Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will United Be An All Boeing Airline?  
User currently offlineSWALUV From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 116 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17177 times:

After looking at this one article: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/united-air-cfo-sees-value-000026155.html
And with all the rumors going around, Will United Become an All Boeing Airline? Besides the order for the A350, United doesn't have any other Airbus aircraft on order and with there aging A320/19 fleet will we see UA become what AA was?

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 17168 times:

Quoting SWALUV (Thread starter):
Besides the order for the A350, United doesn't have any other Airbus aircraft on order and with there aging A320/19 fleet

The 350s will have low cycles, and will be in the fleet a long, long time (if the current philosophy holds). So they won't be an all Boeing airline.


User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7367 posts, RR: 85
Reply 2, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 17038 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Dump the A319/20 and fly the 737. How many years off is the A350 order? They could follow others and cancel that order.

User currently offlineSEPilot From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 7203 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16869 times:

Quoting fxramper (Reply 2):
Dump the A319/20 and fly the 737. How many years off is the A350 order? They could follow others and cancel that order.

I suspect this will only happen if Airbus stumbles badly and gives them an excuse. Otherwise it will cost them penalties and I don't think they want that. Having an all-Boeing fleet is worth something but not that much. Besides, what would they buy instead? They will need planes before the 777x will be ready, from what I understand. And the 748 is too big for what they want.



The problem with making things foolproof is that fools are so doggone ingenious...Dan Keebler
User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16782 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3):
I suspect this will only happen if Airbus stumbles badly and gives them an excuse. Otherwise it will cost them penalties and I don't think they want that. Having an all-Boeing fleet is worth something but not that much. Besides, what would they buy instead? They will need planes before the 777x will be ready, from what I understand. And the 748 is too big for what they want.




I have to disagree. Being an all ?? airline is a huge deal. Keep in mind all manufacturers use different techniques and ideologies. It is much easier for a mechanic to learn only one. The differences in the 727,737 and 747 are minimal when it comes to the way the aircraft is built. The same for Airbus. I love only having to remember Boeing. I was McD before this and it was the same way, if you knew the DC8 then you were on track with the 9 and 10. Maintenance of aircraft is huge and keeping the mech. in the loop is also huge. We can work on anything but when it comes to troubleshooting it is nice to keep it in the same family.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 16694 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 4):
I have to disagree. Being an all ?? airline is a huge deal.

It's not that big a deal at DL, for example. I think it used to be that exclusive arrangements had some cache to them (i.e. DL and AA before the consolidation era), but at the scales they're dealing with now having the option to plug-and-play the 319, for example, over the 738 to right-size capacity is an attractive option.


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16606 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 4):
I have to disagree. Being an all ?? airline is a huge deal.

It is a huge deal in a very negative way because you lose all negotiation leverages and end up paying huge amounts more for your fleet.

Norwegian stated that they ordered both the NEO and the MAX because that way they were able to squeeze down both suppliers to the max and if they ordered only one of the 2 types they would have paid a lot more for their fleet.

Buying A or B because "we prefer them" happens only on A.net. That does not mean that existing relationships don't matter (the incumbent has large advantages) but no airline is going to shoot themselves in the foot just because they like A or B more than the other one.


User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16587 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting catiii (Reply 5):
Quoting 737tdi (Reply 4):
I have to disagree. Being an all ?? airline is a huge deal.

It's not that big a deal at DL, for example. I think it used to be that exclusive arrangements had some cache to them (i.e. DL and AA before the consolidation era), but at the scales they're dealing with now having the option to plug-and-play the 319, for example, over the 738 to right-size capacity is an attractive option.




I don't think you understand what I was saying. It is much easier to maintain aircraft if they are from the same stable. There are mechs. that know Fords, some who know Chevy's and some who know Edsel's (they are unemployed). See what I am saying? It is much more efficient when your mechs only have to learn a couple of aircraft. That way a problem is probably known and the gate call/repair can effect an on time departure. Trust me here, I have worked on alot of different manuf. aircraft and they all have different philosophies about how to build an aircraft.


User currently offlinedfwrevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 1001 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16460 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 7):
Trust me here, I have worked on alot of different manuf. aircraft and they all have different philosophies about how to build an aircraft.

No one is saying otherwise. But in the big picture, you are wrong. Service agreements, power-by-hour frameworks, third-party maintenance providers, etc are greatly diminishing the historical inefficiency of operating mixed fleet types. Aircraft are becoming commodities and airlines will order whoever offers the better price, financing, delivery slots, T's & C's, etc on the particular day they sign the purchase order.

It's not what diehard A vs B fanboys want to hear, but it will be increasingly hard for Airbus and Boeing to win orders that lock down an airline for an aircraft's lifecycle.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 6):
Buying A or B because "we prefer them" happens only on A.net.

On the contrary, it absolutely happens. You don't think WN has a preference for the 737?

I am willing to concede - in fact, I'm suggesting - that this will become a less common practice in the future.

[Edited 2012-05-09 19:20:38]

User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16360 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 7):
It is much more efficient when your mechs only have to learn a couple of aircraft.

In your world yes but I think, in addition to the points made in other posts, you lose those efficiencies across the network by trading that simplicity for the flexibility to right size your capacity for demand.


User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 16361 times:

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 8):
On the contrary, it absolutely happens. You don't think WN has a preference for the 737?

I am willing to concede - in fact, I'm suggesting - that this will become a less common practice in the future.

