sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

ytib wrote:

Maybe Rolls Royce would want to take that bet.

Many airlines sitting on the fence to pick up early A350 slots, specially with Pacific 777-200ERs aging, the 777x program facing further headwind and the 787s being limited capable in terms of payload-range. Qantas, Delta, ANA, Korean, Emirates, JAL, SQ. The frames would still frequent LAX, EWR and ORD. Only with different tails.

What UA route is payload range limited on the 787-9 but can be operated by the A350-900 without restrictions.

If you are going to include payload some of United's longest routes are also some of our heaviest cargo routes.

If I had to guess I would guess that an A359 would probably perform better than a 789 on these routes.
SFO-DEL-SFO (cargo heavy route always weight restricted out of DEL if the pax cabin is 85% full)
SFO-BLR-SFO
SFO-SIN-SFO (cargo heavy route)
IAH-SYD-IAH (long flight the 789s struggle in both directions on this route)
SFO-TLV-SFO (an extremely cargo heavy route weight restricted out of TLV with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of SFO at times depending on cargo)
EWR-HKG-EWR
ORD-DEL-ORD (cargo heavy route is weight restricted out of DEL with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of ORD with a heavy cargo load)
LAX-MEL-LAX (cargo heavy route both directions, Australian summer heat means no cargo and sometime we leave revenue pax behind)
EWR-JNB-EWR (although we just launch this route United is moving a lot of cargo I imagine once border reopen our 789s won't be able to carry any cargo)
EWR-CPT-EWR (can be weight restricted out of CPT with a full cabin and a lot of cargo)
SFO-MEL-SFO (same as LAX)
LAX-SIN-LAX (should United choose to relaunch the route a A359 should be able to carry all the passengers something our 789s can do)
SYD-LAX (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)
SYD-SFO (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)

Who knows what future long haul or ultra long haul routes United is looking at but I can see a future for the A359s in our fleet, and until United cancels the order I'm going to continue to hold out hope for the A359 joining our fleet.

Has anyone know if the order is only a321neos and not 319, 320s?

PITFlyer330 wrote:

Has anyone know if the order is only a321neos and not 319, 320s?

No one officially knows anything. We’ll find out in a few short hours.

jayunited wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Many airlines sitting on the fence to pick up early A350 slots, specially with Pacific 777-200ERs aging, the 777x program facing further headwind and the 787s being limited capable in terms of payload-range. Qantas, Delta, ANA, Korean, Emirates, JAL, SQ. The frames would still frequent LAX, EWR and ORD. Only with different tails.

What UA route is payload range limited on the 787-9 but can be operated by the A350-900 without restrictions.

If you are going to include payload some of United's longest routes are also some of our heaviest cargo routes.

If I had to guess I would guess that an A359 would probably perform better than a 789 on these routes.
SFO-DEL-SFO (cargo heavy route always weight restricted out of DEL if the pax cabin is 85% full)
SFO-BLR-SFO
SFO-SIN-SFO (cargo heavy route)
IAH-SYD-IAH (long flight the 789s struggle in both directions on this route)
SFO-TLV-SFO (an extremely cargo heavy route weight restricted out of TLV with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of SFO at times depending on cargo)
EWR-HKG-EWR
ORD-DEL-ORD (cargo heavy route is weight restricted out of DEL with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of ORD with a heavy cargo load)
LAX-MEL-LAX (cargo heavy route both directions, Australian summer heat means no cargo and sometime we leave revenue pax behind)
EWR-JNB-EWR (although we just launch this route United is moving a lot of cargo I imagine once border reopen our 789s won't be able to carry any cargo)
EWR-CPT-EWR (can be weight restricted out of CPT with a full cabin and a lot of cargo)
SFO-MEL-SFO (same as LAX)
LAX-SIN-LAX (should United choose to relaunch the route a A359 should be able to carry all the passengers something our 789s can do)
SYD-LAX (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)
SYD-SFO (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)

Who knows what future long haul or ultra long haul routes United is looking at but I can see a future for the A359s in our fleet, and until United cancels the order I'm going to continue to hold out hope for the A359 joining our fleet.

The A350 is a bigger plane and can carry more payload than the 787-9, at a higher trip cost. I’m not sure that the A350-900 brings better performance (e.g. less penalty) under the same conditions on any of those routes. At this point, if UA needs to carry more payload, it can also use a 777-300ER.

