kiowa
Posts: 503
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 12:37 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 4:34 pm

_AA_777_MAN wrote:
flee wrote:
United Airline wrote:
Why did they go for the A350-1000 at first?

They have been converted to the A350-900

I think the Airbus order was a legacy from Continental. United are Boeing true and true...


Except its actually Continental that survived the merger retaining most of the management. They just chose to stick with the United name. And UA was the one who ordered the A350 and CO the 787.



Similar to USAir surviving the merger and keeping the American name.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:25 pm

Sooner787 wrote:
United have a lot of older 77E's that are due for replacement in the next 10 years or so.
The A359's are ideal replacements for that fleet.

Now the question is will UA debut a new livery on those jets?


Not take this thread off course but since you brought it up this what I know is UA will introduce a new livery I don't know when it will happened but I've been told is since the merger was so screwed up from the beginning Oscar put the new livery project on hold. Senior management and Oscar recognized many UA people were still attached and upset that the tulip is gone while CO people were still attached to the name Continental. From the information I've heard a new livery will come however right now UA is waiting till more new blood comes into the company people who don't have a strong attachment to either the former United or Continental. To get rid of the Continental livery right now would be wrong and it is way to soon as there are still too many people attached to that livery and this is coming from a United guy. Although the tulip is gone the name United remains the reverse is true for Continental the name is gone but the livery remains which to many hard core CO employees it means some part of Continental is still alive. Wiping the Continental livery away will truly represent the absolute end of everything that was Continental Airlines and the A359 might be the right aircraft to launch the new livery but only time will tell.
 
Austin787
Posts: 354
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 11:39 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:04 pm

UA also operates lots of 772ER, so easier and cheaper to integrate the 77W.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26202
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:23 pm

steeler83 wrote:
What was their reasoning for not ordering the 748?


The 747-400 was arguably too large for UA by the end of their lives and the larger 747-8 would have only exacerbated that. Also financing and delivery positioning was much better on the 777-300ER so that would have certainly played a role.
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 471
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 6:46 pm

I'm sure many posts have already answered this adequately, but in reality, the whole A350 saga, and the rush order 77Ws makes perfect sense, if maybe showing a more fly-by-night reaction to events than sustained planning:

1.) pmUA orders A350s
2.) UA ups solidifies order to A350-1000 as B744 replacement
3.) UA wants to accelerate B744 retirement due to bad economics
4.) Boeing cuts UA a good deal to take 77Ws which can be delivered fast, with good economics, as B744 replacement
5.) UA takes initial 77Ws, has good results with them, ups their order for them
6.) Replacement needs then shift to B77E
7.) A350-900 is a really good B77E replacement, especially for routes too long for B787-10, and too much capacity for B787-9
8.) UA converts A350-1000 order to A350-900 and ups order from 35-45

In the end, and count me as someone who thinks the A350-900s are coming to UA, they'll end up with young 77Ws that can fly for a while, not needing 778/9 replacement for years, and a mix of B787-10 and A350-900 as replacement for their giant fleet of 77E
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1401
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 7:00 pm

jayunited wrote:
Although the tulip is gone the name United remains the reverse is true for Continental the name is gone but the livery remains which to many hard core CO employees it means some part of Continental is still alive. Wiping the Continental livery away will truly represent the absolute end of everything that was Continental Airlines and the A359 might be the right aircraft to launch the new livery but only time will tell.


Not sure if you picked up the irony in your statement.

Wipe away every vestige of CO, but UA at least gets to keep their name. Why would you want to wipe away "absolute end of everything that was Continental?"

The reality is the globe is likely here to stay. It's in the new uniform, and the new onboard interiors. There's no wiping away of absolute end of everything that was Continental. I think it's more realistic that it will be incorporated into some new livery.
 
User avatar
AirKevin
Posts: 404
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 2:18 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:20 pm

GatorClark wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
flee wrote:
I think the Airbus order was a legacy from Continental. United are Boeing true and true...

I guess that explains all those A320s that United had.

But I do believe that post you quoted is actually the opposite. UA isn't opposed to Airbus and really hasn't been for many years. It was CO that was all Boeing.

That was my point.
Captain Kevin
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:52 pm

777PHX wrote:
(...) It made a lot of sense to convert those -1000 orders to -900 orders to replace the 777-200s, the oldest of which are pushing 25 years old.

I am getting old. I vividly remember the introduction of the Boeing 777. And United being the only airline in the world operating the type. For a time you could spot just one 'triple seven' per day at Schiphol Airport. The sound of those big engines revving up would turn many heads at the viewing deck. I was so excited when I boarded my first 777, from United Airlines, to travel from Amsterdam to Washington, a few years later. Connecting from there to Boston on a Boeing 727 was also nice.
 