Yes, WN has a strong preference for the 737 but that is because it best fits their business need, not because they only buy B and not A. You can bet that A was pushing the NEO hard on WN and WN took that offer and went to B to get a much better price on the MAX (or even better, they took that to get B to commit to the MAX in the first place...)


User currently offlinetpaewr From United States of America, joined May 2001, 453 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16153 times:

It is too early to be dogmatic, but it will greatly hinge on the how the 350 turns out. If the 350 progresses well, and is at a killer price then it would be foolish to not take it.


But if it runs into the problems typically of new A/C at the same time the PM CO 787-8 and 787-9 are rolling in, it makes things much tougher for AB.


Besides, we all know UA is more PMCO than PMUA, and we all know what sorta fleet CO runs


United Continental Holdings Inc (UAL) said on Tuesday..............................

CFO John Rainey declined to comment on the upcoming deal, saying the company always talks to both manufacturers before placing an order. But he said there are clear benefits from a fleet composed primarily of planes from one maker.



He'd look rather foolish saying that then placing a split order dontcha think?


"


User currently offlinestlAV8R From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 114 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 16081 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 6):
It is a huge deal in a very negative way because you lose all negotiation leverages and end up paying huge amounts more for your fleet.

Norwegian stated that they ordered both the NEO and the MAX because that way they were able to squeeze down both suppliers to the max and if they ordered only one of the 2 types they would have paid a lot more for their fleet.

Buying A or B because "we prefer them" happens only on A.net. That does not mean that existing relationships don't matter (the incumbent has large advantages) but no airline is going to shoot themselves in the foot just because they like A or B more than the other one.

With the competition the way it is these days between Airbus and Boeing, and ATR and Bombardier and Embraer for that matter, ordering one brand over another won't drive up your costs. In fact, and I can't say for sure, but I would be inclined to believe that it would save the operator more money, as from what I read in the press it seems that the manufacturers are willing to pretty much give them away (so to speak) just to get exclusivity. I would bet that they consider the money made from selling parts as a way to make up for the lost initial revenue so I think if I were a manufacturer, that I would rather sell you the initial product cheaper knowing (and that is this is the case) that you will have to continue to return to me for parts rather than you spending that money with another manufacturer cause that is going to help float my business. Now, if I know you are going to split your order, then I am probably going to charge you more because I am going to win your business anyway and have to reason to persuade you as greatly via discounts.

Also, consider what negotiations that I can make with the suppliers if I can guarantee them more business. I can manufacturer my product cheaper therefore sell it cheaper and still rake in profits.


User currently offlinerotating14 From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 738 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 15942 times:

I think either having an all Boeing or Airbus fleet has it pros and cons. Swiss, all Airbus and no complaints. WN all Boeing operator with no issues. Each operators business model is different for the missions they use the machinery. This is only a topic because of the merger.

My personal opinion is that UA will use the 737 and the Airbus A320/19 on most domestic missions along with the 767 and 777 depending on the capacity demand. Internationally it would be the 747, 777 and the 757 for the trans Atlantic routes. I think they will eventually cancel the order for A350's and go with what they have (777, 767-300/400) until the 777x is defined. I personally don't think the 350 will be ready in time and if Jeff and company can wait for the 777x (which I think they will) they won't have buyers remorse knowing the 777x could've been a better machine in the long run. But what do I know, I just watch planes land and take off from time to time.

Based on what A is claiming the 359-9 is capable of it should be an awesome plane and.I'm more that sure it will sell well as it has. But the same factor why ethiad cancelled their last 7 frames could be the same reason(s) why they do as well. The x factor is when can they put it all together in time to save the current backlog. With 787's flying around, it seems like the pressure to make the whole A350 program come together is compounded.


User currently offline737tdi From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 933 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 15686 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting dfwrevolution (Reply 8):
No one is saying otherwise. But in the big picture, you are wrong. Service agreements, power-by-hour frameworks




Sir, I have worked for the companies you speak of. Dalfort Aviation and Dee Howard Aircraft Services. I was just pointing out that experience is the best. If you only work on one type of aircraft you get to know it intimately. Let Delta and AA and AS and NWA fly what they want. We fly one aircraft, the 737, don't like it or like it this is what we fly. I can troubleshoot a problem very quickly on it and have the aircraft back in service fairly quickly. Let's see the other guys do it.


User currently offlineDarkSnowyNight From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1413 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 15666 times:

Quoting fxramper (Reply 2):
They could follow others and cancel that order.

But they won't. UA will take delivery of their A350s, and likely commence retirement of their 744s at that time. This is what UA has said on a few occasions, and has nothing to do with more recent or even future orders.

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 4):
Being an all ?? airline is a huge deal.

I guess... But it also creates a fair bit of trouble too.

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 4):
It is much easier for a mechanic to learn only one.

I never had trouble keeping up, gate call or RON work. I have my preferences, but when I was doing that for a living, I wasn't hampered by troubleshooting an Airbus one hour and an Embraer the next.



Posting without Knowledge is simply Tolerated Vandalism... We are the Vandals.
User currently offlineasteriskceo From United States of America, joined May 2004, 490 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 13959 times:

Can someone explain to me why having a mix of A & B in their fleet is a bad thing? With national pride aside, I feel like a tailored-mix is a healthy thing.

User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8048 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 13221 times:

I think UA may be watching with interest what Airbus does with the A350-1000. If the A3510 does actually live up to its promises, then UA may consider buying 15-20 A3510's to replace the 747-400's on transpacific routes.

User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 12842 times:

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 17):
If the A3510 does actually live up to its promises, then UA may consider buying 15-20 A3510's to replace the 747-400's on transpacific routes.

