Why Hasn't United Airlines Shown Interest In the Boeing 777X?

[@eptometha2043]

Just like how United was one of the last major carriers to have 777ERs delivered, they will again delay the purchase of 777X’s.

[@John-bi1lv]

That was an opportunistic buy since they got them dirt cheap given Boeing was winding down production. Don't expect a repeat.

[@Youtub77W]

That’s true

[@dmcr9525]

Exactly!

[@g4orce703]

We're not getting those planes.. I'm 110% positive.. we've invested in Max's and 787s.. If we do get more b777s it will be the 300er variant

[@JBM425]

Maybe United is playing the long game and hopes to use some of Boeing's misfortunes to leverage a better deal down the road.

[@kadabarVIM]

If the 777-200/300ERs are well-maintained, then there's no need to replace them yet.

[@jacksongennet967]

The 300ERs for sure, but the 777-200s are approaching 30 years old, some of them already at that age. United needs to begin considering retiring them at some point.

[@davidajayi1207]

@@jacksongennet967they are replacing the 200s with 787s, I think they will get the 777x, just not yet

[@dmcr9525]

@@jacksongennet967 They already are. They have planned to replace the 777-200's with the 787-9, and -10. They ordered 200 of them for this reason.

[@jacksongennet967]

@@dmcr9525 The 777s have much higher capacity than the 787, so that doesn’t make much sense.

[@dmcr9525]

@@jacksongennet967 It makes perfect sense because your statement is not entirely accurate in this case. United has the 777-200/ER in 2 different configurations. 276, and 364 seats. The standard United 787-10 layout has 318. That is more than their standard configuration 772, and only falls short of the high density configuration. The 787-9 can seat up to 280, which is also more than the standard 777. By comparison, their 777-300ER's seat 350. They can easily opt for a high density version of the 787-10 to replace those few specialized high density -200's, or reconfigure a few -300ER's. For reference, United ONLY has 4 777-200's with 364 seats. For this reason, United has made the definitive decision to replace the 772 with the 787.

[@DomAviation]

They don't need it, 777-300 is the largest they will need. same with the a380, they didn't order it.

[@planelover234]

then 777-8 should fit in these American airlines as it is the same seize of it

[@animegamingdude]

yep same reason why they didnt order the 747-8

[@QuarioQuario54321]

What about with the 777-9 when it comes to the extremely high demand routes they can’t make more frequent?

[@1EnZBosS1]

​@@QuarioQuario54321they would probably buy more a350's instead

[@ryanjordan1083]

Yeah, but they need to replace their 772s, what will they replace those with? A330neos?

[@Portland67]

Because their 777-300ER’s are relatively young.

[@davidajayi1207]

Precisely, the other thing is that airframe has so much performance in it to the point that it’s still the premier wide body and the more efficient a350-1000 is unable to replace it and the 777x fixes its biggest and only problem where, it has relatively small wings and would often start cruising at 28-31000ft at heavy weights. 777x should match the a350 in starting cruise at 34-37000ft

[@ro-86alkonost78]

@@davidajayi1207 the 777-300ER still feels new even by today's standards when there's already A380, 787, A350 and A330Neo tbh.

[@rockymountainbeerguy5656]

I could see United showing interest in the 777-8 down the road.

[@Sacto1654]

It's called 100 orders and options on the 787. United already has 18 777-300ER's that are relatively new, so replacing them is not a priority.

[@willieq1]

22 of the -300ERs

[@MKhan1-12]

It makes sense for their business model. They’d have to see exponential growth in passengers at each hub, a decrease in landing slots at their busiest destinations like Heathrow, and perhaps higher costs of multiple small flights to consider high capacity jets like the 777X

[@luiskp7173]

They are already using 777s on short and thick routes like IAH-DEN. I highly doubt there’s slot concerns and their long turnaround time would seem to make no sense. Pilot shortage?

[@hughofIreland]

One observation from the maps showing the hubs: there’s clearly a gap in the southeast. If there is to be an eighth hub (with all due apologies to Guam), FLL, MCO, or (most probably) TPA are possible candidates.

