JAaronT

Except that you triple the number of people that have to climb over two people by going 3-3-3.

warreng24

UA does operate 777-200ER models alongside their 777-200 models. The ER models can make the SYD routes (although with weight restrictions).

No to be too OT, but I suspect that the short(er) term fleet plans involve deployment of the 777 fleet over existing 747 routes and retiring all the 747's except for a small handful necessary for routes where the 777 would be too detrimentally weight restricted.

Eventually that small fleet of 747's will be replaced with 777-300ER's (or equivalent).

This is even more of a case to NOT upgrade any of the existing 747's with new E seats, interior, and amenities. Especially if the small fleet of 747's will already be at a cost disadvantage compared with competitors. Why should UA add even more costs to the 747's to further their cost disadvantage? Adding an in-seat IFE system is more weight, requires more electricity, adds maintenance costs, and passenger complaints if the in-seat system malfunctions.

Think of all the new FT threads, "My in-seat IFE didn't work, what should I be compensated?"

ORD2World

The interior upgrade for United's international widebody fleet is on schedule. They'll all get done.

B-767s complete by late spring 2009. B-747s complete by late fall 2009. B-777's will start upgrade Sept 2009.

ua_to_ord

Actually, only double. 1 person in the 2-5-2 config, and 2 persons in the rumoured 3-3-3 version.

mahasamatman

But both of those people in a 3-3-3 at least have window seats. Having a middle-middle and having to climb over two people is just nasty.

It's easy to do that when you keep changing the schedule.

DenverBrian

But at least that nastiness is confined to only 11% of the pax on a full flight.

stupidhead

You're right-I'm sure United barely has the cash to lease them, let alone buy them outright. One small thing though-looks like they have 1100 outstanding deliveries.

ORD4R

For a load factor under 11% 2-5-2 is better
For a load factor 11%-67% 3-3-3 is better
For a load factor 67%-89% 2-5-2 is better
For a load factor above 89% 3-3-3 is better

The best thing in any seat configuration for passengers is a low load factor, or course that is the worst thing for the airlines.

mre5765

Wow, thanks for the correction. I had been informed otherwise in a different thread. BTW, Boeing's range map doesn't list weight restrictions.

Leasing is pay as you go isn't it? You wouldn't need cash as long as you had revenue. Once gas goes back to $3/gal, the savings will pay the lease.

Well for me, if the load factor is above 89%, 2-5-2 is better as long as I'm in the 2- or -2. And if the load factor is say 20%, 2-5-2 is better because I might score and empty -5- and get lie flat for loose change in E+. I think 11%-67% could use more stratification.

ORDnHKG

Looking at Boeing's range map is useless, it is not about boeing, it is about planes from individual airlines, diffderent airline has a little different about each plane's structure and seat configuration. Airlines demand manufacturer to build the planes by its own standard. You may see a same 777-200ER using the same PW4090 engines with UA and NH. One may actually fly farther, one may only fly shorter routes.

UA had used 777 to do ORD-HKG in the past, ORD-HKG is 7767 mi, and LAX-SYD is 7456 mi, so a UA 777 can definately do LAX-SYD.

rch4u

Depends how you define "on schedule" ... United is clearly not meeting the original schedule it published. Is it meeting its revised, delayed schedule? Sure.

DenverBrian

2-5-2 also provides the only shot at being able to lie down across a vacant row when available. Unless you're 5 feet tall or something.

Always Flyin

You're not taking into account ETOPS requirements. Big problem with only two engines to Sydney.

mahasamatman

AC flies a 777 non-stop from YVR to SYD.

UA_Flyer

also add constantly changing in the question above.