Always Flyin

But that would be the quite new 777-200LR, the longest range civil airliner on the market. That aircraft can easily make the flight (in fact, it can connect virtually any two city pairs in the world), even with the ETOPS routing necessary to fly to SYD.

United's aircraft are a completely different animal, even though they share the name Boeing 777.

Always Flyin

3-3-3 seating comparatively wouldn't be all that bad.

It's still nine-across seating on a 777 (the 744 has ten-across, but it is a wider airplane).

Emirates puts TEN-across on its 777s in economy (3-4-3). YUCK!

colonius

How's about a more or less cost-neutral compromise:

convert E+ from 2-5-2 to 2-4-2 with wider armrests and/or wider seats

convert E- from 2-5-2 to 3-4-3

Total number of seats should be more or less unchanged, E+ is further set apart and gets more up-sells - and of course we UA Elites would reap the benefits

mahasamatman

Yes, but I was just commenting on (what I read as) your blanket statement about ETOPS to SYD.

Always Flyin

What I said was, "big problem" due to ETOPS; not that the current 777 can't fly the route.

It can make the range, but likely can't carry any cargo and may also be passenger limited (depending on winds and other factors). From a financial perspective, that makes it a big problem and is why UA won't be flying its current generation 777s to SYD.

If it wasn't for the ETOPS routing issues, it would be a lot more doable for United.

EsquireFlyer

True, you may have only used the words "big problem," but you said that ORDnHKG was making a mistake by not accounting for ETOPS requirements. But ORDnHKG's claim was not that it would be financially ideal for UA to fly a 777 to SYD, only that a UA 777 "can definitely do it." So, if your post actually meant that UA 777s "are not financially ideal" rather than "lack the necessary range" to fly LAX-SYD, the way that you said happened to be fairly confusing.

And I think that mahatsaman's point was that, instead of saying specifically that UA's 777 can't make the trip (or can't do it without a "big problem"), you just made a broad statement that there's a "big problem with only two engines to Sydney." And mahatsaman's point was that it's clearly not a big problem for AC's 777s, which are regularly assigned to the SYD route, and which coincidentally also have two engines. In spite of all the weight/cargo/ETOPS concerns, AC still uses only two engines to SYD.

Always Flyin

This is the United board. It's not the Air Canada board or the Star Alliance board.

The poster to whom I was responding specifically referenced the ability of UNITED's 777s to fly to SYD.

My response was that two engines to SYD creates big problems.

On the United board, responding to a post specifically about United aircraft, my post made perfect sense since the ETOPS requirements effectively make United's 777s completely unusable on the Sydney routes.

Bringing the issue of a different aircraft operated by Air Canada was off-topic and irrelevant to the issue being discussed.

But thanks for responding. It added a lot of useful information relevant to the subject matter of the thread.

ORDnHKG

I am still confused regarding two engines to SYD creates big problems ? What is really the problem ?

Does the two engine ORD-HKG has a problem ? No, UA drop it because they found the 2nd daily does not have enough loads to fill up. The 2nd daily ORD-HKG used to be a 744. The 2nd daily SFO-HKG was also a 777. UA also use 777 for the former LAX-AKL if you really mean two engine 772ER cannot fly nonstop to south pacific. Currently, NZ also use 772ER to do the same route.

Four engine or two engine has no point at all. There is weight restrictions even for 744 on ORD-HKG westbound, and also weight restrictions for SQ LAX-SIN on a 4 engine 345 as well, hence they are flying all C class now. Range for 345 is almost equal to 77L.

tildeleb

3-3-3 in E, get used to it. I was reading about the 787 the other day and it said somewhere that Boeing expects most customers to order 787 Economy as 3-3-3.

I personally find the 2-4-3 comment very interesting and it makes sense to me, but I don't think the industry has ever done that. Has any airline ever done 2-4-3?

I really don't like 3-3-3 at all, but I think we are going to be stuck with it for a long time to come.

UA_Flyer

Fortunately (or unfortunately) UA has not ordered any 787 yet, so I guess it is not a problem for us for a quite a while.

LAX

I think the 3-3-3 configuration is good for many travelers because it will eliminate the much dreaded middle seat in the center of 2-5-2 configuration. Because of this, I would imagine most airlines will adopt (or continue to use) it. The 3-3-3 is not so bad except for couples, who would stand to lose the "privacy" of the window-aisle seats on the sides.

LAX

vivamuci

[QUOTE=tildeleb;11047577]
Has any airline ever done 2-4-3?

QUOTE]

KLM and Swissair/Swiss on the MD11
Also on many early B747s

Moranguinho

Varig also had 2-4-3 on their MD 11, it was a nice config.

vprp

I also agree that the 2-4-3 seems to offer the best of both worlds. You don't have to have the middle seat with 5 across and couples can still sit in the AB seats.

grisjuan

Given 2 aisles and 9 seats, I think 2-5-2 and 2-4-3 minimize the sum of the number of "climb-overs" while 3-3-3 is worse:

2-5-2 = (1+0)+(0+1+2+1+0)+(0+1) = 6
2-4-3 = (1+0)+(0+1+1+0)+(0+1+2) = 6
3-3-3 = (2+1+0)+(0+1+0)+(0+1+2) = 7