[@jamesau4296]

But for most mono Hub carriers(Like Emirates), slot constraint don’t exist for them, if the hub is slot constrained, they can ask their governments to expand the airport or build a new one(Dubai Al-maktoum airport project were delayed due to Emirates not using as much runway capacity in existing one), most of the time the cost are cheaper than their spending on aircraft fleet (Bangkok new airport were built with price tag of 38 billion US dollar, = 10 A380). So they don’t need big jet to ease congestion, but they care which jet brings the lowest cost per available seat kilometres to keep ticket price competitive. For those who can’t expand their hub, they are outpaced by rivals(like Cathay Pacific or British Airways)

[@RobloxianX]

maybe it's because the 777x is destined to be over 7 years late for airlines than what was promised 11 years ago

[@Singthad]

And it is extremely primitive.

[@sainnt]

​@@SingthadCompared to what, the A330neo?

[@Singthad]

@@sainnt Compared to Airbus in general.

[@sainnt]

@@Singthad Wait, have you seen the engine? Have you seen the wings? Have you seen the interior? Airbus is already developing those primitive wings for a future aircraft. That A350 is mostly based on the design of the primitive 787. The A320 series is over 40 years old. The A330neo is 35 years old. The 777-X, like the 787, has 'primitive' features that are on the way to future Airbus aircraft. Perhaps at that point they will be new to you.

[@shrimpflea]

Well, none of them bought the A380 or 747-8 so that is more telling of the real reason. They simply don't need an aircraft that big.

[@engrpas]

I agree with the article regarding United's route network not needing a large aircraft like the 747. This is true also for the other major US carriers that operate mostly hub-and-spoke networks using multiple hubs.

[@Youtub77W]

The 777-300ER is the best choice! I hope they will keep them for the next 3 decades (until 2050 at least).

[@g4orce703]

It is.. I work on them.. its the best widebody in the fleet we have, & we shouldn't change it.. I'm hoping we keep our b767-400ers.. but they're aging out.

[@liambengif7663]

They will . And then they will buy the 777x when the 300s become unreliable (like the original 200s) . United has long been a 777 customer and not only ordered the first batch of 777s ever made and keeps flying them, they also played a major role in the development of the plane. It has too much significance and serves way too important of a role in their fleet for them to let go of the 777-300er early. I mean the first 777 ever built is around 30 years old now and united wont replace it's batch for at least 4 more years.

[@danielzang5929]

Both the 777x and 777-300er have new improve engines. Thus United Airline has 45 a350-900 on orders and 777-9x can fit the gap with 22 777-300er in its wide body fleet.

[@Tpr_1808]

The 777-8 will be a better option to replace 77Ws

[@crazylife726]

The A350 order is purely for price negotiations with narrowbody orders. They did a very big 787 order which now cover the plans

[@artkoch9066]

United love to obtain "Old Aircraft" and turn them into" Swan" used them longer then other Airline if it FIT :) look at 777-200er :)even the wheel come off it still flying ?555

[@Inflight777]

Probably don't need it for the same reason they didn't order the A380.

[@Tpr_1808]

Or 747-8

[@crazylife726]

Not true. It's only 4 window frames longer than the 777-300ER which they did order and no one expected that

[@Tpr_1808]

@@crazylife726 That's already too big. Why do you think they still have many 772s and are ordering more and more 787s instead

[@artkoch9066]

@@Tpr_1808 If they did it like DELTA who order A350 with RR eng :( They cost will go up to the roof ? United will stick with Boeing on long haul fleet 100% for the 5year or until they a retied B777-200er fleet :)

[@delta_cosmic]

something tells me the A350 order will actually push through after all.

[@Dischingo]

I think A330 neo orders will take off since if airlines were to order A350 now they wouldn't get them until 2027 at the earliest.

[@delta_cosmic]

@@Dischingo that's never gonna happen. United already has the 787.

[@matth9254]

United has clearly chosed the 787 over both the 330 and 350. Not to mention they waited years after the 777-300er launch to order it.

[@dmcr9525]

I highly doubt it. I suspect the order will be cancelled and converted to A321neo's.

