ikolkyo wrote:

amtravels wrote:

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but is there any place in United’s current fleet strategy for the 777X? Do you see UA ordering them at some point?

Not anytime soon, the 77Ws are young

adamblang wrote:

codc10 wrote:

itripreport wrote:

Has he made any mention at all about the united next retrofits?

I think the delta wave, then omicron, then Boeing delivery delays, and continued sluggish recovery, supply chain issues, then inflation, have chilled United's plan for rapid retrofits. It's really been one hit after another since July 2021, and none of them bode well for the plans United outlined at the time.

I'm not doubting United Next happens, but with each passing month I am more convinced it ultimately becomes a narrowbody fleet renewal program rather than a major growth strategy.

I just don't think the markets, both equity and capital, have the appetite for aggressive expansion from UAL or others right now.

Not saying anybody in this thread is right or wrong but to add some nuance to the discussion...

Scott Kirby on LinkedIn:

Our United Next strategy remains on track – when combined with our current orders, we expect to add more than 500 new narrow-body aircraft in the coming years, designed around the needs of our customers. Next year alone, our fleet could add about one new narrow-body aircraft every three days.

My 2¢: I would've loved to see a few dozen retrofitted aircraft by now but a timeline was never actually communicated. I wonder if eVTOLs/SSTs/Next were all "off in the future, we need something to feel good about right now" announcements? I hope announce now, see the first result in a few years doesn't become a new normal.

UA857 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

amtravels wrote:

I’m sure this has been discussed before, but is there any place in United’s current fleet strategy for the 777X? Do you see UA ordering them at some point?

Not anytime soon, the 77Ws are young

If UA cancels there A350 order they could replace their 772s with a fleet of 23 78JERs and 22 779s. The 779 would be perfect for high-capacity routes from United’s slot-constrained SFO and EWR hubs complementing the 77W when the fleet receives their mid-life overhaul in the late 2020s Then the 77W fleet would be reshuffled to replace the GE 77E while the 78JER replaces the PW 77E. Then the GE 77E fleet can be de-rated and used on domestic routes where they could replace the 77A fleet. Maybe if they cancel the A350 order they could use its deposits for A220s and more A321XLRs.

codc10 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

codc10 wrote:

100 narrowbodies? Maybe RJs, but not mainline-category narrowbodies. 23 domestic 777s are a "force multiplier", but not to that degree. 1 HD 777 is rougly equivalent in capacity to 2 739s, or a bit less than 3 A319/737-700s.

I thought 52 772's were ground, around the capacity of 100ish A320/738 if I am not mistaken. I could be wrong though.

Now I understand. Strictly by the numbers, yes, but you also need to consider the fact that most of the widebody fleet (by block hours) was deployed to the Pacific network, which is still a fraction of what it was pre-COVID. Immediately after COVID spooled up, lots of 777s were parked, so it's not as though the absence of many of those 777ERs creates a deficit in the current network. It's also not particularly economical for the premium-heavy, low-density international 777s to be operating in the domestic sector, churning up cycles, which is why you'll see the Polaris 777ERs (77N/U) return to service after the HD 777s (77G/M/Q).

RMTAviation wrote:

Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

codc10 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

Cycles absolutely matter, especially on widebodies, with regard to components like engines and landing gear. The issue with aging airframes, like most of United's widebody fleet, is that heavy maintenance becomes more expensive over time, so United would prefer to keep cycles lower and hours higher on its older frames, all things considered, especially with internationally-configured widebodies that are generating best cash flow when full of paid business class fares and freight on longer hauls.

RMTAviation wrote:

codc10 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

Cycles absolutely matter, especially on widebodies, with regard to components like engines and landing gear. The issue with aging airframes, like most of United's widebody fleet, is that heavy maintenance becomes more expensive over time, so United would prefer to keep cycles lower and hours higher on its older frames, all things considered, especially with internationally-configured widebodies that are generating best cash flow when full of paid business class fares and freight on longer hauls.

Ok, so it doesn't have to do with the max cycles that the airframe can fly, but more so the expensive maintenance needed if flying more cycles. Got it, thanks!

Okcflyer wrote:

Gyrfalcon wrote:

I may have missed it. Does anyone know which motors the A321neo and XLR are coming with? PW1100 or CFM?

I haven't seen a news release declaring this. It's possible they are still negotiating but deadlines are quickly approaching.

