What is United's strategy with ordering the 777-300ER AND A350-1000? I know the 777 beats the A350 on cargo capacity, but other than that, the airframes are pretty equal in terms of performance and sheer size.

We all know the 77W will be predominately EWR based, with the A350 replacing the 747, but wouldn't just be better for United to commit to one aircraft? Yes they have contractual obligations with Airbus for the A350, and they already have tons of 777 know-how, but why both aircraft?

TWA772LR wrote:

What is United's strategy with ordering the 777-300ER AND A350-1000? I know the 777 beats the A350 on cargo capacity, but other than that, the airframes are pretty equal in terms of performance and sheer size.

We all know the 77W will be predominately EWR based, with the A350 replacing the 747, but wouldn't just be better for United to commit to one aircraft? Yes they have contractual obligations with Airbus for the A350, and they already have tons of 777 know-how, but why both aircraft?

Likely due to availability timeframe and price on the 77W.

Price and quick availability with the 77W. Also with them going 10Y now the 77Ws will seat more than the A35Js.

SFOtoORD wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

What is United's strategy with ordering the 777-300ER AND A350-1000? I know the 777 beats the A350 on cargo capacity, but other than that, the airframes are pretty equal in terms of performance and sheer size.

We all know the 77W will be predominately EWR based, with the A350 replacing the 747, but wouldn't just be better for United to commit to one aircraft? Yes they have contractual obligations with Airbus for the A350, and they already have tons of 777 know-how, but why both aircraft?

Likely due to availability timeframe and price on the 77W.

We don't all know the 77w will be EWR based or are you using the royal we?

bobnwa wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

What is United's strategy with ordering the 777-300ER AND A350-1000? I know the 777 beats the A350 on cargo capacity, but other than that, the airframes are pretty equal in terms of performance and sheer size.

We all know the 77W will be predominately EWR based, with the A350 replacing the 747, but wouldn't just be better for United to commit to one aircraft? Yes they have contractual obligations with Airbus for the A350, and they already have tons of 777 know-how, but why both aircraft?

Likely due to availability timeframe and price on the 77W.

We don't all know the 77w will be EWR based or are you using the royal we?

Word on the proverbial a.net street, as well as UA mentioning it themselves.

Polot wrote:

Price and quick availability with the 77W. Also with them going 10Y now the 77Ws will seat more than the A35Js.

Then why not just stick to the 77W for the 744 replacement, also?

The A319 and 737-700, the A320 and 737-800, the 767-300 and 787-8, the 767-400, 777-200, and 787-9 all overlap capacities and roles. The A350-1000 and 777-300ER overlapping isn't out of character for United. In addition, the 14 777-300ER have commonality with the other 74 777-200s so it's not like they'll be an orphan fleet.

It's probably not a great idea to have 'all your eggs in one basket' for an airline the size of United, and this could be why they have chosen 2 similar types going forward.
In the 1970s when the DC-10s were grounded world wide, some airlines (e.g. Air New Zealand) had a mainly DC-10 fleet and when the grounding occurred, their operative international fleet suddenly went to zero!! An airline operating as many international aircraft as United do would be decimated if that ever happened again. My guess is that it is for their protection that United have made this decision,

TWA772LR wrote:

What is United's strategy with ordering the 777-300ER AND A350-1000? I know the 777 beats the A350 on cargo capacity, but other than that, the airframes are pretty equal in terms of performance and sheer size.

We all know the 77W will be predominately EWR based, with the A350 replacing the 747, but wouldn't just be better for United to commit to one aircraft? Yes they have contractual obligations with Airbus for the A350, and they already have tons of 777 know-how, but why both aircraft?

Are you sure the 77W beats the A350 on cargo? I thought capacity would be nigh-on identical, they're almost identical in length.

Anyway, UA wanted the A35K because it was a good long-term 747 replacement, but in the time between ordering it and it being delivered, there's a lot of time, and in that time UA got a good deal on their 77Ws that allow them to do some replacement in the short term, and if I recall the 744 replacement was brought forward? Or maybe it was DL, or both? The 77W has that near-term availability that the A35K doesn't. Either way, good deals trump commonality. There's room for both.

