iahcsr wrote:

6451 is actually in service. 6447 is the other in HKG. 6441, 6454, and 6460 are the remaining 3 class.

Doh! Got them mixed up! Thanks for the info. (Why don't I just go and check?)

LAXintl wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Regarding the older 763's, someone on one of the threads said that Kirby was not a fan and wanted to get new a/c to phase those out ASAP. Any truth to that rumor? That would certainly shut off any discussion on the lie flat 763's getting Polaris.

Its well known the 763 fleet is getting old and having increasing reliability issues. Now with 744s off property, the 763 are the problem children.

To this end UA has a well-publicized RFP out soliciting replacement options and should be making some decisions very soon. Stay tuned.

Can't agree more - same as what you get with vintage cars. Different bits and pieces start to fail and fall off yet parts are much harder to come by, you can spend silly money to get it all back to tip top condition but it's definitely not how the business work.

1989worstyear wrote:

The 767 was unlucky enough to come out only 6 years before airframe technology peaked - hence they'll be gone from UA's fleet in 5 years, while the A320 fleet of the same age do not have retirement plans. Thanks Gen X/Y.

When the aircraft comes in and it's older than most of the crew working on it you know it's going to be difficult working on it....

763:
N673UA sked to exit MIA 2753/5Jul, maint
N676UA exited VQQ 2701/4Jul, maint

772:
N222UA took a test hop at XMN - Polaris/PE soon.

celestar345 wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

6451 is actually in service. 6447 is the other in HKG. 6441, 6454, and 6460 are the remaining 3 class.

Doh! Got them mixed up! Thanks for the info. (Why don't I just go and check?)

LAXintl wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Regarding the older 763's, someone on one of the threads said that Kirby was not a fan and wanted to get new a/c to phase those out ASAP. Any truth to that rumor? That would certainly shut off any discussion on the lie flat 763's getting Polaris.

Its well known the 763 fleet is getting old and having increasing reliability issues. Now with 744s off property, the 763 are the problem children.

To this end UA has a well-publicized RFP out soliciting replacement options and should be making some decisions very soon. Stay tuned.

Can't agree more - same as what you get with vintage cars. Different bits and pieces start to fail and fall off yet parts are much harder to come by, you can spend silly money to get it all back to tip top condition but it's definitely not how the business work.

1989worstyear wrote:

The 767 was unlucky enough to come out only 6 years before airframe technology peaked - hence they'll be gone from UA's fleet in 5 years, while the A320 fleet of the same age do not have retirement plans. Thanks Gen X/Y.

When the aircraft comes in and it's older than most of the crew working on it you know it's going to be difficult working on it....

I didn't realize UA had 16-year-old high schoolers working on their fleet

Bad jokes aside - I was just referring to how much tech was changing in civil aviation during the early-mid 80's and how little there has been since. UA's fleet decisions with the 767 vs. A320 confirms it.

iahcsr wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

springtx wrote:

The announcement should be made on July 17th for the replacement aircraft UA will be taking.

Should or will???

I’d go with ‘should’ on that. ‘Will’ has too much certainty... and as we all know there is very little that’s certain in this business

Historically United's made large fleet announcements the day before earnings calls and July 18th I believe is Q2 earnings day.

adamblang wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Should or will???

I’d go with ‘should’ on that. ‘Will’ has too much certainty... and as we all know there is very little that’s certain in this business

Historically United's made large fleet announcements the day before earnings calls and July 18th I believe is Q2 earnings day.

Ahh. Makes sense. Thanks for the info!

Reporting in! I finally got my Polaris 767 ride from IAH to GOG, seat 9L, last night. Not a bad seat but is is smaller than the 777-300 seat in any way? I may have preferred the bulkhead although the kitchen is right there.
It could have just been my perception, but it seemed narrower as did the entry way. Regardless it’s a beautiful seat and cabin.
I was very happy to see that they put in the main entry way brand panel and bulkheads. I am certain that most everyone thought they were on a brand new aircraft.
I ate at the restaurant in the Polaris Lounge at EWR. It is as beautiful as the pictures and the food was equally as good as a decent restaurant- BRAVO! I never ate on board, just too full.
I transferred at IAH and went to one of only 2 of the quiet pods. I was only allowed 45 minutes...I’m sorry but that is really inadequate if you’ve got a 3 hour layover. Just as you fall asleep they nicely kick you out...I stumbled out groggy and grumpy!
Regardless, I love a 767, and she was very pretty.

