Well, sorry I didn't say "soon" as I didn't feel it worth getting into specific retirement predictions. I said "in the next decade". Last time I saw a fleet plan slide back in 2023, it projected four WB retirements in 2025. If this stands, and with delivery delays I'm not sure it will, I'd say it's a pretty safe assumption it will happen after the summer high season and the retirees will be some of our oldest 767-300ERs. They were delivered in 1991-1992, so around 34 years old. The oldest flying 777 in the world, 774UA rolled off the assembly line in July 1994, so 30 years ago. If I were to hazard a genuine guess, I'd say we see the first few A models get retired sometime after the 2028 high season. That "sometime after" could be a few years after 2028 for all I know, people with sharp pencils will figure out if that is economically viable. Once the early A models go, keep in mind roughly half of our 200ERs were delivered in 1997-1998, so they will be hitting 34 years old well inside "the next decade."

As for 787-10s, well, I'd expect them to replace 200ERs on quite a few midrange seasonal routes without much cargo demand. Allows for some upgauging without leaving any cargo behind. Examples? SFO-CDG/AMS/BCN plus LHR year round. Not much cargo to FCO or ZRH either, but I'm not sure if the 10 has the range/performance. The 787-9 definitely has it though, with much better fuel burn and only at the cost of 19 seats. I'd expect the ERs to stay on SFO-FRA and longer Asia routes a long time, lots of year round cargo. Meanwhile, the 787-10 can easily cover all EWR/IAD/IAH 777 flying to Europe, cargo and all.

Anyways, I took a glance yesterday and noticed ANZ and JAL are getting rid of their 777-300ERs (9 and 13 aircraft respectively). Middle aged, well maintained, and still with plenty of life left in them. We'll see. Tough to imagine getting any non-ER 300s for cattle car conversion when the first A models get parked since we have plenty of later delivery B/C model feedstock available (2001-2002 deliveries).

 

I agree with the 787 stage lengths, apples, and oranges when it comes to route structure. The good news is we are not parking any! LOL

In Unity...

 

All good points. Who knows when Boeing will get their act together and actually build some planes.

One small point. Our oldest 777 is 777UA. It was part of the flight test fleet and built in 1994. It was always a UAL plane, but delivery was delayed while it was still in flight test. The airworthiness certifcate says 1995, that was when Boeing delivered it to UAL. So, 777UA is the oldest 777 flying.

 

I had actually heard 774UA was the oldest and was the one held back for testing etc while the ceremonial delivery (777UA) made the first revenue passenger flights etc. I could wrong. I took a very early/junior captain bid on this fleet last summer so as not to miss having the opportunity to fly these two aircraft before their retirement. I remember being a senior in HS when these were doing flight testing.

 

Either way, they are both coming up on 30 years old.....

 

Not sure United we will get any, but there are numerous routes in United's network that would support a 777-9. Also, new routes that could be opened.

 

While the company has said repeatedly the 9X is too big for us... get this, I've read elsewhere that it also has less cargo capacity than a 300ER. Sure it has more space for pallets, but apparently the difference between Max ZFW and MTOW is narrower. Despite BA's recent pratfalls, I find it genuinely hard to believe that Boeing would actually handicap one of the 777's biggest selling points. So, I'm hoping someone reading this can confidently deny it. But, if this is true, I can't see us buying any 9Xs unless BA is able to increase the MTOW significantly. Maybe a 777-9.1 someday?

 

if there aren't enough gates at our hubs which it fits, does it matter what destinations it could reach?

is this a real estate problem?

 

Of course it’s more than just physical dimensions that determine where a plane can park, but on ground the -9 isn’t much bigger than the -300. When the -9’s wings are folded, the span is the same as the -300 (by design I’m sure) and the -9 is only about 10 feet longer.

 

what could go wrong with a boeing plane with folding wings?