Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Strato2
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 7:19 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The direct operating costs will favor the A350. Revenue on the 77W is higher and ownership costs are probably lower. In the end the it all depends on what oil prices are and what passenger demand is for which would be more profitable and which is preferable for the airline on a given route.


The A350 will have a better RASM as well as better CASM. The 77W is in a pretty bad situation.
 
jakubz
Posts: 154
Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 9:48 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 7:48 pm

birdbrainz wrote:
Does anyone know if UA's A350's are going to get the wavy cheatline (a la 787), or the straight one?


So I just took a look at a poster on our floor for the A350 and the cheatline is straight.
That said, I've also seen a smaller poster (thought honestly, it's probably an old poster) where a 787 has a straight cheatline.
KORD>RJAA>KORD day trip? Why not! The beauty of SA!
Yes, I use ICAO codes
Flown: PA-28, PA-38
Passenger on: A319/A320, A380, 737, 747-400, 757, 767, 777, 787-8/9
Finally got on a 747!

My comment are my own. I don't speak for any company.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 9524
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 7:52 pm

Strato2 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The direct operating costs will favor the A350. Revenue on the 77W is higher and ownership costs are probably lower. In the end the it all depends on what oil prices are and what passenger demand is for which would be more profitable and which is preferable for the airline on a given route.


The A350 will have a better RASM as well as better CASM. The 77W is in a pretty bad situation.


Clearly the 77W is being out-classed by it's clean sheet competitor. Unfortunately the 77W is in the fleet and the A350 [currently] isn't.
-Dave


MAX’d out on MAX threads. If you are starting a thread, and it’s about the MAX - stop. There’s already a thread that covers it.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 8:05 pm

[quote="zeke It would seem on face value (as I have not seen evidence to the contrary) the A350-1000 would be able do the current 77W routes with a higher load factor and significant reduction in fuel burn. [/quote]

what max payload value do you have and at what distance?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27484
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 8:38 pm

sunrisevalley wrote:
zeke wrote:
It would seem on face value (as I have not seen evidence to the contrary) the A350-1000 would be able do the current 77W routes with a higher load factor and significant reduction in fuel burn.


what max payload value do you have and at what distance?


Since we're discussing load factor, we're discussing the percentage of installed seats filled. With less installed seats, the A350 will fill more of them on a total percentage basis at the same passenger booking level.
 
trex8
Posts: 5644
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 9:32 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
[

Comparable? Yes, except 29 economy seats or 9% of capacity. Not a huge difference, but certainly a difference. The difference between the 788 and 789 is only 32 seats although revenue gap is bigger due to more business in the 789.


Are we taking into account the "upgraded" A350-1000 cabin which could gain up to 18 seats. On another thread I discussed how a 10 across CI 77W and a 9 across A350-1000 could easily come within 10 or less seats in capacity.
http://bloga350.blogspot.com/2015/02/ai ... seats.html
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 10:04 pm

trex8 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
[

Comparable? Yes, except 29 economy seats or 9% of capacity. Not a huge difference, but certainly a difference. The difference between the 788 and 789 is only 32 seats although revenue gap is bigger due to more business in the 789.


Are we taking into account the "upgraded" A350-1000 cabin which could gain up to 18 seats. On another thread I discussed how a 10 across CI 77W and a 9 across A350-1000 could easily come within 10 or less seats in capacity.
http://bloga350.blogspot.com/2015/02/ai ... seats.html


UA 77W seat 366 with the same J product.... thus the 29 seat difference. What is in the link is one of many interior options provided by Airbus, I imagine Boeing have the same for the 77W.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 11:27 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
The direct operating costs will favor the A350. Revenue on the 77W is higher and ownership costs are probably lower. In the end the it all depends on what oil prices are and what passenger demand is for which would be more profitable and which is preferable for the airline on a given route.



Revenue will only be higher if the seats are sold though. Potential revenue is higher, but if the load factors aren't higher than 92% then there is no extra revenue. We have had this discussion many times with the A380 and it is rightly pointed out that the A380 only works against the 77W if it sells all its seats, which not many routes do. My guess is this is the same for the 77W at United against the A35K.

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Clearly the 77W is being out-classed by it's clean sheet competitor. Unfortunately the 77W is in the fleet and the A350 [currently] isn't.



Very true, and seeing that we don't know the prices paid for either model it is difficult to say with certainty which one will be more profitable for the airline.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Mon May 01, 2017 11:44 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The direct operating costs will favor the A350. Revenue on the 77W is higher and ownership costs are probably lower. In the end the it all depends on what oil prices are and what passenger demand is for which would be more profitable and which is preferable for the airline on a given route.



