Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Boeing778X wrote:marcelh wrote:MIflyer12 wrote:Five years presents lots more opportunity for further delay or order restructuring.
Order restructuring can also mean that they will order even a dozen more.....
Which remains to be seen. They may order more, but then again, then could just use the 787-9 for some 77E routes.
45x A359s is a significant sized fleet. This is not good news for the -1000, but hopefully that will change.
Assuming the 777-200ERs are all replaced by A359s, and 763s are gone by 2022, we should have:
16x 764
12x 788
24x 789
14x 78J
45x A359
18x 77W
Hmm. The workhorse of the fleet is obvious. I suspect an increase of 787-9s and -10s. It also makes me question what else could fit.frigatebird wrote:Boeing778X wrote:Wow! That's what I call some breaking news! Congrats to Airbus and...and...*gulp*...UA...
A lot of you saw it coming! Pat yourselves on the back!
I'm not holding my breath with AA getting any at this point, but your enthusiasm is noted
I'm quite sure AA will follow UA's footsteps... defer until the 77E is ripe for replacement, and increase the order
I doubt it.
AA, for one, didn't order the A350, US did, and AA probably never would have on their own. Very little corporate enthusiasm, two deferrals in just a few months and no word on pilots training for it.
For lack of a better term, me thinks the A350 is simply not needed. Plus, our 77Es are quite a bit younger than UAs (COs are younger still.) We'll have ours for awhile.
At AA, you're probably going to see more 787-9s replace the 77Es, and the A350 order converted to something else.
KarelXWB wrote:Revelation wrote:Let's try to avoid the insipid "I'm Right, You're A Hater!" mentality that's all over this board.
Everyone was right about some aspect of this deal to some degree.
Rumours were clear that UA wasn't preparing to take the A350s soon-ish. Some said that meant they would "never" take the frames. But how to deal with all those huge deposits? Now we see, "never" just meant finding a way to defer using those deposits for an airplane that clearly is a great fit for the 772ER replacement role that clearly had to happen.
Well rumor was that UA couldn't take the A350 due to crew rest area issues.
I guess we can put that rumor to a rest.
jumbojet wrote:First, congrats to UA. Serious question, not meant to bash UA.
Being that they're replacing the 777's, why even bother sending the 777s in for refurbishment? If they're only going to be around for another 5 or so years, why waste the money on very expensive mods. The business class seats in the 777 aren't that horrible that they have to spend the money to replace them with Polaris seats just to retire them in 5 years. Seems to be a huge waste. The 777 seat is flat bed and you do get the upgraded Polaris service. Why not simply accelerate the refurbs on the 787 and leave the 777 as is, after all, the 787 will be around for a heck of a lot longer than the 777.
Also, if you remember back when DL refurbished the 747 and then approximately 5 years afterwards announced its retirement, people on here raked DL across the coals for wasting money. So, I ask a perfectly legitimate question, is this a good approach for UA to take as opposed to the approach that DL took?
fightforlove wrote:This conversion, along with United's decision to take 77Ws rather than waiting another 1-2 years for the A35K, raises doubts as to how much better the A35K is than the 77W?
727200 wrote:I can't say I would be celebrating if I were Airbus. All UA did was defer the planes another 5-10 years.
727200 wrote:If they really wanted them, the plane is available now
fightforlove wrote:This conversion, along with United's decision to take 77Ws rather than waiting another 1-2 years for the A35K, raises doubts as to how much better the A35K is than the 77W? The 77Es are getting old so replacing them makes sense, but this, along with DL's cancellation of 787s in favor of taking more A330/neo, raises question of how much more efficient are the 787/A350 overall compared to the previous generation of wide bodies?
Newbiepilot wrote:fightforlove wrote:This conversion, along with United's decision to take 77Ws rather than waiting another 1-2 years for the A35K, raises doubts as to how much better the A35K is than the 77W? The 77Es are getting old so replacing them makes sense, but this, along with DL's cancellation of 787s in favor of taking more A330/neo, raises question of how much more efficient are the 787/A350 overall compared to the previous generation of wide bodies?