Coalways wrote:

intotheair wrote:

deltaflyertoo wrote:

Soooo.....anyone have official confirmation if the 737-8 MAX delivered yesterday came w/ PTVs? (Its only been speculation up to this point)...

Yes. I saw some pictures. Looks nice inside. The E+ seats are now purple, just like the Premium Plus seats on the wide body aircraft.

Did they change the overall design of the cabin? Bulkhead pattern?

It looked pretty much the same. The only other noticeable difference I could see is that there’s a bulkhead wall between F and E+, unlike the MAX 9. I can’t tell which IFE system it is, but it looks like a pretty big touchscreen with a headphone jack and USB port on the bottom.

sxf24 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

What UA route is payload range limited on the 787-9 but can be operated by the A350-900 without restrictions.

If you are going to include payload some of United's longest routes are also some of our heaviest cargo routes.

If I had to guess I would guess that an A359 would probably perform better than a 789 on these routes.
SFO-DEL-SFO (cargo heavy route always weight restricted out of DEL if the pax cabin is 85% full)
SFO-BLR-SFO
SFO-SIN-SFO (cargo heavy route)
IAH-SYD-IAH (long flight the 789s struggle in both directions on this route)
SFO-TLV-SFO (an extremely cargo heavy route weight restricted out of TLV with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of SFO at times depending on cargo)
EWR-HKG-EWR
ORD-DEL-ORD (cargo heavy route is weight restricted out of DEL with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of ORD with a heavy cargo load)
LAX-MEL-LAX (cargo heavy route both directions, Australian summer heat means no cargo and sometime we leave revenue pax behind)
EWR-JNB-EWR (although we just launch this route United is moving a lot of cargo I imagine once border reopen our 789s won't be able to carry any cargo)
EWR-CPT-EWR (can be weight restricted out of CPT with a full cabin and a lot of cargo)
SFO-MEL-SFO (same as LAX)
LAX-SIN-LAX (should United choose to relaunch the route a A359 should be able to carry all the passengers something our 789s can do)
SYD-LAX (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)
SYD-SFO (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)

Who knows what future long haul or ultra long haul routes United is looking at but I can see a future for the A359s in our fleet, and until United cancels the order I'm going to continue to hold out hope for the A359 joining our fleet.

The A350 is a bigger plane and can carry more payload than the 787-9, at a higher trip cost. I’m not sure that the A350-900 brings better performance (e.g. less penalty) under the same conditions on any of those routes. At this point, if UA needs to carry more payload, it can also use a 777-300ER.

The consensus on any discussions about the A359's capabilities is that they are slightly ahead of the 787 for the longest routes, especially for the 280T variant which UA would almost certainly receive should they take the aircraft in the future. The most in-depth analysis done on this site can be found here:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1406387

With this being the case, jayunited has provided a fairly comprehensive list of routes where the A359 is probably better suited than the 787 at least in terms of payload carried and (in relative terms) restrictions imposed, but of course it'd be a good fit for any of UA's many shorter 777 routes.

The 77W has the edge in payload, but the A359 is better sized (hence why 787s are used now) and more efficient, which pays off more on longer routes.

Time will tell, but someone in cargo scheduling is not making any of the decisions. It has been over 10 years and the order has been deffered twice with rumors a 3rd time will happen.

No matter how much the A-fan club roots, not one is currently on the property.

MrHMSH wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

If you are going to include payload some of United's longest routes are also some of our heaviest cargo routes.

If I had to guess I would guess that an A359 would probably perform better than a 789 on these routes.
SFO-DEL-SFO (cargo heavy route always weight restricted out of DEL if the pax cabin is 85% full)
SFO-BLR-SFO
SFO-SIN-SFO (cargo heavy route)
IAH-SYD-IAH (long flight the 789s struggle in both directions on this route)
SFO-TLV-SFO (an extremely cargo heavy route weight restricted out of TLV with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of SFO at times depending on cargo)
EWR-HKG-EWR
ORD-DEL-ORD (cargo heavy route is weight restricted out of DEL with a full pax cabin, can be weight restricted out of ORD with a heavy cargo load)
LAX-MEL-LAX (cargo heavy route both directions, Australian summer heat means no cargo and sometime we leave revenue pax behind)
EWR-JNB-EWR (although we just launch this route United is moving a lot of cargo I imagine once border reopen our 789s won't be able to carry any cargo)
EWR-CPT-EWR (can be weight restricted out of CPT with a full cabin and a lot of cargo)
SFO-MEL-SFO (same as LAX)
LAX-SIN-LAX (should United choose to relaunch the route a A359 should be able to carry all the passengers something our 789s can do)
SYD-LAX (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)
SYD-SFO (during Australian summer when its hot at times we have to dump all the cargo)

Who knows what future long haul or ultra long haul routes United is looking at but I can see a future for the A359s in our fleet, and until United cancels the order I'm going to continue to hold out hope for the A359 joining our fleet.

The A350 is a bigger plane and can carry more payload than the 787-9, at a higher trip cost. I’m not sure that the A350-900 brings better performance (e.g. less penalty) under the same conditions on any of those routes. At this point, if UA needs to carry more payload, it can also use a 777-300ER.

The consensus on any discussions about the A359's capabilities is that they are slightly ahead of the 787 for the longest routes, especially for the 280T variant which UA would almost certainly receive should they take the aircraft in the future. The most in-depth analysis done on this site can be found here:

viewtopic.php?t=1406387

With this being the case, jayunited has provided a fairly comprehensive list of routes where the A359 is probably better suited than the 787 at least in terms of payload carried and (in relative terms) restrictions imposed, but of course it'd be a good fit for any of UA's many shorter 777 routes.

The 77W has the edge in payload, but the A359 is better sized (hence why 787s are used now) and more efficient, which pays off more on longer routes.

Thnx jayunited for splitting this out. More payload to/form UA hubs from/to Asia seems the biggest driver. UA 777-200ER's fleet (great payload-range) is aging and needs a replacement in Asian growth markets.

An advantage of the A350 vs the 787 is that at a later stage the airline can upgrade to the -1000 when it needs more capacity. The 787-10 also offers this, but is less suitable for Pacific markets, payload takes a hit. Making it more suitable for intra Asia, Europe and Transatlantic markets (with a good payload).


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

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

United has launched what they are calling United Next, a series of passenger focused improvements, the new "United Next Signature Interior" cabin and order being the start. The new interior features streaming IFE screens, USB ports, a new seat design and materials. In addition to the new interior which will be installed on all future 737MAX8, 9 and 10 deliveries, and the remaining narrowbody fleet will also be retrofitted to match the same specs as the new deliveries. Approximately 100 mainline narrowbody aircraft will not be refurbished as they will be retired within the next few years. United currently plans to retrofit two thirds of its aircraft by 2023 and complete the program by the summer of 2025.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2021/06/2 ... edded-ife/



[img]https://mk0runwaygirl[/list]0t0gjwt.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/3431-UA-737-Max8_IFE-4B-SFO2-scaled.jpg[/img]

asuflyer wrote:

United has launched what they are calling United Next, a series of passenger focused improvements, the new "United Next Signature Interior" cabin and order being the start. The new interior features streaming IFE screens, USB ports, a new seat design and materials. In addition to the new interior which will be installed on all future 737MAX8, 9 and 10 deliveries, and the remaining narrowbody fleet will also be retrofitted to match the same specs as the new deliveries. Approximately 100 mainline narrowbody aircraft will not be refurbished as they will be retired within the next few years. United currently plans to retrofit two thirds of its aircraft by 2023 and complete the program by the summer of 2025.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2021/06/2 ... edded-ife/



[img]https://mk0runwaygirl[/list]0t0gjwt.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/3431-UA-737-Max8_IFE-4B-SFO2-scaled.jpg[/img]

So they will retrofit eg. older 737 with SkyInterior? And do they introduce a new seat with the screen, or do they just add a screen into their existing seats?

A330freak wrote:

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

Confirmed by Airbus and Boeing:
https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-r ... craft.html

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/United-Air ... 7-MAX-Jets

A330freak wrote:

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

Seems to be what we expected.

A330freak wrote:

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

I m intrigued by this from the United link:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

Then why buy both? This must result from a complex optimisation between purchase price, delivery schedule, pilot / crew pools, maintenance etc.

So 120 A321 in total? Amazing.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

A330freak wrote:

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

I m intrigued by this from the United link:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

Then why buy both? This must result from a complex optimisation between purchase price, delivery schedule, pilot / crew pools, maintenance etc.

Maybe the 321neos are specifically for increasing mainline per-departure seat counts on HD/transcon routes while the max 10s will be the ones to get the subfleet of lieflats?

No plans to buy in the A220/E290 segment

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 58.article

JerseyFlyer wrote:

A330freak wrote:

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

I m intrigued by this from the United link:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

Then why buy both? This must result from a complex optimisation between purchase price, delivery schedule, pilot / crew pools, maintenance etc.

My guess would be that the A321 NEO is for routes where the MAX 10 doesn't have the necessary payload range capability to be profitable but they need the capacity.

It would seem to be implied that the total cost (purchase price, efficiency and maintenance) is lower on the MAX 10 for the routes it is capable of, at least with whatever deal United got from Boeing and Airbus for this order.

"Such a significant order from a great airline like United underscores that the A321neo offers unmatched capabilities, operating economics, and passenger friendliness,” said Christian Scherer, Airbus Chief Commercial Officer and Head of International.

Well, this is why they also ordered 150 MAX10 . IMO die MAX10 and A321neo compliment each other pretty well. On short and medium long sectors the MAX10 seems to have an (efficiency) edge over the A321neo, on routes that tend to be longer (or outside the MAX10 range with full payload obviously) the A321neo is great.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

A330freak wrote:

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

I m intrigued by this from the United link:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

Then why buy both? This must result from a complex optimisation between purchase price, delivery schedule, pilot / crew pools, maintenance etc.

Yes, that makes no sense. But it is still a great order for Boeing and a vote of confidence for the MAX. .

MrBren wrote:

So 120 A321 in total? Amazing.

Doesn't this make the total 737 MAX order 436 for United? Boeing's orders and deliveries page shows 236 through 5/31 and this order is 200 additional. If the 120 A321 is "amazing," what adjective should be applied to the 737 MAX total?

United explanation from FG
======================
Because A321neos are a bit bigger than Max 10s, United intends to use the Airbus jets at slot-constrained airports such as Newark Liberty International and San Francisco International. “The extra seats on the A321neo are going to be very important to our future growth plans,” Kirby says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 55.article

MrBren wrote:

So 120 A321 in total? Amazing.

Well we are talking about big airlines. DL will have 252 A321s (ceo/neo- ~120 in fleet today) and AA 338 (ceo/neo/XLR- ~250 in fleet today) with current orders.

DLHAM wrote:

"Such a significant order from a great airline like United underscores that the A321neo offers unmatched capabilities, operating economics, and passenger friendliness,” said Christian Scherer, Airbus Chief Commercial Officer and Head of International.

Well, this is why they also ordered 150 MAX10 .

Why can't you just be happy about such a huge order? Why do you feel the need to complain about some PR fluff?

fcogafa wrote:

United explanation from FG
======================
Because A321neos are a bit bigger than Max 10s, United intends to use the Airbus jets at slot-constrained airports such as Newark Liberty International and San Francisco International. “The extra seats on the A321neo are going to be very important to our future growth plans,” Kirby says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 55.article

That sounds logical but is contradicted by the quote from United's announcement:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

Congratulations to United, Boeing and Airbus. I am excited to fly on these new jets as well as try out the older ones as they get retrofitted. Anyone know anything about the first class seat and if it gets a refresh as well?

Congratulation to UA, Boeing and Airbus!

planecane wrote:

MrBren wrote:

So 120 A321 in total? Amazing.

Doesn't this make the total 737 MAX order 436 for United? Boeing's orders and deliveries page shows 236 through 5/31 and this order is 200 additional. If the 120 A321 is "amazing," what adjective should be applied to the 737 MAX total?

Like AA, probably capability, availability and price played a role. Airbus is ramping up NEO production but still has a stuffed schedule for years to come Normal Demand and Supply logic would suggest that has specific pricing consequences for both the MAX and NEO's.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

United explanation from FG
======================
Because A321neos are a bit bigger than Max 10s, United intends to use the Airbus jets at slot-constrained airports such as Newark Liberty International and San Francisco International. “The extra seats on the A321neo are going to be very important to our future growth plans,” Kirby says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 55.article

That sounds logical but is contradicted by the quote from United's announcement:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

It probably has more Economy seats if First and Econ Plus count is the same.

