Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United 787-10 & A350  
User currently offlinenuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 211 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13386 times:

I am lost on the logic. Why would united order the 787-10 and a350?

72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12041 posts, RR: 47
Reply 1, posted (10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13383 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nuggetsyl (Thread starter):
Why would united order the 787-10 and a350?

Well, the rumour is that they're converting their A350-900s to -1000s (and topping up), so they'll end up with a fleet of 787-8s, -9s & -10s plus the A350s. Very nice fleet mix and gives them great flexibility to put the right plan on the right routes.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 2, posted (10 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 13362 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Because they will serve different roles and missions.

The A350-1000 can serve as the replacement for the 747-400 on high-traffic routes.

The 787-10 can replace the two-class domestic configuration 777-200 on Hawaii routes and the three-class international configuration 777-200 on Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific missions.

The 787-10 can also replace a number of the two-class and three-class international configuration 777-200ERs on Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Pacific and South America missions.

The A350-900 can replace the remainder of the two-class and three-class international configuration 777-200ERs on Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific missions with long stage lengths and/or high payload weights that will challenge the 787-10.

[Edited 2013-06-18 08:22:54]

User currently offlinenuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13199 times:

Unless united is going to dump the 777, would it not be better to order the 777-x with such a large fleet already?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 4, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13167 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting nuggetsyl (Reply 3):
Unless united is going to dump the 777, would it not be better to order the 777-x with such a large fleet already?

It appears that United is going to "dump" the 777.

United appears to be modeling themselves more along the lines of European and Asian "tier one" carriers with a lower-density, more comfortable future fleet. As such, they do not need the range of the 777-8 or the capacity of the 777-9.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13124 times:

Quoting nuggetsyl (Reply 3):
Unless united is going to dump the 777, would it not be better to order the 777-x with such a large fleet already?

The 777s are being replaced, as are the 767s and 744s. Eventually the UA widebody fleet will consist of 787-8, 787-9, 787-10 and A350-900 and or A350-1000.

Quoting nuggetsyl (Reply 3):
would it not be better to order the 777-x

The 777-8X and 777-9X will not be available until after 2020 sometime.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAVENSAB727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 835 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 13006 times:

Cant wait to see the A350 and the 787 10 myself, these look like great airplanes.


Always look on the bright side of Life!
User currently offlineslimshady From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12901 times:

I belive UA ordered both the 787 and the A350 back in 2008/2009 timeframe, before the nitty gritty details of the range/routes could be truly defined.

Seems like there was rumblings about pitting Airbus and Boeing against each other in a bidding war and UA (pre CO merger) had a huge ego (and probably still does) and would expect Airbus and Boeing to kneel before the arrogant and mighty United Airlines to get the best pricing. All bashing of the Tilton regime aside, IMHO it was foolish to have different types & manufacturers to perform somewhat similar missions. The cost to maintain and operate two types/manufacturers far outweighed the benefits. IIRC, even Gordon Bethune referenced this in a 2009 conference call.


In addtion, this topic was discussed in depth.

United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 (#2) (by Diamond Dec 8 2009 in Civil Aviation)


User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1000 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12832 times:

UA has the following to replace:

747 - 23
767 - 51
777 - 74
Total = 148 Units

Assume the 25 A350-1000's replace the 747's. So, only focus on the 125 777/767's. Then, their current order of 65 is 60 units short of a full replacement of the 767/777 fleet. Will undoubtedly be future top up orders for the 787 and possibly A359's, but certainly room in the remaining 60 units for a good size 777x fleet if needed. About 40 of the 60 units are late build CO units and have at least 10-15 years left so that explains the gap. There is some need also to replace a portion of the 41 TATL PMCO 752's at some point also.

UA will have the following options:

787-800 with 219 pax at 8200 mi.
787-900 with 259 pax (approx 40 more than 788) at 8500 mi
787-10 with 299 pax (appox 40 more than 789) at 7000 mi
A359 with 314 pax (approx from EADS website) at 8100 mi
A351 with 350 pax (appoxfrom EADS website) at 8400 mi

Sure makes the A359 unlikely - we'll find out later in the week if the rumors are true. Certainly could see a 777x for some heavy routes (FRA, NRT, HKG, etc).


User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12735 times:

Do not believe the 777-9X is off the table. It is a class larger than even the A350-1000.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 10, posted (10 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 12713 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting slimshady (Reply 7):
All bashing of the Tilton regime aside, IMHO it was foolish to have different types & manufacturers to perform somewhat similar missions.

If that was ever really the plan.

When UA said they ordered 25 A350-900s to replace 24 747-400s, people thought they were nuts and asked why they didn't go with the more appropriate and logical A350-1000. And this week UA is expected to convert those 25 A350-900 orders into 25 A350-1000s and then convert 10 of their 50 A350 options to firm orders for A350-900s.

I am 100% convinced that when UA signed their deal with Airbus it had a conversion price and slot assignment for the A350-1000. The questions to me are how favorable were those prices and did UA expect Airbus to improve the A350-1000 beyond it's initial specification when it entered service? In other words, did UA expect the A350-1000 that entered service to be better than the one Airbus marketed at the time they signed the deal? (Airbus announced their revised A350-1000 intentions almost 18 months after United announced their intent to order.) And did they negotiate pricing that allowed them to get the better plane for the same price as the original specification?