VC10er wrote:

Reporting in! I finally got my Polaris 767 ride from IAH to GOG, seat 9L, last night. Not a bad seat but is is smaller than the 777-300 seat in any way? I may have preferred the bulkhead although the kitchen is right there.
It could have just been my perception, but it seemed narrower as did the entry way. Regardless it’s a beautiful seat and cabin.
I was very happy to see that they put in the main entry way brand panel and bulkheads. I am certain that most everyone thought they were on a brand new aircraft.
I ate at the restaurant in the Polaris Lounge at EWR. It is as beautiful as the pictures and the food was equally as good as a decent restaurant- BRAVO! I never ate on board, just too full.
I transferred at IAH and went to one of only 2 of the quiet pods. I was only allowed 45 minutes...I’m sorry but that is really inadequate if you’ve got a 3 hour layover. Just as you fall asleep they nicely kick you out...I stumbled out groggy and grumpy!
Regardless, I love a 767, and she was very pretty.

Thanks for the report!! I have always felt the Diamond seats are smaller on the 767 as well, but never confirmed if it is true or not.

I would not want to be the person has to wake and expel all the "groggy and grumpy" flyers!!

VC10er wrote:

It could have just been my perception, but it seemed narrower as did the entry way. Regardless it’s a beautiful seat and cabin.

It is not narrower. It's MUCH narrower so it's a pain to work inside the cabin after the seats are installed. Still... it looks nice so that's what matter!

tpaewr wrote:

Thanks for the report!! I have always felt the Diamond seats are smaller on the 767 as well, but never confirmed if it is true or not.

Unfortunately it is, but only slightly as the design soaks up most of the difference.

78X
N17002 rolled off CHS FAL today.. Delivery not until Nov... what they will do with it between now and then?

hkcanadaexpat wrote:

codc10 wrote:

No way to conclusively predict routes with Polaris 767s right now or any time in the near future.

which is a sad way of conducting business if you ask me. UA now have (9) Polaris 763s in active service, enough to dedicate them to a specific service (EWR/ORD-LHR routes for example) and market the hell out of its superior new product to customers. Alas it doesn't. DL, on the other hand, doesn't waste five minutes allocating its new Delta Suites to specific routes, marketing the hell out of them, even charging a premium for the superior product. Come on UA, get your act together.

I've laid out the 763 routings and see that right now without spares or aircraft in maint/mod, it requires 27 of 35 aircraft. Of this the vast majority of down time for maintenance is in IAH. Three South American flights arrive daily at daybreak and depart about 2100. One SA flight does the same in IAD.
The current nine aircraft could cover all 763 flying to GVA (EWR/IAD), LHR (3ORD/1 EWR) and AMS (ORD/IAD) and have a spare unit. Since Polaris fleets would be disconnected from IAH until more units are converted, flights 1128 ORD-IAH 1414 ORD-IAH could be moved to another aircraft type. All ORD 763s would be Polaris and the spare unit should be at LHR or ORD depending on routine maintenance capabilities/cost of each station. (each would have 4 Polaris departures).

In my opinion the Polaris should be ranked for service on these current 763 routes from most desired to least.
GVA-EWR/IAD
LHR-ORD/EWR
AMS-ORD/IAD
CDG-EWR
MUC-EWR/IAH
GIG-IAH
GRU-IAH/IAD
SCL-IAH
VCE-EWR
FCO-ORD/IAD
BCN-IAD
MAD-IAD
HNL-IAD
LIM-IAH
IAH-ORD/EWR 1 RT each positioning trips

I saw I wrote a typo I can no longer fix. My flight was IAH to GIG (not GOG)
As I frequently fly to Rio, I have to ask why you put GIG on the list? As much as I love Rio, it is not a premium or business heavy route I would think. Am I wrong? I could see GRU being a more premium route especially for business travelers. United has been flying an old 3 class 772 from EWR to São Paulo for a while now. Upgrading to the First cabin is often very easy as I do not think many actually pay the large price premium for it.
So, as much as I appreciated getting a Polaris refitted 763, (during the Brazilian winter) I thought that she would be better going to a premium European destination.
I also thought the same thing when UA put a 788 on the GIG route during the very early days of UA taking deliveries of brand new 788’s.
My United employee friends at GIG were very excited to have a 787 so soon, but again I wondered why UA would put one of the very few 787s they had at the time on the one Rio non-stop they have.
Then again I have noticed that United promotes Rio de Janeiro a lot, both in advertising and even the first segment of their safety video.
It’s true that Rio is an exciting and exotic destination, but it’s a major world city without even one non-stop on ANY airline from NYC? Nobody, not even AA or Latam can seem to make it work.
Yet 20 years ago there were at least 3 non-stops when VARIG was around.
One other thing I noticed was that this Polaris 767 had a new IFE interface which was great, very intuitive and better than either sUA’s or sCO old versions. But no “From the Flight Deck” (aka: Chanel 9) - seems like that beloved feature is going away.

VC10er wrote:

But no “From the Flight Deck” (aka: Chanel 9) - seems like that beloved feature is going away.