GatorClark
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 6:34 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:49 pm

AirKevin wrote:
GatorClark wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
I guess that explains all those A320s that United had.

But I do believe that post you quoted is actually the opposite. UA isn't opposed to Airbus and really hasn't been for many years. It was CO that was all Boeing.

That was my point.


That comment was directed toward Flee's comment and was agreeing with yours.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 3:26 am

Stitch wrote:
The 747-400 was arguably too large for UA by the end of their lives and the larger 747-8 would have only exacerbated that. Also financing and delivery positioning was much better on the 777-300ER so that would have certainly played a role.


Not sure your statement is100% accurate UA's 744s had 374 seats, the 77Ws before premium plus had 366 seats, after premium plus they have the 77Ws have 350 seats so we went from a difference of only 8 seats to 24 seats as a result of premium plus.
I will say there probably were some routes the 744 was on and it was the wrong aircraft for the route. The routes the 77W is now on if the 744 was still in the fleet UA could have easily filled those aircraft just like we fill up those 77Ws. Also one of the main reason UA gave why they passed on the 748i is because UA didn't want any more 4 engine aircraft aircraft like the 748i are more expensive to operate and maintain than the 77W. Post merger UA if we had order the 748i we would have no problem filling those aircraft on current and future 77W routes out of SFO and EWR.

airzim wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Although the tulip is gone the name United remains the reverse is true for Continental the name is gone but the livery remains which to many hard core CO employees it means some part of Continental is still alive. Wiping the Continental livery away will truly represent the absolute end of everything that was Continental Airlines and the A359 might be the right aircraft to launch the new livery but only time will tell.


Not sure if you picked up the irony in your statement.

Wipe away every vestige of CO, but UA at least gets to keep their name. Why would you want to wipe away "absolute end of everything that was Continental?"

The reality is the globe is likely here to stay. It's in the new uniform, and the new onboard interiors. There's no wiping away of absolute end of everything that was Continental. I think it's more realistic that it will be incorporated into some new livery.


I did pick up on the irony of my statement which is why I said in my posts its way to soon to change the livery. I don't know if the globe is going to stay or go, I have not personally seen anything pertaining to the new livery project but I do know it was placed on hold by Oscar for the reasons I've already discussed. Perhaps my final sentence could have been worded better but I don't know if the A359 is going to be the aircraft where UA launches the new livery or if management will continue to delay the project. Also as I stated before I'm all for waiting on a new livery because I know from talking to my coworkers and becoming great friends with many of them how important Continental Airlines was and still is to them. However I'm not going to assume the globe is going to stay just because its is incorporated into the new uniforms and the onboard interiors.
 
sohanb82
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:37 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 6:02 am

What would be the capacity difference in United's 77W to a comparable A35K?
 
United Airline
Topic Author
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:13 am

The B777-300ER is bigger right?
 
B737900ER
Posts: 1028
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:26 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:35 am

jayunited wrote:
Wiping the Continental livery away will truly represent the absolute end of everything that was Continental Airlines

Coming from an excon who works with mostly excons I can say for a certainty that it’s time. There’s nothing left of Continental anywhere except for the god awful livery that has come to represent cheap management shortcuts. Nobody sees the globe and thinks “Continental” anymore. People look at it and think “what the hell just happened”.
 
mig17
Posts: 171
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:39 pm

sohanb82 wrote:
What would be the capacity difference in United's 77W to a comparable A35K?


Look at Cathay:
77W => 368 seats (40/32/296)
A35K => 334 seats (46/32/256)

So 9% less seat on the A350, 6 more J, 40 less Y (at 10 abreast on 777 while A350 is 9 abreast), overall same payload /range and better trip cost for the A350.

So they are in the same catégorie. The 77W can carry a little more pax as long as the A350 isn't configure at 10 abreast in Y like French Bee/Air Caraibes.
727 AT, 737 UX/SK/TO/SS, 747 UT/AF/SQ/BA/SS, 767 UA, 777 AF, A300 IW/TG, A310 EK, A318/19/20/21 AF/U2/VY, A332/3 EK/QR/TX, A343 AF, A388 AF, E145/170/190 A5/WF, Q400 WF, ATR 72 A5/TX, CRJ100/700/1000 A5, C-150/172, PC-6.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 635
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 12:49 pm

When I see the globe I still think of Continental. To me the globe will always represent the airline and I think it is a beautiful livery. I first saw it during a plane spotting trip to Paris Charles de Gaulle airport more than twenty years ago. I logged a couple DC-10's that day, being very happy about it. I think it is time to say goodbye to the colours of Continental and give United a new look.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3790
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:46 pm

In the things I have seen the globe will remain in the new livery albeit in a different, refreshed format. Although it’s been more than a year so certainly some changes will be had.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21411
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:32 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
Boeing and united are close .......and i am sure boeing gave them heavily discounted 777-300 ERs.