IMHO, PW has (had) to treat this as a must-win and it's an uphill climb given UA already has long-term agreement(s) for CFM Leap and theoretically there are some synergies there.

UA is historically a large PW customer using their tech in IAE-V2500 A319/A320s, 757 (now retired), 767's (PW 4060), 777 (PW 4070/4090). Except for the 757's, most of these are still flying, However, the the A321neoXLR threaten the survivability of the B767's. The 777's will begin to be retired by the end of the decade. And the V2500 A320's have slowly started retirement already.

Failing to win these 130 airplanes and PW's revenues from UA will begin sinking pretty quickly over the coming years.

PW likely has credits owed due to the 4070/4090 fiasco, that can sweeten the pot for them. CFM is hungry to keep GTF out of UA and land a big XLR contract. UA is in an ideal position to negotiate here.

RMTAviation wrote:

UA857 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Not anytime soon, the 77Ws are young

If UA cancels there A350 order they could replace their 772s with a fleet of 23 78JERs and 22 779s. The 779 would be perfect for high-capacity routes from United’s slot-constrained SFO and EWR hubs complementing the 77W when the fleet receives their mid-life overhaul in the late 2020s Then the 77W fleet would be reshuffled to replace the GE 77E while the 78JER replaces the PW 77E. Then the GE 77E fleet can be de-rated and used on domestic routes where they could replace the 77A fleet. Maybe if they cancel the A350 order they could use its deposits for A220s and more A321XLRs.

I love your idea, but unfortunately the 779 doesn't fly, the 78JER doesn't exist, and even the current 787's haven't been delivered for a year. Are the GE777's newer/less cycles than the PW ones, or are they just going to be in the fleet longer due to the 77W engine commonality?

maximairways wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

Gyrfalcon wrote:

I may have missed it. Does anyone know which motors the A321neo and XLR are coming with? PW1100 or CFM?

I haven't seen a news release declaring this. It's possible they are still negotiating but deadlines are quickly approaching.

IMHO, PW has (had) to treat this as a must-win and it's an uphill climb given UA already has long-term agreement(s) for CFM Leap and theoretically there are some synergies there.

UA is historically a large PW customer using their tech in IAE-V2500 A319/A320s, 757 (now retired), 767's (PW 4060), 777 (PW 4070/4090). Except for the 757's, most of these are still flying, However, the the A321neoXLR threaten the survivability of the B767's. The 777's will begin to be retired by the end of the decade. And the V2500 A320's have slowly started retirement already.

Failing to win these 130 airplanes and PW's revenues from UA will begin sinking pretty quickly over the coming years.

PW likely has credits owed due to the 4070/4090 fiasco, that can sweeten the pot for them. CFM is hungry to keep GTF out of UA and land a big XLR contract. UA is in an ideal position to negotiate here.

They will be GTF powered.

fun2fly wrote:

UA Q2 results show the following fleet plan:
That's a lot of capacity!

RMTAviation wrote:

UA857 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Not anytime soon, the 77Ws are young

If UA cancels there A350 order they could replace their 772s with a fleet of 23 78JERs and 22 779s. The 779 would be perfect for high-capacity routes from United’s slot-constrained SFO and EWR hubs complementing the 77W when the fleet receives their mid-life overhaul in the late 2020s Then the 77W fleet would be reshuffled to replace the GE 77E while the 78JER replaces the PW 77E. Then the GE 77E fleet can be de-rated and used on domestic routes where they could replace the 77A fleet. Maybe if they cancel the A350 order they could use its deposits for A220s and more A321XLRs.

I love your idea, but unfortunately the 779 doesn't fly, the 78JER doesn't exist, and even the current 787's haven't been delivered for a year. Are the GE777's newer/less cycles than the PW ones, or are they just going to be in the fleet longer due to the 77W engine commonality?

codc10 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

I thought 52 772's were ground, around the capacity of 100ish A320/738 if I am not mistaken. I could be wrong though.

Now I understand. Strictly by the numbers, yes, but you also need to consider the fact that most of the widebody fleet (by block hours) was deployed to the Pacific network, which is still a fraction of what it was pre-COVID. Immediately after COVID spooled up, lots of 777s were parked, so it's not as though the absence of many of those 777ERs creates a deficit in the current network. It's also not particularly economical for the premium-heavy, low-density international 777s to be operating in the domestic sector, churning up cycles, which is why you'll see the Polaris 777ERs (77N/U) return to service after the HD 777s (77G/M/Q).

Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

Cardude2 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

so then where is the 789 order?

Cardude2 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

so then where is the 789 order?

ikolkyo wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

so then where is the 789 order?

Probably when the MTOW bump is available for both the -9 and -10

jbs2886 wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

so then where is the 789 order?

Probably when the MTOW bump is available for both the -9 and -10

I don't think that is really impacting the order. Airlines know the -9 and -10 are getting the bump, Air New Zealand ordered on the basis of that bump years ago. There just hasn't been some like formal, public "ER" offering/designation.

jbs2886 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

so then where is the 789 order?

Why do they *need* a new order now? Yes, 772s are getting old, but this forum is obsessed with the idea that there must be an order to replace them. UA has time. UA also has a lot of power and can likely get much faster deliveries than other airlines so it can afford to wait. Moreover, UA has a huge number of narrowbodies arriving in the next few years and that, IMO, will be the focus. After digesting most of those, then UA will be able to turn attention to the widebody fleet. So, again, UA has time.

Btw, Adam, good to hear confirmation that penalties aren't a big deal. That was exactly my thought - for an airline the size of United, that's not really a prohibitive item (although no company wants to pay a cancellation penalty). But, UA can just delay the A350/RR orders and kick the can down the road - maybe UA ends up taking A350s or another Airbus/RR product (possibly not yet available) - just keeps options open.

Scarebus34 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

so then where is the 789 order?

Why do they *need* a new order now? Yes, 772s are getting old, but this forum is obsessed with the idea that there must be an order to replace them. UA has time. UA also has a lot of power and can likely get much faster deliveries than other airlines so it can afford to wait. Moreover, UA has a huge number of narrowbodies arriving in the next few years and that, IMO, will be the focus. After digesting most of those, then UA will be able to turn attention to the widebody fleet. So, again, UA has time.

Btw, Adam, good to hear confirmation that penalties aren't a big deal. That was exactly my thought - for an airline the size of United, that's not really a prohibitive item (although no company wants to pay a cancellation penalty). But, UA can just delay the A350/RR orders and kick the can down the road - maybe UA ends up taking A350s or another Airbus/RR product (possibly not yet available) - just keeps options open.

Not sure why you folks continue to speculate. Kirby in his own words told you what the plan is.

jbs2886 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Why do they *need* a new order now? Yes, 772s are getting old, but this forum is obsessed with the idea that there must be an order to replace them. UA has time. UA also has a lot of power and can likely get much faster deliveries than other airlines so it can afford to wait. Moreover, UA has a huge number of narrowbodies arriving in the next few years and that, IMO, will be the focus. After digesting most of those, then UA will be able to turn attention to the widebody fleet. So, again, UA has time.

Btw, Adam, good to hear confirmation that penalties aren't a big deal. That was exactly my thought - for an airline the size of United, that's not really a prohibitive item (although no company wants to pay a cancellation penalty). But, UA can just delay the A350/RR orders and kick the can down the road - maybe UA ends up taking A350s or another Airbus/RR product (possibly not yet available) - just keeps options open.

Not sure why you folks continue to speculate. Kirby in his own words told you what the plan is.

Because that is what we do on this forum? Kirby didn't lay out some detailed plan, he made some comments upon which we are speculating.

fun2fly wrote:

A CEO of a publicly traded company doesn't make a statement like "we are going to have a bake off" unless it's well thought out and part of the negotiation plan. It MAY or MAY NOT ever come true, but you can bet your a.net license that it is being discussed at Airbus HQ.

fun2fly wrote:

UA Q2 results show the following fleet plan:
Q2 = 2x 737Max
Q3 = 2x 78J's and 19 737Max
Q4 = 4 78J's and 27 737Max

Plus the return of the PW777's. That's a lot of capacity!

RMTAviation wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

UA Q2 results show the following fleet plan:
Q2 = 2x 737Max
Q3 = 2x 78J's and 19 737Max
Q4 = 4 78J's and 27 737Max

Plus the return of the PW777's. That's a lot of capacity!

Where can I see the fleet plan?