Strange, I remember even the new 777-300ERs having that feature.

I believe the newly-reconfigured 763s have Channel 9. I haven’t seen it active on any flight in what seems like years, though.

VC10er, that's fine regarding GIG. My list was just a guess and I would think it would be above some of the leisure markets or MAD/BCN/HNL/LIM or seasonal FCO-ORD/IAD VCE/EWR. So, move GIG down below FCO on my list.

The main reason of my long post was to say UA ties all 763 to IAH for maint and that locking 9 units into non-IAH flying may not be work at this time. Even the three class units in ORD-LHR service get an occasional IAH visit. I'm sure the Marketing Department has pushed for locked in routings, but the Maintenance Department has probably made a good case to float these aircraft to maintain flexibility and reliability.

It's frustrating, but Polaris will get locked in routings soon, but maybe not until the three 3 class units are gone from revenue service. If I were in charge, GVA would have Polaris now , which would be easy to guarantee and ORD-LHR would seem easy enough to also guarantee. A single EWR-LHR roundtrip would seem not that important when the other 4 trips are in very similar 764 configuration. Maybe in the off-season, UA would move to place all EWR-LHR in 763 Polaris or throw in a 772 Polaris. Time will tell.

codc10 wrote:

I believe the newly-reconfigured 763s have Channel 9. I haven’t seen it active on any flight in what seems like years, though.

I tried looking for it. It was not there under “Audio” not the “map” feature. If it is there, I couldn’t find it. This IFE has a new look, so perhaps it’s so new that it’s not loaded on the 77W.
Not long ago (year or so) I sat next to a United pilot. He was sUA, I asked about Ch9 and he said he hadn’t flipped it on in ages. I asked why and his reply was “I don’t know why anyone would care to listen to that boring stuff” - I went on to say “well many aviation enthusiasts like me love it, and I know many people who have a fear of flying find it very comforting to listen to calm pilots talking, especially during turbulence” he said that never occurred to him and he would now reconsider turning back on. One down a thousand to go!
He then went on to try and get me to buy a gun! He was a gun enthusiast, and was shocked I didn’t own a gun. I told him all I have is a Phaser.

VC10er wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I believe the newly-reconfigured 763s have Channel 9. I haven’t seen it active on any flight in what seems like years, though.

I tried looking for it. It was not there under “Audio” not the “map” feature.

I believe it's in its own category, under "From the Flight Deck". I am 99% sure I had it as an option on a reconfigured 763 EWR-AMS flight earlier in the year, but it was not active.

Pilots I've spoken with often cite apocryphal stories about other crews who have been disciplined after overzealous passengers complain about nonstandard transmissions and things of that nature. I think it's a crock, but the fact remains very few pilots activate the system on aircraft equipped with it.

tpaewr wrote:

Thanks for the report!! I have always felt the Diamond seats are smaller on the 767 as well, but never confirmed if it is true or not.

Unfortunately it is, but only slightly as the design soaks up most of the difference.[/quote]


At 6'1 I find it doesn't soak up enough!! But at least I am not my youngest brother who (I say thanks to all the chemicals in the food now) is 6'4 fits comfortably in no seat in any class ever!

calpsafltskeds wrote:

I've laid out the 763 routings and see that right now without spares or aircraft in maint/mod, it requires 27 of 35 aircraft. Of this the vast majority of down time for maintenance is in IAH. Three South American flights arrive daily at daybreak and depart about 2100. One SA flight does the same in IAD.

Slight over simplification but yes. The GRU-IAD usually turns right away on the IAD-HNL-IAD turn and then off to Europe on the early departure so downtime is not so bad. Earlier in the year, UA was running an IAD-IAH-IAD turn during that dead time. At IAH, you are mostly correct. One of the 3 South American returns leaves in the morning on a IAH-EWR flight which itself continues onto Europe. So you basically have two frames wasting their days in IAH. two and half if you include LIM.

I always turn CH9 on when I fly a 57/67 that is equipped with it. I grew up listening to it when my mom was working for United so it’s the least I can do for the customers on my flights.

hkcanadaexpat wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

I've laid out the 763 routings and see that right now without spares or aircraft in maint/mod, it requires 27 of 35 aircraft. Of this the vast majority of down time for maintenance is in IAH. Three South American flights arrive daily at daybreak and depart about 2100. One SA flight does the same in IAD.

Slight over simplification but yes. The GRU-IAD usually turns right away on the IAD-HNL-IAD turn and then off to Europe on the early departure so downtime is not so bad. Earlier in the year, UA was running an IAD-IAH-IAD turn during that dead time. At IAH, you are mostly correct. One of the 3 South American returns leaves in the morning on a IAH-EWR flight which itself continues onto Europe. So you basically have two frames wasting their days in IAH. two and half if you include LIM.