[@mmm0404]

The 787-10s will replace most if not all the 777-200s , meaning there won't be a need for 45 a350s anymore. Boeing will most likely also offer the smaller 777-8 to united someday

[@frankiexv4533]

They actually have a pretty fresh fleet of 777-300er’s that they got a good deal on apparently. Other than those high capacity routes the 787 seems to be their long haul darling for most routes.

[@jaxonmattox9267]

They will want to replace their 777-300 fleet 15 years from now and then they will be interested in a 777X, the A350-1000 is smaller and would be a more direct replacement for the 777-300ERs, but the 777-8 is "only" like 19 seats larger than the 777-300ER and would be an easier transition

[@harshmarwah4508]

The real reason is that united and other us airlines have more domestic passengers and it’s very costly for them to operate them domestically and now with a321XLR they may operate flights to London with these planes only which can help them serve smaller airports and increase money for them.

[@matth9254]

Narrow bodies for small airlines/airports may be the future of trans atlantic travel but not for major carriers. The good thing of a wide body is the long range, capacity for 300+ passengers AND large cargo capacity. They can transport both passengers and cargo.

[@CaptainCreampie69]

You are so far off base with this comment. Comparing the XLR to the 777X is like comparing a dump truck to a Honda Civic. They do two completely different missions. XLR is for Philadelphia to Heathrow/Gatwick or Boston to Paris. 777X is made for LAX to Paris or MIami to Incheon. Two completely different mission sets. 😂

[@brizzmoredoc9607]

first to view again. enjoying all the way from Zimbabwe

[@WinginWolf]

They'll order it eventually. Their 77Ws are still pretty new, however it is 90s/2000s technology. Within 10 years there'll be an order for some assuming there's no issue with deliveries.

[@DJAYPAZ]

To demonstrate an impartial editorial standpoint, Simple Flying should produce similar reports about Airbus aircraft purchase decisions.

[@matth9254]

I think people forget the 777 is NOT an old or inefficient aircraft. They already have a large 777-200/200er fleet that has been updated and have received 777-300er’s in the last 7 years. Not to mention they have over 100 787’s on order to replace the 200/200er. At the current moment there is no need for a 777x order. United waited a long time to get the 300er so were probably looking at the same for the X models.

[@hughofIreland]

There’s too much uncertainty about when it would be delivered.

[@shrimpflea]

But they still didn't order the 747-8 and A380 so that is more telling of the real reason

[@hughofIreland]

@@shrimpflea Those are both four engine aircraft. All three carriers had experience with the cost-fixed and variable-of operating such equipment, so they passed. A B777, like the twin engine widebodies, are more efficient.

[@FlyByWire1]

That has absolutely nothing to do with it lol

[@Tpr_1808]

The 777-8 will be a more suitable replacement for the -300ERs depending on when that comes out. The a350 order may or may not go through. Capacity is a big factor which is why Delta took long to order the A350-1000 considering they never operated the 777-300er which is similar in size, meaning that's as big as they'll go

[@JBM425]

Considering that United already operates the 777-200/300, perhaps they don't see a crying need to replace those just yet, at least with the 777X. The 777-8/9 may not offer enough in the way of fuel savings and overall economy to justify the outlay for new aircraft the way some airlines switched from A32x to A32xneo, so they soldier on with what they have. When the day does come for United to retire the current 777 fleet (one commenter noted the oldest of the bunch is close to 30 years old!), it may not be with a 777X, but as the video noted, perhaps with a 787 or A350. I don't think that United will ever totally give up the 777, just not in the current numbers. There is still something to be said for having an aircraft that large for certain routes, especially now that they retired the 747 and passed on the 747-8.

[@Aviationclips35]

I really hope they order some bc i wanna fly it and united is the airline im gonna fly for

[@rolandhandy9030]

The bean counters have done all of the work, they know that flying a larger aircraft is just not needed. The example given with service to London from all seven hubs was spot on. The plane is just too big.

[@jaygelles9097]

United placed a large 787 last year in addition to the A350 order it keeps delaying delivery. Delta got rid of their 777's in favor of the A330 and A350. I think AA is the most likely of the 3 to order the 777X because their 777's are getting older and they don't have enough 787's.