I am also pretty confident UA knew that Boeing would launch the 787-10 and put it into revenue service before the end of the decade. So they could see how that plane panned out as a 777-200 family replacement and then either buy it, swapping the A350-900s for A350-1000s, or keep the A350-900 as the 777-200 family replacement (exercising the options they had) and look to the A350-1000, 747-8 or A380-800 as their "real" 747-400 replacement.

Then again, maybe I'm giving Tilton and Company too much credit.

But I tend to think not.


User currently offlineUSAF336TFS From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1445 posts, RR: 52
Reply 11, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12579 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Then again, maybe I'm giving Tilton and Company too much credit.

Stitch, my friend, I think you are. I'm not convinced that they'll up their A-350 order without Boeing offering them a sweet deal on the 779s. I could very well be wrong, but I think Boeing still has a few Aces up their proverbial sleeves.



336th Tactical Fighter Squadron, 4th Fighter Wing, Seymour Johnson AFB
User currently offlineslimshady From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12543 times:

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 8):
UA will have the following options:

787-800 with 219 pax at 8200 mi.
787-900 with 259 pax (approx 40 more than 788) at 8500 mi
787-10 with 299 pax (appox 40 more than 789) at 7000 mi
A359 with 314 pax (approx from EADS website) at 8100 mi
A351 with 350 pax (appoxfrom EADS website) at 8400 mi

Sure makes the A359 unlikely - we'll find out later in the week if the rumors are true. Certainly could see a 777x for some heavy routes (FRA, NRT, HKG, etc).

747-8 with 465 pax at 8000 NM range. (IMO unlikley, but it is still technically an option)



I just LOVE playing armchair airline manager. :-P


User currently offlinekaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12325 posts, RR: 35
Reply 13, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12310 times:

Quoting slimshady (Reply 12):
I just LOVE playing armchair airline manager. :-P

Absolutely; why do they need to pay these MBAs $100k a year, when they can get all their fleet planning answers here?  
Quoting slimshady (Reply 12):
747-8 with 465 pax at 8000 NM range. (IMO unlikley, but it is still technically an option)

But for today's KE order (about which I'm delighted!), I would have thought the 747-8 pretty much dead; however, to UA and most carriers I think it is. It won't fly for UA. The 777X, on the other hand, I think, may be a possibility.

That said, we need to look at more than just more seats; will the difference in capacity between the various types actually translate into extra revenue; if it's just Y seats sold at a discount - and the airline can't sell them at a profit, then it's probably not worth all the effort to support a new fleet, train pilots etc etc; - particularly if the 777X-9 only offers 30-40 seats. Realistically, given that it's only a small increase in size over the 77W, it's not likely to seat very many more than the A350-10. What will it deliver than the 350 can't? It won't be range, it won't be capacity and it's not going to be commonality (if it's a stand alone fleet, once the older 777s have gone).


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 14, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12262 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Then again, maybe I'm giving Tilton and Company too much credit.
Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 11):
Stitch, my friend, I think you are. I'm not convinced that they'll up their A-350 order without Boeing offering them a sweet deal on the 779s.

The 777-9 only works for UA as a 747-400 replacement.

And if UA does convert their 25 A350-900s into 25 A350-1000s, if they're not going to be used to replace the 24 747-400s, then they would have to be for up-guaging 25 current 777-200ER routes. And does United have 50 daily city-pairs where they need ~350 seats?


User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1887 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12222 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The A350-1000 can serve as the replacement for the 747-400 on high-traffic routes.

How is an A350-1000 a 744 replacement?



My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineTP313 From Portugal, joined Nov 2001, 254 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12150 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 15):
How is an A350-1000 a 744 replacement?

Just ask British Airways


User currently online817Dreamliiner From Montserrat, joined Jul 2008, 2075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12127 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 15):

The same way the 77W can be considered a 744 replacement.



Reality be Rent. Synapse, break! Vanishment, This World!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5107 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (10 months 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 12128 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 15):
How is an A350-1000 a 744 replacement?

It's a dandy 744 replacement for an airline that is most concerned with high-yield premium travelers. Can accommodate essentially the same premium cabins while being far, far cheaper to fly. You lose a bunch of seats in the back, but UA really doesn't seem too concerned about that.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 months 6 days ago) and read 11788 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 18):
It's a dandy 744 replacement for an airline that is most concerned with high-yield premium travelers. Can accommodate essentially the same premium cabins while being far, far cheaper to fly. You lose a bunch of seats in the back, but UA really doesn't seem too concerned about that.

Exactly as BA has done and others to follow I would imagine. The last 20-30 Y class pax are very often at extremely low yields. With today high fuel costs and probably still higher ones in real terms to come it's a no-brainer.



SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 20, posted (10 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 11409 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
If that was ever really the plan.

Well said Stitch. I have been trying to figure out why they would convert entirely to the A351 when they obviously would need at least a few A359s. The price guarantees for a swap with slot positioning and further A359 re-buy argument makes sense. In fact, if you aren't correct then I think the only other explanation is that UA does not have their act together; something I am very resistant to believe.

tortugamon


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 784 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10884 times:

Quoting slimshady (Reply 7):
Seems like there was rumblings about pitting Airbus and Boeing against each other in a bidding war and UA (pre CO merger) had a huge ego (and probably still does) and would expect Airbus and Boeing to kneel before the arrogant and mighty United Airlines to get the best pricing. All bashing of the Tilton regime aside, IMHO it was foolish to have different types & manufacturers to perform somewhat similar missions. The cost to maintain and operate two types/manufacturers far outweighed the benefits. IIRC, even Gordon Bethune referenced this in a 2009 conference call.

How is order 2 different size aircraft that are slated to serve to different purposes arrogant? UA order the 788 and the A350 to cover 2 completely different market segments and to replace to completely different aircraft the 788 pre merger were going to replace the 3 class 763 and post merger sUA order is still slated to replace the 3 class 763. The A359 were slated to replace the 744 (although it now seems like that order might change). But I still fail to see whatever useless point you were trying to make the only thing that is obvious is that you have no clue what you are talking about because the 788 and the A359 were never going to perform similar missions at United pre merger and both of these aircraft are not even the same size. The A359 will be able to accommodate a lot more people than the 788 and although UA could have order the 789, for the missions that UA would need to cover (LAX/SFO-SYD, ORD-HKG) the A359 was a better fit cargo and passenger wise.


User currently offlineYTZ From Canada, joined Jun 2009, 1832 posts, RR: 23
Reply 22, posted (10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10883 times:

Pure speculation but what if UA's plan is to upsize.

A350-1000s can initially replace the 744s until the 777-9X comes along. At that point, UA uses the A350s on routes where it wants additional growth above what the 787-10 can provide.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 23, posted (10 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 10870 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting YTZ (Reply 22):
Pure speculation but what if UA's plan is to upsize.

As I asked in Reply 14, that would give UA 50 airplanes (25 x 777-9 and 25xA350-1000) with between 315-350 seats in three-classes (Global First, Global Business and Economy). Does UA have that many city pairs that need that level of capacity?


User currently offlineAmerican 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3651 posts, RR: 12
Reply 24, posted (10 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 10841 times:

Does that mean in the long run the only Boeing models in the whole United fleet will be the 737 (NG and MAX) and the 787? Unless United orders the 777-8X and/or 9X but it doesn't look like they are interested in it.

Likewise the only Airbus model will be the A359 and A3510? Unless United orders the A320NEO.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
A350-1000, 747-8 or A380-800 as their "real" 747-400 replacement.

Among the above 3, they are more likely to choose the A350-1000.

So this is what the United fleet will be like in 2025 and beyond:

B737-800/900ER/MAX
B787
A350

They are getting rid of the 757s, 767s and early 777s.



Ben Soriano
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 25, posted (10 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 11121 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 24):
They are getting rid of the 757s, 767s and early 777s.

MAXes take over for the 757
787s take over the 767
787/A350 take over for the 777/747

Makes sense to me. I do not see them as a large 777-8/9x buyer.

tortugamon


User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 1161 posts, RR: 1
Reply 26, posted (10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10044 times:

It will be a sad day when a Boeing airliner is no longer the flag ship of United Airlines. But I'm still optimistic that a 77X will be in United colors.

Does anyone know where the A350 crew bases will be, I imagine SFO first.



Я говорю по-русский. :)
User currently offlineboilerla From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 322 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10236 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 15):
How is an A350-1000 a 744 replacement?

UA's 747 config of 374 seats will be very close to the A350J seating capacity of approx. 350 seats. If UA drops international F on the A350, which is likely given the 787s are 2 class, it'll be even closer to matching the 747's capacity.

The A35J will have better range than UA's current 747s and will be significantly cheaper to operate, with approximately the same seating arrangements. How is it not a 747 replacement?

Also remember that UA's 747s are often at 70% loads during the winter. My SFO-FRA flight was probably only 50% full several times in December/Jan/Feb. When they placed the order, they said they wanted a plane they could operate at 85% LF year round without discounting the tickets.


User currently offlinetristan7977 From United States of America, joined Feb 2013, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 28, posted (10 months 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 10123 times:

Those former CO 777's have a long way to go. I can see the former UA 777's being replaced soon, as they are aging, I wonder what they would do to N777UA...

With the amount of planes they're ordering, it isn't enough to replace all their 767/777/747 fleet. So more A350's/777's, or even the 777X's could do. They're gonna have to order something like that eventually, or get the 747-8   

Suck though they're not gonna order an A380 anytime soon, unless something changes.   



Flying is my life. It's as if it were in my blood.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9637 times:

Everyone throws the 350 seats around, remember this is marketing numbers, like 407 is for the 777-9X. EK will put about 320 seats in their A350-1000. Look at the 9 abreast 77Ws, many have way below 350 seats in them..

374 seats in their 744(420 seats marketing). That would probably lead to below 340 seats in the A350-1000?

How many seats do the 788 have? I see some overlap in the makeup of their coming fleet, esp the 787-10 and the A359.

I could see 788,787-1000 and the A350-1000 being better spaced in capacity and range. Cut the 789 and the A359..

