United 777-200 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure

[schmuckonwheels]

Clickbait.

The B777 is probably the safest, most meticulously engineered commercial wide-body aircraft ever built.

They're also getting old, and airlines retire old aircraft.

[_verandaguy]

These are the exact points written in the article.

They also substantiate the idea that the United 777-200 fleet does face an uncertain future.

[carbocation]

The article explicitly says that the aircraft is safe. I don't think this is particularly clickbait-y.

[rectang]

Like you, I took an impression from the headline that safety was at issue — that's why I clicked on the article, only to find out that it was about economics instead. I don't know if it was deliberate clickbait, but that was the effect.

[N19PEDL2]

> The B777 is probably the safest, most meticulously engineered commercial wide-body aircraft ever built.

The last pure Boeing product before the merger with McDonnell Douglas…

[yread]

> They're also getting old, and airlines retire old aircraft.

True, but they do keep the even older 757 flying.

[numpad0]

That's not a critical comment for the article, but a TLDR.

[bengoodger]

United seems to like to hang onto extremely old airplanes even as the number of these disruptions mount. We can argue how statistically they're safer etc but these events are extremely unsettling and disruptive for passengers and frankly it's lucky no one's been killed yet. One of these planes dropped a wheel on a parked car at SFO last year.

It's not hard to notice there are other major airlines that generally maintain newer widebody fleets.

[Digory]

"...777 fleet faces an uncertain future after Dulles engine failure ... and also before Dulles engine failure, for reasons having nothing to do with the Dulles engine failure."

To be fair, I read all of it, and both sides of the question interest me. But the engine failure and the economics of the 777 are totally different things.

[zymhan]

Why are they totally different? For such an old airframe, the only significant costs are fuel and maintenance.

A revamp to the maintenance schedule that requires more frequent engine overhauls absolutely makes the economics of operating 777-200s even less appealing.

[coredog64]

The article's TL;DR is that the economics of 30-year old P&W4090 engines make these airframes even less useful to United.

[markus_zhang]

All 777-200 are less than 30 years old (June 1995 first commercial deployment according to Wikipedia). Considering we are still flying older aircraft such as MD (but as a cargo plane), can United find a buyer for this fleet?

[rob74]

"We" are (currently) not flying the MDs you are referring to, and it's questionable if they will ever fly again. And paradoxically the worst hit are not the airlines flying the MD-11, but the cash-strapped firefighting companies who only relatively recently switched to the (now also grounded) DC-10 from much older planes (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c61ALDSN-ws&t=335s).

[ralph84]

There isn't a cargo conversion available for the 777-200 or 777-200ER. But at the right price they could probably find some buyers in the VIP and charter markets.

[seanmcdirmid]

And..it is the engine, Boeing doesn't even make those, so I'm confused why this is a fuselage problem? Or is it because the older air frames might not justify engine replacements? (after RTA, it seems that is the case, and the engine it was certified to work with is old also).

[cvoss]

Any headline which reads "X after Y" is clickbait. Such a headline is constructed to imply that Y caused or led to or is in some way related to X. But then you read the article and find no connection at all. In this case the article confesses (rather late):

> The Boeing 777-200 is not an unsafe airplane. As far as I can tell, that is not the issue even after the incident over Dulles over the weekend.

X after Y headlines are always technically correct. Sure, X is presently true. And remember scary/salacious/enraging thing Y that happened recently? So X is after Y. Click me.

[d_silin]

New Boeing 777-X is coming soon. United can order them if they feel inclined to do so.

[justapassenger]

I wouldn't hold my breath for it. It was suppose to be released in 2020. It's end of 2025 and current release date is 2027 (and who knows if it'll be pushed back again).

[miki123211]

To a European like me, United was such a weird airline to fly.

There were actual commercials played before the safety video, the cabin crew warned passengers to make sure children cannot see the adult content they're watching (can you get more American than that?), and their credit card was offered multiple times during the flight. At least the WiFi was reasonably cheap.

Over here, that stuff would never fly (no pun intended), except maybe on Ryanair or other extremely low-cost carriers. On e.g. a Lufthansa longhaul flight, which are priced similarly and cover the same route I flew (fra-ord), it would be unthinkable.

[rottencupcakes]

What has become much more degraded in Europe than America is the domestic flights.

Try flying Lufthansa (or one of their half dozen subsidiaries created almost entirely to give worse service) anywhere inside of europe. Everything is a money grab and the service and boarding are terrible.

United maintains a relatively consistent experience between domestic and international, minus the free alcohol.

[Klonoar]

> and their credit card was offered multiple times during the flight

The largest of the airlines in America make more profit from this than the airline aspect itself.

There is far more that could be said on this but, ironically, I am on a flight and about to land.