[@sainnt]

United and American Airlines both operate a sizable 777 fleet, even on domestic routes. A lot of these domestic routes have a high demand for premium seats, and so I think it's just a matter of time before both airlines order the 777-8 if not the 9. The 777-8 also has an excellent range for Asia and Africa routes, which have high demand for cargo capacity. I'll say it's just a matter of time before both airlines order the 777-X.

[@rampar77]

That didn't make sense to me. Seemed ome that United coukd use a few 777X from Los Angeles to London. However, thse route could be covered by 787-8, -9, -10 which United had many.

[@sundragon7703]

A factor that could change this business model is gate availability and taxiway queues. The economics of an airliner waiting for a gate or its turn to depart may be acceptable. But the customer satisfaction decreases.

[@caltrain910]

With growing demand for I can see United placing an order for 40 777-9s with an entry into service date of 2030 to replace the GE 777-200ER and eventually the 777-300ER.

[@robertrawley1115]

Maybe I misunderstand how Slots work at Heathrow... Each United arrival from seven US hubs is a Slot? As long as United pays the Slot fees it doesn't matter how FEWER people are arriving Heathrow at each time slot? If true, perhaps Heathrow should recalculate how slot fees are determined?

[@tobyjackson1947]

It makes sense. However, I choose airlines often based on the equipment they fly and if I have the option I would take the 777x over a single isle cramped 321NEO that make me feel claustrophobic.

[@normangee7896]

isn't Guam (GUM) still listed as a hub

[@liambengif7663]

United ordered one of the last batches of 777-300ers . They are the longest lasting 777 customers , ordering the first 777 ever made and one of the last. Just as they are still holding onto the first 777 from 1994, they will hold onto their new 777-300s for the next few decades, then probably order the 777x to replace it.

[@oldporkchops]

Why does United not have a hub in the US Southeast? Atlanta would be a great place to start one, it seems.

[@DomAviation]

2:30

[@tusharsaikhedkar9808]

you dropped your 👑

[@jeremydee5424]

United has invested heavily on the 787 series which pretty much has the same range as their older 777s. United was smart in getting the 777-300er when they did to fill their higher capacity routes…and this model seems to be working for them so why change it now…??

[@liambengif7663]

The 787 has a much longer range than UA's 777-200 dinosaurs. They want to replace the 1994/1995 domestic 777s first , then ther 200ERs. The 300 will be around for decades to come just like the 200s.

[@DashiellParr411]

Hmmm, so if that is the case, United needs a bunch of 787’s. They did order 50 more last year.

[@jamesau4296]

Don’t your mentions the Innate deficiency of US running as a transfer Hub? US airport international terminal would require passengers to go through immigration(US are stringent on visa waiver), reclaim baggage and re-check in everything, that’s a self tariff on US transfer flight services and stifle interest on US carrier to up sizing their fleet (Whereas foreign carriers can sell those extra seats as transfer tickets(though not as lucrative but ok) to pay off their extra cost of buying 779 versus 789, and enjoying the CASK benefits of bigger jets)

[@chiagozienjoku7198]

He is probably right but you still have to replace those aging jets sooner or later

[@John-bi1lv]

They have plenty of orders to replace the fleet with the 787

[@shrimpflea]

They are replacing the older jets with 787 and A350s (Delta) but there is a massive back order so they have no choice but to fly the old jets for now.

[@gelade]

they are already replaced with variations of 787. they just don't need capacity above larger 787 variants.

[@John-bi1lv]

@@gelade Exactly. They have 5 hubs for international to flow traffic over. DEN isn't really used for such traffic, but they have SFO, EWR, ORD, IAD and IAH

[@chiagozienjoku7198]

@@gelade the 777-300er is larger than the 787 10, I think, and can fly further

[@kealapuaonetamureamoreno8301]

As Delta Airlines has after the merger with Northwest Airlines given up an INTERPORT network and has canceled service to the former Northwest destinations ie Osaka, Fukuoka, Nagoya, Fukushima, Okinawa, Guam, Taipei, Manila, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Singapore, Kuala Lampur, Mumbai, and Delhi and retired all former 747-400 (16 total) aircraft and the fact that Delta has little or NO NAME RECOGNITION in most of Asia their Corporate decision to use partner carriers as opposed to operating one carrier service has been confusing to say the least!

