jayunited wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

https://airfinancejournal.com/articles/3583651/exclusive-united-in-talks-for-up-to-300-airbus-boeing

You guys this is a mega deal.

250 737s and 787s - 787s in the double digits

60+ A321s

WOW - I mean. Again. If this deal closes the 350 is a wrap.

Another thing that I just thought of concerns a potential 787 order and it was something Oscar Munoz and Scott Kirby spoke about at a in person town hall meeting at SFO way back in March or 2018.

At that town hall meeting Kirby told employees the 767s would be sticking around for some time because UA was very much interested in Boeing NMA and wanted to be the launch customer for the NMA. However he also stated if Boeing took to long to make a decision on the NMA United contingency plan for the 757 and 767 fleet would be to order A321s (United already has 50 A321XLRs on order) but UA could also order 788s as a replacement for our aging 763 fleet. He admitted the 788s are not the ideal replacement for 763s flying between EWR/IAD/ORD - Europe but if necessary UA would order 788s because it make more sense to take the 788 over the A330.

Right now Boeing seems to have their hand full between the FAA asking for more information on the 787s, making the necessary and required improvements to the MAX 10, and making sure the 777X meets all expectations, there is no chance of a NMA coming to the market by the time UA would need to retire our 763 fleet. So instead of assuming any additional 787 order would kill UA's A359 order you have to look at the entire fleet. Right now if we put UA's 19 77As to the side there is a good chance the Pratt and Whitney 77Es will return to the fleet in 2022, if so those aircraft are good until 2027 or longer and like I stated earlier UA expects the PW 77Es will return in 2022. UA also has an order on the books to replace all 752s frame for frame and it now looks like a potential order for more A321s but we have no replacement or order on the books for our 763s.

If you look at UA 788 and 789 nose numbers you will noticed our 788 nose number ends at 3913, but our 789 nose number doesn't begin until 3950 that was by design because UA wanted to leave 3914-3949 open just in case UA order more 788s. United is going to have to start retiring some of our 763s by 2025 but the longer we wait for Boing to decide on a NMA the more the airline is in jeopardy of not having a suitable replace for UA's aging 763s.

Max Q wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

https://airfinancejournal.com/articles/3583651/exclusive-united-in-talks-for-up-to-300-airbus-boeing

You guys this is a mega deal.

250 737s and 787s - 787s in the double digits

60+ A321s

WOW - I mean. Again. If this deal closes the 350 is a wrap.

Another thing that I just thought of concerns a potential 787 order and it was something Oscar Munoz and Scott Kirby spoke about at a in person town hall meeting at SFO way back in March or 2018.

At that town hall meeting Kirby told employees the 767s would be sticking around for some time because UA was very much interested in Boeing NMA and wanted to be the launch customer for the NMA. However he also stated if Boeing took to long to make a decision on the NMA United contingency plan for the 757 and 767 fleet would be to order A321s (United already has 50 A321XLRs on order) but UA could also order 788s as a replacement for our aging 763 fleet. He admitted the 788s are not the ideal replacement for 763s flying between EWR/IAD/ORD - Europe but if necessary UA would order 788s because it make more sense to take the 788 over the A330.

Right now Boeing seems to have their hand full between the FAA asking for more information on the 787s, making the necessary and required improvements to the MAX 10, and making sure the 777X meets all expectations, there is no chance of a NMA coming to the market by the time UA would need to retire our 763 fleet. So instead of assuming any additional 787 order would kill UA's A359 order you have to look at the entire fleet. Right now if we put UA's 19 77As to the side there is a good chance the Pratt and Whitney 77Es will return to the fleet in 2022, if so those aircraft are good until 2027 or longer and like I stated earlier UA expects the PW 77Es will return in 2022. UA also has an order on the books to replace all 752s frame for frame and it now looks like a potential order for more A321s but we have no replacement or order on the books for our 763s.

