Airline Pilot Central Forums - UAL 787 early- mid 2012

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- United (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/)

- - UAL 787 early- mid 2012 (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/united/56323-ual-787-early-mid-2012-a.html)

UAL 787 early- mid 2012

United hopes for first Boeing 787 Dreamliner service in early-mid 2012 - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller

Despite another delay for Boeing’s 787, with delivery of the Dreamliner now pushed back as far as September, United Airlines remains hopeful of introducing its first 787-8 into commercial service in the first half of next year.
The radical next-gen airliner will debut on a new non-stop route between Auckland and Houston – United’s first service in New Zealand, and one which is well-suited to the long-haul jetliner.

Alison Espley, General Manager of Australia and New Zealand for United, told Australian Business Traveller that while the timetable was “dependent on Boeing’s delivery program”, early-mid 2012 was now a likely date for “United-Continental to take delivery of the 787, which we will be operating between Auckland and Houston.” That service was previously slated to begin in November this year, Espley said.

The non-stop flight between Auckland and Houston relies on the long range, fuel efficiency and modest passenger load of the 787 to be commercially viable for United says Jeff Smisek, president and CEO of United Airlines.
“That market is dependent on the 787 – we will not fly that route without the 787” Smisek told Australian Business Traveller late last year. “But with the 787 we can make money on that route.”
The Auckland-Houston service is noteworthy because it directly connects two major hubs operated by Star Alliance partners without requiring an expensive and time-consuming stopover such as Los Angeles.
It also illustrates how the 787 could open up other new routes which are beyond the range of today’s mid-size airliners but uneconomical for larger-capacity aircraft like the 747-400.
United’s 25 787-8 Dreamliners will sport a simple two-class configuration, with 36 flat-bed seats in the business cabin and 192 seats in economy.
The Auckland-Houston flight was originally announced as a daily service, but would run five-times-weekly during certain unspecified periods in the first year of operation.
The preliminary schedule saw an afternoon departure from Auckland at 3:40pm with arrival into Houston at 11:50am the same day; the return journey would leave Houston at 9:30pm and reach Auckland at 5:10am two days later.

Had the end of this year for deliveries already been pushed back or is this new info? And was this date reflected on the last bid?

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Watts (Post 933684)

Isn't this what they are waiting on for the new bid to come out? UAL actually flew to New Zealand from LAX a few years ago with the 777. The company said, they could not make money with it. I think it was outsourced to the STAR partner. SCOPE!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandera89 (Post 933700)

UAL actually flew to New Zealand from LAX a few years ago with the 777. The company said, they could not make money with it. I think it was outsourced to the STAR partner. SCOPE!

Yup.

UA downsized the AKL flight from a 744 to the 777 when they parked too many 744's in 2002/2003. It was a bit too long of a flight with UA's small motor 777 and the flight was often payload restricted. That was a BIG problem on this particular route because of the heavy cargo revenue mix and the much smaller cargo capacity of the 777 compared to the 744. It was during this brief period that UA also pressed-to-test the 777 180 min ETOPS when an engine failed en-route AKL-LAX and virtually over an ETP. I suspect that the pucker factor was high as they cruised 192 minutes single engine to Kona. UA was actually upset that the crew did not overfly Kona and press on to HNL for ease of MX.

The point of all this? The day after UA stopped LAX-AKL, STAR partner Air New Zealand started a second LAX-AKL frequency (with a 744) at the same exact departure time as UA's discontinued flight.

Scope matters. And UA's LAX-AKL flight is the poster child for intentionally poor management decisions the provide the so-called justification for outsourcing.

I flew the AKL LAX route on the 777 back in the days when I was senior enough to hold the 777. The issue was two fold on that airplane. One was the amount of ETOPS fuel required we would often land in LAX with 40K of fuel which severely restricted cargo payload. The second issue that would rear it's ugly little head was the performance hit we'd take in AKL due to the extremely low barometric pressure that we would encounter there from time to time.

And yeas you can't tell me that management hadn't known about these things and planned them in advance to reduce our flying. But doesn't ANZ fly that very exact route profitably with the 777? I think they do.

I don't know how the 787 is going to get around the ETOPS issues?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airhoss (Post 934863)

But doesn't ANZ fly that very exact route profitably with the 777? I think they do.