I would think those 2.5 frames are in Mx while in IAH. Mx being never ending on 76s nowadays is not so wasteful.

codc10 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I believe the newly-reconfigured 763s have Channel 9. I haven’t seen it active on any flight in what seems like years, though.

I tried looking for it. It was not there under “Audio” not the “map” feature.

I believe it's in its own category, under "From the Flight Deck". I am 99% sure I had it as an option on a reconfigured 763 EWR-AMS flight earlier in the year, but it was not active.

“From the Flight Deck” I thought was an option within the “Audio” section. So, that’s where I looked. It is/was usually accompanied by an image of a 767 in flight (if memory serves it was a 767, or a 777)
If I get a Polaris bird on the return flight from Rio I will try again to find it. Yes, it is often turned off - which sucks, so thanks to all the UA pilots here who turn it on. I did once hear a very funny exchange between our pilot and another that I guess could have upset another passenger who would not appreciate witty banter...but that’s what it’s for! If your drink just hit the ceiling during turbulence, you turn white with fear, and the pilots crack a joke about it, what more do you need to calm down?

As far as Channel 9 flight deck communications don't forget it is up to the flight crew to activate it so passengers can listen in also in times of emergencies some flight crews will deactivate channel 9.
If you couldn't find it or if it wasn't active is could be the flight deck just forgot to turn it on. Remember the flight crews are mixed sCO didn't have channel 9 whereas sUA did so in some cases when I'm on an aircraft that is equipped with channel 9 flight deck communications and its not working I just chalk it up to we probably have an a former sCO captain at the helm. Its not part of their safety checklist so if you have an entire flight crew that is former sCO probably no one on the flight deck would even think about channel 9.

If they are sitting at the gate IAH and not having maint check performed, then indeed it's wasted time. Most likely they're towed away for checks. And they also provide spare capability and routing flexibility (IAH/IAD) and to cover if something breaks or is late. Of course, that's only if the aircraft isn't in the middle of a maintenance procedure.

772:
N222UA sked to exit XMN 2762/8Jul, then 895/8Jul. Seat map still shows e class, but surely will be updated to Polaris
N794UA entering XMN via 895/6Jul plus a ferry to XMN for Polaris/PE.

Well Ch9 hasn’t been what it used to be for 2 decades now. Back when you only had 6 movies to chose from and maybe some TV shows, “Channel 9” was actually the 9th channel and many people knew of it. But over the years it hasn’t been promoted as it used to be in Hemispheres magazine, etc. I feel like it’s just dying away...especially since the merger.
I can only imagine how much Smisek liked it. (Not!)

calpsafltskeds wrote:

If they are sitting at the gate IAH and not having maint check performed, then indeed it's wasted time. Most likely they're towed away for checks. And they also provide spare capability and routing flexibility (IAH/IAD) and to cover if something breaks or is late. Of course, that's only if the aircraft isn't in the middle of a maintenance procedure.

772:
N222UA sked to exit XMN 2762/8Jul, then 895/8Jul. Seat map still shows e class, but surely will be updated to Polaris
N794UA entering XMN via 895/6Jul plus a ferry to XMN for Polaris/PE.

Did N222UA receive Polaris? Flight to depart shortly and seat map and upgrade lists still indicate 3 class.

jayunited wrote:

As far as Channel 9 flight deck communications don't forget it is up to the flight crew to activate it so passengers can listen in also in times of emergencies some flight crews will deactivate channel 9.
If you couldn't find it or if it wasn't active is could be the flight deck just forgot to turn it on. Remember the flight crews are mixed sCO didn't have channel 9 whereas sUA did so in some cases when I'm on an aircraft that is equipped with channel 9 flight deck communications and its not working I just chalk it up to we probably have an a former sCO captain at the helm. Its not part of their safety checklist so if you have an entire flight crew that is former sCO probably no one on the flight deck would even think about channel 9.

A visit to the premerger UA forum on Flyertalk will show you 9 was hit & miss years prior to the merger.


The mixed crew you mention likely weaken any "peer" pressure that was there before, making it even less likely even with a sUA crew it is turned

sbaflyer wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

If they are sitting at the gate IAH and not having maint check performed, then indeed it's wasted time. Most likely they're towed away for checks. And they also provide spare capability and routing flexibility (IAH/IAD) and to cover if something breaks or is late. Of course, that's only if the aircraft isn't in the middle of a maintenance procedure.

772:
N222UA sked to exit XMN 2762/8Jul, then 895/8Jul. Seat map still shows e class, but surely will be updated to Polaris
N794UA entering XMN via 895/6Jul plus a ferry to XMN for Polaris/PE.

Did N222UA receive Polaris? Flight to depart shortly and seat map and upgrade lists still indicate 3 class.