Say 250-260 seats 788, 290-300 for the 787-10 and 320-330 in the A350-1000? Even a 777-9 with 360-370 seats could fit that line up?

Do they need the range of the A359 and the 789 really? Cant the others sub for them?


User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (10 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 9551 times:

Is it possible to put 10 across on the A350? If not, I say bring them on. I would take 787's with 9 across even if the seat is .5" narrower than 10 across on a 777. I say this, because if UA keeps the 777's more than 5 years longer (which they most definitely will) I think they will jump on the 10 across bandwagon.

I predict about the same time the first A350 would arrive. Perfect timing for the new combined airline to introduce a new, "better" unified J product. And oh by the way, we'll pay for that project by sneaking in an extra Y seat...just like AA.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 31, posted (10 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 9387 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting cosyr (Reply 30):
Is it possible to put 10 across on the A350?

Yes, but only LCCs and charter operators (like Air Asia X) are likely to do so. I don't expect any major commercial airline (BA, UA, SQ, CX, etc.) to do so.


User currently offlinewaly777 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2012, 309 posts, RR: 3
Reply 32, posted (10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 8022 times:

Quoting cosyr (Reply 30):
Is it possible to put 10 across on the A350? If not, I say bring them on. I would take 787's with 9 across even if the seat is .5" narrower than 10 across on a 777. I say this, because if UA keeps the 777's more than 5 years longer (which they most definitely will) I think they will jump on the 10 across bandwagon.

Here we go again with this. You do know 10 abreast 777's and 9 abreast 787's offer pretty much the same seat width @ 17"-17.3"?

A 10 abreast 350 will offer a seat width in the 16.4" region, which is only exclusive to the LCC's as Stitch pointed out.



The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7918 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I don't think its so much an issue with the width of the seat as it it having to climb over more people to reach an aisle. Since the VAST majority of folks fly economy, its an issue and one reason the 767 is so popular.

I was very impressed with the refreshed two-class 767 on our flight from IAD to GVA a few weeks ago. Seven across is awesome and the hard product is up there with most other airlines in Y.


User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10365 posts, RR: 11
Reply 34, posted (10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7827 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The A350-1000 can serve as the replacement for the 747-400 on high-traffic routes.

Not an ideal replacement as the A3510 is considerably smaller, only good if they have no intention and hope to grow.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The 787-10 can replace the two-class domestic configuration 777-200 on Hawaii routes and the three-class international configuration 777-200 on Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific missions.

The 787-10 can also replace a number of the two-class and three-class international configuration 777-200ERs on Trans-Atlantic, Trans-Pacific and South America missions.

The A350-900 can replace the remainder of the two-class and three-class international configuration 777-200ERs on Trans-Atlantic and Trans-Pacific missions with long stage lengths and/or high payload weights that will challenge the 787-10.

Perfect.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 9):
Do not believe the 777-9X is off the table. It is a class larger than even the A350-1000.

Half a class at maximum, not necessary to operate both. If the A350-1000 can replace the 744 at UA (which it cant properly imho as its half a class smaller). Perhaps A380s in the future if they want to grow and be competitive on the comfort side? If the forecasts for traffic growth are right, then UA will have no other option than to order A380s latest around 2020.


User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6346 posts, RR: 9
Reply 35, posted (10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7774 times:

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 26):
It will be a sad day when a Boeing airliner is no longer the flag ship of United Airlines. But I'm still optimistic that a 77X will be in United colors.

Why do you think that would be a "sad" day?


User currently offlinecv990coronado From South Africa, joined Nov 2007, 315 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (10 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 7748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Give me a 767 any day over 777 whether it's 9 or 10 abreast. Much more comfortable and quieter. In economy for me the first choice 767 then A330/340/747, last resort 777 9 abreast. 777 in 10 no thanks. Unfortunately I haven't tried the A380 yet so I can't comment personally but it does seem to get favourable reports.


SSC-707B727 737-741234SP757/762/3/772/WA300/10/319/2/1-342/3/6-880-DAM-VC10 TRD 111 Ju52-DC8/9/10/11-YS11-748-VCV DH4B L
User currently offlineTheRedBaron From Mexico, joined Mar 2005, 2158 posts, RR: 8
Reply 37, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7309 times:

Eventually United will order the A380 the attack of Pacific rim carriers, EK, BA and LH will push them to that market with a similar product. Its matter of time. that is why fleet planning with 787 and A350 is so important now. IMHO they will have a mixed fleet.

TRB



The best seat in a Plane is the Jumpseat.
User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1000 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (10 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 7102 times:

Quoting na (Reply 34):
Not an ideal replacement as the A3510 is considerably smaller, only good if they have no intention and hope to grow.

Um, unless they add frequency which is desired by the business traveler or add additional direct service city pairs via their 8 hubs which is also desired by the business traveler.

Quoting sweair (Reply 29):
Everyone throws the 350 seats around, remember this is marketing numbers, like 407 is for the 777-9X. EK will put about 320 seats in their A350-1000. Look at the 9 abreast 77Ws, many have way below 350 seats in them..

UA's 788's = 219 seats
Figure 35-40 more for the 789 = 259 seats
Figure 35-40 more for the 781 = 299 seats

Won't be far off.

