United Cuts Flights As Pratt Problems Mount


You may have heard that United has decided not to fly Washington/Dulles – Dakar and Newark – Stockholm next year. Many have assumed that this is due to weak demand, but that doesn’t appear to be the primary driver. After speaking with several sources, it seems United has an engine shortage, and it has no choice but to cut capacity. Presumably these routes are the weakest performers, but it’s unclear that they would be canceled if not for this engine problem.

To be clear, this is completely unrelated to the Pratt & Whitney GTF engine manufacturing issues that have plagued airlines flying the A320neo and A220 family aircraft. This is also not a technical fault. The problem is with availability of PW4000 engines that power the pre-merger United 777 fleet. (Continental opted for GE.) These are just not easy to find anymore.

The PW4000 was a popular engine that powered all sorts of different widebody aircraft when it was rolled out in the late 1980s, including the A300/A310, A330, B767, B747, and even the MD-11. The biggest version of that engine was the PW4000-112 which was developed specifically for the B777 with more thrust and a bigger 112-inch fan diameter. Because these engines are substantially different in size and thrust from the 94- and 100-inch thrust versions, I’m guessing that versions not built for the B777 can’t really help United in its quest to find more engines. If that’s wrong, well, it could slightly broaden the pool of possibilities, but this would still be an issue. (Then again, there are a lot of MD-11s not using engines right now….)

The -112 was an early option for the B777, and it’s one that most airlines did not choose. Of the 629 B777-200/200ER/300s flying today, only 81 of them are Pratt-powered. United has 46 of these airplanes flying along with another six that were parked at some point this year, including N775UA which was just sent to Victorville at the end of last month. That means all the other airlines in the world have a total of 32 aircraft in service.

United’s breakdown is that it has 19 of the old B777-200 “A” models which have the PW4077, meaning they had only 77,000 pounds of thrust. At last check, three of those were parked. It has another 33 B777-200ERs with the PW4090 engine (you guessed it, 90,000 pounds of thrust). Twenty-nine of those are configured in the airline’s international configuration and are flying regularly (or in regular maintenance). There are four aircraft that are ERs with the higher-thrust engines, but they are configured in the domestic configuration. Of those, it appears only one is flying right now. I imagine these are the airplanes that United will be robbing first to fund the international aircraft.

So, if an engine shortage is the problem, then what can United do? The first thing is can do is get new airplanes that don’t have this problem. Too obvious? Of course, United has already done that. It has scores of B787s on order, but, well, those airplanes have taken significant delays thanks to Boeing’s issues. That has meant the B777s have to keep on keepin’ on for longer.

The other option is to find PW4000s on the open market. According to Cirium data, here is a look at the airplanes that are in service today with PW4000-112 engines.

Those PW4077s powering the A models for United? There appears to be only one other airframe flying, and that’s owned and operated by Max Air in Nigeria. I don’t imagine that’s going to be a good opportunity for United. I don’t know how easy it is to use engines with different thrust and get more life out of them. So it’s possible that the seven ANA airframes with the slightly less powerful PW4074 could be made to work. Anybody know? I’m not sure.

The situation is a little better for finding PW4090s that power United’s ER fleet. There’s United’s joint venture partner ANA once again with three -200ERs and five -300s. Maybe ANA would like to help its partner-in-crime by retiring some airplanes. If not, well, it looks like Korean Air is the only other option.

Korean has four B777-300s of its own that are PW-powered while its low-cost subsidiary Jin Air has four of Korean’s old B777-200ERs. And then there’s new Korean Air subsidary Asiana with eight of its own. I’m sure Delta’s best friend in the Pacific would love to help United out, right? RIGHT?! Ok, maybe not.

This is unfortunately what happens when aircraft age, and it’s even worse when there’s an unpopular engine. To break it down further — excluding the B777-300ER which could only be GE-powered — 70 percent of those 629 B777s in service have GE on the wing with another 18 percent having Rolls. The Pratts were the least popular, and United flies more than half of them already. The numbers do not work in United’s favor here.

