordered the A321neo so the order for Airbus is dealt with. To deal with the RR contract without introducing a new type, order the RR 788. It is OK for UA to operate an existing type of aircraft with a new engine. NW/DL originally ordered A330s with P&W engines. However in 2013 DL ordered 10 additional A333s with GE engines.
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
How about ordering 788s with Trent 1000-Ten.
The easiest thing for UA to do with the RR order is just to pay the penalty for terminating the contract. Having 2 separate engines is a logistical nightmare, there are different operating procedures for each engine, different overhaul procedures, different parts, different maintenance schedules, etc. It is also RR's own fault for backing themselves exclusively into the widebody market and essentially onto one plane.

Originally Posted by drewguy View Post
If UA has to buy a number of RR engines, isn't it simpler to put them on a 789 than to put them on a A359? For the former it's just a different engine. For the latter it's a whole different plane (and engine).
Nope, its not as easy at it seems, in the long term it would be much cheaper to pay the contract termination penalty. The real bonkers move is when they increased their order to 45 A350s.
SPN Lifer and ExplorerWannabe like this.
thejaredhuang is offline  
Old Jul 20, 21, 2:45 pm
  #40  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SJC
Programs: Southwest, Alaska, United, American Airlines
Posts: 958
Originally Posted by UA857 View Post
Like what I said many 777X orders (e.g. EY and CX) are being cancelled. What Boeing needs is a lifeline for the 777X program. Its not just UA that should order the 779, QF, KE, CA, BR, AC and AI also should order the 779. By adding UA/QF/KE/CA/BR/AC/AI to the 777X customer list, there will be plenty of 777X space parts.

Let's be absolutely clear about WHY the 777X is rapidly proving to be a dud -- the type (esp the 779) offers zero upside over widebody a/c types currently in the marketplace. Boeing lists a seating capacity of just 414(!) seats (42J + 372Y) for the 779 -- this is due to the aircraft's design and door placements, and cannot be easily shifted upward. Realistically, with a sizable Premium Economy cabin AND some Economy Plus seating, the 779 will carry few/no more pax than today's 77Ws/A350s, and the 779 will carry a much higher price tag and a host of new tech headaches.

Oh, and the 779 has slightly LESS range than the prior generation 777-300ER!

One of the few things UA has gotten right in its fleet planning is staying far away from the 777X.
nerdbirdsjc is offline  
Old Jul 20, 21, 2:49 pm
  #41  
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,058
Originally Posted by nerdbirdsjc View Post
One of the few things UA has gotten right in its fleet planning is staying far away from the 777X.
And yet, somewhat related, the 77W order was one of their greatest strokes of brilliance as well.
dmurphynj is offline  
Old Jul 20, 21, 8:25 pm
  #42  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Programs: UA MM 1K
Posts: 3,059
Originally Posted by dmurphynj View Post
And yet, somewhat related, the 77W order was one of their greatest strokes of brilliance as well.
...until you factor in the 10-abreast seating introduced (by UA) on the 77W.
JimInOhio is offline  
Old Jul 21, 21, 9:33 am
  #43  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SJC
Programs: Southwest, Alaska, United, American Airlines
Posts: 958
Originally Posted by PsiFighter37 View Post
Maybe there are particular missions where UA could use the 777X (e.g. similar to how NH uses their A380s for solely NRT-HNL service), but I am not sure UA sees the value (or there is value) to having a small subfleet of a plane that would serve purely high-density routes.
The 779 can't serve "high density" routes even if United wanted it to -- it's too limited on seating capacity.
nerdbirdsjc is offline  
Old Jul 21, 21, 12:50 pm
  #44  
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SRQ, PDX
Programs: UA 1 MM, AA Gold, DL
Posts: 867
Originally Posted by nerdbirdsjc View Post
The 779 can't serve "high density" routes even if United wanted it to -- it's too limited on seating capacity.
Which model A350 carries 426 pax 7285 nm?
artvandalay is offline  
Old Jul 21, 21, 1:04 pm
  #45  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 5,859
Originally Posted by JimInOhio View Post
...until you factor in the 10-abreast seating introduced (by UA) on the 77W.
I wish you all the best back there as I write this sitting in Row 5 on my way to HNL. Taking off now on a glorious day at SFO.
HNLbasedFlyer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread