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.
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.
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....
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.
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.