I don’t know if the Dakar and Stockholm flights are just the tip of the iceberg or how many aircraft will need to be grounded. But it seems pretty clear that these airplanes are running out of time, and those B787s can’t arrive soon enough.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox!

The airline industry moves fast. Sign up and get every Cranky post in your inbox for free.

Brett Avatar

33 responses to “United Cuts Flights As Pratt Problems Mount”

  1. lassiter Avatar
    lassiter

    United flies a great many planes at or well over 30 years of age, including the very earliest 777-200s, 757-200s, 767-300s, and numerous 737-700s/800s. The core of its A319 and A320 fleet date back to a 1992 order.

    IAD-DSS underperformed. EWR-ARN was marginal or they would have put something bigger than the 757.

    The other cuts are signs of froth in the TATL market. Double daily EWR-BRU was never necessary. GVA is a tough market (IAD-GVA is getting cut to 3 x weekly) and a second ATH flight from EWR 3 days a week probably didn’t need to be scheduled.

    The US economy is slow-down is accelerating rapidly. Low job creation. Inflation higher than at any time since the pandemic. There just isn’t as much demand for leisure and premium leisure travel going into Spring and Summer 2026 and these cuts all reflect it.

    1. Al Avatar
      Al

      What’s your definition of “since the pandemic”? From the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as far as I can tell, inflation on average is still lower now in 2025 than what it was in 2024.

      1. concertinaconsidine Avatar
        concertinaconsidine

        You must be a billionaire then.

    2. stogieguy7 Avatar
      stogieguy7

      Wherever you’re going to get your information needs to be changed and drastically. I have a feeling that it may be Rachel Maddow or one of her friends, but who knows?

      Here are the actual annual inflation stats since 2019:

      2019: 1.8%
      2020: 1.2%
      2021: 4.7%
      2022: 8.0%
      2023: 4.1%
      2024: 2.9%
      2025: 3.0%

      Clearly not the highest it’s been since the pandemic.

      1. CraigTPA Avatar
        CraigTPA

        You’re correct, but inflation has not fallen back to pre-pandemic levels so it’s still perceived as being higher than it should be. Also, people in lower income groups are still experiencing a higher inflation rate than the general economy because they spend a higher share of household income on housing than the weightings in the CPI or PCE use, and in many metro areas housing costs continue to go up faster than the overall inflation rate as we continue to underbuild new housing.

        There’s also an expectation that inflation in 2026 will continue to run in the 3% range as we see deferred effect from the administration’s tariff policies – because many of the tariffs are hitting items with long lead-times, the full effect of price increases from them hasn’t been felt yet.

        The American public has internalized the Federal Reserve’s target of 2% as the “correct” maximum rate of inflation surprisingly well.

        And lassiter’s point on job creation is valid – we have been seeing layoffs exceed new hires for much of 2025, and although the unemployment rate still remains around 4.4% there is downward pressure on wages from new jobs tending to be in lower-paid areas. The most recent ADP report of private non-farm payrolls showed an average of a net loss of 13,500 jobs per week for the four weeks ending Nov 8th. We don’t have full Labor Dept. figures for October, and apparently we never will, although the September figures were stronger than expected.

        Practical aviation upshot? Likely softness of demand for forward vacation bookings, both for lower-middle and working class travelers and for more expensive destinations.

  2. Anon Avatar
    Anon

    Presumably United’s former best friend forever SAS leaving Star, cosying up to Delta instead and no longer providing Nordic feed to United’s flight has nothing to do with this… or at least that’s what public relations will say…

    1. SEASFO Avatar
      SEASFO

      Scandinavia seems to just be a very tough market for US airlines to make work. Even with the feed from SAS, UA has been on-and-off in EWR-ARN for years, they cut CPH right after the merger, and their Bergen experiment lasted only a single season.

      AA doesn’t even bother trying and DL just has a lone JFK-CPH flight.

      1. BRMM Avatar
        BRMM

        AA operates PHL-CPH in the summer. It’s back and bookable for summer 2026.

      2. Jonathan Lasewell Avatar
        Jonathan Lasewell

        Delta still has JFK-ARN, JFK-CPH, and MSP-CPH.