The internal software used by UA agents show 222UA with the 3 class config. I can’t believe they would’ve dispatched the flight if this was not correct.

I can't remember the last time I've been able to listen to channel 9, though I feel like that's mostly because most of the fleet doesn't have it anymore. Without fail, I'd start every UA flight by listening to it while staring at the route map in Hemispheres. I flew UA so much growing up that I didn't realize it's near-exclusive to UA.

One of the more interesting times was when I was flying LGA-DEN. The pilot was able to pick up KOA-AM over Kansas, so he routed it into channel 9 somehow so everyone could listen to the Broncos game. I was listening to channel 9 at the time and could hear it gradually fade in. Ahh, simpler times.

intotheair wrote:

I can't remember the last time I've been able to listen to channel 9, though I feel like that's mostly because most of the fleet doesn't have it anymore. Without fail, I'd start every UA flight by listening to it while staring at the route map in Hemispheres. I flew UA so much growing up that I didn't realize it's near-exclusive to UA.

One of the more interesting times was when I was flying LGA-DEN. The pilot was able to pick up KOA-AM over Kansas, so he routed it into channel 9 somehow so everyone could listen to the Broncos game. I was listening to channel 9 at the time and could hear it gradually fade in. Ahh, simpler times.

I think many people, (way more than UA management may realize) used to listen to Ch9 and still want it. It was/is an exclusive United feature. I used to love that strange whine in between talking, it was like the sound version of smelling jet fuel, together they really made you feel like “Yay! I’m flying!”
After I finish a flight and I get their survey I make sure to mention Ch9 and ask to make it more available. Everyone should mention it! Flying is a very special thing that has become tedious and even a hassle, but the romance and wonder of flying can be brought back to a degree if they tried harder. Lufthansa seems to celebrate the gift of flight more than anybody else’s I’ve flown.
I do think UA’s “Big Metal Bird” is a good effort to bring back some of the the wonder of flying. However they often use it to promote things like what UA does with water bottles to help the environment- when (IMHO) they should focus more on fun but educational content, eg; pounds of thrust needed for “MTOW”, the wing design or even the logistics of preparing a plane for ULH, explaining the differences between aircraft, on and on...it would inspire kids to become pilots one day.

VC10er wrote:

I think many people, (way more than UA management may realize) used to listen to Ch9 and still want it. It was/is an exclusive United feature. I used to love that strange whine in between talking, it was like the sound version of smelling jet fuel, together they really made you feel like “Yay! I’m flying!”

Yes! I know exactly the whine/hum sound you're talking about.

Also, for nostalgia's sake, I still think UA hasn't had a better safety video than this one. I really hope they eventually ditch the theatrics and go back to something majestic and authoritative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJbAWvSP45Y

77W will start flying EWR-BOM-EWR effective Oct 27.

intotheair, I do remember that video well, in fact I used to get a few of those FA’s on my flights!
As for these “theatrical” safety videos, I think it’s a trend, probably started with Virgin Atlantic I assume- I think they were the first to add some humor etc, and progressed from there. The problem I have with them is that they are great ONCE, then I don’t want to see it AGAIN. I think this latest version is better than the last one which really got on my nerves. Especially the Loch Ness monster fishing and the phony laugh of the FA in the golf cart (not funny!) - or the Machu Picchu scene with the FA with the BAD hairdo- ok enough!

CONTACREW wrote:

77W will start flying EWR-BOM-EWR effective Oct 27.

Wow! That’s great news for EWR fliers. When do they take delivery of the last 77W? I assume that route requires 2 aircraft?

I wager a bet that the 787-10 will be the nicest Polaris aircraft when they arrive, given the 787 windows and increased cabin pressure etc...but the service tunnel on the 77W is also nice, I presume the 787-10 won’t have that. What does everyone think: will UA order more 787-10s or 77Ws or 788 soon?

VC10er wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

77W will start flying EWR-BOM-EWR effective Oct 27.

Wow! That’s great news for EWR fliers. When do they take delivery of the last 77W? I assume that route requires 2 aircraft?

I wager a bet that the 787-10 will be the nicest Polaris aircraft when they arrive, given the 787 windows and increased cabin pressure etc...but the service tunnel on the 77W is also nice, I presume the 787-10 won’t have that. What does everyone think: will UA order more 787-10s or 77Ws or 788 soon?

Last 77W (at this time anyway) delivers Oct-Dec this year.. Also, have heard to expect an announcement of some sort on the 17th July about aircraft orders. I’m 99.999% certain it will include Boeing products of one or more types.

iahcsr wrote:

VC10er wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

77W will start flying EWR-BOM-EWR effective Oct 27.

Wow! That’s great news for EWR fliers. When do they take delivery of the last 77W? I assume that route requires 2 aircraft?