For the A359 = marketing states 314 capacity
For the A351 = marketing states 350 capacity
Both UA units will have less and be affected by the F class choice.

Therefore, UA does not have a 375 seat plane to replace the 744's. So, there is room for the 777-9x, but no mandate to buy it if they chose frequency or more direct hub service offerings.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4091 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6294 times:

Quoting American 767 (Reply 24):
Does that mean in the long run the only Boeing models in the whole United fleet will be the 737 (NG and MAX) and the 787?

You make it sound like the future UA fleet will be 90% Airbus. The 737s and 787s will make up the fast majority of the future fleet, with ~50 or fewer A350s at the top.

And throw my hat in the ring for the A350-1000 being the 744 replacement. So what if it it has ~30 fewer seats? Those 30 seats either go out empty half the year, or are filled with rock bottom fares the rest.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 40, posted (10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6251 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
The A350-1000 can serve as the replacement for the 747-400 on high-traffic routes.
Quoting na (Reply 34):
Not an ideal replacement as the A3510 is considerably smaller, only good if they have no intention and hope to grow.

I expect the goal is to raise RASM by reducing capacity. With less seats to sell, Average Sale Price per seat will go up as UA will not have to deeply discount a certain percentage of seats in order to fill them.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6113 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 39):
So what if it it has ~30 fewer seats? Those 30 seats either go out empty half the year, or are filled with rock bottom fares the rest.

  

UA often has to discount their seats heavily in order to fill the 744s. They aren't going to worry about buying an aircraft simply to match the 374 seat total on their current 744 aircraft.

The 350-1000 has a superior cargo carrying capacity compared to the 744:

744: 6371 cu.ft. Cargo Comparison Between 744, 773ER, & A380 (by Kaitak744 Sep 10 2008 in Tech Ops)
351: 7352 cu. ft. http://www.airbus.com/aircraftfamili...wbfamily/a350-1000/specifications/

So the 351 carries more cargo at a greater range at a lower operating cost. It will carry fewer people (closer to 40 fewer I'd think in a three class cabin) but the higher cargo capacity and lower operating cost would make it a good replacement for the 744.

I flew a 744 LHR to SFO yesterday. We got point to point on time but its noisy and the lack of amenities in Economy versus the competition was sadly lacking as we all know. UA will save huge amounts on the cost of fuel alone making the switch along with lower maintenance costs and the ability for higher utilization.

Could UA also order the 777-9X? Sure they could but I think UA is telegraphing their intent with the 781 order and what is certain to be a 351 order conversion or top-up. I don't think a small 777-9X order is in the cards. For UA to do it I think would mean an order of 20 ish.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1459 posts, RR: 2
Reply 42, posted (10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 6092 times:

Quoting slimshady (Reply 7):
The cost to maintain and operate two types/manufacturers far outweighed the benefits. IIRC, even Gordon Bethune referenced this in a 2009 conference call.

This has been show to be a myth through the comments of many a CEO. Speculating here but I recall somewhere around 20 frames is enough to get economies of scale for WB aircraft.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 10):
Then again, maybe I'm giving Tilton and Company too much credit.

Nicely put stitch.

Quoting USAF336TFS (Reply 11):
Stitch, my friend, I think you are. I'm not convinced that they'll up their A-350 order without Boeing offering them a sweet deal on the 779s. I could very well be wrong, but I think Boeing still has a few Aces up their proverbial sleeves.

You forget that the A350 Order is tied to an order of A320s that UA cancelled. The deposits are non-refundable and are huge. So if you're going to have 25, and we assume they are the capable and efficient, then why not pick up another 25?

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 20):
Well said Stitch.

I believe maybe it was a combination of the 351 originally being less capable, and UA getting what it could without having to add additional deposit money.

Quoting na (Reply 34):
Not an ideal replacement as the A3510 is considerably smaller, only good if they have no intention and hope to grow.

This down here is your answer, frequency is king. If you want to expand in a peak month in a market you just go 781+788 and that keeps you from flying around a 60% full A380 all winter as you can redeploy the second 787. Can't redeploy 0.4 A380/747, you get all or nothing. It's called risk management.

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 38):
Um, unless they add frequency which is desired by the business traveler or add additional direct service city pairs via their 8 hubs which is also desired by the business traveler.

Well said.


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 784 posts, RR: 1
Reply 43, posted (10 months 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 5876 times:

Quoting na (Reply 34):
Half a class at maximum, not necessary to operate both. If the A350-1000 can replace the 744 at UA (which it cant properly imho as its half a class smaller). Perhaps A380s in the future if they want to grow and be competitive on the comfort side? If the forecasts for traffic growth are right, then UA will have no other option than to order A380s latest around 2020.

The A351 can replace UA's 744 because they can cover the missions that the 744 currently fly and do is more efficiently. It isn't all about passenger capacity during the summer months other factor come into play as well.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 27):
Also remember that UA's 747s are often at 70% loads during the winter. My SFO-FRA flight was probably only 50% full several times in December/Jan/Feb. When they placed the order, they said they wanted a plane they could operate at 85% LF year round without discounting the tickets.