Revenue will only be higher if the seats are sold though. Potential revenue is higher, but if the load factors aren't higher than 92% then there is no extra revenue. We have had this discussion many times with the A380 and it is rightly pointed out that the A380 only works against the 77W if it sells all its seats, which not many routes do. My guess is this is the same for the 77W at United against the A35K.

PlanesNTrains wrote:
Clearly the 77W is being out-classed by it's clean sheet competitor. Unfortunately the 77W is in the fleet and the A350 [currently] isn't.



Very true, and seeing that we don't know the prices paid for either model it is difficult to say with certainty which one will be more profitable for the airline.



The debate has been had before and is a simplistic view. We know United had an established route network where they can use 374 seats. It is a bit different than A380s growing capacity.

You will never get a revenue maximized load factor above 92% around the year. Load factors that high usually don't maximize revenue. 8% more economy seats won't increase revenue by 8%, but they will change the formulas used in establishing the pricing models. Obviously if the route has loads around 75% or less, the 77W is the wrong plane. Some routes do have the capacity for the 77W and others A350. A350 should have higher rasm
 
QXAS
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2015 5:26 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 12:18 am

jakubz wrote:
birdbrainz wrote:
Does anyone know if UA's A350's are going to get the wavy cheatline (a la 787), or the straight one?


So I just took a look at a poster on our floor for the A350 and the cheatline is straight.
That said, I've also seen a smaller poster (thought honestly, it's probably an old poster) where a 787 has a straight cheatline.

If I remember correctly the wave on the 787s is liscensed from Boeing. I'm not sure that Boeing would be very happy, or Airbus for that matter with something representing their airplanes on an Airbus aircraft.
Before the 77W was painted there was some question on this forum as to whether the aircraft would get the wave. I believe it was determined that the wave will be exclusive to the 787 fleet.
I am NOT an employee of any airline or manufacturer. I speak for myself, not on the behalf of any company.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 12:33 am

QXAS wrote:
jakubz wrote:
birdbrainz wrote:
Does anyone know if UA's A350's are going to get the wavy cheatline (a la 787), or the straight one?


So I just took a look at a poster on our floor for the A350 and the cheatline is straight.
That said, I've also seen a smaller poster (thought honestly, it's probably an old poster) where a 787 has a straight cheatline.

If I remember correctly the wave on the 787s is liscensed from Boeing. I'm not sure that Boeing would be very happy, or Airbus for that matter with something representing their airplanes on an Airbus aircraft.
Before the 77W was painted there was some question on this forum as to whether the aircraft would get the wave. I believe it was determined that the wave will be exclusive to the 787 fleet.


Right. As I remember it, UA unveiled the 787 wave livery on the same day they ordered the 737MAX as ways to show a deep partnership with Boeing. Or something.

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2012/07/ ... reamliner/
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
Eyad89
Posts: 664
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:47 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 5:14 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
I find the seat count comparison interesting with the 777-300ER. Given the same number of business class seats, the A350-1000 will have 29 fewer seats. Is this common for what we expect other operators to have? 30 seats is about an 8-9% capacity difference.




Do you remember how many airplanes replaced 747's with 9-abreast 777's? It doesn't always have to a seat-to-seat replacement. Airlines would choose the aircraft that would make sense for that route at that particular time. This capacity drop could actually be a good thing in terms of optimizing their fleet.
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 5:39 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
The debate has been had before and is a simplistic view. We know United had an established route network where they can use 374 seats. It is a bit different than A380s growing capacity.

You will never get a revenue maximized load factor above 92% around the year. Load factors that high usually don't maximize revenue. 8% more economy seats won't increase revenue by 8%, but they will change the formulas used in establishing the pricing models. Obviously if the route has loads around 75% or less, the 77W is the wrong plane. Some routes do have the capacity for the 77W and others A350. A350 should have higher rasm



Well on the forum we are sometimes constricted by the information available for proper debate. Throw in some misinformation and you are where we are with simplistic views being taken. So without knowing the cost of ownership it is difficult to know if UA is making a mistake long term or not about how they are dealing with their current orders. All we know is that many airlines are reviewing orders and seem to be focused on reducing capital expenditure which affects new orders, especially with lower oil prices. Seems like the lower fuel prices have tipped the balance towards operating the cheaper older technology at better margins for the moment.

So walk me through why you think the 77W will have more revenue potential than the A35K other than just selling more seats. We don't know if UA can use 374 seats, we know they have an aircraft that they deploy on a route that has 374 seats. Zeke has pointed out that the load factor for UA is in the region of 80% or so for international flights. That would mean they sell on average around 300 seats of the 374 available.

