Originally Posted by nerdbirdsjc (Post 33423479)

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.

Originally Posted by JimInOhio (Post 33424288)

...until you factor in the 10-abreast seating introduced (by UA) on the 77W. :(

Originally Posted by artvandalay (Post 33426120)

Which model A350 carries 426 pax 7285 nm?

Originally Posted by nerdbirdsjc (Post 33427322)

And both A350 models have more range than the 779…

Originally Posted by nerdbirdsjc (Post 33427322)

And both A350 models have more range than the 779…

Originally Posted by thejaredhuang (Post 33423207)

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.



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.