MDC862 wrote:

Notice the change in Scotts demeanor when he talks about 350. He is Mr Personality before and after, but clearly his tone changes. My interpretation is he is not sold on the plane and will use it as negotiation tactic to get Boeing price down. He says upfrint to add it is a "couple hundred million" because of fleet type.

Sorry, it wont be on UA property.

fun2fly wrote:

MDC862 wrote:

Notice the change in Scotts demeanor when he talks about 350. He is Mr Personality before and after, but clearly his tone changes. My interpretation is he is not sold on the plane and will use it as negotiation tactic to get Boeing price down. He says upfrint to add it is a "couple hundred million" because of fleet type.

Sorry, it wont be on UA property.

Agreed. Do they turn into 125 x 319NEO's to replace the 73G and 319's? Sprinkle in a few more 321's.

The 738 and 320's are slated to go MAX.

Resulting:

319/321 x 200 + units
737Max 8/9/10 x 350+ units

One thing we've learned lately, fleet diversity is a requirement even if it costs a bit more.

Opus99 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

UA857 wrote:

If UA cancels there A350 order they could replace their 772s with a fleet of 23 78JERs and 22 779s. The 779 would be perfect for high-capacity routes from United’s slot-constrained SFO and EWR hubs complementing the 77W when the fleet receives their mid-life overhaul in the late 2020s Then the 77W fleet would be reshuffled to replace the GE 77E while the 78JER replaces the PW 77E. Then the GE 77E fleet can be de-rated and used on domestic routes where they could replace the 77A fleet. Maybe if they cancel the A350 order they could use its deposits for A220s and more A321XLRs.

I love your idea, but unfortunately the 779 doesn't fly, the 78JER doesn't exist, and even the current 787's haven't been delivered for a year. Are the GE777's newer/less cycles than the PW ones, or are they just going to be in the fleet longer due to the 77W engine commonality?

codc10 wrote:

Now I understand. Strictly by the numbers, yes, but you also need to consider the fact that most of the widebody fleet (by block hours) was deployed to the Pacific network, which is still a fraction of what it was pre-COVID. Immediately after COVID spooled up, lots of 777s were parked, so it's not as though the absence of many of those 777ERs creates a deficit in the current network. It's also not particularly economical for the premium-heavy, low-density international 777s to be operating in the domestic sector, churning up cycles, which is why you'll see the Polaris 777ERs (77N/U) return to service after the HD 777s (77G/M/Q).

Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

The 78JER does exist in some form. It might not be called that but it does. Boeing just did not communicate that to us the public but customers are very much aware of it. As is the rest of the aviation community

https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1 ... 4v5orC0Nvw

RMTAviation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

I love your idea, but unfortunately the 779 doesn't fly, the 78JER doesn't exist, and even the current 787's haven't been delivered for a year. Are the GE777's newer/less cycles than the PW ones, or are they just going to be in the fleet longer due to the 77W engine commonality?




Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

The 78JER does exist in some form. It might not be called that but it does. Boeing just did not communicate that to us the public but customers are very much aware of it. As is the rest of the aviation community

https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1 ... 4v5orC0Nvw

Right, but how much more? Unless they can fly 12-15 hours, they really can't serve much of United's A350/772ER needs. a 10% increase, to say flying 5500-6000nm efficiently isn't going to cut it.

RMTAviation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

I love your idea, but unfortunately the 779 doesn't fly, the 78JER doesn't exist, and even the current 787's haven't been delivered for a year. Are the GE777's newer/less cycles than the PW ones, or are they just going to be in the fleet longer due to the 77W engine commonality?




Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

The 78JER does exist in some form. It might not be called that but it does. Boeing just did not communicate that to us the public but customers are very much aware of it. As is the rest of the aviation community

https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1 ... 4v5orC0Nvw

Right, but how much more? Unless they can fly 12-15 hours, they really can't serve much of United's A350/772ER needs. a 10% increase, to say flying 5500-6000nm efficiently isn't going to cut it.

jbs2886 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

UA Q2 results show the following fleet plan:
Q2 = 2x 737Max
Q3 = 2x 78J's and 19 737Max
Q4 = 4 78J's and 27 737Max

Plus the return of the PW777's. That's a lot of capacity!