You are correct. But importantly, ANZ did not have any 777's back when they took over the route.

In addition they typically now use a 777-300ER on the LAX-AKL route so the range/payload issue is not a problem; there is plenty of capability for the ETOPS fuel with a full load of pax and cargo. If anything, the fact that the 777-300ER carries more cargo than the 747-400 is an additional bonus.

Boeing is really becoming a "liability" with their planes. The 787 is becoming a nightmare for them with delay after delay after delay (and they laughed at Airbus because of A-380 delays?). The 737-900ER is having a tailstrike problem since it's speeds are so critical on landing, (2 knots below ref and you're setting yourself up for a tailstrike......I know........already happened to me, and it was a SMOOTH landing!) and we're no longer allowed to use flaps "2" since Boeing didn't do any testing and therefore has no data for us to use it! Interesting, with THOUSANDS of B-737's out there, and they put a flap selection that you can't use. I'm also getting tired of the "cubby hole" for our luggage in the cockpit. Haven't the Boeing engineers figured out that we actually OVERNIGHT in the damn thing yet and NEED SPACE for our luggage? :rolleyes:

Quote:

Boeing is really becoming a "liability" with their planes. The 787 is becoming a nightmare for them with delay after delay after delay (and they laughed at Airbus because of A-380 delays?).

This a prime example of what happens to a company when you try and "save" money by outsourcing it to death. The board at Boeing needs to commit a little corporate genocide at the top and get back to their core business of building airplanes that work.

I agree with the 737 products. They fly great but it's got the smallest most user unfriendly flight deck in the industry. I am not looking forward to having to fly that little beast again. My 6'4" frame doesn't fit to good in the SLUFF.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Airhoss (Post 935016)

************************************************** ******
The 737 was built as a short range airplane, If CAL wanted to accomodate crew luggage it would be a simple matter for them to reconfigure the fwd cabin to install a Closet in the rh fwd galley aft of door 1rt. for the crew's Luggage. Why not suggest it?? It's not like the 737 cockpit is going to become as roomy as the A320 cockpit anytime soon until they field the 737 replacement airframe. And Pilots should make the suggestions directly TO Boeing. I would suggest Lou Mancini as he was a former VP of engineering AT United and knows a darn LOT about airline operations. You guys should do more to advance your causes and concerns rather than just accept what's offered. As Maintenence went We had lot of say in the design of the 777 which included maintenence proceedures and specifications. ALPA should do that as well to give you guys a "workable Office".. Can't hurt can it?

If you remember correctly strfyr51 UAl pilots had a huge influence on the flight deck design, and ergonomics on the 777 as we were the launch customer. We also influenced many seemingly petty things like which way the door flight deck door opened. I can't even remember how many times back in the days before the enhanced doors that we'd have a cockpit door fly open at rotation on the old guppy. Or how about the infamous toilet set check where the toilet seat would slam down on your first turn on the ground making a loud bang in the process.

Those were two minor things that we demanded fixed on the 777. One of the other things was the clock timer vs the PTT switch on the glare shield we had it changed so that no matter what seat you are in your thumb side hits the PTT switch and the other side is the timer. :cool: these are things that management pukes and engineers don't think about because they don't have to deal with them.

It drove me nuts when I first started flying the 767/757 and kept trying to talk to ATC by starting the timer on the clock!

So your idea isn't novel in the least but in order to do these things you have to have a management team that is on board and willing to work with you and the manufacturer. The front end of the guppy is an outdated cramped little hell hole not to mention it's loud. I mean we are talking 1950's technology here. It's simply a 707 nose plugged into the front of a smaller airframe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ewrbasedpilot (Post 934998)

.... and we're no longer allowed to use flaps "2" since Boeing didn't do any testing and therefore has no data for us to use it! Interesting, with THOUSANDS of B-737's out there, and they put a flap selection that you can't use. I'm also getting tired of the "cubby hole" for our luggage in the cockpit. Haven't the Boeing engineers figured out that we actually OVERNIGHT in the damn thing yet and NEED SPACE for our luggage? :rolleyes:

CAL did not PAY for the data on the new gens. It's there. Same reason why we don't simply flip the switch in the avonics bay for "true" glass. Costs something like 40-50K per aircraft.