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?

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?

I thought I heard they will mostly be used TATL as 772 replacements. Might be wrong though.

-IR

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

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.

Does anyone know if they'll come with Polaris and the new Premium Economy seating?

Their*

I'd actually expect to see them on west coast - Europe routes first as they are more fuel efficient over the longer sectors than the 777.

so the 772er will be phased out with 78J and the 777a remains?

DaufuskieGuy wrote:

so the 772er will be phased out with 78J and the 777a remains?

No the 772ERs aren’t going anywhere, it does seem that the 78J will be used on busier East Coast Europe runs, some of which are 77E routes, those 77E’s will be redeployed elsewhere, I’m not sure exactly where.

TWA772LR wrote:

Does anyone know if they'll come with Polaris and the new Premium Economy seating?

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.

Would love to see UA replace their aging 777-200ERs on the NRT-HNL route with 787-10s. The capacity is similar and the -10 should not have any problems with the range even under full load.

I am really hoping we will see them coming into LHR. I fly LHR-ORD quite a bit. Is UA going to replace the 763 used on those routes with the 787 anytime soon?

Will we see any on West coast like SFO-LHR runs? and do you think they will be used to domestically between hubs?

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

I'm not so sure we will see them in EWR. I know in the past I've said UA probably will use the 78J on TATL routes from EWR, however now I'm a little more hesitant because of the 77W. Starting this spring EWR-FRA will be upguaged a 77W, and UA is scheduled to take delivery of 4 77W's this year and for now it looks like they will be sticking with the strategy of keeping all 77Ws based at SFO and EWR. The 77W fleet still has some slack so I think UA will utilize the 77Ws from EWR on more TATL routes. If routes like EWR-LHR/MUC/CDG/BRU/FCO/ZRH/AMS need an upguage they will upguage them from 763/4s to 772ERs and routes like EWR-GRU could be upguaged to a 77W during the winter schedule and EWR-FRA could be downguaged to a 772ER. I think the 78Js will for sure be based at IAD (UA already has a 787 base at IAD). Routes like IAD-FRA/MUC/LHR/BRU/FCO/CDG (CDG and FCO late spring through early fall) could use the additional capacity. I also think ORD will finally get in on the 787 action, routes like ORD-FRA (the 6pm departure) ORD-MUC/BRU/GRU/CDG (CDG would probably revert back to a 763 in mid October and BRU would probably be downgauage in mid December or early January).

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.

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.

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.

I think we will see it on the first daily flight EWR - TLV given the competition from LY who now fly the 789 to EWR, the second daily flight was one of the first flights to get the 777W

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?

It looks like SFO is getting more 77W's. I was surprised to see it's going on the TLV route. I agree with an earlier poster, the 78J will be a great TATL aircraft.

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.

The first three 77Ws are in various stages of production at PAE now, the first 78J ( well technically second as first was part of the test program) is some 50+ frames down the production line. There should, hopefully, be time to introduce the PE product on them. One advantage, such as it is, in being last to the PE party is seeing what the competition is offering and tweak yours just a bit more.
BTW, still haven’t seen what the registrations/Ship#s will be on the J. Presume CO format 0980< range but the 77Ws were a surprise, so...

Does the 78J have the dimmable windows?

If the 787J comes with the new PE seats, she will be United’s star aircraft. I love Polaris on the 77W for long haul but adding 787 comfort to that equation will make her very special. I hope they order more of them, but I’d assume with the A350 coming one day, that might not happen?
I know United is very late to the PE game, but if they did that just to wait and see how well it worked for DL and AA, then perhaps it was smart to wait.
I doubt the average flying Jane and John Doe don’t even realize that United is behind in this regard. We here on a.net are appalled, but perhaps waiting and watching was a good idea from a business strategy standpoint?
UA got PE right by only doing part of the economy cabin with additional legroom vs trying to do it from First Class all the way to the back.