UA bought 25 A359s for that exact purpose. Why does this topic keep coming up? UA, pre or post merger, has never wavered from the stance that the A350s were 744 replacements. Until someone can show a quote from a senior UA exec that explicitly denies this, there isn't much of the dead horse left to beat...


User currently offlinealoges From Germany, joined Jan 2006, 8775 posts, RR: 42
Reply 19, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 12186 times:

Quoting asteriskceo (Reply 16):
Can someone explain to me why having a mix of A & B in their fleet is a bad thing? With national pride aside, I feel like a tailored-mix is a healthy thing.

This is, after all, an internet forum. So yes, the "worst" thing about a mixed fleet is the NBH (Not Built Here) factor.



Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 11861 times:

Quoting asteriskceo (Reply 16):
Can someone explain to me why having a mix of A & B in their fleet is a bad thing? With national pride aside, I feel like a tailored-mix is a healthy thing.

Maintenance and fleet availability. If you standardize on one manufacturer (even better one type like WN), you can have more maintenance availability because the aircraft can be serviced easily at any of your maintenance facilities/technicians. If you say have one type of airplane for the domestic market (ex. 737), it can be much more easily replaced if needed on a one-on-one basis with another one that just landed per say or is idle. If the fleet is split, you might have an A320/319 avail but the seating is not the same thus is not as streamlined of a swap and then creates a ripple effect down the whole scheduling process (kind of like taking a can from the bottom of a neatlyt stacked can pyramind)...

I can see where he's coming from.


User currently offlinecruiseshipcrew From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 207 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 11413 times:

I'm a huge Boeing fan, a stockholder etc but people need to stop saying United might cancel the A350 order. The CEO and other airline executives have been quoted several times saying how excited they are to get this airport that has a perfect spot in the new United. It's not going anywhere!


facebook sn jetboy787
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10627 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 14):
Let's see the other guys do it.

Respectfully, and with no knock on your experience, "the other guys" do it all the time at DL, UA, CO, B6, AF, LH, KE, SQ, et al.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10438 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 13):
they won't have buyers remorse knowing the 777x could've been a better machine in the long run.

Instead, they could have buyers remorse if the A350 absolutely blows the 777X away... There's a decent chance of that happening, especially if Airbus were to create heavily upgraded versions a decade into the program (in the same way Boeing did the 777 to create the 77L and 77W). If those upgrades were on the same scale as the 77L/W upgrades, then the A350 would be an incredible aircraft, and one that any airline who cancelled their orders for would sorely regret missing out on...

My view is that the best compromise is to pick and chose what works best for the network/fleet from both sides. My personal view is that the 787/A350 combo is a strong future for UA to stick to...


User currently offlinemayor From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 10676 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10438 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 7):
and some who know Edsel's (they are unemployed).

Bad analogy.......Edsels were nothing more than Fords with different styling, just as Mercurys were.



"A committee is a group of the unprepared, appointed by the unwilling, to do the unnecessary"----Fred Allen
User currently offlineER757 From Cayman Islands, joined May 2005, 2616 posts, RR: 7
Reply 25, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 10628 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 18):
UA bought 25 A359s for that exact purpose. Why does this topic keep coming up? UA, pre or post merger, has never wavered from the stance that the A350s were 744 replacements. Until someone can show a quote from a senior UA exec that explicitly denies this, there isn't much of the dead horse left to beat...
Quoting cruiseshipcrew (Reply 21):
I'm a huge Boeing fan, a stockholder etc but people need to stop saying United might cancel the A350 order. The CEO and other airline executives have been quoted several times saying how excited they are to get this airport that has a perfect spot in the new United. It's not going anywhere!

  
This is going to turn into "when will NW retire their DC-9's" or "why don't AF wash their planes" or the ever popular "Will AS merge with XX"


User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 909 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10462 times:

Quoting rotating14 (Reply 13):
I personally don't think the 350 will be ready in time and if Jeff and company can wait for the 777x (which I think they will) they won't have buyers remorse knowing the 777x could've been a better machine in the long run.

You are saying that an aircraft that hasn't even been defined by Boeing is going to be a better plane than the A350 on what facts. Many respected members on this forum have even indicated the the 777X will burn more fuel than the A350 (Albeit haul more of a payload and fly further).

Smisek has consistantly said they are taking delivery - heck they even helped with some of the design of the aircraft. If an airline were to cancel orders due to manufacturer delays ... there will be hardly and new generation widebodies in service today. Lets be real , so no United will not be an all Boeing airline.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 27, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10550 times:

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 26):
If an airline were to cancel orders due to manufacturer delays ... there will be hardly and new generation widebodies in service today.

  

UA still has 50 orders and 75 options for 787s...that aircraft wasn't delayed, right?  


User currently offlinepar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7735 posts, RR: 8
Reply 28, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10377 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 6):
It is a huge deal in a very negative way because you lose all negotiation leverages and end up paying huge amounts more for your fleet.

Well, someone needs to tell Airbus that they are wasting valuable time and resources attempting to ensure pilots can fly all the A32X a/c with one type certificate since it provides no value  
Quoting AngMoh (Reply 10):
Yes, WN has a strong preference for the 737 but that is because it best fits their business need,

So, carriers who want an all Airbus or Boeing fleet simply need to taylor their business needs to fit those a/c, are we discussing the chicken and the egg here?  