When Boeing purchased those 77Ws, they directly converted 788 orders into 77W orders. At the time, Mr. Smisek said in some remarks on the deal that it cost UA "no additional capital expenditure." This means that UA got 77Ws for the already heavily discounted price they paid for the 788s.

Boeing needed to sell those 77Ws and UA needed the lift. It was an "everyone wins" deal.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12093
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 7:49 pm

eamondzhang wrote:
Here we go again, another A vs B thread.

And yet as much as you types whine about it, you still can't seem to figure out that that's the number one thing that people on these such sites ENJOY doing.... else they wouldn't do it every day for the span of 21yrs. :roll:



gatibosgru wrote:
This is my copy/paste answer for all of these threads...
Because it was the best product for them (be it price, availability, performance, size, commonality, relationship with OEM and/or Gov, etc).

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

And it's as true now as it ever was. :)
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
DaveFly
Posts: 376
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2016 9:35 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 8:27 pm

I must be the odd man out because I love the United/Continental livery!

If any Big Three needs a do-over, it’s the God-awful American livery. Truly dreadful. I thought I’d get used to it eventually.

But nobody other than av-geeks like us could care less anyway!

Re the A-300, my one and only flight was on Continental in 1989.
717,727,737,747,757,767,777,787
L1011,DC8,DC9,DC10,MD80/90
A300,A319,320,321,330,340,
CRJ,E135/45/190,
DH8,Avro85,DHBeaver,AstarHelo,F100,ATR42
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:29 pm

I think the Airbus order was a legacy from Continental. United are Boeing true and true...


Continental never ordered the A320. They did have a number of A300s when Gordo took over. He moved reasonably quickly to rationalize the fleet as an all Boeing fleet. In his book, From Worst to First: Behind the Scenes of Continental's Remarkable Comeback, he mentioned that the main reasons for this were relatively poor fuel efficiency, maintenance issues, and the fact that Continental management had the planes based in one place but the spares stored at another, which exacerbated the maintenance issues. By going all Boeing, Bethune was supposedly also able to wrangle some pretty nice purchase terms from Boeing; exclusivity can confer certain "most favored customer" benefits.

Anyway, Continental did have the A300 but the A320 order was a United order dating to well before the merger and there was certainly some surprise if not shock when that order occurred, as it represented a serious penetration of the American market by Airbus. The oldest one I can find that's still flying is N403UA, which was delivered in December of 1993. I remember flying a nearly brand new one in the late nineties, DEN-SNA, my first ride on any Airbus product. Since the merger, and with so much of Continental's old management taking over the merged company, the pro-Boeing outlook has continued. Having said that, I'm sure that if Airbus offered a product that met United's needs at a competitive price, they'd seriously consider it. They have shareholders to appease, profits to earn, and a route network to maintain, after all, and blind loyalty to Boeing will only get you just so far.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:33 pm

I must be the odd man out because I love the United/Continental livery!


Its classy and elegant. I just do wish that they'd redo the font. The older Continental Perpetua Bold font was perfect for it. The current United Sans Serif font looks terrible. Other than that, I totally agree! Its classic and isn't another boring Eurowhite fuselage. Ever watch the grey under different lighting conditions? Its really neat seeing the color shift on a sunny than cloudy day.
 
iahcsr
Posts: 4777
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:58 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
I must be the odd man out because I love the United/Continental livery!


Its classy and elegant. I just do wish that they'd redo the font. The older Continental Perpetua Bold font was perfect for it. The current United Sans Serif font looks terrible. Other than that, I totally agree! Its classic and isn't another boring Eurowhite fuselage. Ever watch the grey under different lighting conditions? Its really neat seeing the color shift on a sunny than cloudy day.

The wavy gold on the 787/73Max makes a better look to me.. the title font however is just super bland.
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:06 pm

Agreed. When I first saw the wavy gold on the 787 (originally a Continental order) I started hoping they'd repaint the entire fleet that way.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7701
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:36 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
I must be the odd man out because I love the United/Continental livery!


