PlanesNTrains wrote:

Wow, such vile just because they might delay or convert some A350 orders. True colors shining through I guess. I do find it a bit interesting that you can't believe these airlines didn't see the landscape changing but that somehow tax write-off changes were completely off their radar? lol

I find it interesting that an airline can change its mind about an order only 28 months ago. I say this because I was always under the impression that aircraft orders are thought about and worked on for a long time and are not on the spur decisions by the airlines. These are assets that will be with the company for up to 30 years. Its not like the UA order that was ordered a while ago, although they also ordered more copies of the model at a later date after the original order as well.

What about the reasons Polot posted, other than Trump becoming president wasn't on the cards at that time? I would expect people to at least think about the worst case scenarios as well when talking about billions of dollars worth of orders. In any case having Trump as president should suit the airlines as he is all about keeping jobs in the US, surely that is a positive and not a negative?

In any case it seems like Planesmart may be correct that Boeing and Airbus are playing hardball with the airlines right now. If the airlines do not want the model they will have to cancel, there will be no model hopping like before, especially when the model in question is trying to find its place in the market as well. If an airline has made a mistake with its orders it seems like they will have to pay for their mistake and will not be given a free ride any longer by the OEMs.

enzo011 wrote:

I find it interesting that an airline can change its mind about an order only 28 months ago. I say this because I was always under the impression that aircraft orders are thought about and worked on for a long time and are not on the spur decisions by the airlines. These are assets that will be with the company for up to 30 years. Its not like the UA order that was ordered a while ago, although they also ordered more copies of the model at a later date after the original order as well.

Well UA changed their mind about their 737-700 order soon after they placed it, even though they received pricing that probably Southwest didn't get when they launched the bloody model two decades ago.

enzo011 wrote:

In any case it seems like Planesmart may be correct that Boeing and Airbus are playing hardball with the airlines right now. If the airlines do not want the model they will have to cancel, there will be no model hopping like before, especially when the model in question is trying to find its place in the market as well. If an airline has made a mistake with its orders it seems like they will have to pay for their mistake and will not be given a free ride any longer by the OEMs.

That might very well be the case. If they're not too already in too deep, they may feel it's prudent to just scrap the order rather than go into "perpetual deferment", especially if the OEMs are not offering very favorable terms to do so.

enzo011 wrote:

In any case having Trump as president should suit the airlines as he is all about keeping jobs in the US, surely that is a positive and not a negative?

That may be good for domestic traffic. That may not necessarily be good for international traffic which the A350 is intended for. Especially if foreigners avoid traveling to the US due to Trump's policies.

enzo011 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Wow, such vile just because they might delay or convert some A350 orders. True colors shining through I guess. I do find it a bit interesting that you can't believe these airlines didn't see the landscape changing but that somehow tax write-off changes were completely off their radar? lol

I find it interesting that an airline can change its mind about an order only 28 months ago. I say this because I was always under the impression that aircraft orders are thought about and worked on for a long time and are not on the spur decisions by the airlines. These are assets that will be with the company for up to 30 years. Its not like the UA order that was ordered a while ago, although they also ordered more copies of the model at a later date after the original order as well.

What about the reasons Polot posted, other than Trump becoming president wasn't on the cards at that time? I would expect people to at least think about the worst case scenarios as well when talking about billions of dollars worth of orders. In any case having Trump as president should suit the airlines as he is all about keeping jobs in the US, surely that is a positive and not a negative?

In any case it seems like Planesmart may be correct that Boeing and Airbus are playing hardball with the airlines right now. If the airlines do not want the model they will have to cancel, there will be no model hopping like before, especially when the model in question is trying to find its place in the market as well. If an airline has made a mistake with its orders it seems like they will have to pay for their mistake and will not be given a free ride any longer by the OEMs.

1. As Stitch said, look at UA's 737-700 order.
2. Look at the rush to secure delivery positions on widebodies (and narrowbodies) and how potentially that created a bit of a bubble in some regions.
3. Forget the Trump nonsense - it's perhaps relevant from a international travel perspective but how is keeping jobs in the US relevant to international widebody orders?
4. Thank you for at least not re-slandering the US3 in this reply. Keeping it civil is a pleasant surprise.
5. If Boeing and Airbus want to piss off their best customers, so be it. What goes around, comes around.