If you look at UA 788 and 789 nose numbers you will noticed our 788 nose number ends at 3913, but our 789 nose number doesn't begin until 3950 that was by design because UA wanted to leave 3914-3949 open just in case UA order more 788s. United is going to have to start retiring some of our 763s by 2025 but the longer we wait for Boing to decide on a NMA the more the airline is in jeopardy of not having a suitable replace for UA's aging 763s.

This makes more and more sense, it looks like there’s not even going to be a ‘small widebody’ Boeing option and they’ve been indicating that lately, conceding that a widebody of any size will never have lower fuel burn than a narrowbody of equivalent capacity


They seem to be emphasizing development of a single aisle 757-200 and -300 replacement with priority going to the latter, probably a -300 sized airframe with a 5000NM range, and a shorter version to follow with an even longer range


The 788 may not be a perfect 763 replacement but it’s pretty good, AA thinks so. And the overall cost fir the airlines will be lower when you consider development costs are all done plus the huge commonality benefits

STT757 wrote:

With the 737-9 Max and the 737-8Max having the same exact seating as their NG counter parts (800, 900ER) doesn’t that make them more desirable to acquire in larger numbers vs. the 737-7 Max and 737-10. Max?

They can be interchangeable in scheduling, switching out a Max 9 for a 900ER etc.. without having to reseat passenger seat assignments.

lightsaber wrote:

STT757 wrote:

With the 737-9 Max and the 737-8Max having the same exact seating as their NG counter parts (800, 900ER) doesn’t that make them more desirable to acquire in larger numbers vs. the 737-7 Max and 737-10. Max?

They can be interchangeable in scheduling, switching out a Max 9 for a 900ER etc.. without having to reseat passenger seat assignments.

I speculate UA might be the launch customer for a -9 with the -10 gear. The flexibility you note, plus better shortfield and rumor is more fuel capacity.

With an order of 100-150, this will be a self sustaining fleet, so -10 economics might win out.

Lightsaber

lightsaber wrote:

eraugrad02 wrote:

You guys, I'll throw in my .02,

United likes to be the launch carrier for their planes. Here is my guess. Boeing will become the launch carrier for the -10LR. They could add significant range by adding tanks in the horizontal stabilizers. But who am I...?

I like the idea. How about -9ER? Eventually the -10 gear will go to the -9 for shortfield performance and there should be a MTOW increase too.

Lightsaber

Max Q wrote:

If the A321 is ordered I wonder if UA will select the XLR version again or the baseline NEO

DLHAM wrote:

Could this 787 order mean United giving up on waiting for a 1:1 767 replacement (MOM) and order 787-8 to replace the 767-300ER and also 400ER later on? American did the same. The 787-8 is too much airplane, but still the closest thing to a 1:1 replacement next to the A330-800. Maybe they can get a derated version with lower MTOW on paper?

seahawk wrote:

Would be good news for both sides.

randomdude83 wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

Could this 787 order mean United giving up on waiting for a 1:1 767 replacement (MOM) and order 787-8 to replace the 767-300ER and also 400ER later on? American did the same. The 787-8 is too much airplane, but still the closest thing to a 1:1 replacement next to the A330-800. Maybe they can get a derated version with lower MTOW on paper?

I'm kinda hoping the 787 order is to replace the PW777 instead. But I think they can knock both 767 and PW 777 out with a -8/-9/-10 combinations, thats the beauty of the 787 line.

dtwpilot225 wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Would be good news for both sides.

How?

DLHAM wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

Could this 787 order mean United giving up on waiting for a 1:1 767 replacement (MOM) and order 787-8 to replace the 767-300ER and also 400ER later on? American did the same. The 787-8 is too much airplane, but still the closest thing to a 1:1 replacement next to the A330-800. Maybe they can get a derated version with lower MTOW on paper?

I'm kinda hoping the 787 order is to replace the PW777 instead. But I think they can knock both 767 and PW 777 out with a -8/-9/-10 combinations, thats the beauty of the 787 line.