  3. John G Avatar
    John G

    Man we need Boeing to get their stuff together. If they can’t get the 777X off the ground soon, people are going to start running out of wide body airplanes.

  4. Hk Avatar
    Hk

    KE is suffering with the engine issue as well. It had to accelerate retirement of five PW 772 earlier this year due to engine (according to AV geeks in Korea) and Jin air will do the same next year. One of Asiana 772 and one of remaining KE 773 are grounded for months with engines detached as well.

    JL has retired handful PW 772s during covid but I assume those engines were already taken by others, probably lengthened life of other 777s in the chart.

  5. Tim Dunn Avatar
    Tim Dunn

    The aging engine issues are real but UA’s RASM performance across its entire network was horrific in the 3rd quarter. UA has made it a campaign promise to drive ULCCs out of business and to dump capacity into international markets to gain market share.

    Yes, they are cutting capacity because of underperformance. Engine problems are real but UA is getting enough new aircraft now and into 2026 to offset groundings esp. since domestic aircraft are most affected by UA’s choice.

    and, if this is an ongoing problem which cannot be fixed, then UA is looking at using a substantial percentage of its massive 787 order book to replace aircraft. While the 777s are the focus now, the 767s are aging and inefficient and, in UA’s case also powered by Pratt engines. Pratt is knee deep in getting the GTF fixed; worrying about older engines is way down their list of concerns.

    1. emac Avatar
      emac

      DL +4% capacity, +2% TRASM
      UA +7% capacity, -4% TRASM

      International was rough for both,* domestic DL managed +2% TRASM on +4% capacity and UA managed -3% PRASM on +7% capacity.**

      Now all this Pratt repair talk does make me wonder if UA should follow the DL model and further build out its own MRO abilities. If you’re going to fly a bunch of aging a320s (being retired), 737s, let alone the 757s, 767s and 777s, maybe this would make sense.

      *Boo DL for not rolling up your international numbers (and I’m not doing it). UA was -7.1% PRASM on +7.9% ASMs for a +0.2% international revenue increase on +8% capacity… ouch.
      **How much of this is the battle for Chicago? “Brand loyal” or not, that market’s got to be a bloodbath (“strategic flying”) for both. Cranky, is there data on this?

      1. Brett Avatar

        emac – There are bits and pieces of data that can be cobbled together, though not for Q3 at this point. And it’s not something I’m planning on working on right now.

      2. Tim Dunn Avatar
        Tim Dunn

        first, the reason why Delta Tech Ops works financially is because DL uses retired mechanics to do some of its MRO work; they retire from the airline and then are hired by Tech Ops as contractors – sometimes on a part time and less than regular basis based on workload – with the airline bearing part of their salary costs through retirement benefits plus some or all of their health care which also could be covered by Medicare. Unionized airlines simply aren’t allowed to do that. and the benefit is that DL’s own maintenance costs are lowered by increased utilization of maintenance assets and profits from the MRO. In some cases, DL is able to turn its and its partner airline airplanes and engines around faster because they are a licensed MRO -which is what is happening with the GTF where the problem is not just about getting parts but getting them reinstalled.

        As for capacity and revenue performance, DL and UA were directionally similar on their TATL and TPAC operations by degrees.

        The key driver was domestic -the largest region for both – where DL simply got far better revenue from its added capacity than UA and Latin America where UA just dumped a ton of capacity and had its worst RASM performance, also tanking Latin RASM for AA and DL both of which reduced capacity. both of those regions point to UA’s attempts to run weaker competitors out of the marketplace but hurt UA as much or worse.

        UA can move planes around its network and move engines between portions of its 777 fleet but UA most certainly had the worst revenue performance of the big 4.

        UA may have engine problems but it has far bigger strategic and network problems it has to fix; pulling a few planes might not be a bad thing to slow its growth.

  6. Kemich Avatar
    Kemich

    Engine issues aside, most if not all the routes cut or trimmed were 767/757 routes.

    This article has been about problems with the 777 engines. Doesn’t add up much.

    1. Oliver Avatar
      Oliver

      Perhaps those aircraft freed up by the route cancellations are going to be used on routes affected by the 777 problems?