[@admiralkymia]

There is some irony to the airline founded by Boeing shunning a Boeing aircraft.

[@FirstLast_Nba]

makes sense.

[@nathrebs9107]

Their 777-300ER are still young.

[@oscarwostenholme]

Boeing should’ve developed the 797 NMA 7 years ago. Now the Airbus 321 neos and XLRs are killing them on routes that should be operated by a 757/767 replacement.

[@GarlandTexasSpotter2024]

There 777-300ER’s are basically young and the first one is just 8 years old. No need it. That’s also the reason why they didn’t order the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8i. Plus, United already has over 40 787’s and 100 more on order in every single variant in its fleet. Another reason why they don’t need it.

[@leng3001]

Idc IF THEY SAY this Is The SaMe ReAsOn wHy tHey dIdNt oRdEr tHe A380 oR ThE 747-8

[@101airbourn]

Comments make sense.

[@randomstuff9322]

I hate flying on airlines that are always full. I like to fly Singapore Airlines, Emirates and Qantas, because I know they often will have a few seats free, so that it's not so cramped

[@Singthad]

amazing decision. They should order a 9 abreast a350-900 that is way better. They have a320s as well.

[@Gazma_Muzaale]

It’s now settled, no American carrier is getting the that aircraft, even if travel demand increases or demand for luxury seating

[@artkoch9066]

Yes as of now 2024 or 2025?555

[@nenitamandal33]

They might order it if they see demand

[@jfmezei]

Prior tp United being bought by Continental, and Northwest bought by Delta, both had no problems filling 747-400s to Asia. The advent of the 747-400 caused Continental to pull out of trans-pacific routes because they couldn't compete with their DC-10s that required stopovers. So the trans-pac network inherited during the CO-UA merger came from United. Continental was always religiously opposed to the 747, and when CO staff were hired to lead Air Canada, they too brought in that mentality. If United was perfectly happy with its 777 capacity and not needing more, , how come it densified seating to 10 across? The 777X provides the next step to growing capacity without going the the 747 which no longer exists. Also, UA was first to get 777s in 1995, and those are getting old and are going to need to be replaced. Sp what that US officlal said publicly is just PR speak for "we're not revealing our real strategy".

[@eamonahern7495]

That makes sense

[@QuarioQuario54321]

2:56 Why don’t airlines from other countries then take this? BA should be less London-centric. Air France should start flying long-haul out of places other than Paris. KLM should add Rotterdam as a hub.

[@futaba951]

It's the same reason Airbus won't be baited into building an A350-2000. They won't make the same A380 mistake again.

[@dennisdiez3587]

yes I think united with changes it mine

[@artkoch9066]

After all the neg and bug are work out :( Then they will purchase it:)

[@PilotCharles]

To answer to your question in the title before watching the video is for 2 simple reasons. United is not dumb with the need for new shit as soon as it comes out. The 777X just a reskin of the 777s and 787s they already have. Their 777-300ER and 787-10 fleet is all fairly new and all the same size as the 777-9X. Their 777-200ERs and 787-9s are not much different in size of the 777-8X either. United realizes they don't need the new toys just because they look good. They play things smart and not like suckers. If I was an airline I would be more interested in the retired planes and then find a way to maintain them and instead of bying a whole new fleet of planes I would instead buy 1 and figure out how I can rework my existing fleet to those standards with an engine swap or simply an overhaul.

[@chrisallen9303]

The Quale doens't like the big birds!

[@g4orce703]

Not true!.. we got orders for over 150 boeing widebodies.. what are you talking about dude??

[@nathrebs9107]

quale is a small bird

[@brianpawlowski6498]

Not really needed. With major west coast hubs, there isn't anywhere UA can't reach with existing aircraft. As outlined here, London is serviced by all hubs, again on existing aircraft. Any other European destinations wouldn't have the demand. All 3 major US carriers are better off 787s, A350s and existing 777s. I don't see a scenario where any US carrier buys it.