It doesn't make me question how much better the A35K is than the 77W. What I question is the price Airbus is charging for the A35K. With UA switching its orders, the plane is down to 177 orders. Usually stretches have superior economics to shorter versions for only marginally higher operating costs. It's not all that common for an airline to switch to a smaller version of a plane. More often they upgrade to the stretch, so it makes me think Airbus may be over pricing the A350-1000. Or it simply could be that UA wants to more closely match 777-200ER capacity.
JetBuddy wrote:I find it interesting that they are evaluating replacing the entire 777 fleet with A350s down the line. But with new 77W coming in, I'm sure that wouldn't happen for at least 12-15 years. Also notable that they have a lot of A350 options at favorable prices. Upgrades to -1000 might happen later as well.
dmstorm22 wrote:I think it is just that UA got a good deal on the 77Ws that they could use as the 744 replacement, and the A359 matches up really nicely as a 77E replacement. I think the A35K will do fine, but it wasn't really a need at UA anymore.
SonomaFlyer wrote:Here's a memo to employees concerning the 359 and 3d Quarter results:
Today we also announced significant changes to our Airbus A350 order, most notable of which is the timing of deliveries. We decided to defer these aircraft until 2022 to align with the replacement of our fleet of 55 Boeing 777-200ERs, which begin to turn 25 years old in 2023. Adjusting the timing of delivery of the A350s in no way limits our plan to grow and renew our fleet. We continue to take delivery of 777-300ERs, with the fleet growing to 18 aircraft by the end of next year, and will welcome our first 787-10 next year. Neither aircraft type was anticipated when we placed our original A350 order, and both types will fill our widebody growth needs over the next several years. In addition to our firm commitments shown below, we also plan to supplement our fleet with additional used aircraft.
Additionally, it was hard to justify having a small subfleet of 35 A350s spread out over our seven hubs, as there would be operational inefficiencies with crews, aircraft routings and spare parts, so we increased the order size to 45 aircraft. We also converted the order from the A350-1000 variant to the A350-900, which is a better fit for our network. We believe the smaller A350-900 is the better choice for United for our long range planning needs, as the A350-1000 is a larger aircraft that is comparable to the 18 777-300ERs being delivered through next year to replace the 747-400 fleet. Importantly, we have the ability to swap some of the A350-900 aircraft into the larger -1000 version if our views on aircraft size change over time.
The A350-900 is an outstanding aircraft with the size and range to be an excellent replacement for our 777-200ERs, and we have a substantial number of options we can exercise for more A350-900s. So if we decide to make this the sole replacement for the 777 fleet, we will be able to do so on similar, very attractive, economic terms.
KarelXWB wrote:Well rumor was that UA couldn't take the A350 due to crew rest area issues.
I guess we can put that rumor to a rest.
CriticalPoint wrote:the United pilots contract is due for openers in 2019 I'm sure a sub section to incorporate the A350 bunk will be asked for and given. Everything has a price.
scbriml wrote:They're not getting 45 A350-900s for the same price as 35 A350-1000s.![]()
Newbiepilot wrote:It doesn't make me question how much better the A35K is than the 77W. What I question is the price Airbus is charging for the A35K. With UA switching its orders, the plane is down to 177 orders. Usually stretches have superior economics to shorter versions for only marginally higher operating costs. It's not all that common for an airline to switch to a smaller version of a plane. More often they upgrade to the stretch, so it makes me think Airbus may be over pricing the A350-1000. Or it simply could be that UA wants to more closely match 777-200ER capacity.
SonomaFlyer wrote:JetBuddy wrote:I find it interesting that they are evaluating replacing the entire 777 fleet with A350s down the line. But with new 77W coming in, I'm sure that wouldn't happen for at least 12-15 years. Also notable that they have a lot of A350 options at favorable prices. Upgrades to -1000 might happen later as well.
The 777 fleet is bigger than this order and the 789s will also handle 777 flying along with the 78Js. I think UA intends to be more vigilant to matching the right a/c for the right mission at the right time of year. That could mean (like DL), they change the a/c on a route monthly depending on demand.
gwrudolph wrote:SonomaFlyer wrote:JetBuddy wrote:I find it interesting that they are evaluating replacing the entire 777 fleet with A350s down the line. But with new 77W coming in, I'm sure that wouldn't happen for at least 12-15 years. Also notable that they have a lot of A350 options at favorable prices. Upgrades to -1000 might happen later as well.
The 777 fleet is bigger than this order and the 789s will also handle 777 flying along with the 78Js. I think UA intends to be more vigilant to matching the right a/c for the right mission at the right time of year. That could mean (like DL), they change the a/c on a route monthly depending on demand.
Plus don't forget, 19 of the 777s are the A model and are accommodating domestic (Hawaii and Hub-Hub) missions. So, the true ER fleet is 55. As I seriously doubt they would use the 359 on those domestic missions (much more likely potential MOM type would), you are really only talking about the 45 taking the place of the existing 55 ERs. Only 10 difference, which as everyone is saying, can easily be right-sized with 789, 787-10, or potential MOM.
jumbojet wrote:First, congrats to UA. Serious question, not meant to bash UA.
Being that they're replacing the 777's, why even bother sending the 777s in for refurbishment? If they're only going to be around for another 5 or so years, why waste the money on very expensive mods. The business class seats in the 777 aren't that horrible that they have to spend the money to replace them with Polaris seats just to retire them in 5 years. Seems to be a huge waste. The 777 seat is flat bed and you do get the upgraded Polaris service. Why not simply accelerate the refurbs on the 787 and leave the 777 as is, after all, the 787 will be around for a heck of a lot longer than the 777.
Also, if you remember back when DL refurbished the 747 and then approximately 5 years afterwards announced its retirement, people on here raked DL across the coals for wasting money. So, I ask a perfectly legitimate question, is this a good approach for UA to take as opposed to the approach that DL took?
KarelXWB wrote:Well rumor was that UA couldn't take the A350 due to crew rest area issues. I guess we can put that rumor to a rest.
FlyHossD wrote:KarelXWB wrote:Well rumor was that UA couldn't take the A350 due to crew rest area issues. I guess we can put that rumor to a rest.
AFAIK, UAL ALPA still hasn't agreed to the crew issue for the A350. Also, I've seen a comment on FB by an ALPA rep that stated the same - no agreement yet.
frigatebird wrote:Well, there were rumours the current UA board was not too happy with discounts they received for the A35K order, so I guess Airbus had to concede something in that area. 45 A359's for the price of 35 A35K's would mean roughly 10% additional discount, but usually in these kind of negotiations parties meet halfway. UA didn't have much alternatives either, the 737-10 conversion rendered an A321neo order for UA unlikely, and the A330neo doesn't make much sense for UA IMO.
Yes, UA has already stated they can still reorder the A35K, who knows...
United1 wrote:blockski wrote:Boeing778X wrote:
I wouldn't assume the A359s will completely replace the 777-200ERs. Something like ~20 of those -200ERs are ex-Continental planes that were delivered between 2010 and 2011; they're substantially newer than the ex-United aircraft.
I count the current 777 fleet as:
19 777A, ex-United, delivered 1995-2000
33 777-222ERs, ex-United, delivered 1997-2002
22 777-224ERs, ex-Continental, delivered 2010-2011
14 777-322ERs, new, delivered 2016-present
The 777-224ERs are on average a bit newer than the 222ERs but they are not that much newer...the bulk of the 224s were delivered between 1998 and 2002 with a couple in 2007 and 2010. You are probably looking at the dates the 224s were inducted into UAs fleet.
Newbiepilot wrote:fcogafa wrote:Is 45 x 900s worth the same as 35 x 1000s? If so, not much gain for Airbus
UA has 55 777-200ERs, so it's possible that the order could grow even more.
Newbiepilot wrote:fightforlove wrote:This conversion, along with United's decision to take 77Ws rather than waiting another 1-2 years for the A35K, raises doubts as to how much better the A35K is than the 77W? The 77Es are getting old so replacing them makes sense, but this, along with DL's cancellation of 787s in favor of taking more A330/neo, raises question of how much more efficient are the 787/A350 overall compared to the previous generation of wide bodies?
It doesn't make me question how much better the A35K is than the 77W. What I question is the price Airbus is charging for the A35K. With UA switching its orders, the plane is down to 177 orders. Usually stretches have superior economics to shorter versions for only marginally higher operating costs. It's not all that common for an airline to switch to a smaller version of a plane. More often they upgrade to the stretch, so it makes me think Airbus may be over pricing the A350-1000. Or it simply could be that UA wants to more closely match 777-200ER capacity.
ikramerica wrote:(UA) gave up the idea the A350 could replace the 744, and instead decided the thirstier 77W still makes more sense.
ikramerica wrote:The A350-1000 is not dominating A350 orders the way the 77W took over the 777 order book.
blockski wrote:Any word on engines? That was also rumored to be an issue.
KarelXWB wrote:Revelation wrote:Let's try to avoid the insipid "I'm Right, You're A Hater!" mentality that's all over this board.
Everyone was right about some aspect of this deal to some degree.
Rumours were clear that UA wasn't preparing to take the A350s soon-ish. Some said that meant they would "never" take the frames. But how to deal with all those huge deposits? Now we see, "never" just meant finding a way to defer using those deposits for an airplane that clearly is a great fit for the 772ER replacement role that clearly had to happen.
Well rumor was that UA couldn't take the A350 due to crew rest area issues.
I guess we can put that rumor to a rest.
Revelation wrote:Well, that rumor wasn't all that credit worthy to begin with. It always seemed to be a squabble between the UA pilots and management, not a FAA issue. Now we see the A350s are coming to UA in the 2021 time frame, which means either there never was such an issue, or UA thinks it will be ironed out by 2021, or that UA is just ignoring the pilot's complaints. So in that sense, I don't know if this news puts that (weak) rumor to rest or not, but I never viewed the issue as a show stopper, despite what some were saying.
jayunited wrote:jumbojet wrote:First, congrats to UA. Serious question, not meant to bash UA.
Being that they're replacing the 777's, why even bother sending the 777s in for refurbishment? If they're only going to be around for another 5 or so years, why waste the money on very expensive mods. The business class seats in the 777 aren't that horrible that they have to spend the money to replace them with Polaris seats just to retire them in 5 years. Seems to be a huge waste. The 777 seat is flat bed and you do get the upgraded Polaris service. Why not simply accelerate the refurbs on the 787 and leave the 777 as is, after all, the 787 will be around for a heck of a lot longer than the 777.
Also, if you remember back when DL refurbished the 747 and then approximately 5 years afterwards announced its retirement, people on here raked DL across the coals for wasting money. So, I ask a perfectly legitimate question, is this a good approach for UA to take as opposed to the approach that DL took?
I completely understand the point you are making that from a financial standpoint it would be better for UA to upgrade the entire 787 fleet to the Polaris seat and just leave the 777's with the current layout. The problem is there is such a age difference in the fleet, if I'm not mistaken the oldest sUA 77E was delivered in 1997 and the last sCO 77E was delivered either in 2010 or 2011. While you probably are correct in your observation that it probably is a waste of money refurbishing an aircraft or a frame that will be retired in 5 years the truth is, it is the cost of doing business. United needs to move the wide body fleet toward a more unified product, right now you have the sUA 3 class product, the sCO 2 class product and the all new Polaris Seat. Some time ago I read on Flying Together United wants to focus on getting rid of the sUA 3 class seats first, the 3 class 763's have started modification and while I'm not sure when the 77E's are slated to begin modification UA can't afford to wait for the A359's to phase out the sUA seating configuration on the 77E's. I think DL made the right decision with their 744's and I think UA is making the right decision as well. Even though the sUA configuration is lie flat it needs to go and UA can't sit and wait till 2022.