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've heard upper management say ORD, EWR, or IAD to begin with. I am hoping they make an appearance on ORD-BRU/MUC/FRA first. But, it seems like UA is consolidated the remaining 3-cabin 767s in ORD, and to have consistent cabin offered across all destination longhaul from ORD, that those 787-10s go to IAD or EWR first.

Has UA released the seating layout for the 787J?

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

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.

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.

I wonder if the UA 78J will fly out of IAH?

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.

From ORD don't expect Tpac for the -10. The 330 can Tpac from PDX and SEA but UA won't be flying those routes. I think the only route the a/c can do Tpac from SFO without penalty would be NRT/HND.

For EWR, IAD and ORD to Europe, this plane will do well on CASM.

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.

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.

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.

There would not be any problem with these destinations:
- http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-NRT&MS=wls&DU=nm
- http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-PEK&MS=wls&DU=nm

These may be pushing the aircraft too far:
- http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-CTU&MS=wls&DU=nm
- http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-AKL&MS=wls&DU=nm

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.

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

Probably to Europe. The 78J would be much more economical on say ORD-Europe than any other aircraft in its class, since it's essentially designed for that market. Maybe a few Latin America routes as well. It'll also probably launch their W seat. And 99% will have Polaris, though at the rates those are being rolled out I wouldn't be certain.

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

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.

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.

In fact, to me it was scheduled for EWR-CDG, EWR-LHR, EWR-FRA or even EWR-MAN, EWR-BCN. Maybe considered between the east coast of US to Europe.

skipness1E wrote:

Does the 78J have the dimmable windows?

Yes, that's standard on the 787 across the fleet

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.

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.

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.

my $$ would be on ORD their big competitor there AA has far superior equipment as do the international carriers. iad and ewr they have all to themselves less reason for new planes

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.

Available payload was significantly sacrificed. Not gone, so completely is probably the wrong word

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.

But that does sacrifice available cargo payload compared to flying the same plane thru say, NRT simply because how much fuel is needed for the ULR route.

OT: If the 787-9 can carry 3-5t of payload over pax + bags on a GC ~7600nm, 18hr block time flight, either pax loads are crap, or some competitor should be very, very worried.

Any chance for any domestic routing?......... Between hubs or also training purposes?...

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?

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.

With innumerable threads on the 787's seating configuration, could we perhaps stay on topic in this thread? The question wasn't whether you liked the seating on the 787, it was where will UA fly the 787-10. It would appear that transatlantic is the most logical location but we haven't heard anything firm yet so it remains to be seen.

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?

They have options for additional 787s when the time comes to get a few more aircraft. While UA is growing faster than their peers are they are also trying to appease Wall Street a bit by not placing large orders. I also think they are also waiting until they sort out the MOM replacement aircraft (787/358/797/321 ect.)

FabienA380 wrote:

Any chance for any domestic routing?......... Between hubs or also training purposes?...

pretty sure it's SOP for WB planes to go hub to hub before int'l service the 77W was doing EWR SFO last year for example.

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.

I agree with that. In the case of SFO/LAX-SIN there is no aircraft that can make the journey with reasonable payload for cargo. In the case of ORD-PVG/PEK, UA operates an aircraft that can. I haven’t seen the proposed config for the 78X to know if seating far exceeds the 77E but if it is, unless UA can reliably fill those seats couldn’t it be argued that carrying cargo would be more cost effective? What is the cumulative pax LF on those routes currently?

77H

Other than connecting dots and upgauging, ORD is limited due to lack of gates. But this plane may be the “sweet spot” in the short term, even though UA has shown no 787 love at ORD and limited 77W (even though HKG is screaming for it).

No 787 love at EWR either- just a little 77W and a few Polaris 767s. I can’t wait for the day the 772 is refitted and there are A350s. Also more Airbus narrow bodies!
I watched the Priestman Goode E2 video- I wonder if United would ever put in a First Class like that if they decided to go with E2s??? It’d be NICE!