Asiaflyer From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 8386 times:
Replying Pellegrine's post 246 in Thread 2.
("Nope, but we do know NW paid way below $100M for their A330s way back when. I'm still unclear whether anybody ordering A330s recently with A380 compensation has paid anywhere near those prices. For some reason I have an interest in who paid what for what.")
IIRC TG paid around $90 M for their A330s which was a part of the compensation package for their delayed A380s. This number came out as the purschase had to be approved by the Thai government.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 2, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8177 times:
When NW placed their A330 order, the average list of an A330-300 was a good bit less then it is today. So we should not look at the $200 million average A333 list of 2008 and say NW received a discount of greater than 50% because they paid less than $100 million per frame.
I cannot find an average list price for 2003, but based on Airbus' annual increases, I would expect list in 2003 was under $150 million and it might have been even less. So chances are NW received a "standard" discount in the range of around 40% for their A330-300s.
Even TG's $90 million price was likely no worse than half-off, which is still going to earn Airbus a profit on those frames.
KGAIflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 3, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8131 times:
A Hypothetical United Airlines A332
I'm gathering the thought of A332s in UA kit as a B763 replacement is no longer crazy talk?
KGAIflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8014 times:
Quoting EmiratesUK (Reply 4): however what airline scheme doesnt look good on the A330?!
If we were honest, we'd admit those double U's don't really look good on *any* tailfin.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5337 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7982 times:
Quoting Asiaflyer (Reply 1): I'm gathering the thought of A332s in UA kit as a B763 replacement is no longer crazy talk?
Either those or the A350-800s, probably more along the lines of A332s leased into UA temporarily until the 358s come online assuming UA goes Airbus.
Quoting KGAIflyer (Reply 5): If we were honest, we'd admit those double U's don't really look good on *any* tailfin.
I wasn't sure what to think about UAs newest livery at first but it's a step up from the battleship grey colors and looks rather good in person.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3182 posts, RR: 26 Reply 7, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7951 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 6):
I wasn't sure what to think about UAs newest livery at first but it's a step up from the battleship grey colors and looks rather good in person.
Off topic perhaps, but I have to disagree with you there, the battleship gray scheme looked far classier in my opinion (and didn't show filth the way the white does).
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Mercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 604 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7917 times:
Quoting United1 (Reply 6): Either those or the A350-800s, probably more along the lines of A332s leased into UA temporarily until the 358s come online assuming UA goes Airbus.
I think the price point of an A358 order, with leased A332/333's, as a stop-gap, is possible, if Airbus can come in w/ a very attractive price (much below Boeing).
UA is already a Boeing camp, when it comes to the wide-body fleets. UA was the launch customer for the 777 in the early 90s, so sticking w/ the 777s as the staple of the long haul fleet is almost a given. To switch now, to Airbus, for the WB fleets would really take a huge push by Airbus.
For the 747/767 replacements, this is Boeing's order to loose; with a mix of 777-300ER, 777-200LR, 787-800/-900 orders. I think the 747-8 is DOA, unless Boeing is given them away.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines#Fleet
UA has around 26 747s left, replace those w/ 19 777-300ERs and 7 777-200LRs.
35 767-300s, replace those w/ 787-8s.
19 777-200s (non-ERs) and 33 777-200ERs, some of those must be getting old, should perhaps order up 787-9s to start turning over the fleet.
97 757-200s, replace 75 of those w/ a mix of A321-231s and more A320-232s. A few 757s still serve a purpose on some longer-thin routes, and no suitable replacement exists.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 9, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7813 times:
For widebody replacement I think the most likely routes are;
787-8 (767-300), 787-9 (777-200), and 777-300ER (747-400).
I would also say the 777-200LR and 747-8 are possibilities.
As for 757 replacement I'm going to go with the 737-900ER, no problem for West Coast-Hawaii.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 10, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7678 times:
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16261 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7666 times:
Quoting Gigneil (Reply 10): The 787-9 is a fair bit smaller than the 777, so I'm not sure that would work well as a direct replacement.
Mercure1 From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 604 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7620 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 9): As for 757 replacement I'm going to go with the 737-900ER, no problem for West Coast-Hawaii.
I suppose nothing is stopping Airbus from offering an A320 or A321 with more legs. I realize COA will start 737-900ER LAX-HNL service, but UA already has prbbly made a huge investment in the narrow body airbus fleet, in regards to training and support (over +100 ships).
Does anyone know, is the IAE 25xx maxed out @ 33,000lbs of thrust? or does it have a few more klbs left to give?
And wasn't Aviation Partners and Airbus talking about winglets on the A320 family, or at least initial talks? hmmmm
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22059 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7544 times:
Personally I see more A32x family members for the narrowbody choice simply for the fact United has so much invested in the type already and is looking simplify things.
I agree the B757 offers some unique performance, however as this is a long term replacement project its not like they will disappear overnight, and UA likely has a good 5 years to figure out what to do with challenging markets like LIH and OGG.
For the longhaul choice, I also agree the 77W is probably the choice for the 744s. It seems to the flavor du-jour for 744 operators globally.
