Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
babastud wrote:Later this year UAL is projected to start receiving there 787-10's, where will they be based and what routes will they fly? do you think they will be a success for UAL?
DaufuskieGuy wrote:so the 772er will be phased out with 78J and the 777a remains?
TWA772LR wrote:Does anyone know if they'll come with Polaris and the new Premium Economy seating?
Runway28L wrote:I imagine ORD, EWR, and possibly IAD will be the main hubs that the 78J will fly out of.
ORD and EWR to help bolster the presence of Polaris (which the 78Js will have) while IAD has a lot of TATL flights where it can fit in nicely.
Edit: Route-wise, probably ORD/EWR-LHR/FRA/MUC/CDG/BRU/ZRH
atcsundevil wrote:Polaris, yes. Premium Economy, maybe. There has been quite a bit of discussion in the UA Fleet Thread. The new PE product may not be ready in time for the first 787-10 delivery, so it may not debut until the batch of four 77Ws arrive later this year. However, unlike the remaining deliveries for the 787-9, the -10 will definitely arrive with Polaris. The -9s had seat supplier contracts that predated Polaris, but that's not the case for the -10 deliveries.
jayunited wrote:[It's been a while since I've looked at the delivery schedule but I thought UA was scheduled to take delivery of the 77Ws first and the 78Js will not arrive till perhaps late Q3 or early Q4.
Also the mood here at Willis Tower when UA announced PE was what took so long especially when both AA and DL announced some time ago. Well the rumor I heard was UA has been working on and developing the PE seat for some time and although the seats will not be ready for the 789's that have and will be delivered or for the 4 remaining 77ws Ive heard they will be ready for the 78Js. At this particular point in time it is just a rumor no one with direct knowledge has confirmed this information so please take it with a grain of salt. But I'm hoping when the 78Js enter service late Q3 or early Q4 the PE seats will make their debut.
babastud wrote:Will we see any on West coast like SFO-LHR runs? and do you think they will be used to domestically between hubs?
atcsundevil wrote:jayunited wrote:[It's been a while since I've looked at the delivery schedule but I thought UA was scheduled to take delivery of the 77Ws first and the 78Js will not arrive till perhaps late Q3 or early Q4.
Also the mood here at Willis Tower when UA announced PE was what took so long especially when both AA and DL announced some time ago. Well the rumor I heard was UA has been working on and developing the PE seat for some time and although the seats will not be ready for the 789's that have and will be delivered or for the 4 remaining 77ws Ive heard they will be ready for the 78Js. At this particular point in time it is just a rumor no one with direct knowledge has confirmed this information so please take it with a grain of salt. But I'm hoping when the 78Js enter service late Q3 or early Q4 the PE seats will make their debut.
Ah okay, I was under the apparently wrong assumption the first 787-10s came before the 77W batch. In any case, it would be good to see the product debut on either aircraft. I think it would make for a better PR event if it officially went into service on a brand spanking new aircraft. It is a shame it took UA so long to come up with a PE product, especially when so many competitors have had it for quite a while.
drdisque wrote:I suspect they'll take over a lot of the ORD 772ER flying so that those birds can be refurbished. So ORD-FRA/MUC/NRT/HKG/PEK/PVG (HKG may be pushing its range a bit, so maybe it'll just be sent on FRA/MUC and then seasonal FCO/CDG/BRU - I just don't see how you can keep a base active for it just flying it over the Atlantic though when only 1-2 TATL routes consistently see the 772 from ORD over the winter.
ElroyJetson wrote:The 78J is probably the best TATL bird in the world right now.
Ronaldo747 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The 78J is probably the best TATL bird in the world right now.
I don't think that the standard 78J will ever go transpacific. You would need a -10ER for that.
Newbiepilot wrote:Ronaldo747 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The 78J is probably the best TATL bird in the world right now.
I don't think that the standard 78J will ever go transpacific. You would need a -10ER for that.
The 787-10 has very similar range to the A330 and there are a number of A330s flying transpacific. UA even used their 777-200As between NRT and the west coast of the United States on rare occasions.
ElroyJetson wrote:The 78J is probably the best TATL bird in the world right now. The economics are truly outstanding, which is probably why UA and BA ordered it.
I could see ORD -FRA and EWR-FRA for starters. Throw in EWR-MUC and LHR. Anything hub to hub that is TATL.
caverunner17 wrote:drdisque wrote:I suspect they'll take over a lot of the ORD 772ER flying so that those birds can be refurbished. So ORD-FRA/MUC/NRT/HKG/PEK/PVG (HKG may be pushing its range a bit, so maybe it'll just be sent on FRA/MUC and then seasonal FCO/CDG/BRU - I just don't see how you can keep a base active for it just flying it over the Atlantic though when only 1-2 TATL routes consistently see the 772 from ORD over the winter.
I didn't think the 78J could fly ORD-PEK/PVG with a meaningful payload. PEK is 6500mi, PVG is 7050mi. The payload range charts I've seen take a hit at starting at 4600 miles
RL777 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The 78J is probably the best TATL bird in the world right now. The economics are truly outstanding, which is probably why UA and BA ordered it.
