1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6235 posts, RR: 2 Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 16159 times:
A common discussion on these boards are what will United replace their 767s with. Most consider the 787 to be more likely than the A350, as some have considered the A350 to be too large to replace their 767s. What about United's 747-400 replacement? The 747-8I is larger, while the 777-300ER is smaller. I don't really see United ordering the A380, but it is hard to figure out what will United replace their 747-400 with.
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 2, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16122 times:
United have 7 routes that require a daily VLA: SFO-NRT, SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, ORD-PEK, and ORD-PVG. All other UA routes now served by the Jumbo could be served by B787s or B777s flying increased frequencies. To serve these 7 routes daily, UA would need 12 aircraft. That's a minimum. UA could decide to use a VLA on other routes rather than increase frequency. So, expect UA to order at least 12 B747-8I SuperJumbos (or perhaps WhaleJets).
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28522 posts, RR: 84 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16042 times:
I believe UA can make an economic case for the 747-8I, especially if they merge with CO. Such a merger would shift a great deal of SkyTeam codeshare traffic to Asia directly to UA/CO. It would also open the NYC-LON market to UA again and they could probably use the extra capacity. UA does, however, have at least three LHR slots available to them that are currently on five-year lease to VS, as well as CO's slots at LGW, so increased NYC-LON traffic would not require them to use a VLA.
I tend to think the 777-300ER will not have a home with UA, as the 787-10, while smaller, will offer better CASM and RASM. However, a merged CO/UA might require more lift and as both operate 777-200ER aircraft, the 777-300ER would logically fit.
And if Zvezda is correct and by 2012-2013 the actual and projected arrival of 787-10/787-11 and A359X and A35010X may kill the 773ER's sales prospects, UA could get exceptional (50%+ discount) pricing on a dozen or a score depending on how well the 777F program is keeping the line going (since Boeing is not going to sacrifice highly-profitable 777F slots to sell barely-profitable 77Ws).
Cedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 7808 posts, RR: 54 Reply 4, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16032 times:
I wouldn't rule out the A380. United one of Airbus' biggest customers, so there's obviously a relationship. And for the routes listed above (California to China and Japan), UA need the biggest plane they can get their hands on, and I think it's a more efficient and better choice than the 747 if it's payload and cost per mile efficiency you're after. I think the 747NG is a good choice for airlines who are also buying the A380 (eg Lufthansa or Emirates) who could use something in the gap between the A380 and the next biggest thing (in Lufty's case, the A340-600, in Emirates case, the 777-300).
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
ORDRyan28 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 17 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 16026 times:
Quoting SiouxATC (Reply 1): I really cant see them going with anything else beside the 747-8.
Exactly. They're a loyal boeing customer, and they certainly would not order the whalejet. As nice as UA's colors would look on it, it won't happen. The 748, on the other hand, I would put my money on.
Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2442 posts, RR: 3 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 15976 times:
Quoting SiouxATC (Reply 1): It wont happen for awhile. But I really cant see them going with anything else beside the 747-8.
I agree. In fact, depending on the way UA's reorganization and Boeing's 748i sales go (don't go), it's conceivable that UA could swoop in with a nice order at a substantial discount. A larger aircraft would reduce the need to add frequencies on some of the routes mentioned and, in turn, could free up 777s for other international routes that are currently served by 763s.
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 2): United have 7 routes that require a daily VLA: SFO-NRT, SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, ORD-PEK, and ORD-PVG.
Let's not forget about LAX/SFO to SYD! Those require a VLA with ETOPS considerations as well.
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 4): United one of Airbus' biggest customers, so there's obviously a relationship
Hardly. Look at UA's history with Boeing and you'll see that the A319/20 fleet barely registers on its radar. Yes, UA still has options on some Airbii, but it's hardly as if Airbus is anxiously waiting for them to pick them up. Consider any number of Airbus-heavy fleets: AF, AC, US, just to name a few.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 28522 posts, RR: 84 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 15977 times:
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 4): I wouldn't rule out the A380...UA need the biggest plane they can get their hands on (for certain routes)...
It depends on how much UA wishes to expand in Asia. It's a growth market for them, but the long stage-lengths and low aircraft utilization are only bringing in single-digit annual revenue growth on a percentage basis. Now, with UA's strong revenue base, even single-digit growth is good growth, but with their domestic competition seeing double-digit growth across the Atlantic and to Central and South America, UA may feel that smaller planes launching new services to Europe, India, and South America may be a more prudent revenue-growing strategy then adding another 100 seats on their once-daily NRT-BKK and NRT-SIN flights and twice/thrice-daily LAX/SFO-NRT services.