Its classy and elegant. I just do wish that they'd redo the font. The older Continental Perpetua Bold font was perfect for it. The current United Sans Serif font looks terrible. Other than that, I totally agree! Its classic and isn't another boring Eurowhite fuselage. Ever watch the grey under different lighting conditions? Its really neat seeing the color shift on a sunny than cloudy day.


If you've never seen them before check out the renderings from the original merger announcement. They were pretty terrible! The font used by Continental just did not work with the U in United.

The initial brand had a U with a stem, as that was how it appeared in that font, and then afted a wave of negative feedback they experimented with a U that didn't have a stem using a (subtley) different font to the rest of the word.

They quickly realised this wasn't working so adopted a whole new font. Given that this was the cheap Smisek era, and the merger was being rushed without much thought (hence their third font in fewer months), I wouldn't be shocked if the current font was chosen by someone playing around with the font options on MS Word! It's incredible that no-one took a step back and thought 'that doesn't look right' before announcing the merger, but in hindsight that was a sign of things to come.

Personally I like the current font. As much as I loved Continental, IMHO the brand was looking very dated by the late 2000s. Times style fonts were very early-90s, reflected by both the Continental and United battleship liveries from the era. Adopting a more 'contemporary' font (bland yes, but that reflects current trends in branding) gave it a much more modern look, and I for one still like the current livery. The wavy version is great, and even the Legacy Continental version looks good IMHO.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
Buffalomatt1027
Posts: 359
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:02 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sat Jan 19, 2019 10:43 pm

DocLightning wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
Boeing and united are close .......and i am sure boeing gave them heavily discounted 777-300 ERs.


When Boeing purchased those 77Ws, they directly converted 788 orders into 77W orders. At the time, Mr. Smisek said in some remarks on the deal that it cost UA "no additional capital expenditure." This means that UA got 77Ws for the already heavily discounted price they paid for the 788s.

Boeing needed to sell those 77Ws and UA needed the lift. It was an "everyone wins" deal.


Yup ... fill that 777 gap in orders while waiting to the 777X to come out.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:09 am

KICT wrote:
United Airline wrote:
Then why not go for the B777-9?

Because that airplane does not exist yet, and the fuel inerting modification on the 747-400 fleet was not done (this was a factor in the whale's retirement). Thus, the 77W fit the bill.



The 747 is not the whale jet! The A380 is called the whale jet.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:11 am

hOMSaR wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:
I think many, many moons ago they had A300s-someone correct me if I am wrong.


It'd be cool if there was a website where you could search for photos of certain types of airplanes and certain airlines.




There is a link above. It's known as Airliners.net
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:17 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
United got a very good deal on the first batch of 777-300ERs it ordered, as the plane is nearing the end of its production cycle and there is a gap before the assembly line transitions to the updated 777. United most likely got a sweet deal on the 4 additional 777-300ERs it just ordered. United historically, has been a Boeing and McDonnell Douglas operator. There has been a long standing relationship between Boeing and United going back decades. In the early 1990s, United broke with tradition and bought 100 A320 family jets because the 737s on offer at the time did not have the range to handle transcontinental flights and Airbus scored a victory and a big order with one of the big 3 US carriers. Continental operated Airbus A300s from the late 1980s into the mid-1990s because it inherited them from Eastern Airlines. Eastern and Continental were sister airlines, under the Texas Air Corporation umbrella Frank Lorenzo created in the 1980s. Continental's fleet renewal program launched in 1993 as it emerged from its second bankruptcy was an ALL BOEING affair, with 737-500s, 757-200s being the first part of a multi-year order, followed up by the 737-700/800/900/900ER later and the wide body fleet renewal was focused on transitioning from 747-200s and DC10-30s to 767-200/400ER and 777-200ER.



That would be because United was founded by & owned by Boeing. Until the government stepped in and said manufacturers could not own an airline.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3055
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 am

steeler83 wrote:
MrHMSH wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

United ordered the A350 prior to the merger. Continental had zero orders


United (pre merger) concurrently ordered 25 787s and 25 A359s, then at a Paris Air Show the merged United decided to upscale the order to 35 and convert to the A35K. But as the 77Ws came in the A35K wasn't really needed, so as a means of not having to pay penalties as well as effectively deferring orders and allowing potential replacement of 77Es down the line they converted to 45 A359s.

Why did they go for the 77W? Fuel prices aren't that high, and haven't been for a little while now, and in that context older tech aircraft become more viable. With that in mind UA got a very good deal on price for late-line 77Ws, and they were available immediately to replace 744s.

The simple answer? Availability and cost.