But enough about the seats, congratulations to United and Airbus we now know what aircraft will replace part of the 77E fleet.
If the rumors are true UA either later this year or at some point next year will perhaps order 4 more 77W's to bring that fleet up to 22 frames then this move to convert the A350 order back to the A359 makes perfect sense because the 77W's and 35 A350-1000 would have be to much capacity for UA.
I still holding out hope that in addition to the current 45 on order UA will order the A359ULH I think now since the A359 will be added to the fleet a case could be made for the A359ULH, to open new nonstop routes to perhaps SYD from IAH or ORD, or SIN from ORD, or even India nonstop from ORD, and SFO. The 77W is to much capacity but perhaps the A359ULH with less seats than the standard A359 could make routes like these more viable in the future.
KarelXWB wrote:Good 777-200ER replacement
hOMSaR wrote:Why not just change the title of the previous topic and continue the discussion there?
Newbiepilot wrote:UA has 55 777-200ERs, so it's possible that the order could grow even more.
LAX772LR wrote:hOMSaR wrote:Why not just change the title of the previous topic and continue the discussion there?
Because who the hell wants to dig through dozens of posts dating back weeks, to find a new, big, and exciting announcement??????.
JetBuddy wrote:Snip snip.. most interesting bits from United memo:SonomaFlyer wrote:
Today we also announced significant changes to our Airbus A350 order, most notable of which is the timing of deliveries. We decided to defer these aircraft until 2022 to align with the replacement of our fleet of 55 Boeing 777-200ERs, which begin to turn 25 years old in 2023. Adjusting the timing of delivery of the A350s in no way limits our plan to grow and renew our fleet. We continue to take delivery of 777-300ERs, with the fleet growing to 18 aircraft by the end of next year, and will welcome our first 787-10 next year. Neither aircraft type was anticipated when we placed our original A350 order, and both types will fill our widebody growth needs over the next several years. In addition to our firm commitments shown below, we also plan to supplement our fleet with additional used aircraft.
Additionally, it was hard to justify having a small subfleet of 35 A350s spread out over our seven hubs, as there would be operational inefficiencies with crews, aircraft routings and spare parts, so we increased the order size to 45 aircraft. We also converted the order from the A350-1000 variant to the A350-900, which is a better fit for our network. We believe the smaller A350-900 is the better choice for United for our long range planning needs, as the A350-1000 is a larger aircraft that is comparable to the 18 777-300ERs being delivered through next year to replace the 747-400 fleet. Importantly, we have the ability to swap some of the A350-900 aircraft into the larger -1000 version if our views on aircraft size change over time.
The A350-900 is an outstanding aircraft with the size and range to be an excellent replacement for our 777-200ERs, and we have a substantial number of options we can exercise for more A350-900s. So if we decide to make this the sole replacement for the 777 fleet, we will be able to do so on similar, very attractive, economic terms.
I find it interesting that they are evaluating replacing the entire 777 fleet with A350s down the line. But with new 77W coming in, I'm sure that wouldn't happen for at least 12-15 years. Also notable that they have a lot of A350 options at favorable prices. Upgrades to -1000 might happen later as well.
JetBuddy wrote:I find it interesting that they are evaluating replacing the entire 777 fleet with A350s down the line. But with new 77W coming in, I'm sure that wouldn't happen for at least 12-15 years. Also notable that they have a lot of A350 options at favorable prices. Upgrades to -1000 might happen later as well.