TWA772LR wrote:

What is United's strategy with ordering the 777-300ER AND A350-1000? I know the 777 beats the A350 on cargo capacity, but other than that, the airframes are pretty equal in terms of performance and sheer size.

We all know the 77W will be predominately EWR based, with the A350 replacing the 747, but wouldn't just be better for United to commit to one aircraft? Yes they have contractual obligations with Airbus for the A350, and they already have tons of 777 know-how, but why both aircraft?

Won`t the running costs of the A350-1000 be a lot less than for the B777-300ER? While it may lose out on cargo & passenger capacity,
wouldn`t the lightness of airframe & more efficient engines coupled with projected less down-time on inspections & altogether newer
design count somewhat in it`s favour with UA? I`d definitely argue that in terms of performance they are not equal.

IMO I don't see UA taking 35 A35J, maybe less or none at all.

TWA772LR wrote:

What is United's strategy with ordering the 777-300ER AND A350-1000? I know the 777 beats the A350 on cargo capacity, but other than that, the airframes are pretty equal in terms of performance and sheer size.

We all know the 77W will be predominately EWR based, with the A350 replacing the 747, but wouldn't just be better for United to commit to one aircraft? Yes they have contractual obligations with Airbus for the A350, and they already have tons of 777 know-how, but why both aircraft?

Same cargo capacity. 44LD3

Perhaps the fast available 777-300ER is the stopgap and the A350-1000 is the future.

Tedd wrote:

Won`t the running costs of the A350-1000 be a lot less than for the B777-300ER?

A lot less, yes. The A350-1000's OEW is around 30,000lbs less than the 77W. That, plus significantly more efficient engines = much cheaper to operate.

TWA772LR wrote:

bobnwa wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Likely due to availability timeframe and price on the 77W.

We don't all know the 77w will be EWR based or are you using the royal we?

Word on the proverbial a.net street, as well as UA mentioning it themselves.

Discussion in another thread suggests three 77W frames will be based at SFO, at least until the 35J arrives.

The 773 is a stop gap, opportunistic purchase. The 350 is for the future as the 773 is current tech that will be obsolete soon.

The 77W has a higher MTOW, so I was thinking it beat out cargo in terms of weight, not necessarily volume. It's got almost 100,000 lbs on the A35J.

scbriml wrote:

Tedd wrote:

Won`t the running costs of the A350-1000 be a lot less than for the B777-300ER?

A lot less, yes. The A350-1000's OEW is around 30,000lbs less than the 77W. That, plus significantly more efficient engines = much cheaper to operate.

It should be cheaper to operate, it's a lighter airplane will less hauling capacity by weight. With range being roughly the same the 77W has a max gross T/O weight 96,000lbs higher than the A350-1000. Subtracting the 30,000 higher empty weight, the 77W can accommodate 66,000 additional pounds of fuel, pax, cargo or any combination of the three. (using wiki information)

United does more cargo ton-miles than AA or DL and they do it with 202 fewer planes than AA and 123 fewer planes than DL. The added lift capacity of the 77W might be part of the equation for UA choosing to acquire more of them.

http://www.aircargonews.net/news/airlin ... -spot.html

TWA772LR wrote:

The 77W has a higher MTOW, so I was thinking it beat out cargo in terms of weight, not necessarily volume. It's got almost 100,000 lbs on the A35J.

The A350 is lighter and has to carry less fuel for the same load and distance.

jetblastdubai wrote:

scbriml wrote:

Tedd wrote:

Won`t the running costs of the A350-1000 be a lot less than for the B777-300ER?

A lot less, yes. The A350-1000's OEW is around 30,000lbs less than the 77W. That, plus significantly more efficient engines = much cheaper to operate.

It should be cheaper to operate, it's a lighter airplane will less hauling capacity by weight. With range being roughly the same the 77W has a max gross T/O weight 96,000lbs higher than the A350-1000. Subtracting the 30,000 higher empty weight, the 77W can accommodate 66,000 additional pounds of fuel, pax, cargo or any combination of the three. (using wiki information)

United does more cargo ton-miles than AA or DL and they do it with 202 fewer planes than AA and 123 fewer planes than DL. The added lift capacity of the 77W might be part of the equation for UA choosing to acquire more of them.

http://www.aircargonews.net/news/airlin ... -spot.html

United carries more cargo because they have huge Pacific Operations which fly nonstop to many cities directly with their huge 744, 777 and 787 fleets. Delta has less then 10 744 left, no 787 and limited 777;s. Delta's A333 which could be among the most capable A330 around are not 787-9's.

ikolkyo wrote:

IMO I don't see UA taking 35 A35J, maybe less or none at all.