What was their reasoning for not ordering the 748? Availability and better fuel economy with the 777? I know that was the main reason why many airlines phased out their 747 fleets in favor of the later triple-7 variants. After reading some of these posts, I had no idea that TW800 played a factor in UA's 747 retirement. If they hadn't phased them out, I guess they would have faced fines from the FAA, NTSB, etc?


No they would have been grounded around the same time they were retired.
 
FlyingSicilian
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:53 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:50 am

rbavfan wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
FlyingSicilian wrote:
I think many, many moons ago they had A300s-someone correct me if I am wrong.


It'd be cool if there was a website where you could search for photos of certain types of airplanes and certain airlines.




There is a link above. It's known as Airliners.net


Why do that when I have people like you all to do it for me...

I am aware of how the search function works by the way; Mine was a trying-to-be-nice commentary on the fact others apparently did not do the basic research to know the real history of CAL aircraft. Sorry you...missed it, but I stand by my post, it was correct.
“Without seeing Sicily it is impossible to understand Italy.Sicily is the key of everything.”-Goethe "Journey to Italy"
 
Max Q
Posts: 7429
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:26 am

LAX772LR wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
Here we go again, another A vs B thread.

And yet as much as you types whine about it, you still can't seem to figure out that that's the number one thing that people on these such sites ENJOY doing.... else they wouldn't do it every day for the span of 21yrs. :roll:



gatibosgru wrote:
This is my copy/paste answer for all of these threads...
Because it was the best product for them (be it price, availability, performance, size, commonality, relationship with OEM and/or Gov, etc).

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

And it's as true now as it ever was. :)




Well said, especially your first point!
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
 
User avatar
neutrino
Posts: 1536
Joined: Thu May 10, 2012 5:33 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Sun Jan 20, 2019 3:47 am

rbavfan wrote:
KICT wrote:
United Airline wrote:
Then why not go for the B777-9?

Because that airplane does not exist yet, and the fuel inerting modification on the 747-400 fleet was not done (this was a factor in the whale's retirement). Thus, the 77W fit the bill.



The 747 is not the whale jet! The A380 is called the whale jet.

Why let real-world fact get in the way of Alternative Fact? ;) :)
Potestatem obscuri lateris nescitis
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 5:58 pm

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
DocLightning wrote:
Buffalomatt1027 wrote:
Boeing and united are close .......and i am sure boeing gave them heavily discounted 777-300 ERs.


When Boeing purchased those 77Ws, they directly converted 788 orders into 77W orders. At the time, Mr. Smisek said in some remarks on the deal that it cost UA "no additional capital expenditure." This means that UA got 77Ws for the already heavily discounted price they paid for the 788s.

Boeing needed to sell those 77Ws and UA needed the lift. It was an "everyone wins" deal.


Yup ... fill that 777 gap in orders while waiting to the 777X to come out.


Agree.

if they really wanted the A350, they'd have taken some by now. It offers them nothing. It's incrementally worse than their 787s.

Anyone know...which GW variant did UAL purchase? Both on the 359 and then 35K?
 
User avatar
seabosdca
Posts: 6395
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:33 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:52 pm

There is always another thread on this, showing that people don't read what UA puts in its press releases. The story is pretty clear from a combination of UA's own statements and a bit of logic. And it doesn't involve UA executives acting like forum fanboys.

UA and CO between them had too many midsize widebody orders at (A350-900 + 787) at the merger, so something had to give. When Smisek converted the pmUA A350 order into -1000s, his thinking was that the A350 would be a 744 replacement and enable a bit of international growth, and the conversion could take care of the surplus of orders.

Then, near the end, he made the dumbest order of his career: a bunch of 73Gs that were impossibly cheap, but also would have been uncompetitive from the day they were delivered. Munoz saw that writing on the wall and moved quickly to renegotiate with Boeing. Boeing, meanwhile, needed to find more 777 orders to bridge production to the 777X. The result was very clever: a 777-300ER order to speed up the replacement of the increasingly maintenance-intensive 747-400s, coupled with another renegotiation of the A350 deal to switch to the more attractive -900 and take delivery at the right time for 777-200ER replacement.

The A350-900 will operate at UA and will make a fine replacement for the TPAC 777-200ER. I don't know that UA will take 45 in the end--some might be converted to A321neo--but I'm sure they'll take at least 25. The 787-10 would be a fine replacement for those 777-200ERs that fly TATL, but it's a little short on range for the TPAC missions.
 
ord
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 6:58 pm

trav777 wrote:
if they really wanted the A350, they'd have taken some by now. It offers them nothing.


United has stated the A350s will replace the 772s. They don't have a need for the A350s until they start retiring the 772s in 2022. No need for them now, but there will be in a few years.