727200 wrote:Talk to me when the planes are on property. Its been 8 years since order placed and anuther 5 before they are scheduled to start. If UA realy wanted them, and they are available right now and UA holds delivery slots, they would be here. Its 5-10 more years to delay/cancel them
fightforlove wrote:This conversion, along with United's decision to take 77Ws rather than waiting another 1-2 years for the A35K, raises doubts as to how much better the A35K is than the 77W?
ikramerica wrote:When the A350K was launched I questioned whether all the promises could be met. It seemed that to achieve range, payload vs the 777/744/340 would be severely limited.
UA helped verify this today. They gave up the idea the A350 could replace the 744, and instead decided the thirstier 77W still makes more sense.
ikramerica wrote:The A359 is the real winner of the bunch for Airbus. This might be due to the double stretch nature of the -1000. I know airbus claims that the baseline is the -900 but from original development the -800 was the baseline with the -900 the more capable stretch.
ikramerica wrote:Deferring until 2022 means the A359 will be 7 years old based on 10 year old tech.
astuteman wrote:frigatebird wrote:Well, there were rumours the current UA board was not too happy with discounts they received for the A35K order, so I guess Airbus had to concede something in that area. 45 A359's for the price of 35 A35K's would mean roughly 10% additional discount, but usually in these kind of negotiations parties meet halfway. UA didn't have much alternatives either, the 737-10 conversion rendered an A321neo order for UA unlikely, and the A330neo doesn't make much sense for UA IMO.
Yes, UA has already stated they can still reorder the A35K, who knows...
For me, it would make more sense, and be a better negotiated win-win for both parties if the A3510 price UA paid wasn't additionally discounted in the A350-900 purchase, but the sweetener for UA was placed in the "substantial number of attractively termed" options that UA clearly have now.
Clever for UA - they get great discounts in the future on a plane family that will clearly suit their needs.
Clever for Airbus as it makes it really difficult for UA to turn their backs on the options in years to come.
Win-Win
Rgds
BlueSky1976 wrote:I'll open the can of worms, what the hell...
United will eventually replace their 777-300ERs with A350-1000, in due time. Now - go ahead. Hate me all you want, Boeing cheergirls. xD
frigatebird wrote:astuteman wrote:frigatebird wrote:Well, there were rumours the current UA board was not too happy with discounts they received for the A35K order, so I guess Airbus had to concede something in that area. 45 A359's for the price of 35 A35K's would mean roughly 10% additional discount, but usually in these kind of negotiations parties meet halfway. UA didn't have much alternatives either, the 737-10 conversion rendered an A321neo order for UA unlikely, and the A330neo doesn't make much sense for UA IMO.
Yes, UA has already stated they can still reorder the A35K, who knows...
For me, it would make more sense, and be a better negotiated win-win for both parties if the A3510 price UA paid wasn't additionally discounted in the A350-900 purchase, but the sweetener for UA was placed in the "substantial number of attractively termed" options that UA clearly have now.
Clever for UA - they get great discounts in the future on a plane family that will clearly suit their needs.
Clever for Airbus as it makes it really difficult for UA to turn their backs on the options in years to come.
Win-Win
Rgds
Absolutely. The order started as 25 A359 as 747 replacement - now it's 45 A359 as 77E replacement. I wouldn't complain if I were at AirbusAnd UA has options both with Airbus and Boeing, with the flexibility to adjust their future widebody aircraft plans when the market requires them to do so
scbriml wrote:
The A350-1000 that's now close to delivery is a significantly better plane than the -1000 at A350 launch. If a 77W is capable of replacing a 744, then the A350-1000 is more than capable. UA's 77W purchase was opportunistic - low prices and early availability. I'm pretty sure if oil was at $100+ those 77Ws would have looked much less attractive vs. the -1000.
mercure1 wrote:
What about the ageing 767-300ER and 757-200 fleets (some 767-300ERs are over 24yrs old). Hmmm