Just can't see them ordering 321s, not when they have something like 150-200 737s on order to go with their existing fleet. They have been very clear what their NB plane is and it doesn't begin with an "A"

MDC862 wrote:

Just can't see them ordering 321s, not when they have something like 150-200 737s on order to go with their existing fleet. They have been very clear what their NB plane is and it doesn't begin with an "A"

With 50 XLRs on order, I’d say they won’t be relying on a single manufacturer for a long time, if ever. Is it clear what they’ve preferred up to now? Obviously - but you don’t go and order 50 321s if you plan on relying solely on Boeing for your future fleet needs.

Supersonic Planes will join the fleet in 2029 United has signed an agreement with Boomaero for up to 50 jets.

I did not see this coming at all.... WOW

jayunited wrote:

Supersonic Planes will join the fleet in 2029 United has signed an agreement with Boomaero for up to 50 jets.

I did not see this coming at all.... WOW

They won't...but if they did, would this qualify for additional 76 seaters under the scope clause? The Boom planes are only going to seat 55.

cosyr wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Supersonic Planes will join the fleet in 2029 United has signed an agreement with Boomaero for up to 50 jets.

I did not see this coming at all.... WOW

They won't...but if they did, would this qualify for additional 76 seaters under the scope clause? The Boom planes are only going to seat 55.

No....the scope clause very specifically by aircraft type lays out what aircraft qualifies as a new small aircraft at mainline. I don't see ALPA budging even with Boom or UA trying that angle.

[twoid][/twoid]

cosyr wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Supersonic Planes will join the fleet in 2029 United has signed an agreement with Boomaero for up to 50 jets.

I did not see this coming at all.... WOW

They won't...but if they did, would this qualify for additional 76 seaters under the scope clause? The Boom planes are only going to seat 55.

There is a MTOW limit included with the scope, no chance

Isnt the scope irrelevant because these will definitely be staffed by mainline pilots?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Isnt the scope irrelevant because these will definitely be staffed by mainline pilots?

Correct, but a different angle is being discussed.

FWIW, there is also a clause that would enable UAL to outsource additional 76 seat RJs if UAL buys a new mainline “100 seat” aircraft. And this aircraft does not meet that contractural language either as it’s specific to the E190/A220 variants.

panam330 wrote:

MDC862 wrote:

Just can't see them ordering 321s, not when they have something like 150-200 737s on order to go with their existing fleet. They have been very clear what their NB plane is and it doesn't begin with an "A"

With 50 XLRs on order, I’d say they won’t be relying on a single manufacturer for a long time, if ever. Is it clear what they’ve preferred up to now? Obviously - but you don’t go and order 50 321s if you plan on relying solely on Boeing for your future fleet needs.

Sub-fleet of 50 that will not be delivered for years, and could be delayed or even canceled ala 350 before then, while they have 358 737s.

I realize everyone's notion of ratios are different, but any normal unbiased person would say the ratio of 7 to one is pretty clear and defined.

United's (Skywest) first flight from SBA to ORD in 40(ish?) years took off this morning. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL5396

Mainline was originally supposed to take this over next month, but it looks like it's OO for the foreseeable future. Oddly, July 1 has this route being flown on a CRJ?!? Surely that's an error...

SBAer wrote:

United's (Skywest) first flight from SBA to ORD in 40(ish?) years took off this morning. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL5396

Mainline was originally supposed to take this over next month, but it looks like it's OO for the foreseeable future. Oddly, July 1 has this route being flown on a CRJ?!? Surely that's an error...

Airline schedules often don’t come into effect the first of the month.

SBAer wrote:

United's (Skywest) first flight from SBA to ORD in 40(ish?) years took off this morning. https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL5396

Mainline was originally supposed to take this over next month, but it looks like it's OO for the foreseeable future. Oddly, July 1 has this route being flown on a CRJ?!? Surely that's an error...

probably just a tail number error.......back in the day you often saw random 757 on COEX aircraft if someone was in FOMS as was in the "RU" page (RU was for COEX entries)

MDC862 wrote:

Sub-fleet of 50 that will not be delivered for years, and could be delayed or even canceled ala 350 before then, while they have 358 737s.

I realize everyone's notion of ratios are different, but any normal unbiased person would say the ratio of 7 to one is pretty clear and defined.

I wonder if your response would have been different if it had been Delta making this announcement this morning and not United?

We all love to talk about the future and what the future of air travel will be. There have been numerous threads throughout the years since the retirement of all Concorde jets contemplating when there would be a return to supersonic travel.

I think everyone understands what Boom is up against and there is a chance supersonic travel will never happen. But there is also a chance that it could happen so the question then becomes does an airline like United wait on the sidelines until we know for sure if there will be a return to supersonic travel or do we get in on the ground floor. If Boom is able to pull this off airlines that wait until then will then have to wait years before they ever see their first delivery all while their competitors who got in early are taking deliveries.

It is a gamble yes it is. How much is this gamble costing airlines like JAL and United I don't know but obviously both carriers believe in the project they are will to take that step. And let's say this aircraft does become a reality even if deliveries are delayed and both Delta and American don't place orders until later this decade, that would be a huge competitive boost for United. United could deploy this aircraft along with standard aircraft have today on routes like EWR-LHR/CDG/FRA/ZRH/GVA, or IAD-LHR/FRA/CDG/ZRH/GVA, or SFO-NRT/HND/PVG/HKG/SIN/SYD/ or LAX-PVG/NRT/HND/SYD.

We all think we know how this is going to end based on how things turned out for Concorde but none of us can see the future. This paper aircraft could end up in the trash but it could also end up in the sky. Technology is changing, its evolving and perhaps here in the 21st century humans can finally figure out how to bring supersonic travel to the masses even on a 55 seater aircraft.

MAX 9 service to Hawaii has restarted, this is the first flight I've seen.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua417

My question is will this Overture Jet have the range to fly from SFO>HKG/HND/NRT/PVG/SIN/SYD or LAX>HKG/HND/NRT/PVG/SIN/SYD? Certainly the Concorde couldn't fly anywhere near that non-stop and it will be very interesting to see what it's max-payload range will be!

audidudi wrote:

My question is will this Overture Jet have the range to fly from SFO>HKG/HND/NRT/PVG/SIN/SYD or LAX>HKG/HND/NRT/PVG/SIN/SYD? Certainly the Concorde couldn't fly anywhere near that non-stop and it will be very interesting to see what it's max-payload range will be!

Well the PR explicitly states: "San Francisco to Tokyo in just six hours." So UA and Boom clearly contemplate it will have significant range.

jayunited wrote:

MDC862 wrote:

Sub-fleet of 50 that will not be delivered for years, and could be delayed or even canceled ala 350 before then, while they have 358 737s.

I realize everyone's notion of ratios are different, but any normal unbiased person would say the ratio of 7 to one is pretty clear and defined.

I wonder if your response would have been different if it had been Delta making this announcement this morning and not United?

We all love to talk about the future and what the future of air travel will be. There have been numerous threads throughout the years since the retirement of all Concorde jets contemplating when there would be a return to supersonic travel.

I think everyone understands what Boom is up against and there is a chance supersonic travel will never happen. But there is also a chance that it could happen so the question then becomes does an airline like United wait on the sidelines until we know for sure if there will be a return to supersonic travel or do we get in on the ground floor. If Boom is able to pull this off airlines that wait until then will then have to wait years before they ever see their first delivery all while their competitors who got in early are taking deliveries.

It is a gamble yes it is. How much is this gamble costing airlines like JAL and United I don't know but obviously both carriers believe in the project they are will to take that step. And let's say this aircraft does become a reality even if deliveries are delayed and both Delta and American don't place orders until later this decade, that would be a huge competitive boost for United. United could deploy this aircraft along with standard aircraft have today on routes like EWR-LHR/CDG/FRA/ZRH/GVA, or IAD-LHR/FRA/CDG/ZRH/GVA, or SFO-NRT/HND/PVG/HKG/SIN/SYD/ or LAX-PVG/NRT/HND/SYD.

We all think we know how this is going to end based on how things turned out for Concorde but none of us can see the future. This paper aircraft could end up in the trash but it could also end up in the sky. Technology is changing, its evolving and perhaps here in the 21st century humans can finally figure out how to bring supersonic travel to the masses even on a 55 seater aircraft.

What I want to know is since Concorde was grounded (or really since it was developed) what has changed? Is there some magic technology on Supersonic jets that make them more efficient, and thus potentially profitable in the last 40 years? A 787 uses significantly less fuel than a 747-100, and an A32xNeo uses significantly less fuel than a DC-8, but I see no indication that this new jet will be sitting in a new paradigm of operating efficiency that didn't exist with Concorde. Even if this plane was 30% more fuel efficient than Concorde, the price of jet fuel is more than 50% more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than when Concorde was launched. Also, if there were a true market demand for this jet, where are BA and AF?

I don't really understand the publicity stunts that UA is exploring with this "order" as well as the order for those Drone taxi things. All of a sudden they are acting like Pan Am in the days of selling tickets on the first passenger flight to the moon.

cosyr wrote:

I don't really understand the publicity stunts that UA is exploring with this "order" as well as the order for those Drone taxi things. All of a sudden they are acting like Pan Am in the days of selling tickets on the first passenger flight to the moon.

Every age has an airline or two that are in a position to shape the future. And while not everything Pan Am dreamt about became a reality (flights to the moon), others were a complete game changer for the industry (the 747). And eventually what brought Pan Am down was not its visionary role within the industry. I am not sure if United wants to be a visionary just like Pan Am, but if it were, what would be the harm?

I have no idea what money was deposited, if any, on the electric air taxi (not a drone – it'll be piloted) or Overture but even if they don't shake out United's gotten a few thing for its pennies already:

• It's shaping an image as the future-looking airline that's betting on tomorrow in a way no other airline is.
• People know that electric airplanes are a thing that's are in development, and that positive idea has United's name associated with in in a way that isn't with American, Delta, or Southwest.
• People know that supersonic passenger jets are a thing that's in development again, and that super cool idea has United's name associated with in in a way that American, Delta, or Southwest aren't.
• People are starting to learn what sustainable aviation fuel is, and they learned about it because of United.

Casually interested, non-avgeek people texted me today asking about some of these things. How often does that happen?

United gets the positive brand image today without any of these things having taken to the air.

Plus they led the majors in permanently getting rid of change fees. Plus they're in headlines for testing particle movement in cabin. Plus they're in headlines because of the vaccine card free flight contest.

The United of the past year or year and a half has been on a roll being the good guy, the innovator, the leader in a way that normal people who aren't on this forum are taking notice. It's really cool to see people around me take notice without my prompting them.

cosyr wrote:

v]
What I want to know is since Concorde was grounded (or really since it was developed) what has changed? Is there some magic technology on Supersonic jets that make them more efficient, and thus potentially profitable in the last 40 years? A 787 uses significantly less fuel than a 747-100, and an A32xNeo uses significantly less fuel than a DC-8, but I see no indication that this new jet will be sitting in a new paradigm of operating efficiency that didn't exist with Concorde. Even if this plane was 30% more fuel efficient than Concorde, the price of jet fuel is more than 50% more expensive (adjusted for inflation) than when Concorde was launched. Also, if there were a true market demand for this jet, where are BA and AF?

I don't really understand the publicity stunts that UA is exploring with this "order" as well as the order for those Drone taxi things. All of a sudden they are acting like Pan Am in the days of selling tickets on the first passenger flight to the moon.

Was UA's announcement a gimmick absolutely but I feel like people need to get past United and their gimmicky announcement and focus on the fact that United now joins JAL in investing and exploring if there is a future for supersonic travel in the 21st century.

