Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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"
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
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.
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.
Nicknuzzii wrote:Isnt the scope irrelevant because these will definitely be staffed by mainline pilots?
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.
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...
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...
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gillbilly wrote:The 764 seems to have made a gentle return to service recently. EWR to HNL and IAH at least.
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.
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!
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!
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!
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.
jagraham wrote:UA doesn't do much ULH.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?