Surely if you have slightly less seats to sell you would reach a point earlier where you can start charging higher fares? If you have 37 seats open on average vs 66 seats the lesser capacity aircraft will have more seats that sell at higher prices if the last tickets are usually sold at the higher fare brackets. With UA we can compare what we know so we know both aircraft will have the same amount of premium seats and we know their load factors as well. So with what we do know how do you see the 77W making more revenue than the A35K for United?
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14135
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 5:56 am

You can put 10 abreast on a A350 too. Its only half an inch per seat narrower than a 777. Who really cares about half an inch ?!
;)
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13669
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 6:42 am

Strato2 wrote:
The A350 will have a better RASM as well as better CASM. The 77W is in a pretty bad situation.

CASM is (partially) a function of configuration, so that's potentially plausible.... but you have no idea what manner of RASM either one will get, as that's predicated on the route/market/etc.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 10081
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 6:47 am

Cool data, nice to see how the cabin would have looked.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15746
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 7:26 am

enzo011 wrote:
We don't know if UA can use 374 seats, we know they have an aircraft that they deploy on a route that has 374 seats.


Don't know where the 374 seats comes from, the real number is 366.

Boeing 777-300ER (77W)
Seat map (60/306 configuration)

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... x?Mobile=1
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 7:27 am

zeke wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
We don't know if UA can use 374 seats, we know they have an aircraft that they deploy on a route that has 374 seats.


Don't know where the 374 seats comes from, the real number is 366.

Boeing 777-300ER (77W)
Seat map (60/306 configuration)

https://www.united.com/web/en-US/conten ... x?Mobile=1


UA's 744 currently has 374 seats.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 651
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 7:27 am

Strato2 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The direct operating costs will favor the A350. Revenue on the 77W is higher and ownership costs are probably lower. In the end the it all depends on what oil prices are and what passenger demand is for which would be more profitable and which is preferable for the airline on a given route.


The A350 will have a better RASM as well as better CASM. The 77W is in a pretty bad situation.


The only thing the 77W at UA has going for it is acquisition cost.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 9:11 am

trex8 wrote:
Are we taking into account the "upgraded" A350-1000 cabin which could gain up to 18 seats. On another thread I discussed how a 10 across CI 77W and a 9 across A350-1000 could easily come within 10 or less seats in capacity.
http://bloga350.blogspot.com/2015/02/ai ... seats.html


The "upgraded" A350 cabin won't be available until 2020 at the earliest.

waly777 wrote:
UA 77W seat 366 with the same J product.... thus the 29 seat difference. What is in the link is one of many interior options provided by Airbus, I imagine Boeing have the same for the 77W.


He was referring to the following slide:

Image
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1648
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 9:50 am

With the 77W at 366, the A35J at 337, 787-10 at approx. 280 (772 for now at 267), 789 at 252 (764 at 242 for now) and 788 at 219 pax, UA has all the sizes covered in their long term fleet plan. Follow the sun on the largest capacity units and UA will be fine.

The "upgraded" A350 cabin won't be available until 2020 at the earliest.

Perhaps this is why UA deferred!
 
77H
Posts: 1572
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 10:25 am

Question for those in the know. A while back I read a thread wherein people were touting the 35K's superior fuel economy over the 77W. Now that we know the seat count for both aircraft, how does the operating cost stack up now? If UA can manage to fill the 29 extra seats on the 77W does that more or less negate the savings gained in fuel economy by the 35K? In terms of cargo the 77W has 44 L3 positions to the 35K's 40 so it has more cargo hold space. But what about payload on a similar sector. I've seen UA's 77W on the HKG-SFO route routinely take over 55,000 lbs of cargo. Not sure what passenger loads are though.

77H
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15746
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 10:55 am

77H wrote:
Now that we know the seat count for both aircraft, how does the operating cost stack up now? If UA can manage to fill the 29 extra seats on the 77W does that more or less negate the savings gained in fuel economy by the 35K? In terms of cargo the 77W has 44 L3 positions to the 35K's 40 so it has more cargo hold space.


Over a 77W 12 hr sector length the A350-1000 would burn around 25,000 kg less fuel, and do it around 20 minutes faster. Both the 77W and A350-1000 have 44 LD3 or 14 pallet capacity.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 25563
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 11:07 am

keesje wrote:
You can put 10 abreast on a A350 too. Its only half an inch per seat narrower than a 777. Who really cares about half an inch ?!
;)
Some posters here insist that we're asking for narrower seats and less leg room, so...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
VC10er
Posts: 4293
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 11:24 am

Perhaps this is for another thread: how will the (14) 787-10's be deployed in light of some of the discussions about the A350 and 77W?

I know that the 787-10 does not have the ULH legs, and I have read here statements like "a great people mover for over the Atlantic" - But really, can the 787-10 make it from EWR to TLV? Or ORD/EWR to GRU? Or more simply put, can the 787-10 do a few long haul missions to augment the fleet with ULH capabilities?