User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 29, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 10055 times:

Quoting 737tdi (Reply 7):
I don't think you understand what I was saying. It is much easier to maintain aircraft if they are from the same stable. There are mechs. that know Fords, some who know Chevy's and some who know Edsel's (they are unemployed). See what I am saying? It is much more efficient when your mechs only have to learn a couple of aircraft. That way a problem is probably known and the gate call/repair can effect an on time departure. Trust me here, I have worked on alot of different manuf. aircraft and they all have different philosophies about how to build an aircraft.

The Edsel was a Ford, or at least the 1958 Ranger and Pacer were, and the Citation & Corsair were more or less a Mercury, and in 1959 and 1960, Edsel only built and old Ford based cars. I understand what you are saying, that from a maintenance employee standpoint, mechanics who work on one Boeing product have a relatively easy time working on another, but your choice of example, well . . For the record, GM appealed to the mid price market (before compacts and intermediates when all cars were full sized) with Pontiac, Oldsmobile, and Buick; Chrysler had Dodge, DeSoto, and Chrysler; but Ford only had Mercury. Had the Edsel come to the market in 1954, rather than 1957, the story might have been different.


User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 30, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 9029 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 10):
Yes, WN has a strong preference for the 737 but that is because it best fits their business need, not because they only buy B and not A. You can bet that A was pushing the NEO hard on WN and WN took that offer and went to B to get a much better price on the MAX (or even better, they took that to get B to commit to the MAX in the first place...)

And let's not forget that they afford to be choosy when the performance numbers are relatively close. If the NEO's numbers blew the MAX out of the water and exceeded the price difference, WN would buy Airbus in a second. Obviously I'm presuming that said offer would be of such value that it would account for the fact that WN would be adding a fleet type, new mx work, etc. -- but it is possible with the right financial terms.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 8623 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 6):
It is a huge deal in a very negative way because you lose all negotiation leverages and end up paying huge amounts more for your fleet.

Not really inreality. they will get substantial discounts regardless, probably better ones (like the days of the gentlemen's agreement) since Boeing will always have the interest to keep them ordering Boeing.

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 26):
You are saying that an aircraft that hasn't even been defined by Boeing is going to be a better plane than the A350 on what facts. Many respected members on this forum have even indicated the the 777X will burn more fuel than the A350 (Albeit haul more of a payload and fly further).

Neither can folks in the other side of the isle say that the A350 will be better than the 777X if you use your argument. SFC makes very little difference if a business case can be made. The 777X will be an amazing plane, just like its predecessor. The A350 will have quite a few teething problems, probably more delays because of new materials, etc. Rolls Royce already said that the new engines they are developing for the 777X will is expected to be 2% more efficient than the ones they have on the A350, so I doubt that claims that the 777X will be any less fuel efficient to begin with.

"This morning, Rolls detailed its conceptual engine, which it has dubbed the RB3025, exclusively to FlightBlogger and Flightglobal, which it touts will achieve better than 10% improvement in fuel burn against today's GE90-115B engine that powers the 777-300ER, and 15% better than the 777-200ER's Trent 800.



Rated at 99,500lbs with a 337cm (132.5in) fan for the baseline 407-seat 777-9X, giving the RB3025 a bypass ratio of 12:1.

The engine-maker says the current concept provides a low specific thrust and "excellent" propulsive efficiency, along with a 62:1 overall pressure ratio, which, if achieved, would be the highest OPR achieved in a commercial turbofan engine.

The engine builds off of the Trent 1000 and XWB engines, but Nuttall says the RB3025 is derived around its Advanced3 environmentally friendly engine (EFE) technology development programme, which includes a Trent 1000-derived core, lean-burn combustor, composite fan and advanced materials in the high pressure elements of the core."

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...rolls-royce-pratt-whitney-set.html


User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 909 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 7430 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 31):


Neither can folks in the other side of the isle say that the A350 will be better than the 777X if you use your argument.

Agreed , so lets wait and see how the 350s perform accordingly and what Boeing actually proposes re 777x. Its just tiring to see how a "What is your favorite pie" thread turn into another is United going to cancel the 350.

With that being said , I am still confident UA hasn't filled all of its needs with the 787s and 350s so I am hoping to see an order for some 77Ws or 748is to get them to 2020.


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1572 posts, RR: 6
Reply 33, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 7073 times:

Simply NO! Their have been strong rumors that United is looking at getting the E190s as well, and even if they don't, I suspect that their might very well be other contenders in the race for that size of a jet, besides Airbus! People have to stop looking at this as an Airbus vs Boeing thing!


ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6987 times:

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 33):
Simply NO! Their have been strong rumors that United is looking at getting the E190s as well, and even if they don't, I suspect that their might very well be other contenders in the race for that size of a jet, besides Airbus! People have to stop looking at this as an Airbus vs Boeing thing!

According to what they've said, they are leaning towards single supplier/aircraft category. EMB190 cannot be considered equal to the 737 in no wasy shape or form, so I would say they are a whole another story, and not part of this discussion..


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6829 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cbphoto (Reply 33):
Simply NO! Their have been strong rumors that United is looking at getting the E190s as well, and even if they don't, I suspect that their might very well be other contenders in the race for that size of a jet, besides Airbus! People have to stop looking at this as an Airbus vs Boeing thing!


Unless they can improve the interiors.

I've flown the US E190 on the DCA-BOS shuttle; the PHL-BOS shuttle, and the LGA-BOS shuttle.
A good fast-turn airframe -- seemingly made for the purpose.
But the bin-door hinges, the seat covers, and the wall panels don't seem to hold up very well.