And the A350 does offer something: a plane that seats around 300 with range to replace the 772s. Once the 772s, which seat 292, start leaving the fleet, United will be left with a 252-seat plane (789) and a 350-seat plane (77W). If they don't get A350s (or something comparable), they will have to use mostly 789s and suffer huge downgrades in capacity in growing markets to Asia (the 787-10 has the capacity but not the range).
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:15 pm

ord wrote:
trav777 wrote:
if they really wanted the A350, they'd have taken some by now. It offers them nothing.


United has stated the A350s will replace the 772s. They don't have a need for the A350s until they start retiring the 772s in 2022. No need for them now, but there will be in a few years.

And the A350 does offer something: a plane that seats around 300 with range to replace the 772s. Once the 772s, which seat 292, start leaving the fleet, United will be left with a 252-seat plane (789) and a 350-seat plane (77W). If they don't get A350s (or something comparable), they will have to use mostly 789s and suffer huge downgrades in capacity in growing markets to Asia (the 787-10 has the capacity but not the range).


No need for all this, just adopt a different configuration for the 789, closer to 300 pax. AC flies apparently with 298 on theirs. They'd get like 7000nm+ range out of such a config, perhaps 7100.

As far as the 78X, what do you mean not the range? They can serve TPAC easily from the west coast with this frame; it could do LAX-SYD with 300pax if they really wanted to. Japan and Korea are available from IAH with a full spec cabin (330) on the 78X. As I said if they dropped to 300pax, they have 14 hrs of range.

Above this, if you need payload hauling, buy 778s.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:39 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
I think the Airbus order was a legacy from Continental. United are Boeing true and true...


Continental never ordered the A320. They did have a number of A300s when Gordo took over. He moved reasonably quickly to rationalize the fleet as an all Boeing fleet. In his book, From Worst to First: Behind the Scenes of Continental's Remarkable Comeback, he mentioned that the main reasons for this were relatively poor fuel efficiency, maintenance issues, and the fact that Continental management had the planes based in one place but the spares stored at another, which exacerbated the maintenance issues. By going all Boeing, Bethune was supposedly also able to wrangle some pretty nice purchase terms from Boeing; exclusivity can confer certain "most favored customer" benefits.

Anyway, Continental did have the A300 but the A320 order was a United order dating to well before the merger and there was certainly some surprise if not shock when that order occurred, as it represented a serious penetration of the American market by Airbus. The oldest one I can find that's still flying is N403UA, which was delivered in December of 1993. I remember flying a nearly brand new one in the late nineties, DEN-SNA, my first ride on any Airbus product. Since the merger, and with so much of Continental's old management taking over the merged company, the pro-Boeing outlook has continued. Having said that, I'm sure that if Airbus offered a product that met United's needs at a competitive price, they'd seriously consider it. They have shareholders to appease, profits to earn, and a route network to maintain, after all, and blind loyalty to Boeing will only get you just so far.


Yes, the airbus 320/319 order was a Steven Wolf deal. Rumor was United got a fantastic deal. I believe the US 319/320 deal happened when Wolf went over there after UA.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:43 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
Aptivaboy wrote:
I must be the odd man out because I love the United/Continental livery!


Its classy and elegant. I just do wish that they'd redo the font. The older Continental Perpetua Bold font was perfect for it. The current United Sans Serif font looks terrible. Other than that, I totally agree! Its classic and isn't another boring Eurowhite fuselage. Ever watch the grey under different lighting conditions? Its really neat seeing the color shift on a sunny than cloudy day.


If you've never seen them before check out the renderings from the original merger announcement. They were pretty terrible! The font used by Continental just did not work with the U in United.

The initial brand had a U with a stem, as that was how it appeared in that font, and then afted a wave of negative feedback they experimented with a U that didn't have a stem using a (subtley) different font to the rest of the word.

They quickly realised this wasn't working so adopted a whole new font. Given that this was the cheap Smisek era, and the merger was being rushed without much thought (hence their third font in fewer months), I wouldn't be shocked if the current font was chosen by someone playing around with the font options on MS Word! It's incredible that no-one took a step back and thought 'that doesn't look right' before announcing the merger, but in hindsight that was a sign of things to come.

Personally I like the current font. As much as I loved Continental, IMHO the brand was looking very dated by the late 2000s. Times style fonts were very early-90s, reflected by both the Continental and United battleship liveries from the era. Adopting a more 'contemporary' font (bland yes, but that reflects current trends in branding) gave it a much more modern look, and I for one still like the current livery. The wavy version is great, and even the Legacy Continental version looks good IMHO.