The airline's Asia/Pacific operations are perfectly suited to the A35J as a 744 replacement. The 779 is over-spec and probably too large for UA's requirement. The 77W is previous generation, a stop-gap and will be superseded by the A35J.

While they may not take 35 x A35J's, the door will be open for A359LR and a future A350 growth model if needed.

jetblastdubai wrote:

United does more cargo ton-miles than AA or DL and they do it with 202 fewer planes than AA and 123 fewer planes than DL. The added lift capacity of the 77W might be part of the equation for UA choosing to acquire more of them.

http://www.aircargonews.net/news/airlin ... -spot.html

While their total fleet is smaller I believe the WB fleet is larger thus more room for freight.

UA ordered the A350s in 2010 (originally to be -900s), prior to the merger with Continental. The order was placed simultaneously with the 787, and the planes were going to replace the 747s and 767s.

The 777-300ER was ordered in early 2015 (with additional orders tacked onto the initial order for ten).

The main reasons for ordering the 77W were price and availability. The 77W allows them to replace 777-200s on international routes, which is part of the plan for converting the old 777-200As to a high-density domestic configuration. Previously, IIRC, the plan was to start to retire the older 777s and replace them with 787-10s. However, with lower fuel prices as well as a move to upgauge domestic routes (as part of an overall strategy for reducing 50-seat jets from the express fleet), lots of fleet plans have been changing in the six years since the original A350 order.

So, basically, the A350 order was part of a longer-term strategy that dates back to before the merger (and I don't remember if the A350-1000 was even officially on offer when the original contract was signed), and certainly before cheap, quickly available 77Ws were ever thought to be a thing.

What's interesting to me is that UA has quite a few widebodies on order (35 A35Ks, 14-16 77Ws with rumors that the number may increase, plus a bunch of 787-10s still to be delivered), and the only widebodies scheduled to be retired are the 747s (all the other widebodies are slated to get new premium cabins when Polaris is introduced). That's going to be some impressive capacity growth if they take all of the planes on order.

The A350- 1000's were ordered prior to the merger and were a condition OF the merger. Aub-CO's management couldn't cancel them after coming to UAL.
The former VP of Maint. made it PLAIN that "his airline" had no place for any Airbus (which I suspect is the reason He "flew the coop") Also?
That order was placed because UAL would have had to eat the costs of another 60 A320's and A319's as the original A350-900 order was for 25 later increased to 35 A350-1000's and delayed a few years The new B777-300 order was a "good deal". I hope we get a few more "Good Deals" from Boeing. Nobody ever Died from a "Great Deal"..

hOMSaR wrote:

UA ordered the A350s in 2010 (originally to be -900s), prior to the merger with Continental. The order was placed simultaneously with the 787, and the planes were going to replace the 747s and 767s.

yet almost all the 787s have been delivered and none of the 763s have been retired. plans change!

mjoelnir wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

The 77W has a higher MTOW, so I was thinking it beat out cargo in terms of weight, not necessarily volume. It's got almost 100,000 lbs on the A35J.

The A350 is lighter and has to carry less fuel for the same load and distance.

And all that dit Not mean that it is an plane cheaper to operate.

strfyr51 wrote:

The A350- 1000's were ordered prior to the merger and were a condition OF the merger. Aub-CO's management couldn't cancel them after coming to UAL.
The former VP of Maint. made it PLAIN that "his airline" had no place for any Airbus (which I suspect is the reason He "flew the coop") Also?
That order was placed because UAL would have had to eat the costs of another 60 A320's and A319's as the original A350-900 order was for 25 later increased to 35 A350-1000's and delayed a few years The new B777-300 order was a "good deal". I hope we get a few more "Good Deals" from Boeing. Nobody ever Died from a "Great Deal"..

UA actually had the 900 on order prior to the merger. They switched to the 1000 after the merger.