I could see ORD -FRA and EWR-FRA for starters. Throw in EWR-MUC and LHR. Anything hub to hub that is TATL.
I agree with you that the 78J will be a very successful aircraft not only on TATL missions but to call it the best when it hasn't even entered service is a stretch. The A330NEO could prove to be a formidable competitor.
Ronaldo747 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The 78J is probably the best TATL bird in the world right now.
I don't think that the standard 78J will ever go transpacific. You would need a -10ER for that.
JustSomeDood wrote:caverunner17 wrote:drdisque wrote:I suspect they'll take over a lot of the ORD 772ER flying so that those birds can be refurbished. So ORD-FRA/MUC/NRT/HKG/PEK/PVG (HKG may be pushing its range a bit, so maybe it'll just be sent on FRA/MUC and then seasonal FCO/CDG/BRU - I just don't see how you can keep a base active for it just flying it over the Atlantic though when only 1-2 TATL routes consistently see the 772 from ORD over the winter.
I didn't think the 78J could fly ORD-PEK/PVG with a meaningful payload. PEK is 6500mi, PVG is 7050mi. The payload range charts I've seen take a hit at starting at 4600 miles
No aircraft in the world flies TPAC MZFW, ORD-PEK is 5700nm and is a polar routing, the 787-10 should do just fine with a full load of pax (no cargo). Not that I expect UA to fly 78Js TPAC from ORD-PEK. I do expect some west coast TPAC routes with the 78Js from SFO..RL777 wrote:ElroyJetson wrote:The 78J is probably the best TATL bird in the world right now. The economics are truly outstanding, which is probably why UA and BA ordered it.
I could see ORD -FRA and EWR-FRA for starters. Throw in EWR-MUC and LHR. Anything hub to hub that is TATL.
I agree with you that the 78J will be a very successful aircraft not only on TATL missions but to call it the best when it hasn't even entered service is a stretch. The A330NEO could prove to be a formidable competitor.
CASM-wise, not really.
The 787-10 has ~35m² more floor area, which is packed more densely because 9-abreast Y vs 8-abreast Y. That's a biig capacity increase for not much more cost (~same MTOW, similar thrust), SQ were able to get over 50 more total seats in their regional 78Js than their regional A333s despite having more J (36 vs 30) and improving their J product from 2-2-2 angle flats to 1-2-1 lie-flats.
There's only so much lower purchasing costs could do to compensate.
77H wrote:JustSomeDood wrote:caverunner17 wrote:I didn't think the 78J could fly ORD-PEK/PVG with a meaningful payload. PEK is 6500mi, PVG is 7050mi. The payload range charts I've seen take a hit at starting at 4600 miles
No aircraft in the world flies TPAC MZFW, ORD-PEK is 5700nm and is a polar routing, the 787-10 should do just fine with a full load of pax (no cargo). Not that I expect UA to fly 78Js TPAC from ORD-PEK. I do expect some west coast TPAC routes with the 78Js from SFO..RL777 wrote:
I agree with you that the 78J will be a very successful aircraft not only on TATL missions but to call it the best when it hasn't even entered service is a stretch. The A330NEO could prove to be a formidable competitor.
CASM-wise, not really.
The 787-10 has ~35m² more floor area, which is packed more densely because 9-abreast Y vs 8-abreast Y. That's a biig capacity increase for not much more cost (~same MTOW, similar thrust), SQ were able to get over 50 more total seats in their regional 78Js than their regional A333s despite having more J (36 vs 30) and improving their J product from 2-2-2 angle flats to 1-2-1 lie-flats.
There's only so much lower purchasing costs could do to compensate.
I’d be surprised if UA put a plane on a route that could only make the trip without taking cargo. Especially in lieu of one that can today, the 77E. Cargo contributed $1B in revenue to UA last year. With global air freight demand picking up, especially out of Asia, it would be foolish.
My understanding was that the 78X was to primarily operate TATL. TATL flights operated by the 77E specifically subCO frames would start making their way to ORD.
77H
skipness1E wrote:Does the 78J have the dimmable windows?
JustSomeDood wrote:77H wrote:JustSomeDood wrote:
No aircraft in the world flies TPAC MZFW, ORD-PEK is 5700nm and is a polar routing, the 787-10 should do just fine with a full load of pax (no cargo). Not that I expect UA to fly 78Js TPAC from ORD-PEK. I do expect some west coast TPAC routes with the 78Js from SFO..
CASM-wise, not really.
The 787-10 has ~35m² more floor area, which is packed more densely because 9-abreast Y vs 8-abreast Y. That's a biig capacity increase for not much more cost (~same MTOW, similar thrust), SQ were able to get over 50 more total seats in their regional 78Js than their regional A333s despite having more J (36 vs 30) and improving their J product from 2-2-2 angle flats to 1-2-1 lie-flats.