Polot wrote:

I don't think the deferment had anything to do with the A350 itself, it was purely so Delta will have less capacity coming in than initially planned when a global slowdown was clearly becoming evident. If DL had selected 50 789s (instead of 25 A339/25 A359s) with a similar delivery schedule we would probably have seen deferrals too.

I agree. Its partially why Delta has already parked nine of the 747s already despite not one A350-900 being inducted into the fleet. Rather Delta has inducted nine 242 tonne A330-300s instead with the tenth arriving early next month. It won't be until toward the end of next year until Delta will have taken on enough capacity between the ten 242 tonne A330-300s and A350-900s to replace the 16 747s. On an unrelated note, I'm curious to see if Delta will ever place them on dedicated routes as it seems as somewhat of a waste flying these aircraft, which are designed for routes up to thirteen hours unlike the 21 A333s inherited from NW, on standard A330-300s routes. I would have thought by now Delta would have them fly some combination of SEA-PEK/PVG, MSP/LAX-HND, and JFK-TLV as these routes better fit the profile of what the 242 tonne A330-300 was intended to fly instead of the 777-200ER or 767-300ER.

Polot wrote:

A lot has changed in 3 years. I still think Delta wants the A350s, (and "being forced to take delivery of 24" is all but 1 of their order), but it is certainly plausible that DL may be less enthused about the A350 as they once were. Global economy uncertainty, current US administration making future US international traffic trends uncertain, Chinese carriers flooding transpac market with cheap capacity and starting to kill yields, relationship with KE warming up to possible JV soon (possible less need for US mainland-secondary Asian cities), TATL getting more competitive with LCCs moving in, etc all take their toll.

The need for a A350 (which for US carriers works best on TPAC, it is a bit overkill for most TATL needs) may be less than what was envisioned 3 years ago, especially as the A350 is all new type unlike what the A339 will be. Boeing lucked out and what able to get 787s into UA/AA's hands before these issues. I wonder if DL had a choice right now on what to take later this year, the A339 or the A359, which one they would prefer.

American and United have happily acquired 777-300ER's recently. I wonder if Delta should have ordered about 10 additional 777-200LR's to replace the 747's instead of ordering 25 359's. (The 777-300ER may be too large for Delta given its hubs.) I know the 359 is more advanced and much more efficient, but I wonder if Delta needed a new aircraft type and so many of them for all of the reasons listed above.

ehaase wrote:

American and United have happily acquired 777-300ER's recently. I wonder if Delta should have ordered about 10 additional 777-200LR's to replace the 747's instead of ordering 25 359's.

Boeing offered the 777-200LR as part of the 787-9 RFP and Delta declined. I would expect they did so based on not needing the performance of the 777-200LR and the significant fuel efficiency advanmtage of the A350-900.

Stitch wrote:

ehaase wrote:

American and United have happily acquired 777-300ER's recently. I wonder if Delta should have ordered about 10 additional 777-200LR's to replace the 747's instead of ordering 25 359's.

Boeing offered the 777-200LR as part of the 787-9 RFP and Delta declined. I would expect they did so based on not needing the performance of the 777-200LR and the significant fuel efficiency advanmtage of the A350-900.

I find their decision to go A330neo/A359 very compelling and logical. That things have changed in the world over the past few years is not their fault. Personally, I find the DL fleet and product strategy a strong one. Not sure if that means it's not open to tweaking though.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

3. Forget the Trump nonsense - it's perhaps relevant from a international travel perspective but how is keeping jobs in the US relevant to international widebody orders?
4. Thank you for at least not re-slandering the US3 in this reply. Keeping it civil is a pleasant surprise.
5. If Boeing and Airbus want to piss off their best customers, so be it. What goes around, comes around.

3. I am looking at it from the perspective if he is true to his statements it would mean the US airlines should have better financial performance. This in turn should mean better conditions to replace aircraft if they so wish. If they are looking at capital discipline at the moment if their finances improve there should be less focus on capital discipline if they so choose.