With fuel being as cheap as it is at the moment, the 767 is a plane that UA WANTS to keep. The 787-8/9 is impractical for routes less than 5000nm and the 763s are perfect for winter ops across the North Atlantic where the 777 becomes too big in some markets (unless carrying lots of cargo) and 757s just don't have the legs to make it from destinations on the continent nonstop westbound. The 787 is making a name for itself (with UA, not so much the passengers) because they can fly it 16.5 hours nonstop. They have pretty much pulled the 772s from the South Pacific in favor of the 787-9 and SFO-SIN is just the start of the ULH market that UA will tap with the 787-9 until the bigger 773s are in play...and make no mistake, they are going to grow Asia from SFO/LAX with the 787-9. What will be interesting to see if is if they start deploying it on routes they could develop to compete with the ME3...especially with the new Polaris product. They will have to develop a Premium Y product, this will put them in a better competitive position v. the ME3. The 787-9 could support a 3.5 cabin market with a J/W/Y+/Y product...and the upsell to Y+ for ULH will be huge, since the extra legroom is critical given the seat width.

The whole argument of A350-1000 being 30K less weight and less economical to operate is a poor argument. The 77W may be slightly more expensive to operate, but if you factor in the same range and 66K more payload, the economics of the 773 start to become very interesting...and don't count out the 778-779. GE is building the MOAE in the GE9X...and with more composites in the 778-9, the wider cabin (aka an 18in seat in 10 across Y), and the advances of the 787....it's going to do serious damage to the A350. It will kill the A380 on economics....

Now if B could only solve their "A321LR" problem...which is HUGE.

baw716

baw716 wrote:

With fuel being as cheap as it is at the moment, the 767 is a plane that UA WANTS to keep. The 787-8/9 is impractical for routes less than 5000nm and the 763s are perfect for winter ops across the North Atlantic where the 777 becomes too big in some markets (unless carrying lots of cargo) and 757s just don't have the legs to make it from destinations on the continent nonstop westbound. The 787 is making a name for itself (with UA, not so much the passengers) because they can fly it 16.5 hours nonstop. They have pretty much pulled the 772s from the South Pacific in favor of the 787-9 and SFO-SIN is just the start of the ULH market that UA will tap with the 787-9 until the bigger 773s are in play...and make no mistake, they are going to grow Asia from SFO/LAX with the 787-9. What will be interesting to see if is if they start deploying it on routes they could develop to compete with the ME3...especially with the new Polaris product. They will have to develop a Premium Y product, this will put them in a better competitive position v. the ME3. The 787-9 could support a 3.5 cabin market with a J/W/Y+/Y product...and the upsell to Y+ for ULH will be huge, since the extra legroom is critical given the seat width.

The whole argument of A350-1000 being 30K less weight and less economical to operate is a poor argument. The 77W may be slightly more expensive to operate, but if you factor in the same range and 66K more payload, the economics of the 773 start to become very interesting...and don't count out the 778-779. GE is building the MOAE in the GE9X...and with more composites in the 778-9, the wider cabin (aka an 18in seat in 10 across Y), and the advances of the 787....it's going to do serious damage to the A350. It will kill the A380 on economics....

Now if B could only solve their "A321LR" problem...which is HUGE.

baw716

Boeing is only going to solve THAT problem with a re-engineered B757. Which they Should have been working on before discontinuing the B757.

[/quote] 757s just don't have the legs to make it from destinations on the continent nonstop westbound. baw716[/quote]
Boeing is only going to solve THAT problem with a re-engineered B757. Which they Should have been working on before discontinuing the B757.[/quote]
The 757 WASN'T selling. Boeing had just recently introduced the -300 stretch and it STILL wasn't selling. It was in a serious order drought for over 3 years before they made the painful decision to end production. They certainly would've kept it going had enough airlines been interested. Who knows whether or not they talked to their customers about a re-engining but it was clear by 2001 that airlines were no longer interested in ordering 757s so the axe fell 3 years later.

baw716 wrote:

The whole argument of A350-1000 being 30K less weight and less economical to operate is a poor argument. The 77W may be slightly more expensive to operate, but if you factor in the same range and 66K more payload, the economics of the 773 start to become very interesting...and don't count out the 778-779. GE is building the MOAE in the GE9X...and with more composites in the 778-9, the wider cabin (aka an 18in seat in 10 across Y), and the advances of the 787....it's going to do serious damage to the A350. It will kill the A380 on economics....