There's only so much lower purchasing costs could do to compensate.
I’d be surprised if UA put a plane on a route that could only make the trip without taking cargo. Especially in lieu of one that can today, the 77E. Cargo contributed $1B in revenue to UA last year. With global air freight demand picking up, especially out of Asia, it would be foolish.
My understanding was that the 78X was to primarily operate TATL. TATL flights operated by the 77E specifically subCO frames would start making their way to ORD.
77H
1 Billion per year in revenues is a drop in the bucket for an airline that made 37.7 billion in revenues last year. I haven't dug into UA's 10-Ks but unless cargo has ludicrously high margin for them, I doubt cargo has much bearing on UA's route planning. Especially given that going 77E over 78J could means sacrificing something like ~25-45 Y worth of potential revenues.
Ziyulu wrote:Whenever I see airlines ordering 787s, it never amazes me. As a customer, I do not want to ride in a plane that is narrow with 3-3-3 seating.
Newbiepilot wrote:This isn’t true for all airlines, but mostly is for UA. UA completely sacrificed cargo to SIN in exchange for nonstop flights for example. If UA cargo drove fleet decisions, the 77W would never have been pulled from ICN and replaced with a 787 in winter as another example.
jayunited wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:This isn’t true for all airlines, but mostly is for UA. UA completely sacrificed cargo to SIN in exchange for nonstop flights for example. If UA cargo drove fleet decisions, the 77W would never have been pulled from ICN and replaced with a 787 in winter as another example.
Your statement here is not exactly true UA has not sacrificed cargo at SIN in exchange for nonstop flights. UA on a daily basis loads cargo on both SIN flights to and from the U.S. On average the SFO-SIN flight averages anywhere between 10,000 -15,000 pounds of freight depending on the time of year and the passenger load, while LAX-SIN averages about 7,000 -12,000 pounds of freight again depending on the time of year. The return flights back to the U.S. are able to accommodate more freight up to 22,000 pounds. Just because UA ended the tag ons does not mean we've sacrificed cargo.
jayunited wrote:Newbiepilot wrote:This isn’t true for all airlines, but mostly is for UA. UA completely sacrificed cargo to SIN in exchange for nonstop flights for example. If UA cargo drove fleet decisions, the 77W would never have been pulled from ICN and replaced with a 787 in winter as another example.
Your statement here is not exactly true UA has not sacrificed cargo at SIN in exchange for nonstop flights. UA on a daily basis loads cargo on both SIN flights to and from the U.S. On average the SFO-SIN flight averages anywhere between 10,000 -15,000 pounds of freight depending on the time of year and the passenger load, while LAX-SIN averages about 7,000 -12,000 pounds of freight again depending on the time of year. The return flights back to the U.S. are able to accommodate more freight up to 22,000 pounds. Just because UA ended the tag ons does not mean we've sacrificed cargo.
ual763 wrote:Ziyulu wrote:Whenever I see airlines ordering 787s, it never amazes me. As a customer, I do not want to ride in a plane that is narrow with 3-3-3 seating.
Would you rather fly in a 777, or 747, with 3-4-3 seating? Not sure what else you would prefer they buy then. Even the A350 is 3-3-3.
VC10er wrote:Given the many different cities/routes that everyone is suggesting for the 78J, did United order enough of them? It seems like almost every United hub could use it well?
FabienA380 wrote:Any chance for any domestic routing?......... Between hubs or also training purposes?...
Newbiepilot wrote:JustSomeDood wrote:77H wrote:
I’d be surprised if UA put a plane on a route that could only make the trip without taking cargo. Especially in lieu of one that can today, the 77E. Cargo contributed $1B in revenue to UA last year. With global air freight demand picking up, especially out of Asia, it would be foolish.
My understanding was that the 78X was to primarily operate TATL. TATL flights operated by the 77E specifically subCO frames would start making their way to ORD.
77H
1 Billion per year in revenues is a drop in the bucket for an airline that made 37.7 billion in revenues last year. I haven't dug into UA's 10-Ks but unless cargo has ludicrously high margin for them, I doubt cargo has much bearing on UA's route planning. Especially given that going 77E over 78J could means sacrificing something like ~25-45 Y worth of potential revenues.
Cargo is growing now, but certainly not ludicrously high margin. PEK/PVG are big cargo markets. For UA they have plenty of capacity to China where they can move cargo. Cargo is 3% of revenue and very rarely is cargo revenue enough to justify a larger or more capable plane for UA with the exception of some unique markets like Lima getting a 767 instead of 757. Passenger volume drives airplane and fleet decisions while cargo is extra revenue on top of that. This isn’t true for all airlines, but mostly is for UA. UA completely sacrificed cargo to SIN in exchange for nonstop flights for example. If UA cargo drove fleet decisions, the 77W would never have been pulled from ICN and replaced with a 787 in winter as another example.
I don’t think the 787-10 is ideal for transpacific, but I would not be surprised to see it show up on NRT for various rotations and to benefit fleet utilization.