I agree the bold looks good. It would look better with the cut T like PMUA was using on the rising UNITED, but otherwise good. Yes, Times is very 1990s
 
ord
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:43 pm

"No need for all this, just adopt a different configuration for the 789, closer to 300 pax. AC flies apparently with 298 on theirs."

You do realize that AC's configuration has 30 business class seats, while UA's has 48. United would never significantly decrease the number of high-fare business class seats on business-heavy routes to Asia.

I suggest you take a look at United's investor presentation dated 2/27/18 to see why they chose the A350 and why the 787-10 is not a good fit range wise.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 7:49 pm

seabosdca wrote:
There is always another thread on this, showing that people don't read what UA puts in its press releases. The story is pretty clear from a combination of UA's own statements and a bit of logic. And it doesn't involve UA executives acting like forum fanboys.

UA and CO between them had too many midsize widebody orders at (A350-900 + 787) at the merger, so something had to give. When Smisek converted the pmUA A350 order into -1000s, his thinking was that the A350 would be a 744 replacement and enable a bit of international growth, and the conversion could take care of the surplus of orders.

Then, near the end, he made the dumbest order of his career: a bunch of 73Gs that were impossibly cheap, but also would have been uncompetitive from the day they were delivered. Munoz saw that writing on the wall and moved quickly to renegotiate with Boeing. Boeing, meanwhile, needed to find more 777 orders to bridge production to the 777X. The result was very clever: a 777-300ER order to speed up the replacement of the increasingly maintenance-intensive 747-400s, coupled with another renegotiation of the A350 deal to switch to the more attractive -900 and take delivery at the right time for 777-200ER replacement.

The A350-900 will operate at UA and will make a fine replacement for the TPAC 777-200ER. I don't know that UA will take 45 in the end--some might be converted to A321neo--but I'm sure they'll take at least 25. The 787-10 would be a fine replacement for those 777-200ERs that fly TATL, but it's a little short on range for the TPAC missions.


I agree with your recollection of the facts and think the way it worked out ends up being perfect for United. They need the 350 to replace the ERs. They have something that works the distance, but isn’t big enough (789), something that is big enough, but doesn’t go the distance (78-10). and something that is too big and does the distance (77W), but nothing that is the right replacement for the ERs
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 8:04 pm

ord wrote:
"No need for all this, just adopt a different configuration for the 789, closer to 300 pax. AC flies apparently with 298 on theirs."

You do realize that AC's configuration has 30 business class seats, while UA's has 48. United would never significantly decrease the number of high-fare business class seats on business-heavy routes to Asia.

I suggest you take a look at United's investor presentation dated 2/27/18 to see why they chose the A350 and why the 787-10 is not a good fit range wise.


given the replacement timeframe, I think they made a decision back when on the 359 that given the performance vs cost of the jet now in the real world, that they are reconsidering. They're going to wait and see how the 77X does IRL and make a decision at that point.

I bet that they do not take 359s. I base this on that the 359 even at the costly 280t variant doesn't offer them much more than incrementally more payload than their 789s with maybe 50 extra pax. A bit of cargo. If as was said before, their cargo business is a "big deal" money wise, they need a more capable jet and will end up with 778s or 779s, especially if the former lands a fuel-burn number close to or better than the 35K.

This thread after all is about the 77W vs the 35K not the 359.
 
caverunner17
Posts: 259
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 9:58 pm

trav777 wrote:
ord wrote:
"No need for all this, just adopt a different configuration for the 789, closer to 300 pax. AC flies apparently with 298 on theirs."

You do realize that AC's configuration has 30 business class seats, while UA's has 48. United would never significantly decrease the number of high-fare business class seats on business-heavy routes to Asia.

I suggest you take a look at United's investor presentation dated 2/27/18 to see why they chose the A350 and why the 787-10 is not a good fit range wise.


given the replacement timeframe, I think they made a decision back when on the 359 that given the performance vs cost of the jet now in the real world, that they are reconsidering. They're going to wait and see how the 77X does IRL and make a decision at that point.

I bet that they do not take 359s. I base this on that the 359 even at the costly 280t variant doesn't offer them much more than incrementally more payload than their 789s with maybe 50 extra pax. A bit of cargo. If as was said before, their cargo business is a "big deal" money wise, they need a more capable jet and will end up with 778s or 779s, especially if the former lands a fuel-burn number close to or better than the 35K.

This thread after all is about the 77W vs the 35K not the 359.