Now if B could only solve their "A321LR" problem...which is HUGE.

baw716

Lets look at numbers what the slight difference in trip cost between the 777-300ER and the A350-1000 could be. Looking at investment cost, yes the 777 should be lower. Service cost should favour the more modern A350, as well as landing cost, lighter and less noise, and overflights are also dependent on MTOW.
That brings us to fuel burn. I expect 10 % better fuel burn in regards to the engine generation and the A350 is 12% lighter at MTOW, that should add up to at least 20% difference in trip fuel burn, while disregarding bigger wings compared to the weight and other aerodynamic advantages for A350. 20% less fuel burn means less fuel to carry and that should cut deep into the payload advantage of the 777. At max fuel for the 777-300ER she would need to carry about 30 t more fuel than the A350-1000 for the same trip, on short trips the 777-300ER would be limited to the same volume for cargo as the A350-1000.

spacecookie wrote:

And all that dit Not mean that it is an plane cheaper to operate.

So it's lighter and burns much less fuel than a 77W. How can it not be cheaper to operate?

jetblastdubai wrote:

Subtracting the 30,000 higher empty weight, the 77W can accommodate 66,000 additional pounds of fuel, pax, cargo or any combination of the three.

There is no place in the payload range diagram where the 77W could lift more payload than the A35k.
See forex: http://imagr.eu/up/7rLYX_A350-1000vs77WDubaislide.jpg

Additionally the A35k has a significant 20+% cost advantage doing the same thing over the 77W.

WIederling wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Subtracting the 30,000 higher empty weight, the 77W can accommodate 66,000 additional pounds of fuel, pax, cargo or any combination of the three.

There is no place in the payload range diagram where the 77W could lift more payload than the A35k.
See forex: http://imagr.eu/up/7rLYX_A350-1000vs77WDubaislide.jpg

Additionally the A35k has a significant 20+% cost advantage doing the same thing over the 77W.

That is an Airbus diagram, so perhaps it is somehow optimistic. But if we reduce the payload of the A350-1000 to 65 t on the short trip, for a more realistic OEM, than we can say that the A350 lifts the same payload, pax and freight, over the same distance as the 777-300ER, while burning significantly less fuel. And here we have the reason why Boeing develops the 777-8/9.

WIederling wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Subtracting the 30,000 higher empty weight, the 77W can accommodate 66,000 additional pounds of fuel, pax, cargo or any combination of the three.

There is no place in the payload range diagram where the 77W could lift more payload than the A35k.
See forex: http://imagr.eu/up/7rLYX_A350-1000vs77WDubaislide.jpg

Additionally the A35k has a significant 20+% cost advantage doing the same thing over the 77W.

How does the 20% trip cost advantage compare to the significant (more than 20%) acquisition advantage? Plus a few extra pax per trip.

fun2fly wrote:

How does the 20% trip cost advantage compare to the significant (more than 20%) acquisition advantage? Plus a few extra pax per trip.

you buy once and fly always.

( i.e. look at how much of the cost pie is "aquisition, financing" you'd need significantly more than a "few extra pax" to compensate.
for airlines to select the less efficient frame on a buy new basis the aquisition advantage must surmount the efficiency ( and all other detractors ) disadvantage)

I think UA jumped at the deal for the 77W because 1) they could get early deliveries and 2) UA wants to retire 744 earlier, so the 77W's will start the process of the final phaseout of the 744, which will be completed when the A35K's start to enter UA service. I expect UA to eventually base most of the 77W fleet at ORD, IAD and EWR for flights to Europe and base the A35K at SFO and LAX for flights to Asia and Australia/New Zealand.

So wish united would opt for some 748s. Pipe dream i know, however I'm sure Boeing would make them an offer they couldn't refuse.

I have a feeling that 777s would be cheaper to buy than the A350-1000. I think the reasoning would be similar to those airlines who purchased A330ceos in the past few years over 787s. Early availability and lower prices.

Early delivery slots for the 77W provided a good and efficient stop gap opportunity.

