Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

liveandletsfly.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 110 posts

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

#61

Post by thedrbrian »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #59
pdabbadabba wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. FWIW, I just took such a flight and didn't notice anything that compares unfavorably to a domestic U.S. airline. (To be clear, it certainly wasn't better either.) Is there anything specific you can point to?

Every drink is for sale, even coffee. They aggressively use the bag sizer and try to take bags away at the gate, under the ruse that their tiny Airbus overhead bins cannot fit them (they can).

Just put it in the hold. I can’t stand waiting for the cheapskate to find somewhere to put their 45kg “rucksack” in the over head bins just to save a tenner.

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

#62

Post by acdha »

thedogeye wrote: post #53
miki123211 wrote: post #14

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…

[flagged]

I see businesses are getting you to blame the law rather than their activities which the law requires them to disclose. Personally, I’d expect to be paid before acting as a lobbyist.

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

#63

Post by zwnow »

lateforwork wrote: post #52
zwnow wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its normal in Europe to not watch any kind of pornography in public. Idk why you would do that.

Adult content does not necessarily mean pornography. It can include nudity, which Europeans are more comfortable with than Americans.

I am aware, the person I replied to just went straight into pornography, as to why I replied like that.

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

#64

Post by rob74 »

markus_zhang wrote: post #40

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?

"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).

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

#65

Post by ses1984 »

thedrbrian wrote: post #61
rottencupcakes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every drink is for sale, even coffee. They aggressively use the bag sizer and try to take bags away at the gate, under the ruse that their tiny Airbus overhead bins cannot fit them (they can).

Just put it in the hold. I can’t stand waiting for the cheapskate to find somewhere to put their 45kg “rucksack” in the over head bins just to save a tenner.

Don't they charge you even more to check a bag?

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

#66

Post by lukevp »

thedrbrian wrote: post #61
rottencupcakes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every drink is for sale, even coffee. They aggressively use the bag sizer and try to take bags away at the gate, under the ruse that their tiny Airbus overhead bins cannot fit them (they can).

Just put it in the hold. I can’t stand waiting for the cheapskate to find somewhere to put their 45kg “rucksack” in the over head bins just to save a tenner.

It’s nice that $10 is trivial to you but it isn’t to everyone. Being cheap and being poor are different.

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

#67

Post by markus_zhang »

rob74 wrote: post #64
markus_zhang wrote: post #40

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?

"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 ).

I agree that we are not currently flying MD-11, but that's just because of the November tragedy. I don't think they are going to retire it if not because of it. That is, they retire it out of scare of more tragedy, not because of older age.

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

#68

Post by jen20 »

miki123211 wrote: post #14

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…

> 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.

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

#69

Post by pdabbadabba »

rottencupcakes wrote: post #59
pdabbadabba wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. FWIW, I just took such a flight and didn't notice anything that compares unfavorably to a domestic U.S. airline. (To be clear, it certainly wasn't better either.) Is there anything specific you can point to?

Every drink is for sale, even coffee. They aggressively use the bag sizer and try to take bags away at the gate, under the ruse that their tiny Airbus overhead bins cannot fit them (they can).

Huh. None of that happened on either of my Lufthansa flights between Frankfurt and Berlin last week. YMMV, I guess.

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

#70

Post by buildsjets »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #41
markus_zhang wrote: post #40

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?

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).

First, the engine itself is certified under 14 CFR Part 33, but the engine cowling is certified under 14 CFR Part 25, which makes it an airframe part, not an engine part.

Boeing (Spirit division) does make the engine cowling for the 777-200, which is what separated from the aircraft and caused the fire on the ground. Even in the case of a catastrophic failure of the engine, the cowling and all of it's parts are required by regulation to remain attached to the aircraft.

There was a previous incident a few years ago also on a Pratt-powered 777-200 where an engine failure cascaded into a much more serious cowling failure. Here's an article on that previous incident. I'm unable to find a source on whether the design changes discussed were ever implemented.

https://simpleflying.com/boeing-777-engine-cover-change/

The FAA in the past several years has had a particular focus on engine cowling components departing the aircraft and causing secondary damage, the most critical example being the 737 fan cowling that separated from the engine, impacted the fuselage, broke a window, and caused a passenger to be sucked out and killed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southwest_Airlines_Flight_1380

https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-2234-0001

Post reply on HN