Quote: ...and I think it's a more efficient and better choice than the 747 if it's payload and cost per mile efficiency you're after.
That remains to be seen, as some on this board have put forward statistical evidence favoring the 747-8I on both counts, though in-service data for either type is not yet available.
Quote: I think the 747NG is a good choice for airlines who are also buying the A380...who could use something in the gap between the A380 and the (A346/773ER)...
I agree, but once the 787-10/787-11 and A350X-1000 enter service, I am starting to agree with Zvezda that the 747-8I, 777-300ER and A346 will all be squeezed out of revenue passenger service by the smaller plane's significant CASM reductions and RASM additions.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 9, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 15976 times:
The WhaleJet and the B747-8I SuperJumbo will be very close in terms of CASM, though it looks like the SuperJumbo will beat the WhaleJet by a few percent. UA and Airbus have a great relationship, which I can attest to firsthand. I think it's more likely UA will buy the SuperJumbo not because of the relationships, but because it appears to have better operating economics than the WhaleJet. How either aircraft looks in UA colors will not be a factor in the decision.
Yes, but the demand is growing steadily and UA plan to upgauge it soon to a Jumbo. UA won't get another frequency for ORD-PVG, so by the time UA could take delivery of a dozen VLAs, they would need them for the route.
What makes you think that United is not Super Premium Airline? In the US it is considered one of the super premium airlines offering First and Business cabins in selected transcon routes (P.S.).
Where they fly mainline jets you always will have First, and Y+ cabins. Also, on TED you have Y+ configuration which caters to premium customers. In addition to that, some of the UAX flights offer an EXPlus which can be considered a first class cabin on an RJ or ERJ.
All international flights operated with B747 and B777 have United First Class that consists of a suite. Only B767 have somewhat super business seat marketed as the first class. However, that will all change coming Q4 2007 when the whole long haul fleet will be furnished with the new first class suite.
So, yes they are a super premium airline relative to the North American market, and if they were to get in some parallel world an A380, it would have a first class suite in it.
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 8248 posts, RR: 74 Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 15634 times:
Quoting Zvezda (Reply 9): The A380 Superjumbo and the 747-8 Intercontinental will be very close in terms of CASM, though it looks like the 747-8 Intercontinental will beat the A380 Superjumbo by a few percent.
The initial cruise fuel flows I have see show that the A380 Superjumbo are lower than our 744s when departing MTOW, i.e. less than 13t/hr. For Boeing to claim to have the advantage they claim, the 747-8 Intercontinental will need to be burning 10-11t/hr, which would be very impressive for an aircraft that size.
The only way I can see Boeing have come up with their numbers is they have kept the A380 Superjumbo at the same cruise altitude as the 747-8 Intercontinental over a sector.
The A380 Superjumbo achieves approximately 6000 ft higher initial and cruise altitude (which account for some of its better fuel burn), on most sectors it will fly between FL350 and FL420. If Boeing have adopted the optimum 747-8 Intercontinental cruise profile for the A380 Superjumbo it would account for a 5-10% difference between the manufacturers numbers.
Time will tell, I do not think UA will replace the 744s in any great hurry.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 15, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15566 times:
Quoting Zeke (Reply 14): The A380 Superjumbo achieves approximately 6000 ft higher initial and cruise altitude (which account for some of its better fuel burn), on most sectors it will fly between FL350 and FL420. If Boeing have adopted the optimum 747-8 Intercontinental cruise profile for the A380 Superjumbo it would account for a 5-10% difference between the manufacturers numbers.
That could make up for a large part of the inferiority the WhaleJet suffers in SFC and in structural efficiency. We'll see what the cruise profile turns out to be. Is it possible that Boeing could reduce fuel consumption by increasing thrust in order to achieve better climb performance?
ORDRyan28 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 988 posts, RR: 17 Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15501 times:
Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 6): Why not? What if they want to lift the most number of people possible, and the biggest cargo payload, and burn as little fuel as possible in the process? Still "certainly not" A380s?
because, by the time the 748 is put into service, it will be equal to, if not better than the whalejet in most noticeable categories...I just can't see UA's colors on the 380.
Whoever said winning is not everything never fought cancer.
Supa7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15380 times:
Quoting Luvflng (Reply 13): So, yes they are a super premium airline relative to the North American market, and if they were to get in some parallel world an A380, it would have a first class suite in it.
If so, they will order the A380 because the 748i simply cannot contain their lavish premium product. That is the situation with SQ and EK. I just don't think UA has outgrown the 747 in the same way.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 65 Reply 18, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 15336 times:
Quoting Supa7E7 (Reply 17): If so, they will order the A380 because the 748i simply cannot contain their lavish premium product. That is the situation with SQ and EK.