The A350s were ordered before the merger by a group of guys whose fleet ideas no longer exist. UA also needed out of additional A319/320 orders.

The 77Ws were ordered by the current management to address the needs of the current fleet. They got very good pricing and jumped on the opportunity to get 747 style lift with much better economics at a good price.

As others have said, the current wide body fleet is much different than when the A350s were ordered. The 767 is still being worked hard, 787s have found their place and the 777 fleet is being modified to fit different needs. Sad to see the 747 on the way out the door but time marches on.

As for which bird is cheaper to operate. That is a massive mathematical problem. Acquisition costs, maintenance costs, crew training costs all need to be thought about. United has 70+ 777s on property. Think about that for a moment. That's larger than BA's 56 747-400s at the height of the fleet's numbers. Planes, pilots, know how, fleet economics, simulators etc. The 77W is a plug and play airframe for them. The A350, not so much. It is kind of an orphan in a Boeing dominated current and future fleet.

A350=Old airline and plan 77W=New airline and plan. What they do with both of them on property should be exciting.

CX747 wrote:

A350=Old airline and plan 77W=New airline and plan. What they do with both of them on property should be exciting.

Would be a good analysis except the part where the exCO management reaffirmed the A350 order by switching to the 1000 and increasing the order. Breaks your version of the narrative.

CX747 wrote:

The A350s were ordered before the merger by a group of guys whose fleet ideas no longer exist. UA also needed out of additional A319/320 orders.

The 77Ws were ordered by the current management to address the needs of the current fleet. They got very good pricing and jumped on the opportunity to get 747 style lift with much better economics at a good price.

As others have said, the current wide body fleet is much different than when the A350s were ordered. The 767 is still being worked hard, 787s have found their place and the 777 fleet is being modified to fit different needs. Sad to see the 747 on the way out the door but time marches on.

As for which bird is cheaper to operate. That is a massive mathematical problem. Acquisition costs, maintenance costs, crew training costs all need to be thought about. United has 70+ 777s on property. Think about that for a moment. That's larger than BA's 56 747-400s at the height of the fleet's numbers. Planes, pilots, know how, fleet economics, simulators etc. The 77W is a plug and play airframe for them. The A350, not so much. It is kind of an orphan in a Boeing dominated current and future fleet.

A350=Old airline and plan 77W=New airline and plan. What they do with both of them on property should be exciting.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... -aircraft/

The A350 order as it is was made in 2013 (conversion of A359 to A35K and 25 to 35 units), UA and CO had long since completed their merger. If it really wasn't wanted then upgauging and enlarging an order probably isn't what would happen. The A35K and 77W orders are both part of the new airline and plan, hence why they both exist.

The A35K may be an orphan, but it's also a large order, larger than any 744 fleet they've had at any point which just as much an outlier. And it could pave the way for an A359 order, since with A350s, 777s and 787s already on property you can very much fine tune capacity without having to add anything new.

RL777 wrote:

Early delivery slots for the 77W provided a good and efficient stop gap opportunity.

That has gone by and Interest has waned.
Boeing is unable to fill the production process to acceptable levels.

WIederling wrote:

RL777 wrote:

Early delivery slots for the 77W provided a good and efficient stop gap opportunity.

That has gone by and Interest has waned.
Boeing is unable to fill the production process to acceptable levels.

I'm not disputing that, I was stating that for UA it was a good opportunity.

Note that much of the earlier CO management is gone now. Oscar Munoz hasn't indicated any preference for Boeing or Airbus, and now we have Scott Kirby holding the #2 position, a person who has big experiences doing business with Airbus.

MrHMSH wrote:

CX747 wrote:

The A350s were ordered before the merger by a group of guys whose fleet ideas no longer exist. UA also needed out of additional A319/320 orders.

The 77Ws were ordered by the current management to address the needs of the current fleet. They got very good pricing and jumped on the opportunity to get 747 style lift with much better economics at a good price.

As others have said, the current wide body fleet is much different than when the A350s were ordered. The 767 is still being worked hard, 787s have found their place and the 777 fleet is being modified to fit different needs. Sad to see the 747 on the way out the door but time marches on.