Now . . . if UA could order E190s with better interior finishings, that would be different.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 36, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6816 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 34):
According to what they've said, they are leaning towards single supplier/aircraft category. EMB190 cannot be considered equal to the 737 in no wasy shape or form, so I would say they are a whole another story, and not part of this discussion..

This discussion is about whether UA will source all aircraft from one supplier, not about 737s, so I'd say it is relevant. Prior to the merger, UA was also reported to be looking heavily at the C-series, and with the pilots not appearing to budge much on scope for a CBA, I'd give a decent shot at a 90-100 seater being in the mainline UA fleet this decade.


User currently offlinefpetrutiu From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 901 posts, RR: 0
Reply 37, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 6748 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 36):
This discussion is about whether UA will source all aircraft from one supplier, not about 737s, so I'd say it is relevant. Prior to the merger, UA was also reported to be looking heavily at the C-series, and with the pilots not appearing to budge much on scope for a CBA, I'd give a decent shot at a 90-100 seater being in the mainline UA fleet this decade.

What I am saying is that UA's coments about single supplied I think are pointed to aircraft categories not necessarily the airline as a whole. They would be very limited especially for regional flying if all they ordered was Airbus or Boeing...


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 38, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 6353 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 6):
It is a huge deal in a very negative way because you lose all negotiation leverages and end up paying huge amounts more for your fleet.

Another issue, and we saw that with AA, is that no single manufacturer has the ability to supply the huge number of frames that a big airline needs. I don't believe UA will even be an all Boeing narrowbody airline, let alone an all Boeing airline.
The linked article indicates a purchase of 100 737's. UA currently has nearly 400 A320/737 aircraft plust 100+ 757's. There will be A320's in UA's fleet for many years to come, just like in DL's and AA's fleet.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 39, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 5903 times:

I would not be surprised to see UA with an all Boeing domestic fleet but cancelling the A350 would be expensive and it would leave with nothing to replace the 772 and 744. I know all of the claims about the capacity of the 789 but it would be a squeeze to get it to the capacity of the 772 and it is distinctly smaller than the 744.

In long haul international, since they are operated by specialized fleets anyway, commonality is less important and UA is actually gaining some by reducing the widebody fleet from three types to two. Some of the statements about seating commonality are obviously b.s. since PMCO already operates different size 737s and are likely to continue to do so. UA is not going to turn into WN any time soon and even WN is increasing the number of 737 seating arrangements.

So, no it is highly unlikely that UA will be an all Boeing airline, at least within the next 30 years.


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 40, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5514 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Whether UAL will BECOME an all Boeing airline in the future is Highly possible,, but for NOW?? NOPE! the last A320/A319's were delivered in 2000-2001. so I doubt they'll be gone before the A350-900 Arrives and the A350-1000 is "already" a MOOT point. Especially if a new 787 ot 777 is equally suited in performance. And? As far as it replacing the 747-400's?? Not a chance in BLAZES!! When the Airforce replaces Air Force 1 and "Sand" 28001, with the 747-8 There WILL be an airline in the USA who also flies the 747-8. and I believe it will be UAL or DAL. I also Believe the A350 was ordered by Glenn Tilton with NO forethught as to capability. More than likely the order was Just to "grease the skids" for United and Star Alliance with future European exapnsion, which was even BEFORE ANY merger discussion with Continental or USAir.. I didn't believe THEN nor do I believe NOW that the A350-xxx will be superior to ANYTHING Boeing builds.. It's just another Twin Widebody solely built to keep Boeing "on their toes". As was the A320, A330,.A340, and the A380. We'll fly it because we Ordered it and unless Airbus REALLY screws uo?? It Will be in the fleet in 2016-2017 as will the first of the 25 B787-822's to go along with the -824's ordered by Continental... IMHO

User currently offlineTHEBATMAN From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 852 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5480 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting asteriskceo (Reply 16):
Can someone explain to me why having a mix of A & B in their fleet is a bad thing? With national pride aside, I feel like a tailored-mix is a healthy thing.

Mixing A and B in your fleet is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case however, you've got two types of airplanes that basically serve the same purpose - 737 vs A320. Now sure, you can say the A319 is more efficient for "xxx" and the 737-9ER is better for "xxx". The main reason I can see is PARTS. A common fleet makes maintenance a whole lot easier. From parts, to maintenance training to flight crew training. Having one broken A320 sitting next to a broken 738 doesn't give you a whole lot of advantage. You need two different parts stockpiles, two different sets of flight crews, FA's etc. Why do you think taxi cab companies drive one type of car (crown victorias usually)? So when you buy oil filters in bulk, you only buy one kind, not some for this car and some for that...



A319,A320,B727,B732/3/5/7/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772,CRJ2/7,DC9/MD80,DC10,E145/70
User currently offlinePHXA340 From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 909 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5443 times:

Your rant is going to cause some serious flaming buddy. I would just delete it

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 40):
I didn't believe THEN nor do I believe NOW that the A350-xxx will be superior to ANYTHING Boeing builds.. It's just another Twin Widebody solely built to keep Boeing "on their toes". As was the A320, A330,.A340, and the A380.

All your rants against Airbus are gettting tired and old. Your posts never make any sense and you always start and A v B war.


User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting THEBATMAN (Reply 41):
Quoting THEBATMAN (Reply 41):
Mixing A and B in your fleet is not necessarily a bad thing. In this case however, you've got two types of airplanes that basically serve the same purpose - 737 vs A320. Now sure, you can say the A319 is more efficient for "xxx" and the 737-9ER is better for "xxx". The main reason I can see is PARTS. A common fleet makes maintenance a whole lot easier. From parts, to maintenance training to flight crew training. Having one broken A320 sitting next to a broken 738 doesn't give you a whole lot of advantage. You need two different parts stockpiles, two different sets of flight crews, FA's etc. Why do you think taxi cab companies drive one type of car (crown victorias usually)? So when you buy oil filters in bulk, you only buy one kind, not some for this car and some for that...