I wager a bet that the 787-10 will be the nicest Polaris aircraft when they arrive, given the 787 windows and increased cabin pressure etc...but the service tunnel on the 77W is also nice, I presume the 787-10 won’t have that. What does everyone think: will UA order more 787-10s or 77Ws or 788 soon?

Last 77W (at this time anyway) delivers Oct-Dec this year.. Also, have heard to expect an announcement of some sort on the 17th July about aircraft orders. I’m 99.999% certain it will include Boeing products of one or more types.

I’m really hoping to see the rumored order for four additional 77Ws come to fruition, in addition to the
Likely order for more 787s.

753:
N75853 - Scheduled to exit SFO on 8-Jul/1725. It did not get the slimline mod while it was in SFO.

772:
N794UA - Entry into XMN on 9-July/2763
N222UA - Confirmed exit from XMN. 896 shows that 6 people cleared into F so the odds are it is not a website fluke and the aircraft did not receive the mod as hoped.

STT757 wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Wow! That’s great news for EWR fliers. When do they take delivery of the last 77W? I assume that route requires 2 aircraft?

I wager a bet that the 787-10 will be the nicest Polaris aircraft when they arrive, given the 787 windows and increased cabin pressure etc...but the service tunnel on the 77W is also nice, I presume the 787-10 won’t have that. What does everyone think: will UA order more 787-10s or 77Ws or 788 soon?

Last 77W (at this time anyway) delivers Oct-Dec this year.. Also, have heard to expect an announcement of some sort on the 17th July about aircraft orders. I’m 99.999% certain it will include Boeing products of one or more types.

I’m really hoping to see the rumored order for four additional 77Ws come to fruition, in addition to the
Likely order for more 787s.

I am certain that they could find good use for 4 more 77Ws and fill them. I think Sydney and Singapore need the seat to be competitive. And after being on a refitted 767 (which I thought was beautiful), it will be interesting to see how tight a Polaris cabin will be on a 787. I wonder how many Polaris seat sizes UA is having manufactured?

VC10er wrote:

I am certain that they could find good use for 4 more 77Ws and fill them. I think Sydney and Singapore need the seat to be competitive. And after being on a refitted 767 (which I thought was beautiful), it will be interesting to see how tight a Polaris cabin will be on a 787. I wonder how many Polaris seat sizes UA is having manufactured?

While I hope the rumor does prove to be true I don't think we will see any 77Ws on our SIN routes and I think the only SYD route that would benefit from the 77W would be SFO-SYD. I think the 789 is the perfect aircraft for our LAX-SYD route in fact AA switch their flight over from a 77W to a 789. LAX-SYD is very competitive the 789 provides UA with the right amount of capacity. I remember before UA stated before the 789 we were loosing money on our SYD routes especially LAX-SYD, a few years ago UA stated the 789 has changed that and now at least SFO/LAX-SYD are exceeding expectation. If UA does order more 77Ws personally I think I think LAX-LHR could use the upguage for a moment UA was planning daily double from spring through mid fall but decided to use that frequency for a 6th EWR-LHR then move the frequency for seasonal service on our DEN-LHR route. I think if we do order 4 more 77Ws they could be used on LAX-SYD, EWR-DEL, EWR-HKG.

jayunited wrote:

VC10er wrote:

I am certain that they could find good use for 4 more 77Ws and fill them. I think Sydney and Singapore need the seat to be competitive. And after being on a refitted 767 (which I thought was beautiful), it will be interesting to see how tight a Polaris cabin will be on a 787. I wonder how many Polaris seat sizes UA is having manufactured?

While I hope the rumor does prove to be true I don't think we will see any 77Ws on our SIN routes and I think the only SYD route that would benefit from the 77W would be SFO-SYD. I think the 789 is the perfect aircraft for our LAX-SYD route in fact AA switch their flight over from a 77W to a 789. LAX-SYD is very competitive the 789 provides UA with the right amount of capacity. I remember before UA stated before the 789 we were loosing money on our SYD routes especially LAX-SYD, a few years ago UA stated the 789 has changed that and now at least SFO/LAX-SYD are exceeding expectation. If UA does order more 77Ws personally I think I think LAX-LHR could use the upguage for a moment UA was planning daily double from spring through mid fall but decided to use that frequency for a 6th EWR-LHR then move the frequency for seasonal service on our DEN-LHR route. I think if we do order 4 more 77Ws they could be used on LAX-SYD, EWR-DEL, EWR-HKG.

If they do order more, I hope they fly some out of IAH and ORD.

I think the 787-10 has the range for LAX-LHR, which might be a good aircraft for that route. Perhaps even LAX-NRT.

Nose....Acft........Mfg....N............Fuse.......Yr......Flt.......Former Op/
Gear....Type.......S/n....Number..Number..Mfg....Code..Registered.