5. That is one way to look at it. On the other hand if they signed a sales contract with certain conditions, who's fault is it if the airlines doesn't want to comply to the conditions in the contract and the OEM holds them to it? It seemed in the past that Airbus seemed very agreeable to the airlines when it came to deferring deliveries. This has gotten them a 70 plane order cancellation (and bloody nose for their reputation for a short time) from EK and at the moment we have people speculating about all three US airlines wanting to either cancel or keep deferring deliveries of the A350. Seems like Airbus tried to buy some loyalty by bending over backwards to airlines when they needed to defer deliveries but at the same time airlines showed very little in return as they went for the best deal by playing the OEMs against each other. The gloves from both OEMs seem to be off in this regard for the moment at least. They also have shareholders they have to justify their decisions to, same as the airlines.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I find their decision to go A330neo/A359 very compelling and logical. That things have changed in the world over the past few years is not their fault. Personally, I find the DL fleet and product strategy a strong one. Not sure if that means it's not open to tweaking though.

By the time Delta has all of the 25 350-900's, the 8 777-200ER's will be around 20 years old, and I wouldn't be surprised if the 350-900's replace both 747's and 777-200ER's, unless Delta develops many new routes needing the 350-900's.

enzo011 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

3. Forget the Trump nonsense - it's perhaps relevant from a international travel perspective but how is keeping jobs in the US relevant to international widebody orders?
4. Thank you for at least not re-slandering the US3 in this reply. Keeping it civil is a pleasant surprise.
5. If Boeing and Airbus want to piss off their best customers, so be it. What goes around, comes around.

3. I am looking at it from the perspective if he is true to his statements it would mean the US airlines should have better financial performance. This in turn should mean better conditions to replace aircraft if they so wish. If they are looking at capital discipline at the moment if their finances improve there should be less focus on capital discipline if they so choose.

5. That is one way to look at it. On the other hand if they signed a sales contract with certain conditions, who's fault is it if the airlines doesn't want to comply to the conditions in the contract and the OEM holds them to it? It seemed in the past that Airbus seemed very agreeable to the airlines when it came to deferring deliveries. This has gotten them a 70 plane order cancellation (and bloody nose for their reputation for a short time) from EK and at the moment we have people speculating about all three US airlines wanting to either cancel or keep deferring deliveries of the A350. Seems like Airbus tried to buy some loyalty by bending over backwards to airlines when they needed to defer deliveries but at the same time airlines showed very little in return as they went for the best deal by playing the OEMs against each other. The gloves from both OEMs seem to be off in this regard for the moment at least. They also have shareholders they have to justify their decisions to, same as the airlines.

3. Trading international for domestic, as would seem to be the implication, doesn't sound like a win-win for the US3. Add in DY. Add in potentially B6. Add in the Chinese airlines and their Dreamliners. Etc. I'm not sure I see a reason for optimism but then I'm not particularly into the political rhetoric either.

5. It's not about Airbus, per se. Every OEM has dealt with this reality in the past. Post-9/11 Boeing was obviously affected to a much larger extent due to their exposure to the US airline industry. Regardless, it's the reality of doing business, and I don't begrudge any of them for holding the airline's feet to the fire. It just seems like a few think this is the first time it's ever happened, and I guess I just see it as a cyclical industry at work. The strong backlogs make it easier to tell an airline to screw off, but they also cause issues with the airlines (A380, 787, neo engine delays, etc). "What goes around, comes around" wasn't directed just at Airbus (in this case). It was directed as much as anything at the repetitive rise and fall of fortunes in this industry.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

3. Trading international for domestic, as would seem to be the implication, doesn't sound like a win-win for the US3. Add in DY. Add in potentially B6. Add in the Chinese airlines and their Dreamliners. Etc. I'm not sure I see a reason for optimism but then I'm not particularly into the political rhetoric either.

5. It's not about Airbus, per se. Every OEM has dealt with this reality in the past. Post-9/11 Boeing was obviously affected to a much larger extent due to their exposure to the US airline industry. Regardless, it's the reality of doing business, and I don't begrudge any of them for holding the airline's feet to the fire. It just seems like a few think this is the first time it's ever happened, and I guess I just see it as a cyclical industry at work. The strong backlogs make it easier to tell an airline to screw off, but they also cause issues with the airlines (A380, 787, neo engine delays, etc). "What goes around, comes around" wasn't directed just at Airbus (in this case). It was directed as much as anything at the repetitive rise and fall of fortunes in this industry.

Agreed, both OEM's certainly seem to be in the best situation to enforce clauses in their contracts with airlines as they both have backlogs that are more than they can handle. As we have seen changes in approach will change with different CEO's at the helm so if, e.g. John Leahy retires the next head of sales may have a different approach to dealing with the customers. This will be interesting to follow over the next few years.

enzo011 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

3. Trading international for domestic, as would seem to be the implication, doesn't sound like a win-win for the US3. Add in DY. Add in potentially B6. Add in the Chinese airlines and their Dreamliners. Etc. I'm not sure I see a reason for optimism but then I'm not particularly into the political rhetoric either.

5. It's not about Airbus, per se. Every OEM has dealt with this reality in the past. Post-9/11 Boeing was obviously affected to a much larger extent due to their exposure to the US airline industry. Regardless, it's the reality of doing business, and I don't begrudge any of them for holding the airline's feet to the fire. It just seems like a few think this is the first time it's ever happened, and I guess I just see it as a cyclical industry at work. The strong backlogs make it easier to tell an airline to screw off, but they also cause issues with the airlines (A380, 787, neo engine delays, etc). "What goes around, comes around" wasn't directed just at Airbus (in this case). It was directed as much as anything at the repetitive rise and fall of fortunes in this industry.

Agreed, both OEM's certainly seem to be in the best situation to enforce clauses in their contracts with airlines as they both have backlogs that are more than they can handle. As we have seen changes in approach will change with different CEO's at the helm so if, e.g. John Leahy retires the next head of sales may have a different approach to dealing with the customers. This will be interesting to follow over the next few years.

I think if JL's replacement takes a different approach to sales, he'll soon be found floating face down in the River Garonne.

enzo011 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

3. Forget the Trump nonsense - it's perhaps relevant from a international travel perspective but how is keeping jobs in the US relevant to international widebody orders?

3. I am looking at it from the perspective if he is true to his statements it would mean the US airlines should have better financial performance. This in turn should mean better conditions to replace aircraft if they so wish.

North American domestic market favors frequency so they would be buying more narrowbodies to serve it, not widebodies.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Polot wrote:

I don't think the deferment had anything to do with the A350 itself, it was purely so Delta will have less capacity coming in than initially planned when a global slowdown was clearly becoming evident. If DL had selected 50 789s (instead of 25 A339/25 A359s) with a similar delivery schedule we would probably have seen deferrals too.

I agree. Its partially why Delta has already parked nine of the 747s already despite not one A350-900 being inducted into the fleet. Rather Delta has inducted nine 242 tonne A330-300s instead with the tenth arriving early next month. It won't be until toward the end of next year until Delta will have taken on enough capacity between the ten 242 tonne A330-300s and A350-900s to replace the 16 747s. On an unrelated note, I'm curious to see if Delta will ever place them on dedicated routes as it seems as somewhat of a waste flying these aircraft, which are designed for routes up to thirteen hours unlike the 21 A333s inherited from NW, on standard A330-300s routes. I would have thought by now Delta would have them fly some combination of SEA-PEK/PVG, MSP/LAX-HND, and JFK-TLV as these routes better fit the profile of what the 242 tonne A330-300 was intended to fly instead of the 777-200ER or 767-300ER.

Delta likes cargo. So they almost never fly an overwater aircraft at max (pax and bags) range.

MSPNWA wrote:

intotheair wrote:

None of that is really true. Airbus has updated the interior to make it look pretty nice, and the A330neo will have essentially the same cabin design as the A350.

Oh, yes, it is objectively true. The A330 is stuck in the era of shelf bins, lower interior pressure, and small windows. Even the NEO is simply lipstick on a pig. It's still long-obsolete interior comfort technology that was surpassed over two decades ago with the 777. The A350 interior is a large step above the old and new A330.

KarelXWB wrote:

Airbus offers more up-to-date cabins, it's up to the airline to retrofit the aircraft.

Have any evidence for that statement besides being an Airbus fan? It's an objectively incorrect statement if used in a general sense.

Please, cut the nonsense. You may want to check facts before calling people fanboys.

DeSpringbokke wrote:

Joshu wrote:

Mark my words, the A350 is in big trouble with US carriers.

While I agree the idea that Delta would have preferred taking the 787-9 over the A350-900, I don't believe they had much of a choice.

All those bloody Airbus planes that the US carriers are forced to order and take! DAMN!

Since UA has RR powered 757 I could see them scouring the used market for late production 757 as did DL. And UA loves their 767 so they can fly them for another 8 years. It's more about cycles/hours less about age.

KarelXWB wrote:

Please, cut the nonsense. You may want to check facts before calling people fanboys.

Answer the simple question. Show me the facts. Tell me objectively why I as a customer would want UA to buy the A330neo over the 787, A350, or even 767/777 when we exclude airline-controlled configuration differences.

At the risk of having this topic further degenerate, Leeham appears to be confirming what some of have been saying:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/20/major-fleet-decisions-may-not-positive-airbus-boeing/

Unfortunately most of the article is behind a paywall, but one of the first bullet points on the summary is that UA doesn't want the A350-1000 any more now that they've started taking B777-300ERs. I also found their contention that AA doesn't want the A350-900 any more either interesting; I've been scratching my head for some time trying to figure out where they'd profitably fly that plane...

GripenFan wrote:

At the risk of having this topic further degenerate, Leeham appears to be confirming what some of have been saying:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/20/major-fleet-decisions-may-not-positive-airbus-boeing/

Unfortunately most of the article is behind a paywall, but one of the first bullet points on the summary is that UA doesn't want the A350-1000 any more now that they've started taking B777-300ERs. I also found their contention that AA doesn't want the A350-900 any more either interesting; I've been scratching my head for some time trying to figure out where they'd profitably fly that plane...

Really nothing anti-A or anti-B in there (which is nice) - just capital decisions. I'm a bit surprised about AA but it's probably timing more than anything. Perhaps they'll simply defer them?

I have a radical idea. I'm not sure if U.S. airlines can utilize Tupolev Aircraft, but what about the TU-204SM. It's more of a replacement for the 757, not the 777. Just an idea, but still, it could work for the 757.

ZyreaxPlayz wrote:

I have a radical idea. I'm not sure if U.S. airlines can utilize Tupolev Aircraft, but what about the TU-204SM. It's more of a replacement for the 757, not the 777. Just an idea, but still, it could work for the 757.

Surely you can't be serious?

Well, I was being serious. What's so bad about the TU-204SM?

Take a step back and look at where the carriers and their respective fleets truly are. United ordered A350s as a 747 replacement. A new management team came in and ordered 777-300ERs as the 747 replacement. At least for 14 of the frames. That's not an "interim" order. The 77Ws are going to be there for 15-25 years.

The rest of United's widebody fleet is fine and the A350 is not needed. The 777 fleet is still strong and even the oldest 777-200s have another 5-10 years left. The 757/767 isn't even in this discussion. Reality is understanding the fact that a great deal on 77Ws made United jump and not need A350s.

A similar statement could be said for AA. Their 777 fleet is strong and so is their A330 stable. Nothing is in need of replacement by the A350. Both fleets can go at least another 5-10 years without any need of new metal.

The A350 is a nice aircraft but not ground breaking or game changing. It is not the 747-400 entering the scene in the late 80s. It is not the 77W coming on scene in the mid 2000s and taking the baton from the 747. The A350 has newer tech than the 77W but not monumental. Airlines already trucking along with the Whiskey MAY not see the need to spend massive sums of capital on an asset that doesn't return Earth shattering results.

The 777 is a good airplane that has millions of hours under it's belt at UA and AA. They are not old in airplane terms. We also don't know where the used fleet of 77Ws from Emirates stands in all of this. Both carriers MIGHT have looked at the forecasted future and decided to continue dancing with the one who brought them.

I thought the A359 was significantly more efficient than the 77W and that's why Boeing needed to create the 777-8 and -9 to compete with it. Is that not really the case in a world of lower oil prices?

KD5MDK wrote:

I thought the A359 was significantly more efficient than the 77W and that's why Boeing needed to create the 777-8 and -9 to compete with it. Is that not really the case in a world of lower oil prices?

Depends on how cheap the 777s are.

GripenFan wrote:

I also found their contention that AA doesn't want the A350-900 any more either interesting; I've been scratching my head for some time trying to figure out where they'd profitably fly that plane...

Anywhere they're current flying a fuel-guzzling 77E and want to reduce their operating costs by 20%? And then some.

ZyreaxPlayz wrote:

Well, I was being serious. What's so bad about the TU-204SM?

What? The Tu-204 has been in production for 27 years and has sold a grand total of 82 planes. The Tu-204SM has exactly three orders. Not to put too fine a point on it, it's a steaming pile of poo.

GripenFan wrote:

At the risk of having this topic further degenerate, Leeham appears to be confirming what some of have been saying:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/20/major-fleet-decisions-may-not-positive-airbus-boeing/

Unfortunately most of the article is behind a paywall, but one of the first bullet points on the summary is that UA doesn't want the A350-1000 any more now that they've started taking B777-300ERs. I also found their contention that AA doesn't want the A350-900 any more either interesting; I've been scratching my head for some time trying to figure out where they'd profitably fly that plane...

Our Triple 7s do extremely well for us here at AA. We make good money with them. Right now, things are quiet on the AA front about taking the A350. Many here believe we aren't going to take the A350s here either.

GripenFan wrote:

At the risk of having this topic further degenerate, Leeham appears to be confirming what some of have been saying:

https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/20/major-fleet-decisions-may-not-positive-airbus-boeing/

Unfortunately most of the article is behind a paywall, but one of the first bullet points on the summary is that UA doesn't want the A350-1000 any more now that they've started taking B777-300ERs. I also found their contention that AA doesn't want the A350-900 any more either interesting; I've been scratching my head for some time trying to figure out where they'd profitably fly that plane...

By year's end, AA will have 22 767s and 9 A333s with 8 787-9s and 22 A350-900s. Last May, AA announced it was going to retire all A333s by the end of 2018 and keep only 17 767s past 2018. Well, the A333 retirement won't begin this year and the first refitted 767s will be parked in the fourth quarter. Might leave AA a bit top heavy but dare I say the A350-900s end up indirectly leading to the remaining 767 fleet exiting the fleet? In the long run, the A350-900 will be perfect for AA on Trans-Pacs. AA will still have 20 787-8s and 15 A330-200s to replace the 767 on its thinnest routes while the rest are upgauged to the 777. Upgauging the A330-200 routes to 772, especially after W is installed, is not too much of an increase, with a majority of the extra seats going to J. Of course, this would happen after LAA/LUS settle all of their staffing issues and crews serve interchangeably. Already seen on the increasing use of the 772 on Transatlantic/Deep South America flying. Before a single 77W was delivered, the 772s were used on only all Trans-Pacs, DFW-LHR/FRA/GRU, MIA-LHR/GRU/EZE, JFK-LHR/GRU/EZE, and ORD-LHR. Might be leaving out a few. If AA/QF can settle with the DOT in getting their JV approved, LAX-BNE/MEL will happen. There's somewhere the A350-900s could operate. Alternatively, with AA taking the deferments, its possible AA could end up selecting the higher gross weight A350-900, with extra range. Could open up some ULH flying that otherwise would be unable to fly due to weight restrictions. This version of the A350-900 would have a much better performance on a route such as a hypothetical LAX-MEL than AA's rather high density 787-9. Just throwing out some ideas of what AA could profitably do with that A350-900.

william wrote:

KD5MDK wrote:

I thought the A359 was significantly more efficient than the 77W and that's why Boeing needed to create the 777-8 and -9 to compete with it. Is that not really the case in a world of lower oil prices?

Depends on how cheap the 777s are.

Sure, but does that risk the 779 being a failure as well, if it can't outcompete depreciated 77Ws?

My understanding was that UA converted 4 of their 787-9s to 77W to bring the order up to 14 frames. Correct me if Im wrong.

I must admit I do not understand US airlines. Surely with current fuel prices you do not need an A350 or 787 (or 777-8/9) when you have a fleet of 767s, older 777 and 777W, but if history showed us one thing, than that fuel never stayed cheap and it was always too late to modernize the fleet when fuel becomes expensive again, as you do not get the delivery slots fast enough and if you do get those, you do not get good discounts, as new efficient planes will be in high demand. On the other hand with low fuel prices your old planes make good money, money you can use to steadily modernize your fleet, even if the new plane does not make more money than the old in the net result, after considering the higher capital costs. But even the capital costs are low at the moment, so imho it is a great time to modernize your core fleet and you still can keep older planes longer for expansion.
Sure, if you only look at the net results and the short term share value, investing as little as possible makes sense, but long term it is questionable.

MSPNWA wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

Please, cut the nonsense. You may want to check facts before calling people fanboys.

Answer the simple question. Show me the facts. Tell me objectively why I as a customer would want UA to buy the A330neo over the 787, A350, or even 767/777 when we exclude airline-controlled configuration differences.

Everyone can put a brand new, modern Zodiac seat inside the A330. That's pretty common knowledge in the aviation industry. The A330neo is getting a similar cabin as the A350.

scotron11 wrote:

My understanding was that UA converted 4 of their 787-9s to 77W to bring the order up to 14 frames. Correct me if Im wrong.

You do not require correcting I'm wondering if UA (and AA) canceled their A350 order outright without substitution of another type, just how much $ are they on the hook for?

KD5MDK wrote:

william wrote:

KD5MDK wrote:

I thought the A359 was significantly more efficient than the 77W and that's why Boeing needed to create the 777-8 and -9 to compete with it. Is that not really the case in a world of lower oil prices?

Depends on how cheap the 777s are.

Sure, but does that risk the 779 being a failure as well, if it can't outcompete depreciated 77Ws?

Yes, but apparently a large chunk of 777X orders are by an airline whose roll it fits perfectly (long legs and lots of cargo). These decisions are not based on whim but after careful analyses. UA must have come to the conclusion that fuel will be cheap for the foreseeable future. Maybe this is UA and Boeing's way of exchanging the cancelled 737-700 order for some deeply discounted 777s. If 700en the choice, the 777s are needed more than the 737-700.

Joshu wrote:

Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.

Hi all, I took a number of days off reading this thread.

I tried to go through it all to catch up but didn't see anything that confirms that UNITED will NOT take the A350. Did I miss a major announcement or some credible information that UNITED will indeed get out of the A350 somehow?

VC10er wrote:

Joshu wrote:

Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.

Hi all, I took a number of days off reading this thread.

I tried to go through it all to catch up but didn't see anything that confirms that UNITED will NOT take the A350. Did I miss a major announcement or some credible information that UNITED will indeed get out of the A350 somehow?

No. It is all rumor at best.

Strato2 wrote:

Let's not forget this is pretty much uniquely American thing. We don't hear it about European carriers Boeing orders and why they should be cancelled.

That is because right now there are no rumors of a European carrier cancelling a Boeing order.

Keep in mind we are not having this discussion because people think UA "should" cancel the A350. We are having this discussion because UA has stated that as of right now the A350 order is under review, so people are postulating on what they think UA should/will do, and are reporting rumors they are hearing within the company. Again as of right now the UA A350 order is not 100% rock solid by UA's own admission.

Boeing is affected too...look what happened to that 73G order, and the constant changes to the 787 order.

People, get a grip. Stop drifting off topic. United Airlines themselves said that they were reviewing the A350-1000 order. It's not as though it's a rumor from a FA or a captain. If they cancel the order, so what. It's not illegal. As Polot stated, Boeing is at the mercy of UA as well. God forbid that an airline wants to change its fleet plans and those plans disagree with your own.

I would think, although perhaps I give too much credit, that folks within UA are far more educated about both A & B not being 100% American or European. The A350 may not be getting made in the USA, but we all know that Airbus employs many Americans and vice-versa.

The only hot emotions I totally understand are about the 747 retirements and UA not ordering the 748! I'm emotional about that when it comes to UNITED.

So what is the cut-off date by which United (or any airline) needs to commit to a plane before it starts getting built? How long does it take to build an A350? How many months in advance do manufacturers need to plan for a plane to start the manufacturing process? The UA A350 EIS is 2018 which is a year away - not that much time for UA to reconsider.

[threeid][/threeid]

VS11 wrote:

So what is the cut-off date by which United (or any airline) needs to commit to a plane before it starts getting built? How long does it take to build an A350? How many months in advance do manufacturers need to plan for a plane to start the manufacturing process? The UA A350 EIS is 2018 which is a year away - not that much time for UA to reconsider.

Well, United may have already cancelled it or converted it into another type but they just dont wanna make it public just yet. That's just another possibility.