Then why on earth did Continental buy (1) DC-9s (2) MD-80s and (3) Airbus A300s ?

Was it because Continental was / is an "all-Boeing" airline.

I get the impression a.netters think UA is really WN


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12185 posts, RR: 51
Reply 44, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5295 times:

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 6):
Quoting 737tdi (Reply 4):I have to disagree. Being an all ?? airline is a huge deal.
It is a huge deal in a very negative way because you lose all negotiation leverages and end up paying huge amounts more for your fleet.

Norwegian stated that they ordered both the NEO and the MAX because that way they were able to squeeze down both suppliers to the max and if they ordered only one of the 2 types they would have paid a lot more for their fleet.

No sir. There are huge benefits each OEM gives an airline for being loyal and only buying their airplanes. A Boeing or Airbus dedicated airline can expect perfrrred customer pricing and that is before any discounts on the order.

Do you really think Boeing would overcharge WN or AS, or Airbus overcharge QR? No, they would not do that as these customers not only represent the current order, but future orders, too.

Quoting asteriskceo (Reply 16):
Can someone explain to me why having a mix of A & B in their fleet is a bad thing?

You double your spares inventory, which means double space to store them. You double the costs of flight and maintenance manuals and crew and mechanic training costs.

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 18):
Quoting RayChuang (Reply 17):If the A3510 does actually live up to its promises, then UA may consider buying 15-20 A3510's to replace the 747-400's on transpacific routes.
UA bought 25 A359s for that exact purpose. Why does this topic keep coming up? UA, pre or post merger, has never wavered from the stance that the A350s were 744 replacements.

I don't see why a 314 seat airplane can replace a 374 seat airplane.


User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 45, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5227 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 43):
Then why on earth did Continental buy (1) DC-9s (2) MD-80s and (3) Airbus A300s ?

I don't believe CO did buy new MD80's but I could be wrong. They also acquired A300's from EA and some factory fresh A300's. It appears as though when Bethune came on board that all changed as the A300's left pretty quickly followed eventually by the DC-10's, DC-9's and MD-80's.

FX1816


User currently offlineghifty From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 891 posts, RR: 0
Reply 46, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4895 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
I don't see why a 314 seat airplane can replace a 374 seat airplane.

They probably don't need the extra 60 seats/flight. Looking at the current orders, there will basically be one A350 for every 747-400 (let's just round up to 25). With the 60 seat discrepancy, that's 1,500 less seats fleetwide. However, if United exercises their additional 50 options.. they'll potentially add nearly 16,000 more seats. This leads me to assume UA hopes to increase frequency..

Not to mention that the A350, like the 777, should burn a lot less fuel/passenger mile. I'm still puzzled as to why UA didn't order the 77W, which has thus far proved to be a great replacement/complement to the 747.



Fly Delta Jets
User currently offlineBigB From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 615 posts, RR: 2
Reply 47, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4868 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 43):
Then why on earth did Continental buy (1) DC-9s (2) MD-80s and (3) Airbus A300s ?

CO never bought MD-80s, A-300s. CO acquired the MD-80s via mergers with Frontier Airlines and the A300s were a result of Frankie transferring assets from EA to CO before EA went bye bye. After Gordon, took over, CO made a huge effort to streamline its fleet down to 737s, 757/767s, and 777s.



ETSN Baber, USN
User currently offlineDeltaL1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 15
Reply 48, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 4259 times:

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 3):

77W. Not saying they will but they could....



yep.
User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1572 posts, RR: 6
Reply 49, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4191 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 34):
According to what they've said, they are leaning towards single supplier/aircraft category. EMB190 cannot be considered equal to the 737 in no wasy shape or form, so I would say they are a whole another story, and not part of this discussion..

The OP asked if UA could become an all Boeing airline? It is irreverent whether the E190 can be considered equal to a 737 (no idea where you got that from) or not. If the E190 makes it's way into United, and is flown with United crews, under the United operating certificate, then it IS considered apart of United, thus rendering the OPs question of "whether United can be an all Boeing airline" False! That is the topic at hand, so I don't know where you are getting your information from??



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 50, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4161 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 34):
According to what they've said, they are leaning towards single supplier/aircraft category. EMB190 cannot be considered equal to the 737 in no wasy shape or form, so I would say they are a whole another story, and not part of this discussion..

Would UA buy these aircraft and put them with United Express or are there issues with the pilot agreements to prevent this from happening?



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1912 posts, RR: 4
Reply 51, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4144 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 44):
I don't see why a 314 seat airplane can replace a 374 seat airplane.

To keep the same number of F and J seats while reducing Y seats. A350s were purchased with that purpose in mind.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 46):
I'm still puzzled as to why UA didn't order the 77W, which has thus far proved to be a great replacement/complement to the 747.

AFAIK United was specifically asking for the "next generation" widebody. At that time, 777X was not on the horizon yet and the 787 turned out to be too small as the 747 replacement.



Now get your f***ing Jumbo Jet off my airport!!! - AC/DC "Ain't No Fun To Be a Millionaire"
User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 52, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4146 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 45):
I don't believe CO did buy new MD80's


They must have -- I've flown on them.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Cary Liao

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 45):
the DC-10's, DC-9's and MD-80's.