So how many seats exactly will the A321N have and how many the MAX10?

airboss787 wrote:

JerseyFlyer wrote:

fcogafa wrote:

United explanation from FG
======================
Because A321neos are a bit bigger than Max 10s, United intends to use the Airbus jets at slot-constrained airports such as Newark Liberty International and San Francisco International. “The extra seats on the A321neo are going to be very important to our future growth plans,” Kirby says.

https://www.flightglobal.com/fleets/uni ... 55.article

That sounds logical but is contradicted by the quote from United's announcement:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

It probably has more Economy seats if First and Econ Plus count is the same.

Y+ seat counts might be slightly different depending on how things work with cabin space. I would expect both to be 20 F which is pretty much the standard amount the US3 use for their large domestic narrowbodies.

DLHAM wrote:

"Such a significant order from a great airline like United underscores that the A321neo offers unmatched capabilities, operating economics, and passenger friendliness,” said Christian Scherer, Airbus Chief Commercial Officer and Head of International.

Well, this is why they also ordered 150 MAX10 . IMO die MAX10 and A321neo compliment each other pretty well. On short and medium long sectors the MAX10 seems to have an (efficiency) edge over the A321neo, on routes that tend to be longer (or outside the MAX10 range with full payload obviously) the A321neo is great.

There is significant difference that unlike Airbus Boeing cannot negotiate from a position of strength when it comes to MAX.

Congratulations to United. Getting in and buying the right tools, for the different routes. 737s continue to dominate the fleet and the 757 heads out for retirement with A321s. I look forward to seeing the new metal on the ramp.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

I m intrigued by this from the United link:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

Then why buy both? This must result from a complex optimisation between purchase price, delivery schedule, pilot / crew pools, maintenance etc.

There are been more than enough threads on this site explaining how the A321NEO has an edge on over the MAX 10. We will have to wait and see which routes United places the A321NEOs on. Does this order for 70 A321NEOs change United's plans to install lie flat seating on some (not all) MAX 10s? There are several archived threads where people criticized United's plan to install lie flat seating on some MAX 10 for use on cross country flights, while American, JetBlue and others are using the wider A321s which are a bit more comfortable than the 737.

We have to see how this all plays out but if I were to throw my two cents in I would say with this order there will probably be no lie flat seating on any MAX 10s and a portion of those 70 A321NEOs will have some type of lie flat seating probably similar to what we now see on JetBlue but probably without the door.

The question is, will this replace anything?

Those A320s seem prime to leave.

I can only imagine the emotion Doug and the rest of the AA management team is waking up to today regarding IFE.

Well, there are days that I spend less than a couple of billions of dollars

My goodness, 270 planes! That's a huge number.

I saw folks here discussing the 787/A350 as well, but with all these new narrow bodies it looks like this order is more like a replacement+expansion order than just an expansion order.

Great for Boeing that after WN also UA has shown their trust in the MAX.

scbriml wrote:

DLHAM wrote:

"Such a significant order from a great airline like United underscores that the A321neo offers unmatched capabilities, operating economics, and passenger friendliness,” said Christian Scherer, Airbus Chief Commercial Officer and Head of International.

Well, this is why they also ordered 150 MAX10 .

Why can't you just be happy about such a huge order? Why do you feel the need to complain about some PR fluff?

I AM happy . This A321 order is also great for my hometown and many friends of mine.

Great order for United.. they have long needed more mainline NBs, and I'm sure they got a great deal for both, especially the MAX, which need more blue chip customers. I'm glad they are investing in IFE, the new cabin renderings look impressive.

Awesome to see this finally confirmed.

Given United’s hubs and the PS / Coast / Premium Transcontinental (whatever its called this year), I wonder which planes will be configured for those flights? How big will the sub fleet be? I would guess teh 321s, but that is just a guess.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

A330freak wrote:

Order has been offically announced

-150 737 Max 10
-50 737 MAX 8
-70 A321neo

https://hub.united.com/united-adds-270- ... 86391.html

I m intrigued by this from the United link:

"the new A321neo aircraft are expected to have a United FirstSM and Economy Plus® seat count similar to that of the 737 MAX 10."

Then why buy both? This must result from a complex optimisation between purchase price, delivery schedule, pilot / crew pools, maintenance etc.

While F and Y+ seat counts might be the same, the A321 is larger, so should have more economy seats.

UA748i wrote:

The question is, will this replace anything?

Those A320s seem prime to leave.