  

This is one of the other factors that UA has to consider. From late spring to mid fall UA has no problem filling the cabins of their 744 fleet but what happens from mid fall to late spring when you have a major drop in customers traveling and your 744 are going out at 50%-70% capacity depending on the month? It is easy to sit back and say the A351 is not the right aircraft for UA but in reality it is because for UA to achieve a load factor of 85% or higher during the slow season on the A380 UA would have to cut a lot of international flights from mid fall to late spring. In other words the only stations that would have international flights to Europe during that time would be EWR and IAD would have a limited number of flights and all flights to Asia would have to go thru SFO and EWR would probably keep the flights they currently have. ORD, IAH, LAX, DEN, SEA, HNL would all loose what international flights they have to either Europe and/or Asia because UA would have to fill gigantic A380's, I'm sorry but its not going to happen. When you operate multiple international gateways smaller is better because during the slow season you can at least achieve a good enough load factor that allows you to still make some type of money.

What and or where would UA send the A380's from November to mid April besides SYD where could we send an aircraft of that size and achieve a decent load factor without gutting our entire international schedule? Now where but A351 can work because during the high season UA would have a load factor in the 90%-98% range then during the slow season the load factor would be in the 70%-82% range due to the fact that the A351 is slightly smaller than the 744. Get the bigger picture UA will expand and is expanding internationally but the A380 does not fit into the picture it is simply to much aircraft to try and fill 12 months year after year especially during the slow season.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 44, posted (10 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 5721 times:

I'm thinking UA needs to replace the 744s ASAP, and the A350-1000 seems to be a good compromise between going with the existing technology of the 77W or 748i or waiting to 2023 or later for the 777-9X. Not that a A350-1000 order precludes an eventual 777-9X order, but the first goal has to be to modernize the passenger experience and deploy more efficient aircraft.

If they indeed convert all their A350 orders, plus exercise an option of 10 for a total of 35, to the A350-1000 that gives them the perfect platform to replace their 744s and some of the 777s mostly on Asian/Pacific routes such as:

SFO-
PEK, FRA, HKG, LHR, KIX, ICN, PVG, SYD, NRT

LAX-
SYD, MEL

ORD-
HKG, PEK, PVG, NRT

EWR-
PEK, DEL, HKG, BOM, PVG, TLV



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineyellowtail From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 5886 posts, RR: 2
Reply 45, posted (10 months 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 5580 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 44):
SFO-
PEK, FRA, HKG, LHR, KIX, ICN, PVG, SYD, NRT

LAX-
SYD, MEL

ORD-
HKG, PEK, PVG, NRT

EWR-
PEK, DEL, HKG, BOM, PVG, TLV

and
IAH-LHR, FRA, NRT, EZE, GIG, GRU



When in doubt, hold on to your altitude. No-one has ever collided with the sky.
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 46, posted (10 months 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 5415 times:

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 45):
nd
IAH-LHR, FRA, NRT, EZE, GIG, GRU

I think those are better suited for the 787-10.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 47, posted (10 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

Quoting nuggetsyl (Thread starter):
I am lost on the logic. Why would united order the 787-10 and a350?

Even though the seating capacity of the 787-10 and A350-9 are similar, the A350-9 is expected to have more range, which may come into play on some EWR, IAD, ORD and IAH to Asia routes, particularly with cargo. UA is having some weight restriction problems on their 772s on ORD-HKG (although the GE powered sCO 772s might be an improvement one of these days). Even if a city pair is within the stated range of both, the A350-9 might be able to get off the ground with a little more cargo.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 48, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5168 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 44):
SFO-
PEK, FRA, HKG, LHR, KIX, ICN, PVG, SYD, NRT

Don't you think FRA, PEK, ICN, KIX, LHR, and NRT could be 787-10 territory as well? Not sure if the traffic would support the extra ~25 seats all year.

tortugamon


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 49, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5135 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 48):
Don't you think FRA, PEK, ICN, KIX, LHR, and NRT could be 787-10 territory as well? Not sure if the traffic would support the extra ~25 seats all year.

Those are all 744 destinations, UA is flying 2x daily SFO-FRA with the 744, the A350-1000 as discussed is less capacity than a 744. The 787-10 would be even less than the A350-1000.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 50, posted (10 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 5054 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 49):

Even to Osaka? Did not know that. But if they downsize further and add frequency couldn't that lead to higher RASM? Most of the airports mentioned have the slots but I am not sure how full these flights are year around or how specific departure time dependent they flights are.

tortugamon


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 51, posted (10 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 4976 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 50):
Even to Osaka? Did not know that.



Yup, they moved all the 744s to SFO, except for LAX-SYD/MEL and the Inter Asian flights.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 8773 posts, RR: 29
Reply 52, posted (10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4734 times:

The conversion to the -1000 is now a done deal. During the press conference, United said the 777-200ERs will be replaced by the 787-10 and the 747-400s will become A350-1000s.


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 53, posted (10 months 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 4616 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

So looks like UA's future fleet, in terms of direct replacements, will be 35 A350-1000s and 115 787s (a mix of -8 / -9 / -10).

That's going to be pretty formidable.   


User currently offlineEPA001 From Netherlands, joined Sep 2006, 4593 posts, RR: 38
Reply 54, posted (10 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4499 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 52):
The conversion to the -1000 is now a done deal.