[@Da__goat]

Bigger jet, heavier, similar range to 787, similar pax to 787-10, no central hub. Similar reason why the 787 and the a330 Neo don’t exactly compare. Not the right plane for the job. United and Delta really like their 767s, best repayment for that is the 787-8, reinforced by American, who has completely replaced its entire 767 fleet with the 787.

[@unieast9581]

United wants the plane up and flying and make their analysis from there. They fly the 777- 300. I don’t see why not the 777X.

[@JohnnyGilbert-o5c]

Stanton Cove

[@robertpartington1383]

So why did United buy the 777-300ER?

[@nntflow7058]

Probably because it was smaller than B777-9.

[@planelover234]

@@nntflow7058 then 777-8 is a successor to 777-300er. so why aren't the buying it

[@robertpartington1383]

@@nntflow7058 - marginally. Anyway, there's the 777-8 then.

[@Youtub77W]

The 777-300ER is the best choice

[@davidajayi1207]

It’s such an incredible aircraft and the 777x will be better, they will buy it although I don’t see them buying more than 30-40

[@Trainmaster909]

The plane is just too big. If more capacity needed to be added, United would rather just send another 787 or A321neo on the same route a few hours later since slots aren't always an issue. They also have A350-1000 orders for the busier routes.

[@galaticwarrior213]

Still kinda weird to me that Boeing is making the 777-8/9/X while the 300ER are still pretty young as long they are well maintained, then you don’t need a newer version. This kinda of down fall of Boeing being slow en delaying aircraft’s

[@eduardodaquiljr9637]

Don't worry 777-9 is waiving!

[@TitouanMathieuTitouanMathi-b2p]

Bashirian Valley

[@smoketinytom]

Still rather embarrassing for the aircraft to not be bought by any of the big three US airlines...

[@shrimpflea]

I'm sure Boeing would have liked at least one American airline to buy it but that is the market and Boeing knows that.

[@thetruthbehindplanes]

same reason they did not buy a380.the a350 has so many orders that if you order it now,you wont get it until 2030 optimum.And 777x is more strong and cool.the 777 is the best plane ever,but it is not the best for everyone .and they bought the 300er relatively recently.great video simple flying!

[@leng3001]

OH GREAT META AI TOLD ME THAT UNITED AND DELTA IS LIKELY TO ORDER THE 777X but now… Not anymore am upset actually irl, youtubers uploaded this vid now ever since I’m upset.

[@leng3001]

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DELTA AND UNITED 777X 8 and 9 Bc Many ppl said THE 777X is for the 747 replacement how could they say no to a HIGHLY PRECIOUS ADVANCED 777X?

[@nenitamandal33]

I feel u man I agree

[@nenitamandal33]

I wanted them to order the 777X family too bc it would look nice

[@vaarup]

🙄🤔

[@CptShaquilleOatmeal]

Prob cause they’ll never get them😂

[@kalamarspinner]

Even IFit ever gets certified who will trust it

[@mh12-47]

Because their 77W are relatively new!!

[@robertbateman1284]

Just another damn American airline. Who needs them other than Americans.

[@taylorham4life]

Easy, Boeing hasn't offered the DEAL yet. It's coming. UAL has a few routes that can easily support the 9X.

[@pesawatindonesia]

waw

[@EngelsAviation]

777X great airplane .. when it comes will rule!!!!

[@grriceman782]

Ed won’t buy the 777X … it doesn’t even fit in his fleet management

[@the-je6zn]

bro fell off

[@EuropeanRailfanAlt]

Too big

[@cetsy2023]

He's a quail.

[@travelblade2k]

Because "If it's Boeing I ain't going" 😅

[@planelover234]

Boeing make sone of the best airliners. You are not an Avgeek.

[@ro-86alkonost78]

Boeing is the safest. Boeing takes safety very seriously that it's personal to them. The proof of that is Boeing says so. In fact, I think Boeing should be regulating aviation instead of the FAA and there will be huge improvements in aviation safety. Boeing should be exempted from regulations too because their words are solid evidence.

[@EuropeanRailfan-AM]

@@ro-86alkonost78 Whatever I say will be replied with "why so serious?"