Older A320s and 737s.

asuflyer wrote:

United has launched what they are calling United Next, a series of passenger focused improvements, the new "United Next Signature Interior" cabin and order being the start. The new interior features streaming IFE screens, USB ports, a new seat design and materials. In addition to the new interior which will be installed on all future 737MAX8, 9 and 10 deliveries, and the remaining narrowbody fleet will also be retrofitted to match the same specs as the new deliveries. Approximately 100 mainline narrowbody aircraft will not be refurbished as they will be retired within the next few years. United currently plans to retrofit two thirds of its aircraft by 2023 and complete the program by the summer of 2025.

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2021/06/2 ... edded-ife/



[img]https://mk0runwaygirl[/list]0t0gjwt.kinstacdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/3431-UA-737-Max8_IFE-4B-SFO2-scaled.jpg[/img]

This looks like United and Delta have similar cabin strategies and AA will be the outlier.

I like where United is going with this.

USAirALB wrote:

I can only imagine the emotion Doug and the rest of the AA management team is waking up to today regarding IFE.

lol you know they going to announce they are putting back IFE soon enough

LifelinerOne wrote:

What?! No scrapping of the A350 order??

Cheers!

They are never coming we will push them back until the engines are sold.

Why on earth does UA need so many MAX 10’s? Where are they going to use them? The 321NEOs will be better for the transcontinental routes.

Will there be any retirement of older aircraft other than the 757’s?

UA748i wrote:

The question is, will this replace anything?

Those A320s seem prime to leave.

UA said around 200 50 seat RJs will be leaving the fleet and around 100 mainline won’t be upgraded with PTVs as they will be leaving the fleet over the next few years.

40 deliveries in 2022
138 in 2023

keesje wrote:

MrHMSH wrote:

sxf24 wrote:

The A350 is a bigger plane and can carry more payload than the 787-9, at a higher trip cost. I’m not sure that the A350-900 brings better performance (e.g. less penalty) under the same conditions on any of those routes. At this point, if UA needs to carry more payload, it can also use a 777-300ER.

The consensus on any discussions about the A359's capabilities is that they are slightly ahead of the 787 for the longest routes, especially for the 280T variant which UA would almost certainly receive should they take the aircraft in the future. The most in-depth analysis done on this site can be found here:

viewtopic.php?t=1406387

With this being the case, jayunited has provided a fairly comprehensive list of routes where the A359 is probably better suited than the 787 at least in terms of payload carried and (in relative terms) restrictions imposed, but of course it'd be a good fit for any of UA's many shorter 777 routes.

The 77W has the edge in payload, but the A359 is better sized (hence why 787s are used now) and more efficient, which pays off more on longer routes.

Thnx jayunited for splitting this out. More payload to/form UA hubs from/to Asia seems the biggest driver. UA 777-200ER's fleet (great payload-range) is aging and needs a replacement in Asian growth markets.

An advantage of the A350 vs the 787 is that at a later stage the airline can upgrade to the -1000 when it needs more capacity. The 787-10 also offers this, but is less suitable for Pacific markets, payload takes a hit. Making it more suitable for intra Asia, Europe and Transatlantic markets (with a good payload).


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

Basically, you’re confirming the A350-900 is slightly bigger than the 787-9 and can carry more payload on the same routes? That’s quite a bit different than saying the A350 open up new markets to United or allows it to economically serve markets it can’t today. Since the A350 is not part of today’s announcement, I’ll conclude this chain of discussion by agreeing it’s a great airplane. However, it is not a miracle worker like fans claim (a similar dilution that seems to infect A220 and A321 promotion where these are magic airplanes that fix any route).

Smart airlines buy utility players that can add the most value to the largest part of their network. Right now, it’s pretty clear what United sees as the best airplane for them: MAX 8, 9, And 10, A321neo, and the 787.

Runway765 wrote:

Why on earth does UA need so many MAX 10’s? Where are they going to use them? The 321NEOs will be better for the transcontinental routes.

Large narrow bodies are used on much more than transcons In fact transcons are probably only a minority of their use…

Polot wrote:

UA748i wrote:

The question is, will this replace anything?

Those A320s seem prime to leave.

Older A320s and 737s.

And 757s. News sources can talk about this as fleet expansion all they want but it certainly isn't one for one.

They’ve calculated their numbers and they know what they’re doing. I wonder if larger narrow-body focus is so that they can increase premium seating with a plane that costs almost the same as a 737-8MAX or A320Neo