50 pax is a huge increase. That's almost a 20% difference in seating capacity.
 
ord
Posts: 1403
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:18 pm

[quote="trav777"given the replacement timeframe, I think they made a decision back when on the 359 that given the performance vs cost of the jet now in the real world, that they are reconsidering.[/quote]

Nobody at United, not Oscar, not Kirby and not Laderman has ever said one word, or even hinted, they are reconsidering the A350.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26202
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Tue Jan 22, 2019 10:38 pm

caverunner17 wrote:
50 pax is a huge increase. That's almost a 20% difference in seating capacity.


The cabin of the A350-900 is around three meters longer than that of the 787-9, so we're looking at three rows of standard Economy. So real-world, the difference will be around 27 seats.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:15 am

If you've never seen them before check out the renderings from the original merger announcement. They were pretty terrible! The font used by Continental just did not work with the U in United.


Would you happen to have a link for those, by chance? I'd love to see them.

Sigh... I miss my Continental One Pass program... Showing my age.

Thank you!
 
jfk777
Posts: 6910
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:02 am

UA did not ditch the A350-1000, they switched to a version that better fit their needs in the coming decades. The A350-900 is a great plane, does United need 45 is another question. United still needs to replace their 767-300ER fleet so more orders for 787 or Boeing's new NMA could happen.
 
ClarkeKent
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:40 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 1:06 am

Just my opinion, but I don’t believe au will take the 350. At least not anytime soon. At least not before a re-engine program (neo)

United has their needs covered with the 787 fleet (8-9-10) and their fleet of 22 77W. The 77W covers their heavy routes, and a combo of 789/7810 can cover the rest. Not to mention there will most likely be a few more 77W ordered at end of line pricing. These 77W will be in the fleet for the next 20+ years. There’s simply no need for a fleet of A350s. Their fleet going forward will be 787/777, and 797. I think it’s entirely possible that the A350 deposits are used for A321neo/rewing(if airbus does it) if Boeing don’t come to the table with 797. Though, I expect them to.

My opinion isn’t to say the 350 isn’t a great aeroplane. I just don’t think there is a need for 787/A350/777. In the same sense DL don’t need the 787 to slot between their 330 and 350 combo.
Would be different if ua didn’t have 22 brand new 77W. Their capacity needs are simply covered. And I’d bet there a more 77W orders to come. Who says their 772ER fleet needs to be replaced on a 1-1 basis with another fleet of near identical capacity and capability. (Albeit, with better efficiency)

Like I’ve stated, I’d argue the same thing with DL. They don’t need 787s. The only difference with ua is that they have 350 orders on the books. We all know how many years it can take airlines to finalise cancellations.
 
trav777
Posts: 163
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 7:17 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:21 am

ord wrote:
trav777 wrote:
given the replacement timeframe, I think they made a decision back when on the 359 that given the performance vs cost of the jet now in the real world, that they are reconsidering.


Nobody at United, not Oscar, not Kirby and not Laderman has ever said one word, or even hinted, they are reconsidering the A350.


Yeah they've only repeatedly deferred them and are in no hurry whatsoever to take delivery

but i guess around here we just whistle past graveyards when these things happen. UA will swap the 359s for probably 321s. They've got no need at all for the 359. They can reconfigure the 789 to handle what the 359 can do except for lugging tons of payload over shorter distances...for that they have 77Ws
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 17065
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 5:51 am

trav777 wrote:
This thread after all is about the 77W vs the 35K not the 359.


It clearly isn't. If you can only think in such a binary manner, it may explain your posts.

trav777 wrote:
Yeah they've only repeatedly deferred them and are in no hurry whatsoever to take delivery


Yeah, they've only repeatedly ordered more, paid more deposits and committed more money for when they actually need them.

trav777 wrote:
UA will swap the 359s for probably 321s.


So let me get this right, they have 737-9s and -10s on order, but should swap planes they keep ordering more of for planes they don't need and have shown no sign of ordering? You're funny. :lol:

trav777 wrote:
They can reconfigure the 789 to handle what the 359 can do except for lugging tons of payload over shorter distances..


Maybe you should ask the growing number of airlines that operate or have ordered both the A359 and 789? The A359 clearly gives them something the 789 can't. :scratchchin:
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 26202
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: Why did UA choose the B777-300ER and ditch the A350-1000?

Wed Jan 23, 2019 4:57 pm

scbriml wrote:
So let me get this right, (UA) have 737-9s and -10s on order, but should swap planes they keep ordering more of for planes they don't need and have shown no sign of ordering? You're funny. :lol:


To be fair, keesje has been a vocal proponent of UA switching out their larger-model 737 orders for A321s for years... :silly:

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