Plus there are only 14 on order (according to Wikipedia) which in my mind feels like the 767-400, where I have also read that UA would have liked to have more 767-400's in retrospect. It "seems" to me that when the 787-10s come, with the all-new interiors it will be a very good aircraft for UA's fleet, and add even more flexibility? Also, change some UA negative perceptions: it will be a brand new popular airplane with passengers and in and out of LHR or FRA would improve passenger's opinions about flying UA (with great service - that goes without saying)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 12:01 pm

Enzo, to answer the question "So walk me through why you think the 77W will have more revenue potential than the A35K other than just selling more seats."

Selling more seats generates more revenue. The 77W has more seats so it will generate more revenue unless load factors are low. It doesn't need load factors above 92 to ear revenue. Revenue per seat will probably be less.

The idea that if a 77W is flying at 92% or less load factor, the A350-1000 with 8% fewer seats will match revenue is incorrect. Revenue maximizing airlines will hold back seats to keep them available for the higher revenue last minute fares. An airline never wants to sell out a flight 3 weeks in advance and lose out on last minute fares that are double or triple the average. Revenue maximized flights usually have load factors in the high 80s. Anything above that is a bit hard to repeat on long haul travel since the last minute cancellations combined with daily fluctuations in demand change. The goal is to sell out a domestic flight 48 hours before departure and an international flight a little earlier. Cancellations will open up space from there for last minute fare (a decade ago when I saw the numbers, routes like Dubai had 20% cancellations and rescheduled itineraries within a week of departure, so getting load factors above 90 was virtually impossible without overbooking 60 seats and risking high involuntary denied boarding). If UA has a flight in the 80s range with a 77W, they would be likely losing revenue on the A350 since they would be restricting seats on the A350 that could have been sold. The 777 can sell more lower fare tickets including connecting itineraries early on. These lower fares bring in less revenue and drop RASM but still have a positive impact on total revenue. It is unrealistic that switching to an A350 will result in load factors in the 90s and be revenue maximized.

When load factors are in the 70s or below, then the airplane has too much capacity. UA has some low load factor flights in the transpacific network to China, but those are mostly 787s. UA has many different widebodies to match capacity and demand over 250 seats. The CASM excluding ownership costs will be lower on the A350. We don't know acquisition prices and what fuel price offsets the cheaper 777 purchase price to develop a true CASM comparison. Low oil prices favor the 777 and high oil prices favor the A350 (just like 787 vs A330 discussion). RASM should be higher on the A350. Total revenue should be higher on the 777.
 
User avatar
sunrisevalley
Posts: 5392
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2004 3:26 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 12:35 pm

VC10er wrote:
- But really, can the 787-10 make it from EWR to TLV? Or ORD/EWR to GRU? Or more simply put, can the 787-10 do a few long haul missions to augment the fleet with ULH capabilities?

Depends on what you think the payload would be. If a minimum of 37t is sufficient it will do TLV- EWR. For EWR-_GRU payoad could be in 47 to 50t. range depending on the day.
 
User avatar
reidar76
Posts: 544
Joined: Sun Sep 27, 2015 5:16 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 3:10 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Selling more seats generates more revenue. The 77W has more seats so it will generate more revenue [...]

Low oil prices favor the 777 and high oil prices favor the A350 (just like 787 vs A330 discussion). RASM should be higher on the A350. Total revenue should be higher on the 777.


The 77W and A351 has an almost identical internal cabin size. The difference is that the 77W has an additional pair of exit doors, and the fuselage is tapered towards the rear, both limiting seating. On the other hand the 77W cabin is ever so slightly wider.

The reason for the difference in number of seats is that United has chosen to offer a higher ratio of Polaris seats on the A351, and higher comfort in Y. If United wanted to offer more seats on the A351, they could. United doesn't have a premium economy cabin, if they did, the 77W and A351 would have the same number of seats abreast in a real Y+. Since they don't, they could still have chosen to differentiate slightly more between their Y and Y- on the A351, for example by keeping 9 abreast in Y and going 10 abreast in Y-. That would only mean that Y class on the A351 would have slightly wider seats than on the 77W, and the Y- class would have slightly narrower seats than on the 77W. Several A350's have been delivered with 10 abreast in Y to other operators. Number of toilets, size of toilets and size of galleys are by other means for saving (or "wasting") cabin space.

The point is, United chose to reduce the number of seats compared to their 10 abreast 777. Remember that many 777 operators only went 10 abreast to keep the 777 flying (CASM/CASK), not because they necessarily needed the higher capacity. In today's long haul market we are seeing overcapacity, and I reckon this has influenced United's decision regarding number of seats and their breakdown into classes.