I forgot about the DC-10s even though I've flown on them.
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wolfgang Mendorf



User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4331 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4125 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting BigB (Reply 47):
CO never bought MD-80s, A-300s. CO acquired the MD-80s via mergers with Frontier Airlines and the A300s were a result of Frankie transferring assets from EA to CO before EA went bye bye. After Gordon, took over, CO made a huge effort to streamline its fleet down to 737s, 757/767s, and 777s.

The point being -- the adage of Continental having historically been an all-Boeing airline is a myth.


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3094 posts, RR: 4
Reply 54, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4117 times:

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 52):
I don't believe CO did buy new MD80's


They must have -- I've flown on them.

I think what he means though is that they came on the property indirectly via an acquisition of another carrier who was operating them. CO didn't order them new directly from McDonnell Douglas.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 55, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4116 times:

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 34):
According to what they've said, they are leaning towards single supplier/aircraft category.

Prove it. I think you made that up.

NS


User currently offlinecbphoto From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1572 posts, RR: 6
Reply 56, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4077 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 50):
Would UA buy these aircraft and put them with United Express or are there issues with the pilot agreements to prevent this from happening?

Nope, currently scope requirements would require the E190s to be flown under mainline United. The most seats express can fly is ~70 seats (not sure the exact count)



ETOPS: Engines Turning or Passengers Swimming
User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 57, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4028 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 54):
Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 52):I don't believe CO did buy new MD80's


They must have -- I've flown on them.
I think what he means though is that they came on the property indirectly via an acquisition of another carrier who was operating them. CO didn't order them new directly from McDonnell Douglas.

Exactly what I did say, thank you! If he had read my whole post I even mentioned where CO eventually disposed of the MD80's. I believe CO only acquired them via Frontier and New York Air.

FX1816


User currently offlineTHEBATMAN From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 852 posts, RR: 8
Reply 58, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3885 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 43):
Then why on earth did Continental buy (1) DC-9s (2) MD-80s and (3) Airbus A300s ?

I was talking about two different airplanes serving the same purpose. I really would not call a DC-9 and an MD-80 two different airplanes. One is just a stretched version of the other. The A300 does not serve the same purpose as a DC-9. I said that having both A and B in your fleet isn't a bad thing as long as you have commonality. 737-7/8/9 for your narrowbody fleet and A330/350/380 for widebodies. -OR- A319/320/321 and 777/787/747-8.

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 43):
I get the impression a.netters think UA is really WN

I can't see how anyone could possibly compare these two airlines.



A319,A320,B727,B732/3/5/7/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772,CRJ2/7,DC9/MD80,DC10,E145/70
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 59, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3509 times:

CO went all Boeing because after emerging from multiple trips through Ch. 11 CO had by far the worst credit in the industry at the time and Boeing was willing to help finance the planes if CO went exclusive. McDonnell Douglas was in bad shape after their struggles with the DC-10 and other things and could not afford to cut deals. Airbus was hounded by complaints of subsidies so it was difficult for them to swing a financing deal. I doubt CO would go all Boeing because they love Boeing. They went with the best deal.

UA of course was even more closely tied to Boeing having been divested in an anti-trust breakup. PMUA still had a preference for its former owner as well as other Boeing spin offs like P&W. When it had to, UA would go to DC-3s, DC-8s, DC-10s and A320s because they were the best aircraft available at the time for their mission.

UA/CO will ultimately go with the best deal but if it is close, they will prefer Boeing. After AA's split order, Boeing does not want to split with Airbus again as it did with UA's widebody order and will make a deal.

Personally, I like the additional room in the A320 but the 737 is not different enough so that I would chose another airline to avoid it.


User currently offlineFX1816 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 1400 posts, RR: 3
Reply 60, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3423 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 59):
I doubt CO would go all Boeing because they love Boeing. They went with the best deal.

I believe you are wrong given that Bethune worked for Boeing in the commercial aircraft division there was no doubt where the orders would go.

Per wikipedia,

In 1984, Bethune earned a Bachelor of Science degree from Abilene Christian University. He went on to serve as Vice President and General Manager of The Boeing Company's Customer Services Division and later the Renton Division where he was responsible for production of the B737 and B757 airplanes. In that role he launched the new NextGen B737-700 and 737-800 airplanes.

FX1816


User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 61, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3374 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 42):
Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 42):

I didn't rant but you're skirts are showing as you've got some personal preference for Airbus while I do NOT. I know what I'm talking about and have the experience to back up what I say in the event you'd like to debate the issue. And I happen to BE a UAL employee with TRAINING on BOTH Airbus and Boeing. So I believe I MIGHT have an advantage unless you;re the chief Tech officer at Airbus and then I might have a FEW bones to pick with you about why you did what you did with certian systems and their operational aspects


User currently offlineAirbusA6 From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2005, 2038 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3334 times:

Maybe UA and LH should have a swap, and thus produce the perfect result for A and B fanboys.

LH gets the A350s and a nice harmonised European long haul fleet and loses the 'commercial flop' 748i.

UA gets the 748is, and thus loses the nasty European widebodies, and as a bonus gets new 747s instead of the A359s which are clearly 'too small' and not a proper 744 replacement.

Sorted?



it's the bus to stansted (now renamed national express a4 to ruin my username)
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 63, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3336 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 59):

Personally, I like the additional room in the A320 but the 737 is not different enough so that I would chose another airline to avoid it.

Depends on the airline, honestly.