The 777-200A can be easily replaced by 787-10, which is the almost perfect replacement. To replace the 777-200ER they lack range, on the other hand the majority of the 200ER routes should be well within the range of the -10. So in fact the majority of 777-200s could be replaced by 787-10s.

keesje wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

randomdude83 wrote:

I'm kinda hoping the 787 order is to replace the PW777 instead. But I think they can knock both 767 and PW 777 out with a -8/-9/-10 combinations, thats the beauty of the 787 line.

The 777-200A can be easily replaced by 787-10, which is the almost perfect replacement. To replace the 777-200ER they lack range, on the other hand the majority of the 200ER routes should be well within the range of the -10. So in fact the majority of 777-200s could be replaced by 787-10s.

I think on a typical United cargo heavy pacific flight (ORD-ICN) a 787-10 can hardly carry cargo with full passengers. A 777-200ER can carry substantial cargo. That's why they (and many other Pacific carriers) selected the A350-900 as 777-200ER replacement. The 787-10 might be better for Atlantic flights (<4500NM).


https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... or-787max/

DLHAM wrote:

keesje wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

The 777-200A can be easily replaced by 787-10, which is the almost perfect replacement. To replace the 777-200ER they lack range, on the other hand the majority of the 200ER routes should be well within the range of the -10. So in fact the majority of 777-200s could be replaced by 787-10s.

I think on a typical United cargo heavy pacific flight (ORD-ICN) a 787-10 can hardly carry cargo with full passengers. A 777-200ER can carry substantial cargo. That's why they (and many other Pacific carriers) selected the A350-900 as 777-200ER replacement. The 787-10 might be better for Atlantic flights (<4500NM).


https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... or-787max/

Thats true, but how many of those 200ER flights are really that long? 787-9s could do that job with a slightly higher frequency to make up for the decreased airplane capacity.

jayunited wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

keesje wrote:

I think on a typical United cargo heavy pacific flight (ORD-ICN) a 787-10 can hardly carry cargo with full passengers. A 777-200ER can carry substantial cargo. That's why they (and many other Pacific carriers) selected the A350-900 as 777-200ER replacement. The 787-10 might be better for Atlantic flights (<4500NM).


https://epsilonaviation.wordpress.com/2 ... or-787max/

Thats true, but how many of those 200ER flights are really that long? 787-9s could do that job with a slightly higher frequency to make up for the decreased airplane capacity.

Are you talking now? Or Pre-pandemic and looking forward to post-pandemic?

If you are talking pre and post pandemic UA has a whole host of long haul routes where a 77E out performs the 78X. I don't feel like explaining this again so all I will say is go to the United Fleet and Network thread click on page 27 and read the 6th post from the top, hopefully that will provide you with a better understanding of what the 78X is capable of in the real world vs the 77E in the real world.

STT757 wrote:

The 787 order could be:

Replacement for the 77A’s, 787-10.

Replacement for 767s, 787-8.

Replacement for 77E, 787-9, 787-10

I’m leaning towards either of the first two, which would have no effect on the existing A350 order. The 767 replacement would eliminate the Boeing NMA.

STT757 wrote:

The 787 order could be:

Replacement for the 77A’s, 787-10.

Replacement for 767s, 787-8.

Replacement for 77E, 787-9, 787-10

I’m leaning towards either of the first two, which would have no effect on the existing A350 order. The 767 replacement would eliminate the Boeing NMA.

UA857 wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

UA857 wrote:

UA used to have 44 744s, as of now they only have 22 77Ws, that leaves a 22-plane gap in their fleet. So ordering 22 779s makes sense given that it would cover the loss capacity and also provide a lifeline for the 777X program given that the type hasn't sold well and with COVID and many airlines evaluating their 777X order it might be an opportunity for UA to order the 77Xs just to keep production going.