Your analogy to the A333 and 789 is questionable. Although the aircraft are very similar sized, the A330 is slightly lighter (and less capable, range). The difference between the 77W and the A351 is 30 t, in the latters favor.
Last edited by reidar76 on Tue May 02, 2017 3:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 14135
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 3:22 pm

zeke wrote:
77H wrote:
Now that we know the seat count for both aircraft, how does the operating cost stack up now? If UA can manage to fill the 29 extra seats on the 77W does that more or less negate the savings gained in fuel economy by the 35K? In terms of cargo the 77W has 44 L3 positions to the 35K's 40 so it has more cargo hold space.


Over a 77W 12 hr sector length the A350-1000 would burn around 25,000 kg less fuel, and do it around 20 minutes faster. Both the 77W and A350-1000 have 44 LD3 or 14 pallet capacity.


25.000 kg / 55.000 lbs of fuel on a single flight is a lot, however you look at it.

How much $ is that with today fuel price? http://www.iata.org/publications/economics/fuel-monitor/Pages/price-analysis.aspx

Assume the average ticket is $800 with a $100 nett margin. This might wipe out the 777X's extra revenue potential.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
dennis2380
Posts: 12
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2014 5:07 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 3:42 pm

look at the a350 delivery chart, it shows canceled for united first three planes
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15746
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 3:51 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Revenue maximizing airlines will hold back seats to keep them available for the higher revenue last minute fares. An airline never wants to sell out a flight 3 weeks in advance and lose out on last minute fares that are double or triple the average. Revenue maximized flights usually have load factors in the high 80s. Anything above that is a bit hard to repeat on long haul travel since the last minute cancellations combined with daily fluctuations in demand change.


Revenue management systems dont work like that at all. Revenue management is about monitoring the supply and demand of the fare bucks with the aide of historical data on the available inventory.

Lets look at the ORD-NRT 772 flight today, these are the fare buckets still available
F02 A02 J09 C09 D09 Z09 P09 Y09 B09 M09 E09 U09 H09 Q09 V09 W09 S09 T09 L09 K09 G09 N09
In two weeks the same flight looks like this
F06 A06 J09 C08 D07 Z04 P04 Y09 B09 M09 E09 U09 H09 Q09 V09 W09 S09 T07
In two months the same flight looks like this
F07 A07 J09 C03 Y09 B09 M09 E09 U09 H09 Q09 V09 W09 S09 T04
In four months the same flight
F06 A05 J09 C09 D09 Z09 P09 Y09 B09 M09 E09 U09 H09 Q09 V09 W09 S09 T09 L09 K09

As anyone can see from that the inventory available does not work the way you think it does. The inventory available is based upon supply and demand, how much the airline will charge for a ticket on a retail basis will vary upon the time of year, in popular times of the year prices go up as demand can exceed supply, in low months prices are lowered to sell the seat for some revenue, as that is better than none at all. Tickets sold on a contractual basis are often the same price year round regardless of the amount of time it was booked in advance, with no penalty for cancellation.

Airlines typically do not hold back making a sale at any time, they will even sell a ticket when the flight is oversold as the revenue management system knows about current and historical inventory trends, and blocked inventory with various retail and commercial channels. The airline also knows about contractual obligations it has for each flight. Some airlines also swap equipment around if needed to match demand, this is often done seasonally.

UA international load factors on average around 80% (that is reported in the December data, for 2016 and 2015), where I work it sits at around 85%. Everyone is in agreement that replacing the 744 with the 77W should improve the load factor and overall results, because it is a slightly smaller capacity Boeing that is cheaper to operate replacing another Boeing. But that logic cannot be extended to a slightly smaller capacity A350-1000 that is cheaper to operate replacing a 77W because it an Airbus replacing a Boeing. The horse and pony show you ant us believe is that the revenue management system will miss out on one fare sold at short notice sometime in the future, meanwhile you are paying the cost to operate the unused capacity every day.

You have not been able to show at all that the 77W is the right size for the route being flown, and frankly the only people would be able to are the back office staff deep within the airline that have access to all the data relating to the traffic load.

No one however is buying your overall thesis. The whole premise of the 77X is that even the manufacturer acknowledges the 77W is no longer competitive and it needed a major update. That does not mean the 77W is a bad aircraft, it is simply acknowledging that in 20 years technology moves on. I will put is another way which highlights the difference more effectively. The fuel burn difference between the 77W and A346 is about half as much as the fuel burn difference between the 77W and A350-1000.The industry works on very tight competitive margins, what is going to hurt you more on that anything else is paying higher cost to operate than your competitors. On long haul flying, around 60% of your DOC is fuel.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15746
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 3:53 pm

dennis2380 wrote:
look at the a350 delivery chart, it shows canceled for united first three planes


No, the aircraft have not been cancelled, the slots have. The latest filed reports with the SEC show all the aircraft are still on order.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 4:00 pm

Zeke, you said no one is buying my thesis. May I ask what you think my thesis is? I didn't have one.