      1. Brett Avatar

        Oliver – Exactly right, that is why I put at the end that gauge changes are coming. This is about getting the long-haul capacity right, and then aircraft will be finalized when it gets closer.

  7. Jules Mitchell Avatar
    Jules Mitchell

    I learned a lot of interesting detail from this post, keep up the great work!

  8. SEASFO Avatar
    SEASFO

    The old pre-merger UA’s fleet and engine decisions are a pretty good case study for how fleet planning can shape the airline for decades. In hindsight, there seems to have been a bunch of short-sighted decisions from back then that still bite the airline from time to time.

    In addition to the often-discussed narrowbody shortage that resulted in UA using CRJs on routes like ORD-DFW, their PW 757s (now in the boneyard or with FedEx) couldn’t fly transatlantic because they didn’t invest in a higher gross weight and higher-thrust engines, they were one of the few airlines to go with PW4000s for the 777-200ERs, which even in their prime before all of their later-life issues weren’t quite as capable as the GE90s or RRs, and then of course there was the decision to keep the 747-400s flying until they were falling apart (though I guess that last one turned out to be a double-edged sword now that they have a bunch of pretty young 777-300ERs that can somewhat mitigate their current situation).

  9. southbay flier Avatar
    southbay flier

    Could an airline still go out and buy a 767? It seems like those planes worked without all these issues.

    1. Common Sense Avatar
      Common Sense

      :)

      They are still being built as freighters.

      I actually love the experience as a passenger in the 767s (except when they go mechanical). More seat width in every call, most noticeable in economy (where it matters most). Would be nice to have that with the better air quality and reduced noise from the 787s.

      1. CraigTPA Avatar
        CraigTPA

        I’d love that, but the problem is that as I understand it – someone correct me if I’m wrong, please – only the -300 is in production as a cargo plane, and as a passenger plane that would overlap with the smaller 787 variants but with no pilot or part interchangability. UPS and FedEx don’t care about that, but passenger airlines would.

        It might be possible to put an updated 767-200 in production, but then you have potential overlap with the A321 but again with no pilot crossrating. The ability of pilots to fly the 757 and 767 on a single type rating was a big selling point. Yes, a modernized 767-200 would carry more cargo than an A321LR or XLR, but that’s something of a niche mission.

        1. Nick BAx Avatar

          I remember reading about some fairly fleshed out rumors that many years ago UA went to Boeing asking if the 767 passenger variant could still be built. Boeing did some work around that and came back with, “nope not really, unless you want to pay far too much per airplane.” All of the passenger specific parts aren’t really in production anymore, so they’d have to restart all the suppliers to get those parts made.

    2. Kitsune4px Avatar
      Kitsune4px

      Boeing plans to end B767-300F production in 2027, originally because the CF6-80C2 that powers the -300F will no longer be compliant with ICAO emission standards that the FAA was going to enforce on new-builds beginning in 2027 (FAA has since pushed that date back). I assume by the time the FAA had changed it’s mind the supply chain was already being wound down. And given the general limitations in the global aerospace supply chain it probably makes sense for Boeing to encourage that capacity to shift towards producing for higher rate 787 and 777X production. After the -400 didn’t sell well, Boeing wound down passenger production because the 787 was the intended replacement, and before McNerney went to war with the IAM workforce in Everett, the 767 floor space was more valuable as an additional 787 line.

      In the mid-00s it seemed like Boeing was well positioned, 777 > A330/A340; 787 and point-to-point > A380 super hubs. And IF they had executed 787 cleanly; they should have been positioned to do 737 family replacement in the 10s. (That was the original Yellowstone plan, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Yellowstone_Project). All while Airbus was sorting it’s messed up industrialization of the A380 and then fumbling on A330neo before finally launching A350. Instead we got a messed up ramp up on 787 (an early warning sign) and then the “accountant friendly” Max family instead of a clean sheet Y1 replacement. Fouled up 777X development is just the icing on the cake for them. At some point Ortberg will need to pull the trigger on a new airplane development; because they’ve spent a lot of money training a generation of engineers on all the things that can go wrong. Would be good to leverage those learnings on a successful program (assuming they can find the necessary program leadership.) The other Boeing programs like T-7 and MQ-25 cause you to wonder.

