Somewhat makes sense. UA's biggest complaint a while back was the labour (& fuel) costs for a 747 was too high, and running that many seats was too risky. With labour costs slashed, and renewed demand, then running a 747 starts to make more sense again. But with so many birds flying the pacific, with finicky trigger finger customers surfing the web, it doesn't take much for a 747 to not fly full. Matthew On Monday, September 1, 2003, at 04:10 PM, DENNMASS@xxxxxxx wrote: > <<I heard that UA was going to be subbing 747s for 777s because the > lease > costs on 747s are so low these days that they can get them for less > than > they are paying for 777s.>> > > > Any truth in this? >> > > <<would be smart. Considering their Pacific load factors, they might > actually > make money on PAX. Plus they can carry more cargo, which apparently > means a > hell of a lot more than us. You know, this goes back to the DC-3. > That was > the first plane that was profitable as just a PAX carrier, not UA > cannot make > money with the most efficient planes ever on their PAX loads. Also, > UA owns > more of their 747s outright. I believe they even paid cash for 2 of > them.>> > > > According to a UAL timetable I have from June-Spt 2000 the 777 carries > more > freight than the 747's. here are their numbers: > > Total cargo capacity Total cargo Volume: > 747-400 (116,800lbs/53,091k) ------------------5,634cu.ft/159cu.m > > 747-200 (105,800lbs/48,091k)-------------------5,123/144 > 747-100 (71,546lbs/32,521k)--------------------3,843/115 > 777-200 (120,306lbs/54,685k)------------------5,720/160 > > Types of containers accepted: > 747 (LD-3,11,7) > 772 (LD-7,11,8,4,3,2) > Again, these are UAL data. > > If my memory serves me right, a factor is b/c the 777 fuselage is > just about > perfectly round, allowing for more space. > > DM > Defenitely not a fan of UAL closing down its souvenir section at cargo > city, > MIA.