I said that the 77W has more seats and can generate more revenue and also that the A350 should have lower cost per seat mile excluding ownership costs. We don't know which plane is better because it depends on oil prices and acquisition/ownership costs. The A350 clearly outperforms the 777 when it comes to operating costs. No questions there.

What is odd to me is people in this thread saying UA doesn't need any more seats than what the A350-1000 has. There are routes in the network where UA has been flying 374 seat 747s for a decade. Routes like PEK, PVG, HKG, NRT, ICN, LHR, FRA, and TLV actually exceed the number of seats available on a 747 at times. UA has a big enough international network so that the 366 seats on the 77W is not excessive.

Regarding fare buckets, Those no longer are used to determine pricing like they were a decade ago. You can show all 9s in the revenue buckets for weeks, but that does not mean prices are the same every day. A K class fare may not be the same today as it is tomorrow despite being in the same fare class.
 
User avatar
GreenArc
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 10:59 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 4:11 pm

RL777 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The direct operating costs will favor the A350. Revenue on the 77W is higher and ownership costs are probably lower. In the end the it all depends on what oil prices are and what passenger demand is for which would be more profitable and which is preferable for the airline on a given route.


The A350 will have a better RASM as well as better CASM. The 77W is in a pretty bad situation.


The only thing the 77W at UA has going for it is acquisition cost.


And an existing maintenance and operations infrastructure. And the fact that the planes are already arriving allowing the much needed 400 retirement.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 1529
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 4:16 pm

RL777 wrote:
Strato2 wrote:
Newbiepilot wrote:
The direct operating costs will favor the A350. Revenue on the 77W is higher and ownership costs are probably lower. In the end the it all depends on what oil prices are and what passenger demand is for which would be more profitable and which is preferable for the airline on a given route.


The A350 will have a better RASM as well as better CASM. The 77W is in a pretty bad situation.


The only thing the 77W at UA has going for it is acquisition cost.

And the fact they have many 772's. Of course one can always be dismissive of lower acquisition cost when it's OPM though.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15746
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 4:42 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
We don't know which plane is better because it depends on oil prices and acquisition/ownership costs.


UA placed the A350 order around 8 years ago, it would have been priced to account for the program risk and an unproved design, they would have paid nowhere near todays price. Meanwhile I have not seen one good argument why Boeing would sell UA a 77W at a deeply discounted rate when it had no competition.

Newbiepilot wrote:
UA has a big enough international network so that the 366 seats on the 77W is not excessive.


It clearly is for some routes and for some seasonal variations, unless you just want to ignore their published traffic figures every month. Remember the original intent of the A350-1000 order was to replace the 744. Many airlines went from the 744 to the 77W with a reduction of seats, they just became more picky on who they sold tickets to and at what price.

Newbiepilot wrote:
Regarding fare buckets, Those no longer are used to determine pricing like they were a decade ago.


Fare buckets never were used to my knowledge to associate with a fixed price, it has to the restrictions placed on that booking, ie refundable, change dates, upgrade, eligible for miles etc. In my post I clearly stated that fares change based upon actual and historic demand.

Newbiepilot wrote:
A K class fare may not be the same today as it is tomorrow despite being in the same fare class.


I never said it did, what does change is how many buckets they will offer during a year, in high demand times they may not offer some buckets for sale at all.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3643
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 4:51 pm

UA has changed its fleet plan multiple times since they ordered the A350-900 to replace the 747. They wanted to shrink when they were losing money with high oil prices. Mergers, oil prices and a stronger economy have changed the needs. They changed to A350-1000s and then ordered larger 777s. The 777s have more seats so they probably will be used on routes with more demand than the A350-1000. I assume higher utilization on the A350s due to their better efficiency
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 11388
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 4:53 pm

zeke wrote:
UA placed the A350 order around 8 years ago, it would have been priced to account for the program risk and an unproved design, they would have paid nowhere near todays price. Meanwhile I have not seen one good argument why Boeing would sell UA a 77W at a deeply discounted rate when it had no competition.

And UA placed their first 77W order 2 years ago (April 2015) when the 77W had (and continues to have) heavy upcoming competition from both the A350 and the 777X replacement while Boeing needed (and still needs) orders to bridge 777 production to the 777X. UA definitely got the 77Ws for cheap, and almost certainly lower than what they paid (will pay) for the A350-1000 even with that plane's discounts. Maybe 8 years ago Boeing wasn't willing to deal on the 77W, and hence maybe that is why UA ordered the A350-1000 (or rather converted from the A359 + 10 more) at that time.

zeke wrote:
It clearly is for some routes and for some seasonal variations, unless you just want to ignore their published traffic figures every month. Remember the original intent of the A350-1000 order was to replace the 744. Many airlines went from the 744 to the 77W with a reduction of seats, they just became more picky on who they sold tickets to and at what price.