As for which bird is cheaper to operate. That is a massive mathematical problem. Acquisition costs, maintenance costs, crew training costs all need to be thought about. United has 70+ 777s on property. Think about that for a moment. That's larger than BA's 56 747-400s at the height of the fleet's numbers. Planes, pilots, know how, fleet economics, simulators etc. The 77W is a plug and play airframe for them. The A350, not so much. It is kind of an orphan in a Boeing dominated current and future fleet.

A350=Old airline and plan 77W=New airline and plan. What they do with both of them on property should be exciting.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... -aircraft/

The A350 order as it is was made in 2013 (conversion of A359 to A35K and 25 to 35 units), UA and CO had long since completed their merger. If it really wasn't wanted then upgauging and enlarging an order probably isn't what would happen. The A35K and 77W orders are both part of the new airline and plan, hence why they both exist.

The A35K may be an orphan, but it's also a large order, larger than any 744 fleet they've had at any point which just as much an outlier. And it could pave the way for an A359 order, since with A350s, 777s and 787s already on property you can very much fine tune capacity without having to add anything new.

Actually the 744 fleet at one point totaled 44 aircraft at its peak. They also for a short time had 742s at that point.

Still the A350 will not be an orphan and will have a long career.

UA444 wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

CX747 wrote:

The A350s were ordered before the merger by a group of guys whose fleet ideas no longer exist. UA also needed out of additional A319/320 orders.

The 77Ws were ordered by the current management to address the needs of the current fleet. They got very good pricing and jumped on the opportunity to get 747 style lift with much better economics at a good price.

As others have said, the current wide body fleet is much different than when the A350s were ordered. The 767 is still being worked hard, 787s have found their place and the 777 fleet is being modified to fit different needs. Sad to see the 747 on the way out the door but time marches on.

As for which bird is cheaper to operate. That is a massive mathematical problem. Acquisition costs, maintenance costs, crew training costs all need to be thought about. United has 70+ 777s on property. Think about that for a moment. That's larger than BA's 56 747-400s at the height of the fleet's numbers. Planes, pilots, know how, fleet economics, simulators etc. The 77W is a plug and play airframe for them. The A350, not so much. It is kind of an orphan in a Boeing dominated current and future fleet.

A350=Old airline and plan 77W=New airline and plan. What they do with both of them on property should be exciting.

http://www.airbus.com/presscentre/press ... -aircraft/

The A350 order as it is was made in 2013 (conversion of A359 to A35K and 25 to 35 units), UA and CO had long since completed their merger. If it really wasn't wanted then upgauging and enlarging an order probably isn't what would happen. The A35K and 77W orders are both part of the new airline and plan, hence why they both exist.

The A35K may be an orphan, but it's also a large order, larger than any 744 fleet they've had at any point which just as much an outlier. And it could pave the way for an A359 order, since with A350s, 777s and 787s already on property you can very much fine tune capacity without having to add anything new.

Actually the 744 fleet at one point totaled 44 aircraft at its peak. They also for a short time had 742s at that point.

Still the A350 will not be an orphan and will have a long career.

Serves me right for using the wrong source. That seems like so many! I thought it would have been 30 max. Thanks for correction.

Old United management made the decision to buy the A350. Post merger management made a change to an old decision already on the books. That's the narrative.

Right now the United order book looks like 60+ 737-700s, 10+ 77Ws, 100+ 737 Max's and 10+ more 787s. The Airbus side has 35 A350s that were decided upon a long time ago. The only pro Airbus decision made fully by Post-Merger Managemet has been to lease 20+ A319s.

Kirby does have history with Airbus. That history was driven by his boss Doug Parker. We shall see what the future holds.

CX747 wrote:

Old United management made the decision to buy the A350. Post merger management made a change to an old decision already on the books. That's the narrative.

Right now the United order book looks like 60+ 737-700s, 10+ 77Ws, 100+ 737 Max's and 10+ more 787s. The Airbus side has 35 A350s that were decided upon a long time ago. The only pro Airbus decision made fully by Post-Merger Managemet has been to lease 20+ A319s.

Kirby does have history with Airbus. That history was driven by his boss Doug Parker. We shall see what the future holds.

That seems like a technicality. By that measure, then post-merger management also made a simple change to the 737 order book.

The fact is that UA has Airbus aircraft on order and will take delivery of them.