The UA 738s are not nearly as comfortable as AA's or DL's. The UA 320s are more comfortable than a DL 320. It just all depends.



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlineLHCVG From United States of America, joined May 2009, 1642 posts, RR: 2
Reply 64, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3273 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 63):
The UA 738s are not nearly as comfortable as AA's or DL's. The UA 320s are more comfortable than a DL 320. It just all depends.

That's interesting - is that just due to seating configuration and choice of seat vendor?


User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6936 posts, RR: 9
Reply 65, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3224 times:

Quoting LHCVG (Reply 64):

Seats are pretty tight and they aren't very comfortable. Ditto the 739



"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
User currently offlinenws2002 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 927 posts, RR: 0
Reply 66, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 3135 times:

Quoting FX1816 (Reply 60):
I believe you are wrong given that Bethune worked for Boeing in the commercial aircraft division there was no doubt where the orders would go.

The orders went to Boeing because Bethune was able to twist arms and obtain a good deal due to his connections there.


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 67, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2920 times:

Quoting PHXA340 (Reply 42):
Your rant is going to cause some serious flaming buddy. I would just delete it

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 40):
I didn't believe THEN nor do I believe NOW that the A350-xxx will be superior to ANYTHING Boeing builds.. It's just another Twin Widebody solely built to keep Boeing "on their toes". As was the A320, A330,.A340, and the A380.

All your rants against Airbus are gettting tired and old. Your posts never make any sense and you always start and A v B war.

His rant and anybody else's either right or wrong should not be deleted, as you would wish. Just because he has an opinion that you don't like does not mean it should not be heard. BTW this thread by just being allowed to continue was obviously going to become an A vs. B Thread. Also I wish you would spell check your posts before you post them.

I much prefer Boeing to Airbus for their long haul aircraft but I have an leaning towards Airbus for their short haul aircraft. Personally I like the old mad-dogs for short haul as they always had a classic look to them with character that is missing from Airbus.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 1420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2855 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 63):

It depends on what?? With the UAL 737's getting economy plus is it the legroom the hip room or the onboard TV??
The roomiest single aisle was the DC8. the A320/A319 comes close though the 737's cramped feeling might come from the window seat sidewall where the Curve of the fuselage cramps the shoulders and the window position seems lower. than the Airbus. because the seat is barely 1 inch wider Delta's aft galley position seems to feel cramped if you're seated aft of the galley and that Raft in the overhead does little to make it roomier. The A320's can come with slide rafts mounted on the door to eliminate that raft bin inside the cabin but the 737's doors would need redesign which is something I hope they intend to correct on the 737 Max as they can use the B757 door that will mount slide rafts


User currently offlinemilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2012 posts, RR: 6
Reply 69, posted (2 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 2758 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 59):
UA of course was even more closely tied to Boeing having been divested in an anti-trust breakup. PMUA still had a preference for its former owner as well as other Boeing spin offs like P&W. When it had to, UA would go to DC-3s, DC-8s, DC-10s and A320s because they were the best aircraft available at the time for their mission.

United was a Douglas customer after over committing to the B-247 and not receiving DC-3's until a year after AA and TW had them in service. But after that, United was Douglas's best customer. The DC-4 was developed at their behest, and the first prototype was only flown by UA. United purchased more DC-6/DC-6B/DC-6A than any other carrier and introduced the DC-6 with AA. While the DC-7 was developed per an AA request, UA bought 57 copies. United did not order any Boeing 307's, and only a handful or so of B-377's for their Hawaii routes, and then when the DC-7 came along, dumped the Stratocruiser for the DC-7. I don't think UA ever seriously considered the B-707 but went with Douglas, a firm that had been successful with airliners where Boeing had not been. Then after the 707 was widened, and die was cast, UA did order the 720, but only after flirting with if not actually ordering the CV-880, when Boeing promised earlier delivery dates, and because of engine commonality with the DC-8. Once Pat Patterson retired, then the Douglas relationship was not as close, hence UA waiting for the 737-200 rather than purchasing DC-9's, probably not the greatest decision they ever made, as they sold off more than half their 737-222 fleet in the first ten years of ownership. No aircraft like the 727 was offered by Douglas and UA and EA were the launch carriers for the three holer. When it came to the trijet jumbo, UA went with MDD as they had no relationship or history with Lockheed except for a few L-18 Lodestars that they flew in the 40's and were dissatisfied with.

When UA purchased the A-320, they got a great price on the purchase, and Boeing did not really have a competitive aircraft.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Will There Ever Be An EU Flag Airline? posted Sat Oct 28 2006 16:42:17 by Silverstreak
RE: Feasability Of An All-suites Airline? posted Sat Dec 8 2007 01:40:41 by Charliedelta
Feasability Of An All-suites Airline? posted Mon Nov 26 2007 21:37:19 by EWRlovr
Could BA Be An All B777 Operator? posted Thu May 17 2007 20:07:15 by 8herveg
Will There Be An Airbus 350, 360, And 370? posted Mon Feb 9 2004 23:36:57 by DTW757
SFO An All Boeing Airport? posted Mon Feb 2 2004 06:49:19 by Ua777222
Will Everything Be An RJ In The Future? posted Tue Dec 23 2003 03:38:32 by Airtahitinui
Will This Be On All KLM Aircraft? posted Thu Aug 1 2002 21:09:38 by Airmale
Will There Be An A350,A360,A370? posted Thu Aug 30 2001 04:15:43 by Boeing757fan
Polar Air. An All Cargo Airline? posted Thu Dec 14 2000 04:44:30 by United Airline