That’s exceptionally short sighted thinking. The 787 has filled that gap. Other than converting some 777s to HD configuration, United haven’t retired any other wide body aircraft but have taken delivery of 63 787s. This has completely negated the need for a 747 sized aircraft, by allowing them to launch new routes and/or increasing frequency. Look at the Australian market as an example. United used to fly 2 747s per day to SYD, with one continuing to MEL. Pre-COVID, they were operating 4-5 daily 787s in Winter and 3 daily 787s in Summer across LAX/SFO/IAH-SYD and LAX/SFO-MEL. A very different approach to the market, and one that has allowed them to significantly grow capacity. This is United’s future, they don’t need a ‘true’ 747 replacement.

Ummm? Too many 787s and A350s might be actually be a curse for UA. UA is a hub-and-spoke airline and SFO and EWR have limited space available meaning that the only way to increase capacity is by the volume of passengers per flight and not the number of flights.

Revelation wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The 767 replacement would eliminate the Boeing NMA.

It seems clear that Boeing has eliminated the Boeing NMA, the CEO's recent comments say he won't even address the current design point, never mind when it would become available.

UA444 wrote:

It’s amazing how many want to stick a fork in the “ancient” 777A model but seemingly gloss over the fact they have 757RR that are older and need replacement but instead, somehow age in reverse on this site and constantly billed as “pretty new”.

UA444 wrote:

It’s amazing how many want to stick a fork in the “ancient” 777A model but seemingly gloss over the fact they have 757RR that are older and need replacement but instead, somehow age in reverse on this site and constantly billed as “pretty new”.

STT757 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

It’s amazing how many want to stick a fork in the “ancient” 777A model but seemingly gloss over the fact they have 757RR that are older and need replacement but instead, somehow age in reverse on this site and constantly billed as “pretty new”.

The oldest RR powered 752 at United is a May 1994 build, the oldest 777A at United is a May 1995 build. A one year difference.

And as mentioned already they ordered the RR 752 replacement, the A321XLR.

I think the 787-10 is the perfect 777A replacement, and the A350s they have on order can replace the GE and PW powered 777-200ERs. After the 777-200ERs are retired they can look at the A350-1000 or 777-8/9 for the replacement of the 777-300ERs.

jbs2886 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

It’s amazing how many want to stick a fork in the “ancient” 777A model but seemingly gloss over the fact they have 757RR that are older and need replacement but instead, somehow age in reverse on this site and constantly billed as “pretty new”.

The oldest RR powered 752 at United is a May 1994 build, the oldest 777A at United is a May 1995 build. A one year difference.

And as mentioned already they ordered the RR 752 replacement, the A321XLR.

I think the 787-10 is the perfect 777A replacement, and the A350s they have on order can replace the GE and PW powered 777-200ERs. After the 777-200ERs are retired they can look at the A350-1000 or 777-8/9 for the replacement of the 777-300ERs.

Why are we talking about 777W replacement-much less with the current product offerings? There will not be a replacement of those within a decade, so let’s table that.

Polot wrote:

UA444 wrote:

It’s amazing how many want to stick a fork in the “ancient” 777A model but seemingly gloss over the fact they have 757RR that are older and need replacement but instead, somehow age in reverse on this site and constantly billed as “pretty new”.

UA has already indicated the previous XLR order is to replace the remaining 757s.

A lot with the 777As depends up on how disruptive the PW fix is.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

I notice barring the A320 series, UA has an all-Boeing fleet.

1) CO had an all-Boeing fleet as well. Did UA have these Airbuses from before the merger, or were they ordered later?
2) UA also has 45 A350s on order, deferred to 2027. Will this ever see the light of day?

d8s wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

I notice barring the A320 series, UA has an all-Boeing fleet.

1) CO had an all-Boeing fleet as well. Did UA have these Airbuses from before the merger, or were they ordered later?
2) UA also has 45 A350s on order, deferred to 2027. Will this ever see the light of day?