And for other routes the 77W is just fine. In some routes it is probably too small. Just like how the A350-1000 will be too big for some routes, too small for others, and just right for even more. You are purposely defining the optimal best size for the top end of the UA's fleet to make sure it is in the narrow window between the A350-1000 and 77W. Nobody is saying that the 77W is perfect for every single TPAC flight UA offers.
 
BG777300ER
Posts: 378
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:22 am

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 5:40 pm

fun2fly wrote:
With the 77W at 366, the A35J at 337, 787-10 at approx. 280 (772 for now at 267), 789 at 252 (764 at 242 for now) and 788 at 219 pax, UA has all the sizes covered in their long term fleet plan. Follow the sun on the largest capacity units and UA will be fine.

The "upgraded" A350 cabin won't be available until 2020 at the earliest.

Perhaps this is why UA deferred!


Great post, perhaps UA really is waiting or the new cabins which in my opinion is a great investment for us passengers, even if it means paying some cancellation costs.
 
waly777
Posts: 761
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 7:11 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Tue May 02, 2017 6:22 pm

zeke wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:
UA has a big enough international network so that the 366 seats on the 77W is not excessive.


zeke wrote:
It clearly is for some routes and for some seasonal variations, unless you just want to ignore their published traffic figures every month. Remember the original intent of the A350-1000 order was to replace the 744. Many airlines went from the 744 to the 77W with a reduction of seats, they just became more picky on who they sold tickets to and at what price.


By your very sound logic, the A35K will also be too big for some routes and seasonal variations, so the 787-9 should fly those routes instead and have an even better LF?

I would like to believe the network and fleet planners @ UA are smart enough to know their route structure and pax numbers by leg well enough to have ordered the 77W which seats 10% above the A35K in their config. North America is currently the most capacity disciplined with ASK growing 0.1% vs RPK (aviation week is my source).

When we look @ international peak/super peak demand, it is usually moreso uni directional route wise with a few exceptions depending on the region.

Now, as you are well versed with RM concepts. You should of course know looking @ international global or region wise LF is a useless metric to judge flown LF per route, per leg or worse per flight. It is an extremely general number.

Newbie pilot is generally right with what he is trying to explain, if your LF on a route is on average above 90% year round (exact LF varies per airline and likely per route), it simply means that during the peak periods you are spilling precious revenue which would likely be taken up by competitors. I.e. your capacity is too little. On the other hand, you put a capacity too large and you have spoillage.

Competent airlines will move aircraft around the network to maximise revenue and minimise cost. I.e. in the scenario, the A35K and 77W can and will complement each other with similar performance capabilities they can be used on the same routes at different seasons to minimise spill to an acceptable level during the super peak period and minimise spoilage during the low season.

Everything does not have to be an Airbus vs Boeing issue, both aircraft are capable.
The test of first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold 2 opposed ideas in the mind concurrently, and still function
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 15746
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Wed May 03, 2017 3:12 am

Polot wrote:
And UA placed their first 77W order 2 years ago (April 2015) when the 77W had (and continues to have) heavy upcoming competition from both the A350 and the 777X replacement while Boeing needed (and still needs) orders to bridge 777 production to the 777X. UA definitely got the 77Ws for cheap, and almost certainly lower than what they paid (will pay) for the A350-1000 even with that plane's discounts. Maybe 8 years ago Boeing wasn't willing to deal on the 77W, and hence maybe that is why UA ordered the A350-1000 (or rather converted from the A359 + 10 more) at that time.


While that sob story is more or less true, the fact of the matter was that UA had no other option at the time, and Boeing also knew that. The 787, A350, A330 production slots are spoken for, the only aircraft that was available at short notice was the 777. I dont know if UA has converted their 747 fuel tanks yet, that may have been another factor.

FYI it has already been announced that UA went for Totalcare on the A350, so the engines are not part of the A350 purchase price.

Polot wrote:
You are purposely defining the optimal best size for the top end of the UA's fleet to make sure it is in the narrow window between the A350-1000 and 77W.


UA did that themselves when they announced the A350-1000s were to replace the 744, please do not attribute that to me.

waly777 wrote:
By your very sound logic, the A35K will also be too big for some routes and seasonal variations, so the 787-9 should fly those routes instead and have an even better LF?