No, SQ's new premium product would fit very nicely on a B747-8I SuperJumbo. I played with seating configurations and can fit 13F upstairs in a 1-1 configuration, 50C ahead of door 2 in a 1-2-1 configuration and 344Y aft of door 2 in a 3-4-3 configuration. Note that the F and C products would be even more spacious with even wider aisles than on the WhaleJet. If SQ were really serious about providing a high-quality premium product, this would be it.
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 15191 times:
Quoting IPFreely (Reply 20): n't UA still prohibited from buying new aircraft under their bankruptcy protection?
No. United has been out of bankruptcy and profitable since last February. However, its CEO, Glenn Tilton, has stated that United will not order new aircraft until its debt to equity improves...estimated to be late 2007.
On slide 92 it shows our fleet age compared with industry peers. It shows that CO has the youngest fleet at 8.8 yrs, US in second place at 11.3 and UA in a close third place with average age at 11.5 yrs.
On slide 93 it validates that our 747 is the oldest fleettype compared with our 772's and 763's. In 2014 we will have 2 that will reach the ripe old age of 25 yrs old. In 2015 we'll see 6 reach that age, and onward. 25 yrs old is often thought of as reaching the end of optimal life but as we see at NW, airlines can run them longer.
I again highly recommend checking out that link above! It's VERY interesting to see the plan! No mention of what aircraft will replace the 747 specifically. In fact the presentation only talks about two types to replace the "widebody" fleet- the A350 and the 787. I think we all will agree that neither of these vehicles will be a good replacement for the 744 in terms of lift, but interesting none the less!
The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7827 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 15065 times:
UA's 744 fleet still has 5 to 10 years before its "OLD". The replacements will be a few years away wether its two or four engines. UA's China markets are probably going to get increased frequency and bigger airplanes.
25 Zvezda: For most of UA's 747 routes, the A350 or 787 would be a great replacement -- though obviously not on a one-for-one basis. The exceptions, where UA ca
26 UAL777UK: Which means UA need to make an order very shortly to get slots, albeit, it would not be too far off for the 747-8, the 787 is a must order in the nea
27 Zvezda: I don't think we'll see the WhaleJet in UA colors either, but there is a better chance for UA to order the WhaleJet than for NW to and those are the
28 Stitch: I tend to think the 787 family offers more flexibility and better matches UA's current twin-engine widebody fleet in capacity, while offering more ra
29 Daron4000: As I have said before, I think UA, along with BA and CX are the top three large airlines who will make 748 orders. They are huge Boeing operators and
30 UAL777UK: Surely Boeing are going to do all in their remit to bag an order from UA, a company based also in there "hometown" Chicago, not just for the 787 but
31 Zvezda: How so? I think the size difference between the A350 family and the 787 family is insignificant. Airlines will not choose between them based on size,
32 UAL777UK: Unless Boeing offers them at silly prices to bag the Chicago Airlines order?
33 777fan: Kingfisher must be a "super premium" airline, afterall, they did order the A380, didn't they?! 777fan
34 Zvezda: I'm not counting on any of the players to be silly. UA will weigh the costs and benefits. Boeing have an enormous order backlog for the 787, so they
35 Stitch: True, but you also note that RASM plays into the calculations and can favor smaller planes over larger ones. With the 787-8 being closer to a 767-300
36 UAL777UK: Dont get me wrong, I dont expect Boeing to "give them away", IMHO if Boeing got a whiff that UA was even close to being very interested in say orderi
37 Zvezda: Sure, but the RASM difference is unlikely to be significant where the size difference isn't significant. It will be factored in with all the other fa
38 Keesje: If UA replaces the 744 the Asian market will be the main focus. I think in a decade rows of Asian A380s will be parked at LAX, SFO and ORD pushing up
39 Zvezda: Waiting forever is not a good business strategy. " target=_blank>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...jumbo In the context of airliners, the term J
40 777fan: Outstanding link - thanks so much. It really does give the reader an idea as to what UA's plans are. They were wise to pit the 787 vs A350; no doubt,
41 AirRyan: Hold the phone now - just when did the A-380 get the nickname "whale?" I remember referring to the 747 as the "whale" because of it's nose long befor
42 SLCUT2777: I think it is a rather safe assumption that Boeing looks at UA as an important North American based carrier and they will pull out all stops to keep
43 Luvflng: You took this out of context. In fact, it is a good example when a low cost airline offers a premium product! I am not saying that it is super premiu
44 BMIFlyer: I'd love UA to order some 748's With PTV's please Lee
45 1337Delta764: I am pretty sure they will have PTVs. UA simply doesn't want to spend the money on upgrading the IFE on their 747-400s. Pretty much all future aircra