UA will never take the A350's and will reluctantly take some A321's

d8s wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

I notice barring the A320 series, UA has an all-Boeing fleet.

1) CO had an all-Boeing fleet as well. Did UA have these Airbuses from before the merger, or were they ordered later?
2) UA also has 45 A350s on order, deferred to 2027. Will this ever see the light of day?

UA will never take the A350's and will reluctantly take some A321's

Scarebus34 wrote:

d8s wrote:

Spiderguy252 wrote:

I notice barring the A320 series, UA has an all-Boeing fleet.

1) CO had an all-Boeing fleet as well. Did UA have these Airbuses from before the merger, or were they ordered later?
2) UA also has 45 A350s on order, deferred to 2027. Will this ever see the light of day?

UA will never take the A350's and will reluctantly take some A321's

lol - the 350's will never show up but they just ordered 321XLRs so to say they will 'reluctantly' take them is delusional, in fact they'll likely order more.

Jetport wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

d8s wrote:

UA will never take the A350's and will reluctantly take some A321's

lol - the 350's will never show up but they just ordered 321XLRs so to say they will 'reluctantly' take them is delusional, in fact they'll likely order more.

I was thinking (and hoping) that 50 XLR's would be enough. If they really need 100 321XLR's that is terrifying if you are coach passenger. Good luck getting any sleep if I am you widow seat mate, because I stay very well hydrated. Is it too much to ask for an international ban on single aisle 3X3 layout aircraft over a certain flight time, say 6 or 8 hours? The transatlantic 757's were bad enough, now we are going to have many more 8 and 10+ hour flights in the worst possible layout for coach passengers.

Jetport wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

d8s wrote:

UA will never take the A350's and will reluctantly take some A321's

lol - the 350's will never show up but they just ordered 321XLRs so to say they will 'reluctantly' take them is delusional, in fact they'll likely order more.

I was thinking (and hoping) that 50 XLR's would be enough. If they really need 100 321XLR's that is terrifying if you are coach passenger. Good luck getting any sleep if I am you widow seat mate, because I stay very well hydrated. Is it too much to ask for an international ban on single aisle 3X3 layout aircraft over a certain flight time, say 6 or 8 hours? The transatlantic 757's were bad enough, now we are going to have many more 8 and 10+ hour flights in the worst possible layout for coach passengers.

Jetport wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

d8s wrote:

UA will never take the A350's and will reluctantly take some A321's

lol - the 350's will never show up but they just ordered 321XLRs so to say they will 'reluctantly' take them is delusional, in fact they'll likely order more.

I was thinking (and hoping) that 50 XLR's would be enough. If they really need 100 321XLR's that is terrifying if you are coach passenger. Good luck getting any sleep if I am you widow seat mate, because I stay very well hydrated. Is it too much to ask for an international ban on single aisle 3X3 layout aircraft over a certain flight time, say 6 or 8 hours? The transatlantic 757's were bad enough, now we are going to have many more 8 and 10+ hour flights in the worst possible layout for coach passengers.

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The 767 replacement would eliminate the Boeing NMA.

It seems clear that Boeing has eliminated the Boeing NMA, the CEO's recent comments say he won't even address the current design point, never mind when it would become available.

Surprizing how many seemed to have missed this.

https://aviationnews.online/2020/01/23/ ... m-scratch/

keesje wrote:

Revelation wrote:

STT757 wrote:

The 767 replacement would eliminate the Boeing NMA.

It seems clear that Boeing has eliminated the Boeing NMA, the CEO's recent comments say he won't even address the current design point, never mind when it would become available.

Surprizing how many seemed to have missed this.

https://aviationnews.online/2020/01/23/ ... m-scratch/

LDRA wrote:

Why is having RR engines on 788 an issue for UA? Engines are not as logistically intensive as airframes. RR tri-spool suits shorter mission profile of 788/763 routes better