I agree totally, that is why I was surprised when they converted all of the -900s to -1000s. The A350-1000 also has a significant DOC advantage over the 777-200 as well.

waly777 wrote:
I would like to believe the network and fleet planners @ UA are smart enough to know their route structure and pax numbers by leg well enough to have ordered the 77W which seats 10% above the A35K in their config.


It is less than 10% difference of the 77W, the A350-1000 seat config is 90% of the 744 seating capacity (0.9*374=336)

waly777 wrote:
You should of course know looking @ international global or region wise LF is a useless metric to judge flown LF per route, per leg or worse per flight. It is an extremely general number


It is not a useless metric at all, that is why they go to the trouble of collating and publishing the information every month.

waly777 wrote:
it simply means that during the peak periods you are spilling precious revenue which would likely be taken up by competitors. I.e. your capacity is too little.


Every airline that has replaced the 744 with the 77W went through the same process, sure you will let some customers walk, but you pick which ones you let walk. The ones you choose to let walk are the low yielding ones, that is what revenue management is about in the airline business. It is not about moving the most number of passengers at any price, it is about maximizing return on investment to your shareholders.

waly777 wrote:
I.e. in the scenario, the A35K and 77W can and will complement each other with similar performance capabilities they can be used on the same routes at different seasons to minimise spill to an acceptable level during the super peak period and minimise spoilage during the low season.


UA us less flexible than some other airlines in this regard as every hub does not have every type, what you are saying will be true if they have the 77W and A350 both based at the same hub. There are rumours that the A350 will be east coast based, and the 77W west coast.
“Don't be a show-off. Never be too proud to turn back. There are old pilots and bold pilots, but no old, bold pilots.” E. Hamilton Lee, 1949
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1932
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Wed May 03, 2017 3:31 am

zeke wrote:
While that sob story is more or less true, the fact of the matter was that UA had no other option at the time, and Boeing also knew that. The 787, A350, A330 production slots are spoken for, the only aircraft that was available at short notice was the 777. I dont know if UA has converted their 747 fuel tanks yet, that may have been another factor.

FYI it has already been announced that UA went for Totalcare on the A350, so the engines are not part of the A350 purchase price.


It developed a little differently than that. The 77Ws were converted from 787-10s. UA had much more 787-10s on order originally. I don't think they were really looking for anything bigger until Boeing proposed giving them a sweetheart deal for trading in their 787 slots for 77Ws. Boeing was eager to close the production gap on the 777 line and reallocate some 787 production slots to other airlines who were willing to pay more of a premium than UA to get their 787s sooner. Smisek and Co. were pretty adamant that this was never a top-up order — only a substitution of 787-10s.

The truth is that the 77W never was really intended to replace 747s for UA. UA never intended on ordering it until Smisek and Rainey basically said "yeah, sure why not" to Boeing, and even then, there wasn't much of a clear plan on how or where they would use them. I suppose you could say the same for the 787-10s, but it was rumored that the 77Ws were envisioned to upgauge the EWR ULH routes and not really touch any of the other hubs.

From the time PMUA/Tilton ordered the initial A350s and 787s until Smisek and Rainey left, the plan was to replace 747s with A350s, 767s with 787s, and keep the 772s flying. Tilton (and initially, Smisek/Rainey too) dismissed the 77W as being "old" technology, and they wanted to plan for the future with new technology, fuel-efficient, and right-sized planes. That plan became less clear when Smisek topped up both orders with larger models, converted all the 767s to international configs and halted the retirement plans, converted the 787-10s to 77Ws, topped up the 77W order, decided to retire all the 747s earlier because of the fuel tank mod, and now it's even more confusing now that Scott and Co. are essentially saying "hold on a minute, let's not just go with what the manufacturers want us to do."
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13669
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: United Airlines A350-1000 to feature 337 seats

Wed May 03, 2017 4:16 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
What is odd to me is people in this thread saying UA doesn't need any more seats than what the A350-1000 has. There are routes in the network where UA has been flying 374 seat 747s for a decade. Routes like PEK, PVG, HKG, NRT, ICN, LHR, FRA, and TLV actually exceed the number of seats available on a 747 at times. UA has a big enough international network so that the 366 seats on the 77W is not excessive.

Sure, but take care not to make the common mistake of assuming that because they can fill it, then it equates to the OPTIMAL fiscal position for them.

It doesn't. And that's where the gap may come in handy for the likes of UA.

With multi-gateway carriers, the modern strategy that's proven most effective in their eyes is to lower capacity in exchange for RASM, while receiving the added benefit of lower risk. That's why you don't see a single airline who has more than 2 major int'l gateways operating the A380, nor ever displaying any intention whatsoever of getting some.

And all of the USA carriers have a half-dozen major longhaul gateways or more; which is why THEY exemplify the concept on steroids.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos