VC10er wrote:

I have read a number of times that the order for 100+ new WB’s would be the biggest order in United’s history. Not largest order in aviation history. It got me thinking, what other airline has ordered 100+ WB’s or more in one swoop?

EK for one with their order of the 777X.

sxf24 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I don’t see why they would order the 787-8

Why order an aircraft with just 14 less seats than the -9 and less capability ?


It goes against the system and fleetwide move towards larger aircraft replacing smaller in most markets

Lighter (cheaper to operate) and costs less to acquire.

I think a small number of -8s makes sense, but not 20, 30 or more.

The B788, unlike other "shrink" variants (yes, I know, it's actually the base model and the B789/B78X are stretches), is actually substantially different from the B789/B78X structurally. Just a few differences include a lighter-duty main landing gear with a narrower tire spacing and a lighter wing structure (back when the B789 was developed, Boeing noted that it's wing had significant modifications from the B788), leading to a 60,000 lbs lower MTOW. Although this means the B788 is both smaller and has less range capability than the B789, it does mean that the B788 is potentially more efficient on routes where the additional range of the B789 is not needed.

This seems to be a trend going forward for fully-composite airframes. Airbus has done the same thing with the A359/A35K, where the A35K has a triple bogey landing gear, non-interchangable engines that have a 5% larger core for more power, and a slightly larger wing courtesy of a trailing edge extension. Similar to the 787, the A359 with an 80,000 lbs lower MTOW is both smaller and has less range capability than the A35K, but is potentially more efficient on shorter routes.

VC10er wrote:

Maybe not now (or the upcoming years) it seems that the 77W’s will be less fuel efficient than the 77X? I think that of the 3 legacy airlines that UA is the only one who could effectively fill and fly the 77X?
Might seem like dumb logic but it wasn’t all that long ago they filled the 744 on key VLA routes. What has changed that a VLA would not work well for UA?
Especially if the # of passenger population increases over 10 years, no?

While I don’t disagree that UA could still potentially take the 777X some day, there is definitely a difference between their network when they were operating the 744s and now. They are flying a lot more from other hubs and direct to cities once only available via connections from fewer or a single hub. Examples include DEN-FRA, DEN-MUC, DEN-LHR, DEN-NRT (will be back soon), SFO-SIN, SFO-MEL just to name a few. In the past, that traffic would have been funneled over other their main hubs, thereby justifying the need for the VLA on segments like ORD-LHR, IAD-LHR, SFO-TYO, etc. Even on the summer routes, they are opening up more and more nonstops from more hubs (ORD-FCO, IAD-ATH, for example). Moreover, the CO merger opened up even more connection points to funnel traffic over.

I think the number and size of the 777Ws do the trick perfectly for them right now. If they keep opening up more international nonstops from more hubs, I wonder if the 777W sized aircraft might not even be necessary some day.

Don’t forget in Ord where the Hi J 767’s are the dominate airframe they have a gate issue. The 767’s can use the interior C gate where the 787/777 cannot. I guess they can figure something out but it is crowder for the European departure bank.

UA777FO wrote:

Don’t forget in Ord where the Hi J 767’s are the dominate airframe they have a gate issue. The 767’s can use the interior C gate where the 787/777 cannot. I guess they can figure something out but it is crowder for the European departure bank.

Maybe parts of the new terminals and concourses will be done by then?

gwrudolph wrote:

UA777FO wrote:

Don’t forget in Ord where the Hi J 767’s are the dominate airframe they have a gate issue. The 767’s can use the interior C gate where the 787/777 cannot. I guess they can figure something out but it is crowder for the European departure bank.

Maybe parts of the new terminals and concourses will be done by then?

Satellite 1 will more than double Uniteds widebody gate count. The timeline is to have it and S2 completed before OGT construction begins in 2026.

United has 24 Hi-J 763s, 7 of which were built in 1992-93, the rest are 98-03 builds. If United were replacing aircraft oldest to youngest, there are also 25 772s that were built in 95-97.

jbs2886 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

I'm gonna assume that UA is being offered fire sale pricing on the 788 as a 767 replacement. As mentioned earlier, there's not many reasons to buy the 788 over the 789 all else being equal.

Without being privy to any confidential info while looking back at past history, it would not be surprising if Boeing owes UA significant contractual penalties for the MAX 10 delay on top of all the other MAX issues. This could be one way for Boeing to make UA whole (without spending $$$ out of pocket) while also keeping UA from looking too hard at the Airbus offerings in the absence of a NMA.

They come off the same line. Boeing isn’t going to sacrifice a position at some fire sale price when it can sell a 787-9 or -10. It’s wholly reasonable that UA wants the -8.

Well if the 788 keeps the line in South Carolina operating at an efficient rate, then the discounts are worthwhile for Boeing. They aren't expecting to get anywhere near the maximum possible production rate for the 787.

VC10er wrote:

I have read a number of times that the order for 100+ new WB’s would be the biggest order in United’s history. Not largest order in aviation history. It got me thinking, what other airline has ordered 100+ WB’s or more in one swoop?

EK, pretty sure that's it.

VC10er wrote:

I have read a number of times that the order for 100+ new WB’s would be the biggest order in United’s history. Not largest order in aviation history. It got me thinking, what other airline has ordered 100+ WB’s or more in one swoop?

EK with the 77W

jbs2886 wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

They have the -300ERs that are at most 6 years old, late 2020s and they’ll only be 15 years old.

77W resale rates should be good for a while. Why not dump them and replace the whole existing 777 fleet with the 777X in one fell swoop? IMO that is what would kill the A350 for good at UA.

Idk one way or another what UA will do, I'm just a 777X fan and would love to see them be taken up by a US carrier. However I still believe the A350 is the best fit for United.

777W resale rates are good? Not sure that’s true. Those are mostly very new 777Ws at UA. With the Cathay, EK, Etihad, Qatar, and Singapore fleets coming on the market over the next few years and particularly when 777X deliveries start, I highly doubt the 777W resale rates are good.

Im a 777X fan, too, but this isn’t happening.

Well that really will depend on how the various 77W to F conversion programs work. Once the kinks are straightened out in the conversion process, they will enter serial production. If their performance matches the hype, perhaps freighter conversions will bump up the prices of well maintained 77W's.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

I'm gonna assume that UA is being offered fire sale pricing on the 788 as a 767 replacement. As mentioned earlier, there's not many reasons to buy the 788 over the 789 all else being equal.

Without being privy to any confidential info while looking back at past history, it would not be surprising if Boeing owes UA significant contractual penalties for the MAX 10 delay on top of all the other MAX issues. This could be one way for Boeing to make UA whole (without spending $$$ out of pocket) while also keeping UA from looking too hard at the Airbus offerings in the absence of a NMA.

They come off the same line. Boeing isn’t going to sacrifice a position at some fire sale price when it can sell a 787-9 or -10. It’s wholly reasonable that UA wants the -8.

Well if the 788 keeps the line in South Carolina operating at an efficient rate, then the discounts are worthwhile for Boeing. They aren't expecting to get anywhere near the maximum possible production rate for the 787.

You’re missing the point. Any 787 keeps the line moving. Boeing has no incentive to fire sale the 788. There also no concern of efficient rate - there’s one line now so yea they can get pretty close to maximum production.

VC10er wrote:

I have read a number of times that the order for 100+ new WB’s would be the biggest order in United’s history. Not largest order in aviation history. It got me thinking, what other airline has ordered 100+ WB’s or more in one swoop?

Emirates.

jbs2886 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

They come off the same line. Boeing isn’t going to sacrifice a position at some fire sale price when it can sell a 787-9 or -10. It’s wholly reasonable that UA wants the -8.

Well if the 788 keeps the line in South Carolina operating at an efficient rate, then the discounts are worthwhile for Boeing. They aren't expecting to get anywhere near the maximum possible production rate for the 787.

You’re missing the point. Any 787 keeps the line moving. Boeing has no incentive to fire sale the 788. There also no concern of efficient rate - there’s one line now so yea they can get pretty close to maximum production.

Airbus is in a more precarious position if the do lose this order and United's 45 A350 from there backlog. If you were to ASC 606 Airbus's A350 backlog it could be under 300 frames. At 6 per month that puts only at a little more than 4 years of backlog.

At Boeings 5 per month line rate and possibly over 500 in backlog - they are over 8 years. Even without this order they were about 6.5.

Somebody needs to be offer fire sale pricing - but it isn't Boeing.

Or Boeing needing the revenue offered special prices before? The 787 needs to be the cash cow now until the MAX and T7X get into gears.

About how many A321neos would UA net from changing their A350 order over? I would think a lot, thus adding a lot to their current large NB numbers on order!
I cannot help but wonder if UA factored that in when ordering the 270 NB’s!?!

Please keep the thread on topic. The discussion is about a United widebody order.

✈️ atcsundevil

First300 wrote:

The next step to UA becoming an all Boeing Airline. Boeing will pay any cancellation fee for the remaining 321 Order. If this is a good choice to become a single supplier airline is to be seen.

As a Boeing, this is wishful thinking. The 321NEOs will show up in United’s fleet and will do extremely well on missions that United needs them for.

What’s interesting is this order is presumed to initiate the launch of heavier/ more capable versions of the 787-9 and -10 and I’m sure that will be the case


However there are absolutely no concrete numbers available on these performance improvements from Boeing themselves, just rumors


In the past with previous derivatives of all their various models the planned improvements were publicized in detail and well known ahead of time

Max Q wrote:

I don’t see why they would order the 787-8

Why order an aircraft with just 14 less seats than the -9 and less capability ?


It goes against the system and fleetwide move towards larger aircraft replacing smaller in most markets

Replacing smaller aircraft with bigger aircraft? Really? The argument against replacing the 767-300ER with 787-8 has been "its bigger than the 767"........ this site contradicts itself way too much.

jbs2886 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

They come off the same line. Boeing isn’t going to sacrifice a position at some fire sale price when it can sell a 787-9 or -10. It’s wholly reasonable that UA wants the -8.

Well if the 788 keeps the line in South Carolina operating at an efficient rate, then the discounts are worthwhile for Boeing. They aren't expecting to get anywhere near the maximum possible production rate for the 787.

You’re missing the point. Any 787 keeps the line moving. Boeing has no incentive to fire sale the 788. There also no concern of efficient rate - there’s one line now so yea they can get pretty close to maximum production.

Boeing does have an incentive to give UA a good deal on the 787-8. If UA were to go with the 787-8 as a replacement for their 767-300ERs/400ERs then it would make it that much harder to justify adding the A350s as a 777-200 replacement. This is Boeing's order to lose however, UA will go with whoever gives them the best deal and while this order might not be were Airbus and Boeing could make $$$. It will have a large effect on the 777 replacement order and that's where the $$$ is at.

Pinto wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Well if the 788 keeps the line in South Carolina operating at an efficient rate, then the discounts are worthwhile for Boeing. They aren't expecting to get anywhere near the maximum possible production rate for the 787.

You’re missing the point. Any 787 keeps the line moving. Boeing has no incentive to fire sale the 788. There also no concern of efficient rate - there’s one line now so yea they can get pretty close to maximum production.

Boeing does have an incentive to give UA a good deal on the 787-8. If UA were to go with the 787-8 as a replacement for their 767-300ERs/400ERs then it would make it that much harder to justify adding the A350s as a 777-200 replacement. This is Boeing's order to lose however, UA will go with whoever gives them the best deal and while this order might not be were Airbus and Boeing could make $$$. It will have a large effect on the 777 replacement order and that's where the $$$ is at.

I’m not arguing Boeing isn’t going to give UA a deal on 787s. I was very simply responding that Boeing isn’t going to fire sale the 788 because it isn’t selling, as was asserted. The 787 is all one line, Boeing will give a deal to UA on any 787 - not just the 788.

I threw this out a few months ago, is there any role that Boeing Capital will plan in the deal to ensure it goes Boeing? Perhaps buyback some existing a/c or convert them to freighters or send some white tails to United for a below market rate? They've played a role before in some deals, and it could be the option that tips the scales to Boeing for UA.

Some discussion on ramping up CHS to 8x/mo. How soon does UA want the a/c and in what volume? I get that there's a huge improvement to be made on the 77A's, and it's probably their poorest rank from a customer experience standpoint, but there's only 19 of them to replace "now." Aren't we talking 18 months lead time regardless due to the supply chain issues?

I have long wondered about the eternal order of 45 A350s that persists like the ghost from Christmas past. At this point I would think that if UA had any intention of ever adding the A350 to its fleet that the first step would be to actually schedule delivery of those aircraft. From the comments of those who have genuine inside knowledge at UA I get the impression that UA has completely soured on the A350 and the order persists only because, each for their own reasons, neither UA nor Airbus desires to formally cancel it. The order was originally to replace the 774s, but the 77Ws did that. Since then the order has been repeatedly pushed back far enough over the horizon that it is clear that UA has no actual plans to utilize the aircraft. I have no idea why UA does not want it, although the cost to add another type is certainly a legitimate reason. From what UA is publicly saying I see no hint that the A350 is even in the discussion for this order. Whether or not the 777X is is less clear. But it seems that the discussion is between Boeing and UA with Airbus sitting completely on the sidelines.

jbs2886 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

They come off the same line. Boeing isn’t going to sacrifice a position at some fire sale price when it can sell a 787-9 or -10. It’s wholly reasonable that UA wants the -8.

Well if the 788 keeps the line in South Carolina operating at an efficient rate, then the discounts are worthwhile for Boeing. They aren't expecting to get anywhere near the maximum possible production rate for the 787.

You’re missing the point. Any 787 keeps the line moving. Boeing has no incentive to fire sale the 788. There also no concern of efficient rate - there’s one line now so yea they can get pretty close to maximum production.

Well it looks like Boeing won't be launching a MoM anytime soon to replace the 767 and 757. Sales of the 788 are worthwhile if they retain customers getting rid of the 763 and later the 764. Also it's a better replacement for the A332 than the A338. The 788 not only has comparable capacity to a 764, but it has longer range, so it could do US west coast to central Europe routes that are beyond the capabilities of the 767.

SEPilot wrote:

I have long wondered about the eternal order of 45 A350s that persists like the ghost from Christmas past. At this point I would think that if UA had any intention of ever adding the A350 to its fleet that the first step would be to actually schedule delivery of those aircraft. From the comments of those who have genuine inside knowledge at UA I get the impression that UA has completely soured on the A350 and the order persists only because, each for their own reasons, neither UA nor Airbus desires to formally cancel it. The order was originally to replace the 774s, but the 77Ws did that. Since then the order has been repeatedly pushed back far enough over the horizon that it is clear that UA has no actual plans to utilize the aircraft. I have no idea why UA does not want it, although the cost to add another type is certainly a legitimate reason. From what UA is publicly saying I see no hint that the A350 is even in the discussion for this order. Whether or not the 777X is is less clear. But it seems that the discussion is between Boeing and UA with Airbus sitting completely on the sidelines.

Sitting on the sidelines or side-lined? If the UAL management intent was always to select a single Family as 767/777 replacements, it has been the latter as it ruled out an A330/A350 combo deal and the A350 Family alone was never going to be as well suited to filling the lower capacity end. All that remains to be revealed is if the A350 order is dead and buried or left in sursis, and if the former, if AIrbus is thrown a handful of additional A321 orders as a consolation prize to bridge whatever gap is left unfilled below the 787 order. Salt in the wound would be a 777X commitment.

Wildlander wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I have long wondered about the eternal order of 45 A350s that persists like the ghost from Christmas past. At this point I would think that if UA had any intention of ever adding the A350 to its fleet that the first step would be to actually schedule delivery of those aircraft. From the comments of those who have genuine inside knowledge at UA I get the impression that UA has completely soured on the A350 and the order persists only because, each for their own reasons, neither UA nor Airbus desires to formally cancel it. The order was originally to replace the 774s, but the 77Ws did that. Since then the order has been repeatedly pushed back far enough over the horizon that it is clear that UA has no actual plans to utilize the aircraft. I have no idea why UA does not want it, although the cost to add another type is certainly a legitimate reason. From what UA is publicly saying I see no hint that the A350 is even in the discussion for this order. Whether or not the 777X is is less clear. But it seems that the discussion is between Boeing and UA with Airbus sitting completely on the sidelines.

Sitting on the sidelines or side-lined? If the UAL management intent was always to select a single Family as 767/777 replacements, it has been the latter as it ruled out an A330/A350 combo deal and the A350 Family alone was never going to be as well suited to filling the lower capacity end. All that remains to be revealed is if the A350 order is dead and buried or left in sursis, and if the former, if AIrbus is thrown a handful of additional A321 orders as a consolation prize to bridge whatever gap is left unfilled below the 787 order. Salt in the wound would be a 777X commitment.

You can see United and Airbus coming to an amicable conversion to some A320neo family planes (if United actually require them of course) and hold off the "official" cancellation of the A350s until Airbus win some orders to put on the order book so it doesn't look bad on the PR side of things for Airbus having a large dip in overall A350 orders.

Wildlander wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I have long wondered about the eternal order of 45 A350s that persists like the ghost from Christmas past. At this point I would think that if UA had any intention of ever adding the A350 to its fleet that the first step would be to actually schedule delivery of those aircraft. From the comments of those who have genuine inside knowledge at UA I get the impression that UA has completely soured on the A350 and the order persists only because, each for their own reasons, neither UA nor Airbus desires to formally cancel it. The order was originally to replace the 774s, but the 77Ws did that. Since then the order has been repeatedly pushed back far enough over the horizon that it is clear that UA has no actual plans to utilize the aircraft. I have no idea why UA does not want it, although the cost to add another type is certainly a legitimate reason. From what UA is publicly saying I see no hint that the A350 is even in the discussion for this order. Whether or not the 777X is is less clear. But it seems that the discussion is between Boeing and UA with Airbus sitting completely on the sidelines.

Sitting on the sidelines or side-lined? If the UAL management intent was always to select a single Family as 767/777 replacements, it has been the latter as it ruled out an A330/A350 combo deal and the A350 Family alone was never going to be as well suited to filling the lower capacity end. All that remains to be revealed is if the A350 order is dead and buried or left in sursis, and if the former, if AIrbus is thrown a handful of additional A321 orders as a consolation prize to bridge whatever gap is left unfilled below the 787 order. Salt in the wound would be a 777X commitment.

Airbus is on the sidelines. Kirby stated it was a competition between Boeing and Airbus for the order. The winner would take all. That would mean an additional order of A350s if Airbus won, to take the number to 100+ A350s, OR an order for 100+ 787s. At this time, it would seem that Boeing and the 787 have won the order. I believe 12/6 is the day to watch for the announcement.

If United takes additional A321s, then it would seem money previously put toward A350s has been shifted.

Overall, if the 787 wins the order an amazing amount of the incredible machine will be operated by United.

CX747 wrote:

Airbus is on the sidelines. Kirby stated it was a competition between Boeing and Airbus for the order. The winner would take all. That would mean an additional order of A350s if Airbus won, to take the number to 100+ A350s, OR an order for 100+ 787s. At this time, it would seem that Boeing and the 787 have won the order. I believe 12/6 is the day to watch for the announcement.

If United takes additional A321s, then it would seem money previously put toward A350s has been shifted.

Overall, if the 787 wins the order an amazing amount of the incredible machine will be operated by United.

Kirby said that last year as well concerning United's narrowbody order and United still ended up ordering 70 A321NEOs, in addition to 200 737MAXs.

Do I think United will split their widebody order no I don't, but I've also learned to take everything Kirby says with a grain of salt because we don't know what United will do until it is officially announced.

I didn’t realize how many passengers UA’s 788 carry, at what 240 seats ? that’s significantly more than even a ‘normally configured’ 763 which I believe would normally have about 210 passengers


And the 787-9 only has 14 more seats than a 788 ?Quite a few less than their 77E


Seems like the 788 is really too big to be an optimal replacement for the 763 and the 789 is too small to really replace the 77E

Just throwing my 2 cents worth in here, UA has a history of flying into small, mid, and large international airports. Thus they used 757, 767s, and 777s historically. With their upcoming aircraft order, why are so many ruling out the 788. The 321LR or 321XLR will replace some 757 markets. The 788 will replace some 757, some 767, and some off peak 777 routes. The 789 can replace some 767, thinner 777, and on peak 777. The 78J can replace some high density/slot restricted and not as long 777 markets. So what is wrong with the scenario above? It just seems most are saying no need for a 788.. but I think it is absolutely needed for thinner markets and non-peak markets… but that’s just my thought.

Max Q wrote:

I didn’t realize how many passengers UA’s 788 carry, at what 240 seats ? that’s significantly more than even a ‘normally configured’ 763 which I believe would normally have about 210 passengers


And the 787-9 only has 14 more seats than a 788 ?Quite a few less than their 77E


Seems like the 788 is really too big to be an optimal replacement for the 763 and the 789 is too small to really replace the 77E

Need to look a little deeper than total seat count.

A high density 763 with Premium Plus seats has 30 Polaris, 24 PP, 32 E+ and 117 E seats.

The 788 in its current config is 28 Polaris, 21 PP, 36 E+, and 158 E. More economy seats, but a few less premium seats. Add another row of Polaris & PP and I think total seat numbers would be closer. The 788 would also carry substantially more belly cargo.

A Hi-J 763 has 46 Polaris, 22 PP, 43 E+, 56 E.
A 789 has 48 Polaris, 21 PP, 39 E+ and 149 E. And again, a lot more cargo.
77E is 50 Polaris, 24 PP, 46 E+ and 156 E.

VC10er wrote:

I shall weep when the last UA 767’s flight!
I have spent almost as much time as in my bedroom flying the old bird over the past 25 years.
're yeards
Though I also love the 787.

Does this mean the 77X is out for sure? Am I the only one who thinks that by the late 2020’s that UA could fill them on their biggest routes?

along
No, you're not the only one but I think you're YEARS too early as the other 777's are still flying reliably. and only the 757/767's are in the time frame to need replacing. and followed closely by the A320's and older 737's none of which the 777 can replace.

Sancho99504 wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I don’t see why they would order the 787-8

Why order an aircraft with just 14 less seats than the -9 and less capability ?


It goes against the system and fleetwide move towards larger aircraft replacing smaller in most markets

Replacing smaller aircraft with bigger aircraft? Really? The argument against replacing the 767-300ER with 787-8 has been "its bigger than the 767"........ this site contradicts itself way too much.

The 788 is bigger than the 763 and about the size of a 764. But since the 763 was designed premium seating has increased in footprint. A 787 cross section is better for 4 abreast lie flat business class. The 788 could replace the 763 with some growth and more premium seating. It also can do longer routes than the 763 which could allow thinner routes from the west coast to Europe.

Can't hit Europe from west coast? It will do LAX-LHR/CDG easily. Not sure what you mean.

VC10er wrote:

I have read a number of times that the order for 100+ new WB’s would be the biggest order in United’s history. Not largest order in aviation history. It got me thinking, what other airline has ordered 100+ WB’s or more in one swoop?

Emirates. 150 777X at the Dubai air show in 2013.

https://www.boeing.com/commercial/custo ... 777xs.page

ILikeTrains wrote:

Max Q wrote:

I didn’t realize how many passengers UA’s 788 carry, at what 240 seats ? that’s significantly more than even a ‘normally configured’ 763 which I believe would normally have about 210 passengers


And the 787-9 only has 14 more seats than a 788 ?Quite a few less than their 77E


Seems like the 788 is really too big to be an optimal replacement for the 763 and the 789 is too small to really replace the 77E

Need to look a little deeper than total seat count.

A high density 763 with Premium Plus seats has 30 Polaris, 24 PP, 32 E+ and 117 E seats.

The 788 in its current config is 28 Polaris, 21 PP, 36 E+, and 158 E. More economy seats, but a few less premium seats. Add another row of Polaris & PP and I think total seat numbers would be closer. The 788 would also carry substantially more belly cargo.

A Hi-J 763 has 46 Polaris, 22 PP, 43 E+, 56 E.
A 789 has 48 Polaris, 21 PP, 39 E+ and 149 E. And again, a lot more cargo.
77E is 50 Polaris, 24 PP, 46 E+ and 156 E.

I would build on the last post and note aircraft replacement is often a slight upgauge. Cost per flight or cost per seat matters more than size, if within 15%.

I cannot speak with any knowledge on how many of each seat type is the correct decision. But
Polaris 30 down to 28
PP: 24 down to 21
E+ 32 up to 36
Y 117 up to 158

Down 1 premium seat
Increase in Y thanks to 9 across.

Sounds like cost and yield optimization. While it is 19% more seats, the lower costs of the 788 (per flight) make this quite viable.

https://www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/ ... +767-300ER

https://www.aircraftcostcalculator.com/ ... eing+787-8

In rough numbers, the 788 costs 5% less per hour to operate. The fact it has more cabin capacity at the lower cost is a good thing. A wonderful replacement.

For everything else, downgauge to the A321xLR.

Lightsaber

cv5880 wrote:

Delta - pay attention to UAL! They will leave you in the dust with their superior fleet.

Plenty of A359/339s coming in. Nothing inferior about DLs fleet. They have have many fairly new A333s that aren’t even a decade old. The interiors of their planes do not look the age of the aircraft.

Plus, as a pax, I’ll take a 2x3x2 or 2x4x2 on most of Delta’s widebody fleet any day over the 3x3x3/3x4x3 on the 787s and 777s.

Thread is about United’s potential WB order…. If you want to discuss DL WB fleet, there is a specific place for that…

I have read a number of comments about IGW for the 787-10. Will that bump allow for UHL flights from EWR/IAD to Japan, HK, IAH to Australia for SFO/LAX to Australia?
I saw that she flew J-berg to EWR (like WOW!)
So, I’m wondering about some of UA’s longest routes 772ER and 789 that have been frequently flying those routes. Can or will the -10 fly them after the IGW mods?
If the 787-10 is modified, are there any routes that the 77W, 789 or 77ER are currently flying that the modified 787-10 simply cannot do? And are the -10’s big enough?
I ask because if the -10 cannot replace a 772ER then what equipment will fly them. Will there be enough 77W’s in the fleet to fly them?
Will we ever see east-coast nonstops to Asia and SEAsia (Eg; SIN) on UA- if so, what’s the right aircraft for that kind of mission?
(I assume the A350 can?)
Thanks all…

VC10er wrote:

I have read a number of comments about IGW for the 787-10. Will that bump allow for UHL flights from EWR/IAD to Japan, HK, IAH to Australia for SFO/LAX to Australia?
I saw that she flew J-berg to EWR (like WOW!)
So, I’m wondering about some of UA’s longest routes 772ER and 789 that have been frequently flying those routes. Can or will the -10 fly them after the IGW mods?
If the 787-10 is modified, are there any routes that the 77W, 789 or 77ER are currently flying that the modified 787-10 simply cannot do? And are the -10’s big enough?
I ask because if the -10 cannot replace a 772ER then what equipment will fly them. Will there be enough 77W’s in the fleet to fly them?
Will we ever see east-coast nonstops to Asia and SEAsia (Eg; SIN) on UA- if so, what’s the right aircraft for that kind of mission?
(I assume the A350 can?)
Thanks all…

Honestly, I think within this 13 page thread many of us have addressed these questions... This is a tender that plays into Boeing's strong hand with the 787 family well suited to each task.

Give some of the responses a read... really some well thought out and detailed comments by some A.Net users,

strfyr51 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

I shall weep when the last UA 767’s flight!
I have spent almost as much time as in my bedroom flying the old bird over the past 25 years.
're yeards
Though I also love the 787.

Does this mean the 77X is out for sure? Am I the only one who thinks that by the late 2020’s that UA could fill them on their biggest routes?

along
No, you're not the only one but I think you're YEARS too early as the other 777's are still flying reliably. and only the 757/767's are in the time frame to need replacing. and followed closely by the A320's and older 737's none of which the 777 can replace.

If you are talking about the 77W's I agree, but the 772's and 77E's go back to 1994 and 1996 respectively. I would hope the retirements are staggered so that the last of the 763's and 77E's leave well after the first of each type, and they don't do what AA did and dump the whole fleets and keep much older frames of other types around.

The original (93-02) A320's are pretty much the same age as the 763 fleet (91-03).

SEAorPWM wrote:

I would hope the retirements are staggered so that the last of the 763's and 77E's leave well after the first of each type,

When retiring a fleet it is almost always dictated by maintenance schedule, not plane’s age. An airline is not going to perform heavy mx, for example, just to keep the newer frame over the older frame.

Sorry if I missed it in the 13 pages or so this is going on for, but are we expecting an announcement tomorrow?

Wildlander wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I have long wondered about the eternal order of 45 A350s that persists like the ghost from Christmas past. At this point I would think that if UA had any intention of ever adding the A350 to its fleet that the first step would be to actually schedule delivery of those aircraft. From the comments of those who have genuine inside knowledge at UA I get the impression that UA has completely soured on the A350 and the order persists only because, each for their own reasons, neither UA nor Airbus desires to formally cancel it. The order was originally to replace the 774s, but the 77Ws did that. Since then the order has been repeatedly pushed back far enough over the horizon that it is clear that UA has no actual plans to utilize the aircraft. I have no idea why UA does not want it, although the cost to add another type is certainly a legitimate reason. From what UA is publicly saying I see no hint that the A350 is even in the discussion for this order. Whether or not the 777X is is less clear. But it seems that the discussion is between Boeing and UA with Airbus sitting completely on the sidelines.

Sitting on the sidelines or side-lined? If the UAL management intent was always to select a single Family as 767/777 replacements, it has been the latter as it ruled out an A330/A350 combo deal and the A350 Family alone was never going to be as well suited to filling the lower capacity end. All that remains to be revealed is if the A350 order is dead and buried or left in sursis, and if the former, if AIrbus is thrown a handful of additional A321 orders as a consolation prize to bridge whatever gap is left unfilled below the 787 order. Salt in the wound would be a 777X commitment.

What I don’t understand in all of this is the assumption that when there is an outstanding order for airbus that united can just dismiss that and “throw in” some A321XLRs to keep airbus sweet. I would have imagined that there is a not insignificant stake involved with this. Also with airbus able to sell plenty of A321s on their own merit they aren’t exactly the type of thing that needs giving away. Of course we don’t know what the contracts say here but it feels like there is an assumption that US can dictate terms, which clearly isn’t true.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What will surely remain the great unkown is what Airbus did (or did not) give as concessions at the time the A321 deal was done. Perhaps they allowed for reduced or minimal penalties if the A350 orders were subsequently cancelled or that any prepayments could be transferred to the A321. The real question is not this but how many more, if any, A321s UAL feel they need below the 787 to complete the757/767 replacement cycle. Given the mooted size of the 787 order, Boeing may be willing to price 788s low enough to preclude any further A321 sales. Either way, I think we are soon to see a big Boeing win and an embarrassing Airbus loss.

Polot wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

I would hope the retirements are staggered so that the last of the 763's and 77E's leave well after the first of each type,

When retiring a fleet it is almost always dictated by maintenance schedule, not plane’s age. An airline is not going to perform heavy mx, for example, just to keep the newer frame over the older frame.

Oops, I was really referring to the notion that it seems unlikely the last 763 will go before the first B market 777's or A320's are retired.

flipdewaf wrote:

What I don’t understand in all of this is the assumption that when there is an outstanding order for airbus that united can just dismiss that and “throw in” some A321XLRs to keep airbus sweet. I would have imagined that there is a not insignificant stake involved with this. Also with airbus able to sell plenty of A321s on their own merit they aren’t exactly the type of thing that needs giving away. Of course we don’t know what the contracts say here but it feels like there is an assumption that US can dictate terms, which clearly isn’t true.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Plus the rumor is UA already got Airbus to use
the airframe deposit value on UA’s A320 order. Most of the remaining deposit value of the A350s is with Rolls Royce.

flipdewaf wrote:

Wildlander wrote:

SEPilot wrote:

I have long wondered about the eternal order of 45 A350s that persists like the ghost from Christmas past. At this point I would think that if UA had any intention of ever adding the A350 to its fleet that the first step would be to actually schedule delivery of those aircraft. From the comments of those who have genuine inside knowledge at UA I get the impression that UA has completely soured on the A350 and the order persists only because, each for their own reasons, neither UA nor Airbus desires to formally cancel it. The order was originally to replace the 774s, but the 77Ws did that. Since then the order has been repeatedly pushed back far enough over the horizon that it is clear that UA has no actual plans to utilize the aircraft. I have no idea why UA does not want it, although the cost to add another type is certainly a legitimate reason. From what UA is publicly saying I see no hint that the A350 is even in the discussion for this order. Whether or not the 777X is is less clear. But it seems that the discussion is between Boeing and UA with Airbus sitting completely on the sidelines.

Sitting on the sidelines or side-lined? If the UAL management intent was always to select a single Family as 767/777 replacements, it has been the latter as it ruled out an A330/A350 combo deal and the A350 Family alone was never going to be as well suited to filling the lower capacity end. All that remains to be revealed is if the A350 order is dead and buried or left in sursis, and if the former, if AIrbus is thrown a handful of additional A321 orders as a consolation prize to bridge whatever gap is left unfilled below the 787 order. Salt in the wound would be a 777X commitment.

What I don’t understand in all of this is the assumption that when there is an outstanding order for airbus that united can just dismiss that and “throw in” some A321XLRs to keep airbus sweet. I would have imagined that there is a not insignificant stake involved with this. Also with airbus able to sell plenty of A321s on their own merit they aren’t exactly the type of thing that needs giving away. Of course we don’t know what the contracts say here but it feels like there is an assumption that US can dictate terms, which clearly isn’t true.

Fred

According to Leeham from today its very small. "LNA believes that United can cancel the orders for 45 A350s at little cost. The deposits may easily be applied to orders for more A321s, but cancellation penalties are believed to be de minimis."

https://leehamnews.com/2022/12/05/hotr- ... e-penalty/

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

Wildlander wrote:

Sitting on the sidelines or side-lined? If the UAL management intent was always to select a single Family as 767/777 replacements, it has been the latter as it ruled out an A330/A350 combo deal and the A350 Family alone was never going to be as well suited to filling the lower capacity end. All that remains to be revealed is if the A350 order is dead and buried or left in sursis, and if the former, if AIrbus is thrown a handful of additional A321 orders as a consolation prize to bridge whatever gap is left unfilled below the 787 order. Salt in the wound would be a 777X commitment.

What I don’t understand in all of this is the assumption that when there is an outstanding order for airbus that united can just dismiss that and “throw in” some A321XLRs to keep airbus sweet. I would have imagined that there is a not insignificant stake involved with this. Also with airbus able to sell plenty of A321s on their own merit they aren’t exactly the type of thing that needs giving away. Of course we don’t know what the contracts say here but it feels like there is an assumption that US can dictate terms, which clearly isn’t true.

Fred

According to Leeham from today its very small. "LNA believes that United can cancel the orders for 45 A350s at little cost. The deposits may easily be applied to orders for more A321s, but cancellation penalties are believed to be de minimis."

https://leehamnews.com/2022/12/05/hotr- ... e-penalty/

For years wasn't the sticking point with the A350 order seeming to be the RR engines and the significant deposit/order there? And while they coudl work with Airbus to shift order types, RR would be the sticking point?

Was that just poor understanding at the time of the A350 order - or I guess could also be a bit of semantics in what "significant" vs. "de minimis" are depending on the eye of hte beholder.

dmstorm22 wrote:

morrisond wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

What I don’t understand in all of this is the assumption that when there is an outstanding order for airbus that united can just dismiss that and “throw in” some A321XLRs to keep airbus sweet. I would have imagined that there is a not insignificant stake involved with this. Also with airbus able to sell plenty of A321s on their own merit they aren’t exactly the type of thing that needs giving away. Of course we don’t know what the contracts say here but it feels like there is an assumption that US can dictate terms, which clearly isn’t true.

Fred

According to Leeham from today its very small. "LNA believes that United can cancel the orders for 45 A350s at little cost. The deposits may easily be applied to orders for more A321s, but cancellation penalties are believed to be de minimis."

https://leehamnews.com/2022/12/05/hotr- ... e-penalty/

For years wasn't the sticking point with the A350 order seeming to be the RR engines and the significant deposit/order there? And while they coudl work with Airbus to shift order types, RR would be the sticking point?

Was that just poor understanding at the time of the A350 order - or I guess could also be a bit of semantics in what "significant" vs. "de minimis" are depending on the eye of hte beholder.

Admittedly I can’t remember when he said it, but Scott Kirby said that the RR deposits weren’t a deal breaker and United would just write down the loss if that was the cost of a better outcome overall.