[kelnos]

The credit card thing doesn't surprise me. I expect United makes a ton of revenue from the card. With how credit card transaction fees are capped in Europe, I doubt it's worth it for European airlines to bother pushing their branded card much, if they even have one in the first place.

I was on a Virgin Atlantic flight last week, and while there weren't ads before the safety video, there were three ads before every movie I tried to watch... and it was the same three ads each time.

I flew Turkish in October, and was annoyed to find the movies and TV shows heavily censored, including blanking out or dubbing over minor swear words. It was also wild to see the Qur'an in the entertainment system's reading library. (No judgement there, just notable as I've never seen the Christian Bible present on other airlines.)

I think you're just falling victim to the usual thing where what you're used to feels normal, and everything else seems weird. I've definitely experienced the same as an American, when flying on European, Latin American, and Asian airlines.

[mr_mitm]

Isn't swiss air playing commercials for some watch brand constantly?

[ErroneousBosh]

> except maybe on Ryanair or other extremely low-cost carriers.

I fly on Lauda most often, who are operated by Ryanair. You show up, you get on, you sit down, a couple of hours you get off again. A trolley comes round with drinks and snacks, but it's a short journey even with a small child. Can't you just stick an orange and a bottle of water in your bag? It's what the Austrians do.

The first time I flew over with my small son he was three, and having been up since 5am was getting a little fractious and fidgety, so I explained he was probably a bit tired and bored and maybe he'd like to eat something and have a sleep, and I'd wake him up once we were back over land.

A bit later on someone further up the plane started remonstrating with the cabin crew that they didn't have the sandwich she wanted on the trolley, eventually shouting "IF IT'S ON THE MENU YOU GAVE ME I SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE THE DAMN SANDWICH!"

Well that shut everyone up.

And in the ringing silence that followed, a little voice, with the punch and clarity that only 3-year-olds have, that Brian Blessed or Meat Loaf would have given any limb you care to mention for, piped up:

"DADDY, DOES THAT LADY NEED A SNACK AND A WEE NAP TOO?"

[jen20]

> On e.g. a Lufthansa longhaul flight, which are priced similarly and cover the same route I flew (fra-ord), it would be unthinkable.

I fly both airlines regularly, United is _vastly_ better from a hard product perspective, a soft product perspective, and _especially_ a service recovery standpoint.

The credit card thing is easily ignored, but you used to heard it often on European flights too before branded credit cards got wiped out there. I've never heard an announcement about adult content, and have taken over 90 United flights this year.

[mschuster91]

> and their credit card was offered multiple times during the flight

American airlines actually lose money on passenger flights - the cash cows are loyalty programs and freight transport [1].

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/the-four-biggest-us-airlines-al...

[schmuckonwheels]

>the cabin crew warned passengers to make sure children cannot see the adult content they're watching (can you get more American than that?)

Is it considered normal in Europe to watch pornography on public transit in public so children can see it?

>Lufthansa longhaul flight

My experience is different. Old planes, and Lufthansa cabin crew are cold and service was poor and inattentive.

[sheldonth]

With the increasing frequency of civil aviation issues, one can't help but wonder what the future of air travel looks like. It may not be as business-as-usual as many today anticipate.

[4fterd4rk]

How the hell is this AI slop getting upvoted? The early 777s are being retired because they're old. Engine failures are a thing that happens on all planes. You aren't going to retire planes because of one unless it reveals a greater issue, which this incident did not.

[zamadatix]

Being irrationally interested in the risks air travel has been a perennial news focus for folks since long before news was written by AI. Especially if it involves Boeing planes.

On the flipside, what they are looking at replacing the fleet with is an interesting follow-up if you regularly fly United.

[kotaKat]

From ~April 2019 to this event was nearly 6 years of flawless performance from UA’s GE90 engine fleet, but the P&W ones tend to have a few problems a year.

Being this is the first time a GE90 popped on a 777-200 in a while? Eh, the future’s gonna keep flying ‘em.

[lfshammu]

wow the blogosphere really is just ai slop now

[dawnerd]

What gave it away for me was the Conclusion heading. LLMs love adding those in and its just unnatural for news/blog posts. Reading back over it, everything about it just seems very machine written.

[slg]

I'm very hesitant to make those sorts of accusations, but the writing has multiple hallmarks of LLMs and this is one of three articles posted today by the same author to that blog before noon their local time. I guess this is just what the internet is now, constantly wondering whether you're reading actual thoughts of another human being or whether it is just LLM output generated to stick between ads.

[rick_dalton]

Remind me what company is responsible for making the 777-200 engines (hint: it’s not Boeing)

[avazhi]

I agree with you, but not because of this particular incident. This was a Pratt and Whitney issue most likely, but that doesn’t mean Boeing isn’t mega fucked for other reasons.

[fluidcruft]

Clearly you didn't read the article.