Where can I see the fleet plan?

https://ir.united.com/static-files/f427 ... 195d7d4a34

Cmac787 wrote:

One thing that stands out to me is little ERJCRJ retirements

jbs2886 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

Where can I see the fleet plan?

https://ir.united.com/static-files/f427 ... 195d7d4a34

RMTAviation wrote:

Opus99 wrote:

RMTAviation wrote:

I love your idea, but unfortunately the 779 doesn't fly, the 78JER doesn't exist, and even the current 787's haven't been delivered for a year. Are the GE777's newer/less cycles than the PW ones, or are they just going to be in the fleet longer due to the 77W engine commonality?




Is cycles really even something that is considered these days? EK flies B777's and A380's on 40 minute flights, and I've heard somewhere that even with 8 takeoffs and landings each day, a 777 can go 20 years. As far as the Polaris seating goes, for Hawaii, the vacation destinations, the HD configuration makes a lot more sense with family configured business class, but the Polaris product makes a lot of sense on EWR-LAX/SFO, which is why they fly 763s, and brand new 77W/78J/789. If anything, take the brand new 78J's out of these routes and put them to Europe for fuel savings, and the Polaris PW 772E can replace these.

The 78JER does exist in some form. It might not be called that but it does. Boeing just did not communicate that to us the public but customers are very much aware of it. As is the rest of the aviation community

https://twitter.com/byerussell/status/1 ... 4v5orC0Nvw

Right, but how much more? Unless they can fly 12-15 hours, they really can't serve much of United's A350/772ER needs. a 10% increase, to say flying 5500-6000nm efficiently isn't going to cut it.

fun2fly wrote:

UA Q2 results show the following fleet plan:
Q2 = 2x 737Max
Q3 = 2x 78J's and 19 737Max
Q4 = 4 78J's and 27 737Max

Plus the return of the PW777's. That's a lot of capacity!

adamblang wrote:

On the earnings call, Jon Roitman said the actual MAX model delivery sequence is subject to change.

The total number of MAXes is firm.

The dates they'll be delivered is squishy because of Boeing delivery troubles.

And the exact model sequence — -10, -9, -8 — is subject to change because -10s can't be delivered if -10s aren't yet certified. So if there are certification delays the -10s will be back-loaded in the delivery schedule. If -10 certification moves along, they'll start appearing sooner.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

737 Paint:
73G N54711 sked to enter AMA 2734/23Apr for EvoBlu livery
739 N78448 sked to exit AMA 2735/23Apr in EvoBlu livery

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

sea13 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

737 Paint:
73G N54711 sked to enter AMA 2734/23Apr for EvoBlu livery
739 N78448 sked to exit AMA 2735/23Apr in EvoBlu livery

It seems that it’s taking a while for UA to paint their planes onto the new livery.

MIflyer12 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

As a point of reference, DL wrote down the 777/77Ls to the tune of $1.4 Billion to get rid of a split 777/A350 fleet, when the 77Ls were 10-12 years old, and the 777s already twenty. Split fleets are inefficient in pilot labor, and widebodies have some senior $$$ labor.

STT757 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

The words out of Scott Kirby's mouth on the YouTube video up the thread are

• It's either going to be 100 A350 or 0
• The Rolls Royce engine penalties aren't such a big deal — a one-time penalty would be well worth it to save 20-30 years of split fleet costs

As a point of reference, DL wrote down the 777/77Ls to the tune of $1.4 Billion to get rid of a split 777/A350 fleet, when the 77Ls were 10-12 years old, and the 777s already twenty. Split fleets are inefficient in pilot labor, and widebodies have some senior $$$ labor.

What about narrow body fleets?

Current United Fleet:

A319, A320, 737-700, 737-800, 737-900, 737-900ER, 757-200, 757-300, 767-300, 767-400, 77A, 772ER Pratt, 772ER GE, 77W, 788, 789, 78J

Potential future fleet:

A220-100, A220-300, 737-800, 737-900ER, 737-8MAX, 737-9MAX, 737-10MAX, A321 NEO, A321 XLR, 787-8, 789, 78J, 77W

Convert the A350 order for an order of A220s to replace A319s, 737-700s and some Regional flying. Also order additional A321NEOs to replace 757-300s and A321XLRs to replace some 767-300s. Retire the A319s, A320s, 737-700s, 737-900 (non ERs), 757s, 767s and 777-200s. Order additional 788s, 789s to replace 767-300s and 767-400s. Order 787-10s to replace 777-200As, and 787-10ERs to replace 777-200ERs.