1018.....787-10...TBD..N13018..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1019.....787-10...TBD..N14019..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1020.....787-10...TBD..N12020..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1021.....787-10...TBD..N12021..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1022.....787-10...TBD..N17022..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1023.....787-10...TBD..N14023..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1024.....787-10...TBD..N12024..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1025.....787-10...TBD..N12025..TBD........TBD...10.......CO

CALTECH wrote:

Nose....Acft........Mfg....N............Fuse.......Yr......Flt.......Former Op/
Gear....Type.......S/n....Number..Number..Mfg....Code..Registered.

1018.....787-10...TBD..N13018..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1019.....787-10...TBD..N14019..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1020.....787-10...TBD..N12020..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1021.....787-10...TBD..N12021..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1022.....787-10...TBD..N17022..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1023.....787-10...TBD..N14023..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1024.....787-10...TBD..N12024..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1025.....787-10...TBD..N12025..TBD........TBD...10.......CO

Well that's interesting....especially when you add them together with the other list of -10s you posted. I always assumed UA would not stop at 14 787-10s.

1001.... 787-10.... 40929.... N14001.... 19........ 10.............. CO
1002.... 787-10.... 40936.... N17002.... 18........ 10............. CO
1003.... 787-10.... 40930.... N12003.....18........ 10............. CO
1004.... 787-10.... 40935.... N12004.... 18........ 10............. CO
1005.... 787-10.... 60139.... N12005..... 19....... 10............. CO
1006.... 787-10.... 40937.... N12006..... 19....... 10............. CO
1007.... 787-10.... 60140.... N91007..... 19....... 10............. CO
1008.... 787-10.... 60138.... N16008..... 19....... 10.............. CO
1009.... 787-10.... 40938.... N16009..... 19....... 10.............. CO
1010.... 787-10.... 60145.... N12010..... 20....... 10.............. CO
1011.... 787-10.... 40940.... N14011..... 21....... 10.............. CO
1012.... 787-10.... 40926.... N12012..... 22....... 10.............. CO
1013.... 787-10.... 40931.... N13013..... 23........10.............. CO
1014.... 787-10.... 40934.... N13014..... 24....... 10.............. CO
1015.... 787-10.... TBD....... N17015..... TBD.... 10.............. CO
1016.... 787-10.... TBD....... N14016..... TBD.... 10.............. CO
1017.... 787-10.... TBD....... N17017..... TBD.... 10.............. CO

jayunited wrote:

VC10er wrote:

I am certain that they could find good use for 4 more 77Ws and fill them. I think Sydney and Singapore need the seat to be competitive. And after being on a refitted 767 (which I thought was beautiful), it will be interesting to see how tight a Polaris cabin will be on a 787. I wonder how many Polaris seat sizes UA is having manufactured?

While I hope the rumor does prove to be true I don't think we will see any 77Ws on our SIN routes and I think the only SYD route that would benefit from the 77W would be SFO-SYD. I think the 789 is the perfect aircraft for our LAX-SYD route in fact AA switch their flight over from a 77W to a 789. LAX-SYD is very competitive the 789 provides UA with the right amount of capacity. I remember before UA stated before the 789 we were loosing money on our SYD routes especially LAX-SYD, a few years ago UA stated the 789 has changed that and now at least SFO/LAX-SYD are exceeding expectation. If UA does order more 77Ws personally I think I think LAX-LHR could use the upguage for a moment UA was planning daily double from spring through mid fall but decided to use that frequency for a 6th EWR-LHR then move the frequency for seasonal service on our DEN-LHR route. I think if we do order 4 more 77Ws they could be used on LAX-SYD, EWR-DEL, EWR-HKG.

Personally I would love to see the 77W take over the EWR-DEL & BOM flights to increase capacity and a 789 or sCO 772 start up a 'BLR' flight. I frequent the FRA --> India flights on LH and a large portion of them are filled with business and leisure travelers going to/from the US.

CALTECH wrote:

Nose....Acft........Mfg....N............Fuse.......Yr......Flt.......Former Op/
Gear....Type.......S/n....Number..Number..Mfg....Code..Registered.

1018.....787-10...TBD..N13018..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1019.....787-10...TBD..N14019..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1020.....787-10...TBD..N12020..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1021.....787-10...TBD..N12021..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1022.....787-10...TBD..N17022..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1023.....787-10...TBD..N14023..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1024.....787-10...TBD..N12024..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1025.....787-10...TBD..N12025..TBD........TBD...10.......CO

With this acquisition it's become clear the 787-10 will replace the 77Es on TATL runs and some shorter TPAC runs. With the 77W talking over the 77E ULH routes (TLV thus far with BOM to follow this fall with hopefully DEL soon after. I suspect ORD to PVG/PEK, etc. will follow shortly with a top up order), the only significant gap left is the 763. The question is whether Boeing will update the 788 design to incorporate some of the lessons learned and bring it in closer to the 789.