The grounding of the Concorde literally has nothing to do with this the Concorde was developed in the 1960s based on 1960's technology. I'm not an engineer but obviously technology is emerging because in addition to Boom we also have NASA working on their X-59 which is also a supersonic aircraft and NASA is trying to reduce or eliminate the sonic boom created by aircraft moving at supersonic speeds. Rolls Royce is at least one engine manufacture working with Boom. People keep wanting to judge the future of travel by the limitations of the past. I said this in the other thread is SpaceX had listened to their detractors who said it was impossible to land and reuse their Falcon 9 rockets the US would still be sending US astronauts to Russia and paying Russia a ton of money to hitch a ride to the ISS. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and other technology companies said it was impossible but SpaceX made the impossible possible. Until we have a company like Boom that is willing to take the risk with the backing of airlines like JAL and United we will never know if it is possible to succeed where the Concorde failed. You want to know what has changed since the development of the Concorde give it a few years and maybe just maybe NASA and who knows maybe even Boom can answer your question. Can supersonic travel also be fuel efficient and can technology reduce or eliminate the sonic boom, we will never know if the technology exist as long as companies continue to sit on the side line.

If both Boom and NASA succeed think about how that breakthrough would revolutionize air travel. Just because human being haven't figured it out yet does not mean it is impossible to crack the code which is economical and fuel efficient supersonic travel. Concorde was the first it doesn't mean they also have to be the last and we should just accept subsonic travel.

jayunited, your post gave me warm fuzzies for the future.

As an add-on, United lining up behind these startups really helps the startups raise money from investors:

"Hey, we're not some rinky-dink operation. We've got a top tier customer lined up to buy our eventual product if you make patient investments in us."

Boom + United is a lot more likely to see viable supersonic commercial air travel become reality than Boom on its own.

Big day for UA
First the Boom Announcement.
Second 3 inaugural flights: ORD-KOA, EWR-JNB/OGG commenced
Finally UA returned to KEF and ATH with EWR flights to both European cities.
How are the load factors on the upcoming IAD-ATH? Also, how are loads on the EWR-ATH flights this week?

Planned range for Boom is ~4500nmi...

So, if this plane does in fact eventually come into UA's fleet, it would be limited to SFO-NRT/HND in terms of TPAC and EWR/IAD to everything west of Athens in terms of TATL.

UAX Update:

E145XR:
N12167 (ex-EV 2004 build) ferried IGM-JAX for conformity checks before joining CommutAir fleet
N16170 entered revenue service with CommutAir

CR7:
N519LR ferried STL for conversion to CR5
N789SK exited ROW in EvoBlu livery
N794SK exited ROW in EvoBlu livery
N784SK entered ROW for paint

jayunited wrote:

Was UA's announcement a gimmick absolutely but I feel like people need to get past United and their gimmicky announcement and focus on the fact that United now joins JAL in investing and exploring if there is a future for supersonic travel in the 21st century.

The real question is will this show up as a type in the next pilot contract and if so where does it get slotted into the agreement in terms of pay.

The 764 seems to have made a gentle return to service recently. EWR to HNL and IAH at least.

Gillbilly wrote:

The 764 seems to have made a gentle return to service recently. EWR to HNL and IAH at least.

The 764 has been flying EWR-IAH for about a month now...

MDC862 wrote:

panam330 wrote:

MDC862 wrote:

Just can't see them ordering 321s, not when they have something like 150-200 737s on order to go with their existing fleet. They have been very clear what their NB plane is and it doesn't begin with an "A"

With 50 XLRs on order, I’d say they won’t be relying on a single manufacturer for a long time, if ever. Is it clear what they’ve preferred up to now? Obviously - but you don’t go and order 50 321s if you plan on relying solely on Boeing for your future fleet needs.

Sub-fleet of 50 that will not be delivered for years, and could be delayed or even canceled ala 350 before then, while they have 358 737s.

I realize everyone's notion of ratios are different, but any normal unbiased person would say the ratio of 7 to one is pretty clear and defined.

Any normal, unbiased person would also recognize that they have/are about to have 200+ other 32S that have not had replacements ordered for them that could still go in either direction, while also pointing out that if they can cancel 321s, they can also cancel 737s.
Next time, if you mean to say “majority”, not “only”, and will get twisted over what people say when they don’t infer exactly what you meant, then you should probably be clearer in your posts before you send trite, snide responses.

How is UA doing with its South Africa service to JNB and CPT!? I know yesterday was the JNB inaugural. This means UA is finally in the 6 continent club!

After you review UA statements and before you make personal comments, the 737s are for fleet replacement and growth. There is NO plan to replace 320s.

x1234 wrote:

How is UA doing with its South Africa service to JNB and CPT!? I know yesterday was the JNB inaugural. This means UA is finally in the 6 continent club!

UA flew EWR-CPT precovid, so they have been (back) in the club for a little. Personally when checking flights EWE-JNB looks to be pretty full in Polaris on almost everyday.

x1234 wrote:

How is UA doing with its South Africa service to JNB and CPT!? I know yesterday was the JNB inaugural. This means UA is finally in the 6 continent club!

Anecdotally I heard the CPT route did quite well in Winter 2019-20. I think I read on a few posts over the years from people with more knowledge than I that they heard/saw the same.

Hoping it gets brought back this winter, still hoping for a return trip in Feb next year.

x1234 wrote:

How is UA doing with its South Africa service to JNB and CPT!? I know yesterday was the JNB inaugural. This means UA is finally in the 6 continent club!

IAD-ACC has been flying for a bit already. JNB is late to the club.

UA857 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.

Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.

For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.

UA doesn't do much ULH. So the best thing for UA is the 789. And if you need more than 270 pax is the 78J. There just arent that many routes in the UA network which need more plane. Besides, the 778 is a better replacement for the 77W; if it ever shows up.

jagraham wrote:

UA doesn't do much ULH.

What? The SIN and a number of the India flights are ULH, which is more than AA and DL combined. IAH-SYD as well.

jbs2886 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

UA doesn't do much ULH.

What? The SIN and a number of the India flights are ULH, which is more than AA and DL combined. IAH-SYD as well.

Ha yep I agree. UA is the king of ULH of the domestic carriers and even among worldwide carriers has its fair share of ULH. Having said that, I would agree that the 787 variants cover most of their routes. There are a few that have potential for high capacity and are also long stage lengths where neither the 787-9 nor 787-10 do the trick, but there aren’t that many. I will bet that eventually the 787-10 will be tweaked to accommodate some but not all of those high density, long haul routes

Scarebus34 wrote:

Gillbilly wrote:

The 764 seems to have made a gentle return to service recently. EWR to HNL and IAH at least.

The 764 has been flying EWR-IAH for about a month now...

Yep, I was on one last month EWR-SFO as well.

jagraham wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.

For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.

UA doesn't do much ULH. So the best thing for UA is the 789. And if you need more than 270 pax is the 78J. There just arent that many routes in the UA network which need more plane. Besides, the 778 is a better replacement for the 77W; if it ever shows up.

UA does not do much ULH compared to what airlines? Certainly more than DL or AA, but even if you look at international airlines pre-COVID who was flying more long haul flights?

flyer56 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

UA857 wrote:

For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.

UA doesn't do much ULH. So the best thing for UA is the 789. And if you need more than 270 pax is the 78J. There just arent that many routes in the UA network which need more plane. Besides, the 778 is a better replacement for the 77W; if it ever shows up.

UA does not do much ULH compared to what airlines? Certainly more than DL or AA, but even if you look at international airlines pre-COVID who was flying more long haul flights?

Of the 30 longest flights in the world, UA operates 4 of them - the same number that QR and SQ operate. Only EK operates more, with 5.

This is not including UA's SFO-BLR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_f ... e_distance)

GoSharks wrote:

flyer56 wrote:

jagraham wrote:

UA doesn't do much ULH. So the best thing for UA is the 789. And if you need more than 270 pax is the 78J. There just arent that many routes in the UA network which need more plane. Besides, the 778 is a better replacement for the 77W; if it ever shows up.

UA does not do much ULH compared to what airlines? Certainly more than DL or AA, but even if you look at international airlines pre-COVID who was flying more long haul flights?

Of the 30 longest flights in the world, UA operates 4 of them - the same number that QR and SQ operate. Only EK operates more, with 5.

This is not including UA's SFO-BLR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_f ... e_distance)

Thank you, this is kind of my point! UA actually does decent amount of long haul flying.

flyer56 wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

flyer56 wrote:

UA does not do much ULH compared to what airlines? Certainly more than DL or AA, but even if you look at international airlines pre-COVID who was flying more long haul flights?

Of the 30 longest flights in the world, UA operates 4 of them - the same number that QR and SQ operate. Only EK operates more, with 5.

This is not including UA's SFO-BLR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_f ... e_distance)

Thank you, this is kind of my point! UA actually does decent amount of long haul flying.

Yes, and United is doing all of that long haul flying with their current fleet, no A350's or 777X's anywhere to be found. Amazing how United is managing just fine without them.

Back to my question. Could UA convert the 764 into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A? If so UA could keep and reduce the BusinessFirst seats in F and add seats and remove AVOD in Y.

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

I thought the reason the 789 was delivered with Diamond seats was that the Polaris seats were so slow in initial production that they didn't want to bog down the manufacturer, which would have delayed delivery of both 77W's and 789's. Since they already had 787's with Diamond, they went with short term consistency over delays in deliveries. I seem to remember some 77W's sitting for a while before delivery, waiting for Polaris seats, and that was without 789's competing for production capacity.

No this is way before the supply issues crept up and delay deliveries of some 77Ws.
Back in early 2016 a decision or compromise was made even before United ever took delivery of our first 77W that we would continue to take delivery of future 787-9s with diamond seats and not Polaris seats. So if true this decision was made once United settled on the Polaris seat we have today, a decision that made no sense then and still makes no sense now but it all came down to money. We know the diamond seats were much cheaper build and install than Oscars Polaris seats. And although United had placed the order for those 787-9s years earlier the decision to continue installing diamond seats on all 787-9 deliveries from 2017 onward was made in 2016. If the rumors are true Oscars rollout plan originally called for Polaris to make its debut on both the 77W's in 2016 and 787-9 deliveries beginning in 2017.
We know did not happen and United continued to take delivery of 787-9s with diamond seats until late 2019. I think our first 787-9 delivered from Boeing with Polaris was delivered just before Christmas in 2019. This means United had 7 frames delivered between 2017 and the end of 2019 with diamond seats that could have had Polaris installed if Oscar had had his way.

What UA should have done to save money was have Polaris installed on all factory built 77Ws and 78Js and existing 763s and 77Es and leave the 752, 764, 77A, 788, and 789 in either IPTE or BusinessFirst configuration. Meaning that all 789s delievered after 2017 would still have BF seats rather then Polaris.

UA857 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

I thought the reason the 789 was delivered with Diamond seats was that the Polaris seats were so slow in initial production that they didn't want to bog down the manufacturer, which would have delayed delivery of both 77W's and 789's. Since they already had 787's with Diamond, they went with short term consistency over delays in deliveries. I seem to remember some 77W's sitting for a while before delivery, waiting for Polaris seats, and that was without 789's competing for production capacity.

No this is way before the supply issues crept up and delay deliveries of some 77Ws.
Back in early 2016 a decision or compromise was made even before United ever took delivery of our first 77W that we would continue to take delivery of future 787-9s with diamond seats and not Polaris seats. So if true this decision was made once United settled on the Polaris seat we have today, a decision that made no sense then and still makes no sense now but it all came down to money. We know the diamond seats were much cheaper build and install than Oscars Polaris seats. And although United had placed the order for those 787-9s years earlier the decision to continue installing diamond seats on all 787-9 deliveries from 2017 onward was made in 2016. If the rumors are true Oscars rollout plan originally called for Polaris to make its debut on both the 77W's in 2016 and 787-9 deliveries beginning in 2017.
We know did not happen and United continued to take delivery of 787-9s with diamond seats until late 2019. I think our first 787-9 delivered from Boeing with Polaris was delivered just before Christmas in 2019. This means United had 7 frames delivered between 2017 and the end of 2019 with diamond seats that could have had Polaris installed if Oscar had had his way.

What UA should have done to save money was have Polaris installed on all factory built 77Ws and 78Js and existing 763s and 77Es and leave the 752, 764, 77A, 788, and 789 in either IPTE or BusinessFirst configuration. Meaning that all 789s delievered after 2017 would still have BF seats rather then Polaris.

In the words of Randy Jackson, that’s gonna be a no for me, dawg.

codc10 wrote:

UA857 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

No this is way before the supply issues crept up and delay deliveries of some 77Ws.
Back in early 2016 a decision or compromise was made even before United ever took delivery of our first 77W that we would continue to take delivery of future 787-9s with diamond seats and not Polaris seats. So if true this decision was made once United settled on the Polaris seat we have today, a decision that made no sense then and still makes no sense now but it all came down to money. We know the diamond seats were much cheaper build and install than Oscars Polaris seats. And although United had placed the order for those 787-9s years earlier the decision to continue installing diamond seats on all 787-9 deliveries from 2017 onward was made in 2016. If the rumors are true Oscars rollout plan originally called for Polaris to make its debut on both the 77W's in 2016 and 787-9 deliveries beginning in 2017.
We know did not happen and United continued to take delivery of 787-9s with diamond seats until late 2019. I think our first 787-9 delivered from Boeing with Polaris was delivered just before Christmas in 2019. This means United had 7 frames delivered between 2017 and the end of 2019 with diamond seats that could have had Polaris installed if Oscar had had his way.

What UA should have done to save money was have Polaris installed on all factory built 77Ws and 78Js and existing 763s and 77Es and leave the 752, 764, 77A, 788, and 789 in either IPTE or BusinessFirst configuration. Meaning that all 789s delievered after 2017 would still have BF seats rather then Polaris.

In the words of Randy Jackson, that’s gonna be a no for me, dawg.

Why no? Wouldn't UA save money buy having all 763/77E/77W/78J configured with Polaris and leave the 752/764/77A/788/789 in IPTE//BF configuration?

There's a United 787 at JNB right now. Nice to see a new tail on the tarmac.

UA857 wrote:

Back to my question. Could UA convert the 764 into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A? If so UA could keep and reduce the BusinessFirst seats in F and add seats and remove AVOD in Y.

Why would they remove AVOD?

UA857 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

UA857 wrote:

What UA should have done to save money was have Polaris installed on all factory built 77Ws and 78Js and existing 763s and 77Es and leave the 752, 764, 77A, 788, and 789 in either IPTE or BusinessFirst configuration. Meaning that all 789s delievered after 2017 would still have BF seats rather then Polaris.

In the words of Randy Jackson, that’s gonna be a no for me, dawg.

Why no? Wouldn't UA save money buy having all 763/77E/77W/78J configured with Polaris and leave the 752/764/77A/788/789 in IPTE//BF configuration?

Why would you not put Polaris on the 787-9 that are doing your longest routes?

STT757 wrote:

UA857 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

In the words of Randy Jackson, that’s gonna be a no for me, dawg.

Why no? Wouldn't UA save money buy having all 763/77E/77W/78J configured with Polaris and leave the 752/764/77A/788/789 in IPTE//BF configuration?

Why would you not put Polaris on the 787-9 that are doing your longest routes?

Because you have the A350 on order which has better range then the 789.

STT757 wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Back to my question. Could UA convert the 764 into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A? If so UA could keep and reduce the BusinessFirst seats in F and add seats and remove AVOD in Y.

Why would they remove AVOD?

Because the 77A doesn't have AVOD in Y.