Lastly, I also see the 787 having an inside track for the 763 replacement and supplementing current 772 fleet. While the A330 is a compelling plane, it would only be a half step, while the A350XWB just seems too far away to be a realistic option unless if UA wants to place orders today and sit and wait around for 5-7 years.
Just my $.02
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Columba From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6800 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 7498 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 13): Lastly, I also see the 787 having an inside track for the 763 replacement and supplementing current 772 fleet. While the A330 is a compelling plane, it would only be a half step, while the A350XWB just seems too far away to be a realistic option unless if UA wants to place orders today and sit and wait around for 5-7 years.
I agree but UA could do a SQ deal and lease some A330s as a stop gap until the A350XWB arrive. They have enough A32x crews so training for the A330s would not take too long.
They would have a modern and competitive aircraft and could phase out some older 767s.
However this deal just makes sense if Airbus or the Leasing Companies have early delivery slots for the A330.
It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16824 posts, RR: 57 Reply 15, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 7098 times:
This is an interesting side-track.
Airlines like EK and SQ seem to always be flying new A/C. I don't think they have many planes over 15 years old. I guess they buy them new and sell them young.
US airlines, on the other hand, buy planes and then stick to them like white on rice. They fly those planes until there's not much left to fly (*koff* NW DC-9 *koff koff*). The U.S. was one of the last places outside of the deep Third World where there were 732's and DC-10's flying back in 2003. And the DC-9 is in the same generation as the BAC-111.
What are the business arguments for each approach?
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6967 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15): Airlines like EK and SQ seem to always be flying new A/C. I don't think they have many planes over 15 years old. I guess they buy them new and sell them young.
That can only be said about SQ. Practically all of EK's new planes are for expansion, and not replacement. Who knows how long these planes will stay.
And United's planes are not that old. If they had been upgraded with newer ptvs and nicer seats, you would not be complaining.
Also, U.S. airlines are far from being the only major airlines with old planes. JAL until recently had quite a few 747 classics flying around. The last BA 747-100 was retired around 2001(?) Dozens of airlines around the world still fly 737 classics. Lufthansa still operates A300s. I could go on....
Glideslope From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1542 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6703 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 9): For widebody replacement I think the most likely routes are;
787-8 (767-300), 787-9 (777-200), and 777-300ER (747-400).
I would also say the 777-200LR and 747-8 are possibilities.
As for 757 replacement I'm going to go with the 737-900ER, no problem for West Coast-Hawai
Agree with this projection. I think people are being too quick to dismiss the 748i and UA. IMO, the current mtow / range tweaks underway on the 748i could fit this situation well. Depending on Boeings cash flow pricing could be very attractive. 787 R&D has been cash so far. Very little aquired debt.
I'm not as sold on the 739, however it is viable. Never really thought about it. Always thought A321's would be the 757 choice.
Interesting times ahead. Let's see how the 28th goes.
"All men can see these tactics whereby I conquer, but what none can see is the strategy out of which victory is evolved"
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, RR: 83 Reply 18, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6575 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 15): Airlines like EK and SQ seem to always be flying new A/C. I don't think they have many planes over 15 years old.
US airlines, on the other hand...fly those planes until there's not much left to fly
What are the business arguments for each approach?
Singapore's asset depreciation laws are evidently such that SQ gains little from keeping their planes more than a decade. So once the aircraft is fully depreciated, they can benefit from selling it while it's still "young" and has value. I do not know US asset depreciation laws, but it may benefit keeping the planes longer.
As to the A330, UA has just completed replacing the interiors on their entire 767 fleet, so why would they now scrap them for A330s? It makes little sense. And they're doing the same with their 747 and 777 fleets.
It's clear UA is looking at keeping their existing fleet in the skies for at least five years, so that means they want something new and that means the 787 and/or the A350XWB.
A330s and 777s are not going to cut it because they don't need "interim" lift.
KGAIflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 3650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6503 times:
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 17): As for 757 replacement I'm going to go with the 737-900ER, no problem for West Coast-Hawai
I hear that a lot -- chanted like a mantra.
But the fact is that the maximum range of the A321-200
and the maximum range of the B737-900ER are only 176 km different.
KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11712 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6493 times:
Quoting Glideslope (Reply 17): Always thought A321's would be the 757 choice.
The A-321 is not really a good choice as a B-757 replacement. It is really a down grade from the B-757 capabilities, as the A-321 cannot make the range or payload of the B-757.
That said, the B-737-900ER is really in the same boat as the A-321 is, not enough range or payload for a direct B-757 replacement. The closest airplane offered today as a B-757 replacement is the B-787-3, which also is a direct A-300-600R replacement.
I'm not convinced UA will lean towards Airbus, due to the 100, or so A-32Xs they have now. UA has near that same number of Boeing NB, too. Isn't there still a few B-737-300/-500s around? Or have they all gone by now? UA still has some 95+ B-757s hanging around, too.
I agree that this WB order is Boeing's to loose. I wouldn't be surprised if Boeing sold some B-747-8Is at a loss, just to get some orders for it. That sale could be offset/paid for with B-777-200LRs and B-787-8/-9s ordered. As I said, UA could also order some B-787-3s for future B-757-200 replacements.