How many 321s or 320s does UA get for the 359s is the question.

788:
N45905 entered FTW paint 2754/22Jun, sked to exit 2722/9Jul

CALTECH wrote:

Nose....Acft........Mfg....N............Fuse.......Yr......Flt.......Former Op/
Gear....Type.......S/n....Number..Number..Mfg....Code..Registered.

1018.....787-10...TBD..N13018..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1019.....787-10...TBD..N14019..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1020.....787-10...TBD..N12020..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1021.....787-10...TBD..N12021..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1022.....787-10...TBD..N17022..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1023.....787-10...TBD..N14023..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1024.....787-10...TBD..N12024..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1025.....787-10...TBD..N12025..TBD........TBD...10.......CO

This list when combine with the other suggest UA perhaps will order 11 more 787-10s. We have 14 confirmed but now we are seeing nose numbers for an additional 11 more very interesting. I hope the initial reports on the seat map are wrong, I'm hoping there will be more Polaris seats than what has been reported.

GmoneyCO wrote:

With this acquisition it's become clear the 787-10 will replace the 77Es on TATL runs and some shorter TPAC runs. With the 77W talking over the 77E ULH routes (TLV thus far with BOM to follow this fall with hopefully DEL soon after. I suspect ORD to PVG/PEK, etc. will follow shortly with a top up order), the only significant gap left is the 763. The question is whether Boeing will update the 788 design to incorporate some of the lessons learned and bring it in closer to the 789.
How many 321s or 320s does UA get for the 359s is the question.

I don't think the 77Ws are coming to Chicago we don't have enough frames in the fleet. With the frames we currently have when one frame unexpectedly goes out of service UA can replace it fairly quickly only incurring a minor delay. Add another hub the logistics become a nightmare because with such a small fleet you can't have a spare located at each hub. A good example of what I'm talking about is the sCO 77Es that subfleet is so small they are still confined to 2 hubs when one or two frames are out of service it is easier to replace it only becomes a major headache when 3-4 sCO 77Es are out of service then the sUA fleet has to step in and that causes all sorts of problems. So I think that even if UA does order more 77Ws they will still be confined to SFO and EWR, perhaps LAX (only because we can have a spare moved from SFO to LAX in a few hours(UA already does this with the 789s they can have it crewed, fueled and on the ground at the alternated destination in 2-3 hours)) for ORD to get in on the action UA would probably need a fleet of at least 27-30.

jayunited wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Nose....Acft........Mfg....N............Fuse.......Yr......Flt.......Former Op/
Gear....Type.......S/n....Number..Number..Mfg....Code..Registered.

1018.....787-10...TBD..N13018..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1019.....787-10...TBD..N14019..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1020.....787-10...TBD..N12020..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1021.....787-10...TBD..N12021..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1022.....787-10...TBD..N17022..TBD....... TBD...10.......CO
1023.....787-10...TBD..N14023..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1024.....787-10...TBD..N12024..TBD........TBD...10.......CO
1025.....787-10...TBD..N12025..TBD........TBD...10.......CO

This list when combine with the other suggest UA perhaps will order 11 more 787-10s. We have 14 confirmed but now we are seeing nose numbers for an additional 11 more very interesting. I hope the initial reports on the seat map are wrong, I'm hoping there will be more Polaris seats than what has been reported.

There won’t be. A-Zone is larger on the 787-10 than any of the earlier variants, so UA elected to keep Polaris to a single section rather than add a smaller mini-cabin aft of 2L/R. The 78J is targeted mostly at Atlantic and South America markets which, in general, aren’t as premium as TPAC and generate strong seasonal Y demand. So, an aircraft with the premium mix of the 777s or 789s isn’t as important. UA is large enough that a one-size-fits-all approach isn’t necessary, and equipment can be allocated to markets where the configuration makes the most sense. It’s still a better J:Y ratio than what DL is doing with their 350s.

GmoneyCO wrote:

How many 321s or 320s does UA get for the 359s is the question.

I'd be curious to know if the structure of Airbus's CSeries involvement puts the CSeries in play for the A350s.

codc10 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

This list when combine with the other suggest UA perhaps will order 11 more 787-10s. We have 14 confirmed but now we are seeing nose numbers for an additional 11 more very interesting. I hope the initial reports on the seat map are wrong, I'm hoping there will be more Polaris seats than what has been reported.

There won’t be. A-Zone is larger on the 787-10 than any of the earlier variants, so UA elected to keep Polaris to a single section rather than add a smaller mini-cabin aft of 2L/R.

Do you have access to a seating chart for the 787-10? I have not seen anything yet, so if you can share, that would be great!

Any chance that IAH will get any 787 10s on TATL routes