VS11 wrote:

So what is the cut-off date by which United (or any airline) needs to commit to a plane before it starts getting built? How long does it take to build an A350? How many months in advance do manufacturers need to plan for a plane to start the manufacturing process? The UA A350 EIS is 2018 which is a year away - not that much time for UA to reconsider.

Technically UA can cancel anytime, when they cancel will just have an effect on how much it will cost them

It is also entirely possible that Airbus has already internally delayed/reassigned UA's A350s after discussions with the airline, even if public information says otherwise at the moment. Or UA/Airbus may come up with a sale upon delivery agreement if they find another buyer.

Polot wrote:

VS11 wrote:

So what is the cut-off date by which United (or any airline) needs to commit to a plane before it starts getting built? How long does it take to build an A350? How many months in advance do manufacturers need to plan for a plane to start the manufacturing process? The UA A350 EIS is 2018 which is a year away - not that much time for UA to reconsider.

Technically UA can cancel anytime, when they cancel will just have an effect on how much it will cost them

It is also entirely possible that Airbus has already internally delayed/reassigned UA's A350s after discussions with the airline, even if public information says otherwise at the moment. Or UA/Airbus may come up with a sale upon delivery agreement if they find another buyer.

So the suspense can drag for another year or so....

VS11 wrote:

So the suspense can drag for another year or so....

I doubt the suspense will drag on that long. I suspect we will officially know where UA's head is at by the end of the year at the latest.

iahcsr wrote:

scotron11 wrote:

My understanding was that UA converted 4 of their 787-9s to 77W to bring the order up to 14 frames. Correct me if Im wrong.

You do not require correcting I'm wondering if UA (and AA) canceled their A350 order outright without substitution of another type, just how much $ are they on the hook for?

I just don't see the reason to cancel it at all. In this type of situation, we've seen in the past airlines push out deliveries for extended periods of time before finally working something out with the manufacturer or otherwise taking delivery. Look at VS and the A380 or DL and the 787. I think we'd most likely see either a conversion or a deferral and not necessarily an outright cancellation.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

scotron11 wrote:

My understanding was that UA converted 4 of their 787-9s to 77W to bring the order up to 14 frames. Correct me if Im wrong.

You do not require correcting I'm wondering if UA (and AA) canceled their A350 order outright without substitution of another type, just how much $ are they on the hook for?

I just don't see the reason to cancel it at all. In this type of situation, we've seen in the past airlines push out deliveries for extended periods of time before finally working something out with the manufacturer or otherwise taking delivery. Look at VS and the A380 or DL and the 787. I think we'd most likely see either a conversion or a deferral and not necessarily an outright cancellation.

Delta outright cancelled the 787 recently.

jbs2886 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

You do not require correcting I'm wondering if UA (and AA) canceled their A350 order outright without substitution of another type, just how much $ are they on the hook for?

I just don't see the reason to cancel it at all. In this type of situation, we've seen in the past airlines push out deliveries for extended periods of time before finally working something out with the manufacturer or otherwise taking delivery. Look at VS and the A380 or DL and the 787. I think we'd most likely see either a conversion or a deferral and not necessarily an outright cancellation.

Delta outright cancelled the 787 recently.

Yes, sometimes it happens, but that order had been placed more than a decade earlier. Sometimes the order will be cancelled out-right ultimately, but sometimes the order will be converted to something else. The point was that DL didn't just cancel the order in 2008 when they merged with NW, and when it became clear that they weren't interested in the 787 they pushed deliveries out to 2020. That's what I think AA or UA would do - either push deliveries out until they need the planes, or convert the order somewhere along the line to a different model from Airbus.

United ordered the A350-1000 in June of 2013. The price of oil in mid-2013 was near $100 and rising. https://www.5yearcharts.com/wp-content/ ... cpi-5y.png

Fast forward to 2017. The price of an equally-capable, although not quite as efficient, 77W drops substantially. The 77W can be acquired much sooner and help expedite the retirement of reliability-challenged 744s. United cancels a much-needed and favorably-priced 73G order to reduce CAPEX.

The 77W purchase covers many of the bases that United needed covering and the overall economics of the 77W are much better now than they were in 2013. Business plans change and when an opportunity arises, you react. The rumor that UA is also looking at used 77Ws says a lot about the value of the plane versus a 'list-price' brand new model.