      1. Kitsune4px Avatar
        Kitsune4px

        Sorry I lost the plot line a bit in my first comment. The salient point here, is that aircraft programs essentially have a finite manufacturing life; the world changes, originally specified materials become unavailable because of updated environmental regulations; engines no longer meet noise and environmental requirements, etc. At some point, it’s not economical to try and continue to produce an old design. However the number of people that have the necessary skills to do new airplane system design is actually a very small group, and so it’s a constrained resource that OEMs have to do this sort of design work. Besides the program overrun costs you see in Max, 787 and 777X; you also don’t see the lost opportunity costs of things like a 757neo or maybe a 767neo, etc that never saw the light of day because Boeing spent too much time fixing it’s troubled programs and couldn’t deploy these valuable people to other programs.

  10. David Cohen Avatar
    David Cohen

    This is the issue that Lufthansa are having with their A340-600s. The Trent 500s were an uncommon model and spares are getting increasingly challenging to find as the number of airlines flying them has significantly reduced.

  11. Kip Avatar
    Kip

    ” I don’t know how easy it is to use engines with different thrust and get more life out of them. So it’s possible that the seven ANA airframes with the slightly less powerful PW4074 could be made to work. Anybody know? I’m not sure.”

    It’s been a while since I worked on the PW 4000 Engines, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. In a previous part of my career I worked with Delta’s PW4000 engines. They didn’t fly any 112 inch fans, but I assume my knowledge from the 94 inch fan applies. For the most part, the engine and hardware is the same across multiple maxthrust limits. There may be small changes (but for the most part, it’s the same). The only thing that changes is the config file (stored on basically a USB drive) that tells the ECU (engine control unit) how much the max thrust is and the maintenance cycles.

    Basically you need to buy the higher thrust from Pratt and then perform maintenance at a more frequent level. So yes, I strongly believe that United can take any 112 inch fan PW4000 engine and make it work for them

    1. Brett Avatar

      Kip – Thank you! That was my thinking as well, but I didn’t know if all of these engines operated in the same way where it was just a paper upgrade. Thanks for confirming as best you can!

  12. GKK Avatar
    GKK

    United just brought 1 of the Pratt engine donor 777s back into service this week, after sourcing parts for it. I’m not sure this is the reason for the ARN/DSS cuts.

  13. Kitsune4px Avatar
    Kitsune4px

    Brett you can check with your sources, but I don’t think the problem is finding PW4090s per se. I suspect the issue is that there are components in the engine hot section which are life limited to between 9,000 and 12,000 cycles. For an airplane like a 777, I believe that works out to 12 to 15 years on wing. And that’s where the problem arises. United Tech Ops in SFO is fully capable of doing engine overalls on PW4000s that includes replacement of those life limiting parts, and P&W would love to sell United more parts for those engines because that’s a huge profit center for engine manufacturers. However while the fleet planners at United could justify making those investments on a 15 year old B772, the 2nd time you need to re-up the engine to get it to 45 years of service life it probably doesn’t pencil out as nicely. Some of these life limited parts are unique part number to the PW4090 model so you really do need that flavor of PW4000 with maybe 2000 cycles left on it if you want to buy used and avoid the overall. The silver lining might be that if United is forced to run a few more of these engines through the SFO MRO then these 772 become possible passenger/cargo conversion candidates in a few years.

    1. Brett Avatar

      Kitsune – Sure, it could be the parts that are the problem, but it doesn’t sound like Pratt is doing much to actually support these engines, so parts are not easy to get. (I suppose it’s not a surprise that Pratt would have all of its efforts focused on the massive problems with the GTFs.) The way I was interpreting this is that the easiest path to functioning engines is to cannibalize others, but there just aren’t a lot of others around.

    2. Frank Rizzo Avatar
      Frank Rizzo

      Who is going to convert the non-LR 777-200 to freighters? Boeing talked about doing it 15 years ago but we all know how the last 15 years have gone for Boeing. Third-party conversions are focused on the 777-200LR and 777-300ER.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Cranky Flier