UA933 From Germany, joined Feb 2006, 220 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6400 times:
Replacing 744s with 77Ws seams legitimate but replacing 772s with 789s??? That simply won't work for UA. Especially since we have seen airlines cut longer routes operated by planes with fewer seats when the price for oil is high.
Furthermore UA has a bunch of pacific routes that justify VLAs. My guess is that they could even make them work on some atlantic routes (LHR, FRA, MUC, ZRH and maybe more with LH and STAR expanding) aswell. I think that the price of oil is a very important factor here. It therefore might be smart to reduce frequencies on some routes and compensate that by adding more seats per flight. Take IAD-FRA for example. UA has 3 daily flights and LH has 1-2. With a daily market for 1.500 seats (probably growing in the future) one could easily fill 2 388s and 1-2 777s only on that route. With 3-4 daily flights UA / LH could still offer the required flexiblilty by business travellers and cut operating costs at the same time.
Gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 22, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 6326 times:
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): I'm not convinced UA will lean towards Airbus, due to the 100, or so A-32Xs they have now. UA has near that same number of Boeing NB, too. Isn't
The 737s will all be gone by the end of this year. And a 737-900ER is not a 757, it doesn't fit in a 757 fleet.
The A321, on the other hand, is an A320. It fits into a 100+ member fleet of A320s.
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): That sale could be offset/paid for with B-777-200LRs and B-787-8/-9s ordered
What? How?
Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 20): As I said, UA could also order some B-787-3s for future B-757-200 replacements
You want to replace a 180 seat narrowbody with a 300 seat widebody?
2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 6940 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6187 times:
the 787-10 if launched could be a good candidate to replace the 777-200/ER, United may be able to afford/lease it then when the 787-10 goes into service.
The Bombardier CSeries 300 may be a good replacement for the 737-300/500.
"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
Co757 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 94 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 11 months 1 week 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5954 times:
If they go all Boeing, You can guarantee that CO and UA will merge, If they go with Airbus then it will just be a very close alliance.
25 Ualmmflyer: IMHO, the trend of US airline industry consolidation will drive the selection of the aircraft vendor. We have already seen AA, DL, CO signing almost e
26 UA76Heavy: UA is relegating more and more of its short-haul domestic routes to their United Express affiliates. I don't see a need for more small narrow-bodies.
27 Gigneil: These things are totally unrelated. This is why I don't see either the A330 OR the 777. The logic applies to both equally. Any A330s or 777s, in my o
28 BMI727: Let's remember that once we are talking about fleets in excess of about 30 planes, which we most likely are, the benefits of commonality are reduced.
29 Asiaflyer: Even if Singapore reports according to international standard (IFRS) and US based companies are following US GAAP, it does not really make any differ
30 DL767captain: I feel like UA needs something earlier than the 787. Maybe a mix of A330s to replace 767s, 787s to replace some 767s and 777s and maybe the A350 to re
31 Columba: 737 classics and A300-600s are not comparable with first generation 737s and A300Bs.... Nevertheless many airlines have replaced their 757s with A321
32 SSTsomeday: My understanding is that U.S. Airlines: - have never adjusted as well to deregulation, and have been cash-stressed as a result. There are still too m
33 Asiaflyer: This is also what I understood from UA's initial statement. Tilton said that the deliveries will strech well into the future. This order will be for
34 LAXintl: Make that a 152 of them -- a hell lot of commonality to be added to. They might have routes where they could indeed find the bodies to fill a VLA, ho
35 SpeedyGonzales: The 321 is actually available with slightly higher payload than the 757, with the 739 several ton below both. Cargo volume is similar for all three.
36 Olympic472: LAXintl, what you wrote above is so true. By reading their posts here, many in the forum may not understand the depth of what UA is achieving. Thank
37 SXDFC: When does UA plan on placing an order? I am sure many of us like myself are wondering what they are going to order! I did this sketch of a UA A350: Av
38 United1: The responses to the RFPs are due in July and UA expects to make a decision sometime after the summer. I'm not so sure that a 777-322ER/222LR order i
39 EA772LR: I thought I remember seeing that IAE can take it out to around 36K. Although, I think IAE should increase fan diameter by 4 or 5 inches. They have th
40 SSTsomeday: Is there a sacrifice in range with the full payload, though?
41 United787: I agree 100%. They will want newer technology. United has a history of mkaing large purchases of newer technology and then keeping and maintaining th
43 EA772LR: I don't see Airbus investing in a A322 or any other A321 replacement. I don't think there is enough demand for a plane with the 757s capability any m
44 Rj777: Anything new? Any whispers, any speculation? I'm hoping for some 787s and 738/9s
45 Silentbob: What kind of fuel burn and range advantage could they gain by hanging a couple GTFs under the wings?
Sponsor Message: 
From Greenland, joined Jun 2004, 8478 posts, 
From Singapore, joined May 2007, 1019 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26723 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 288 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 3182 posts, 
From French Polynesia, joined Jul 2008, 604 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 2004, 6800 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