Yes, as expected 25 conversions from the A350-900 to the A350-1000 + 10 new firmly ordered A350-1000's.     .

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
So looks like UA's future fleet, in terms of direct replacements, will be 35 A350-1000s and 115 787s (a mix of -8 / -9 / -10).

That's going to be pretty formidable.

That is an impressive line-up indeed. And makes very much sense to me. Less aircraft families will also bring the maintenance costs down, and the long-range fleet will consist of all new big twins.  .


User currently offlinefun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 1000 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (10 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4351 times:

So, here is what UA will end up with. A lot like the CO strategy of having a/c with +40 or 50 seat increments:

UA's 788's = 219 seats
Figure 35-40 more for the 789 = 259 seats
Figure 35-40 more for the 781 = 299 seats
For the A351 = marketing states 350 capacity

A.net myth UA will cancel their A350 order now officially dead.

UA has 100 longhaul a/c on order. They have 148 operating now so there is room for add on orders or another a/c. Not to mention, they need to fill the hole that the 41 TATL 752's cover also.

So, the 744's will have to be around for 5-7 more years based on the 2018 EIS for the A350's for UA.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 56, posted (10 months 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 4166 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 55):
UA has 100 longhaul a/c on order. They have 148 operating now so there is room for add on orders or another a/c.

They'll order at least another 40 787-10s to complete the 777-200 family replacement.


User currently offlinescbriml From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2003, 12041 posts, RR: 47
Reply 57, posted (10 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 3957 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
So looks like UA's future fleet, in terms of direct replacements, will be 35 A350-1000s and 115 787s (a mix of -8 / -9 / -10).

They do have options on A350s as well, do they not? So the final number of A350s may be more than 35.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
That's going to be pretty formidable.

Agreed.



Hey AA, the 1960s called. They want their planes back!
User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1459 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3859 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 56):
They'll order at least another 40 787-10s to complete the 777-200 family replacement.

The 789 is closer to a replacement for UA's 772s. UA's densest international 777 is 269 seats. Sticking with the theme of downgauge is better than upgauge, then 259 on the 789 should do nicely.


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4091 posts, RR: 5
Reply 59, posted (10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3838 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 57):
They do have options on A350s as well, do they not? So the final number of A350s may be more than 35.

I'd say there's still a good chance we see some A359s, for the reasons stated throughout the thread. The 787-10 simply does not have the legs to replace all 50+ of UA's 777 fleet.

My guess is we don't see any top up orders until UA has a chance to 'field test' both aircraft.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 60, posted (10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3816 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 58):
The 789 is closer to a replacement for UA's 772s

It's been reported in another thread that UA said they plan to use the 787-10 for the bulk of their 777-200 family replacements. I expect the 787-9s will be used as a 767-400ER replacement.


User currently offlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1459 posts, RR: 2
Reply 61, posted (10 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 3765 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60):
It's been reported in another thread that UA said they plan to use the 787-10 for the bulk of their 777-200 family replacements. I expect the 787-9s will be used as a 767-400ER replacement.

I would think the missions probably overlap significantly for both range/payload reasons so the dividing line between 789-781 will probably be somewhere in the middle of the 777 fleet, hence why only 20 781's were ordered (yes there are fewer 789's on order, but I think that will increase with time)


User currently offlinecosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 62, posted (10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3557 times:

Quoting waly777 (Reply 32):
Here we go again with this. You do know 10 abreast 777's and 9 abreast 787's offer pretty much the same seat width @ 17"-17.3"?

Here we go again with what? I think it is a pretty valid opinion that even if the seats are identically sized, one more middle seat is less comfortable, slower boarding, longer customs lines, etc. And 17" and 17.3" are not identical.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6386 posts, RR: 2
Reply 63, posted (10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3549 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 60):
I expect the 787-9s will be used as a 767-400ER replacement.

And once UA retires its 764ERs, expect DL to pick them up in a flash.



The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined exactly 4 years ago today! , 1559 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3529 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

While its unfortunate that it looks unlikely UA will order the 77X in the near-term, their fleet planning makes sense. UA wants to narrow down their international a/c variants (787 and 350) which will reduce training costs, maintenance costs and provide seasonal flexibility.

I know A-Netters seem to be in love with "sub-fleets" and having "some" of several aircraft types but that simply doesn't make a lot of sense to have a "few" 748is, 388s or 77Xs.

AA would seem to be one of the only possibilities for the 77X in the U.S. market. Boeing didn't help themselves with their timing on getting the 77X officially launched either.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 65, posted (10 months 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 3407 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 64):
Boeing didn't help themselves with their timing on getting the 77X officially launched either.

I think that is a popular belief and I agree to a certain extent. However, I am not sure I would have done it any differently. The 777x is not a 772 replacement but a very significant 77L and 77W upgrade. Both of these frames have only been delivered to customers in the last 10 years or less. To upgrade these models quicker would have cut the legs off of the sales program for the existing model. They have not even delivered more 77W than 77E's at this point (should happen in June)!

Boeing still has $91 Billion in unfilled orders for this model and yet there is so much talk about replacing it? I can't think of another program like that, ever. They want to time the market so that when airlines are looking to replace their 700 and counting 77W's they have something new to replace it with and that replacement market is not coming up until 2020 at the earliest (some EK frames in 2017 but that is only a couple dozen).

The biggest problem is that Boeing thought that the 744 replacement was the 748; IAG and UA really did not have a choice; and I am not sure Boeing did either. The 351 should be an excellent aircraft.

tortugamon


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16694 posts, RR: 51
Reply 66, posted (10 months 4 days ago) and read 3278 times:

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 63):
And once UA retires its 764ERs, expect DL to pick them up in a flash.

That will not be before 2020-2025, by then they'll be 20-25 years old. Even then I could see them being put back onto Hawaii routes.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 67, posted (10 months 4 days ago) and read 3245 times:

Quoting scbriml (Reply 57):
They do have options on A350s as well, do they not? So the final number of A350s may be more than 35.

They have 40 options on the A350 family... I would bet that there will be some 359s and additional 787-10s ordered when the time comes to replace the 772ERs.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 63):
And once UA retires its 764ERs, expect DL to pick them up in a flash.

I really don't think DL will want additional 764ERs around 2025...UA by any measure loves the 764 and I am sure they will fly then until the end of their useful life.

744 3-Cabin 1989-2000
75E 2-Cabin 1994-2000
764 2-Cabin 2000-2002
763 2-Cabin 1998-2001
763 3-Cabin 1991-1993
772 3-Cabin 1995-1996
772 2-Cabin 2000
77E 3-Cabin 1997-2002
77E 2-Cabin 1998-2010
788 2-Cabin 2012-

789 2014-
781 2018-
35J 2018-

They have a ways to go until they need to decide on a 764/763 2-cabin and 77E replacement. I would bet next up they start thinking about what to replace the 75Es with....



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinesweair From Sweden, joined Nov 2011, 1806 posts, RR: 0
Reply 68, posted (10 months 4 days ago) and read 3215 times:

For Airbus a big order in the US would be the 757-ish A321 derivative. There are some airlines that got used to having these excellent long and thin NBs, I can hardly see enthusiasm in getting the 788 for this role.

User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 69, posted (10 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 2906 times:

Quoting sweair (Reply 68):
I can hardly see enthusiasm in getting the 788 for this role.

Does anyone know the fuel burn of a 752 vs a 788? I would like to see that on a trip and seat cost basis. 757 is no Prius. MAXes and NEOs will very capably take care of 95% of 757 routes. The handful that they can't should go to the 787. Weather it is off the shelf or a HGW version both A and B are working on TATL MAXes and NEOs, it will happen soon enough and those essential 757s will not need to be replaced for 10+ years anyway.

tortugamon


User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4091 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2716 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 69):
Weather it is off the shelf or a HGW version both A and B are working on TATL MAXes and NEOs, it will happen soon enough and those essential 757s will not need to be replaced for 10+ years anyway.

The A321NEO seems to be closer in that regard...I personally hope that Airbus can pull it off sooner than later, as a 321 would be a much more comfy ride across the Atlantic than a 737.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 29690 posts, RR: 84
Reply 71, posted (10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2698 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 59):
I'd say there's still a good chance we see some A359s, for the reasons stated throughout the thread. The 787-10 simply does not have the legs to replace all 50+ of UA's 777 fleet.

That UA converted their entire order to the -1000 order and then added 10 more makes me believe the A350-900 is not planned to be part of UA's future fleet. Here's why:

Until the merger, UA's P&W 777-200ER fleet was de-rated in both MTOW and engine thrust so they didn't need all the performance the 777-200ER could offer. So I see no need for a 777-200ER replacement with even more range, which is what the A350-900 would be. The 787-10 should have the legs UA needs.

I see the extra A350-1000s that UA ordered designed for future growth on core 777-200ER routes or service into slot-restricted airports.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3211 posts, RR: 10
Reply 72, posted (10 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 71):
o I see no need for a 777-200ER replacement with even more range, which is what the A350-900 would be. The 787-10 should have the legs UA needs.

Good point. And if they do need more legs, the 787-9 in their configuration should not be too much smaller and will more than handle any trip they can throw at it.

tortugamon


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...
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 (#2) posted Tue Dec 8 2009 22:33:47 by Diamond
United Airlines To Buy Both 787 And A350 posted Mon Dec 7 2009 19:45:42 by AeroPiggot
United Close To 787 Or A350 Order posted Thu Nov 19 2009 19:44:08 by Zone1
QF's Expansion Weighs A350 And 787-10 posted Mon Feb 4 2008 16:58:13 by Stitch
FI: 787-10 To Face A350-900 Challenge posted Mon Jan 29 2007 11:26:06 by RichardPrice
Can QR Change The LoI For The A350 To The 787-10? posted Thu Dec 22 2005 20:03:04 by NYC777
772NG Or 787-10 To Compete With A350-900? posted Fri May 20 2005 00:53:18 by NorCal
Boeing Launches The 787-10 Dreamliner posted Tue Jun 18 2013 02:07:14 by moderators
United May Expand A350 Order posted Fri Jun 14 2013 08:55:51 by ap305
Boeing 787-10 Launch Imminent posted Thu Jun 13 2013 13:33:36 by KarelXWB