• 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7151
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:37 pm

zeke wrote:
My understanding is there was around a 7% drop on range on some types between the former integrated airplane configuration (IAC) and standard. The former IAC payload on the 77W was 386 pax in 3 class with a range of 7850 nm, with standard that reduced to 336 passengers in 3 class and 7370 nm in range.

All Boeing did was change the configuration of the aircraft (and thus OEW) and passenger/baggage weight assumptions to better match modern airlines/assumptions. The former of course has effect on max payload, but the later does not (just how many people it would take to reach max payload). So now a full pax/no cargo 77W weighed more than before, and Boeing had to shift to a different point in the payload/range chart. Again though the chart didn't change (note that unlike Airbus, Boeing's Y axis is OEW+payload instead of just payload, so the top is MZFW and not max payload); your 77W's performance didn't suddenly shift on August 3 2015 when Boeing announced the revisions, it performed exactly the same as it had been since CX got the plane. Technically if your OEW matches Boeing's old one you will still have a max payload of 70t.
Last edited by Polot on Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7240
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:39 pm

VS11 wrote:
Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?


Wouldn't that be an interesting twist.
-Dave
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:44 pm

Okay, I just finished watching "Moana" and I'm really in far too good of a mood to keep arguing this. Plus I know from past experience the moderators are going to wade in here soon enough if we keep doing it and closing the thread for veering seriously off-topic. So this is my last post on the matter.

If you don't like what I post, zeke, feel free to flag it to the Moderators with your reasons. If they agree with your view that it is a low-quality post, they'll delete it as such and send me a nastygram.





heavymetal wrote:
Stitch, your above 777-300ER claim of carrying 70T of payload over 5750nmi is only correct under the following very specific assumptions...The truth is virtually none of those assumptions are used by airlines. Each airline has it's own assumptions for product & resulting OEW, "standard day" & winds aloft, and mission rule-sets/reserves. Any deviation from Boeing's assumptions will result in reducing the payload/range of the airplane.


100% in full agreement with you, heavymetal. I am fully aware the ACAPs numbers are not representative of real-world airline planning and I therefore did not present them as such. By noting they were numbers from the ACAP, I had hoped to make it clear that said numbers would take into account those caveats because in the past I have agreed with zeke, other pilots and fleet planning professionals at airlines who have posted on this site the same things you did above about how real airlines plan real flight plans and they don't reference the ACAP's payload-range charts when they do it. :)

But if I just put numbers out there on their own, someone is going to demand I note where they're from. Or they'll accuse me of just randomly making stuff up or selectively quoting some OEM PowerPoint marketing slide to try and smear one OEM or promote another. The ACAPs are something the general public can quickly and easily acquire to confirm or deny the numbers themselves. That the Payload-Range charts within them are not accurate representations of real-world performance is important, but considering how much has been said about that topic in these forums, I presumed that the general audience here understands that and takes it into consideration and does not consider them "absolute truths".


zeke wrote:
One simply cannot load 70 tonnes of payload onto a 77W, and as you know Boeing has revisited its performance assumptions to make them more realistic. I dont believe the "layman" tag for a second, you are versed enough to run the numbers for the 77W, you just did not know, or chose to ignore what the number means.


Yes, zeke they have. But not in the two sections I quoted. The original chart was from April 2009 (as that was the last update) and just to be sure, I downloaded the latest version which is now March 2015. As I indicated in the original thread, the numbers for Section 2.1.1 (General Characteristics) and the chart on Section 3.2.2. (Payload/Range for 0.84 Mach Cruise: Model 777-300ER) are exactly the same as the ones I posted. If they were different, I would have admitted as such just as I have done in the past when presented with updated evidence. And if Boeing is using different, higher numbers in other documents, then I agree with you that they should be using it in their ACAPs, as well. But they haven't, as of yet, so I am using the numbers provided in the ACAP. When they revise them, I shall be sure to note that.

And yes, no airline will be able to load 70,000kg of payload into one of their 777-300ERs because the DOW / DOM would be a fair bit higher than the 168,000kg (rounded up) Boeing OEM figure (and yes, I know DOW / DOM includes more items the OEW, which is why an airliner's actual DOW is always higher than an OEM's OEW) so you'd reach he rated MZFW before you reached rated Maximum Structural Payload. But if you had a 777-300ER with a DOW / DOM of 168,000kg (rounded up) loaded with 70,000kg of something that would fit inside it with the proper weight and balance and then filled up with fuel to Maximum Taxi Weight and sent off to the runway on a "Standard Day" with the assumptions Boeing makes on winds and step climbs and power extraction and mission rules, you might very well get to around 5750nm before you had to strap on your parachute and bail out (depending on what assumptions Boeing made on reserve and alternate field fuel). ;)

And no, I do not consider myself a "layman" in the general sense of the term. But as you have pointed out, I am not an ATP certified to fly any Airbus or Boeing Commercial Airliner. Nor did I ever serve as an Airline Route Planner or Fleet Operations Manager. And I do not have access to the tools used by those professions to develop flight plans, evaluate airframes or perform mission planning. If I did, I'd certainly use them where allowed. And yes, I could download PIANO-X, but because it is not as refined as the software airline pilots and planners use, it has been criticized by you for it's accuracy so to be honest even if I went through the trouble, you'd probably call me out on it, as well.


zeke wrote:
I gave you an opportunity when I responded to your post to indicate that you could have been unsure of your facts, instead you went on a pedestal and tried to make fun at my expense.


If you had commented that the ACAP data is not representative of real-world airline planning and therefore the numbers it presented were not, as well, my post would have been, as it has been in the past on this subject, one of 100% agreement with you. But instead you did your usual "he's lying to make Boeing look better and Airbus look worse because he's an evil fanboy with an evil agenda" routine. So I posted the charts to explain how I viewed the data they presented in an effort to explain that your interpretation was an incorrect one.


zeke wrote:
You are not a "layman", you have stated numerous times in the past to add credibility to your posts that you are former Boeing employee.


Not to add credibility, but to clarify my background, which was as a CATIA design engineer in the Structures team on Sonic Cruiser. Which is why I only ever brought it up on threads about Sonic Cruiser and we haven't had one of those for awhile. :)
Last edited by Stitch on Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.
 
blockski
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:50 pm

VS11 wrote:
Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?


The A350 could easily be a simple deferral, not a cancellation.

In that Bloomberg article about the MOM, United's CFO says they won't get anymore new 77Ws, but might very well take some used 77Ws.

The whole reason Boeing is looking at the MOM concept is precisely because of airlines like United, who found a nice niche for the 767's mix of range and capacity and also opened up new opportunities at the far reaches of the 757's capabilities. So, the MOM could be a solution for United's 767 conundrum, if the timing and price works out.
 
mcg
Posts: 805
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 11:49 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:52 pm

Will the Sonic Cruiser be able to operate at hot and high airports like DEN and SLC?
 
VS11
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:53 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?


Wouldn't that be an interesting twist.


Surely, it would be very interesting. But it would not be overly illogical. Kirby comes from US so he is familiar with the type. Plus, UA must have put some money down with Airbus for the A350. Long-term having A330, B787, B77W should let them have the right aircraft for most missions, no?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:54 pm

blockski wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?


The A350 could easily be a simple deferral, not a cancellation.


:yes:

I see no reason for United to cancel the A350. As I understand it they're already receiving ancillaries for it (flight simulators and such) and even if they think MoM is the greatest thing ever, MoM's operating market does not overlap the A350s in any meaningful way so there would be no reason to cancel the A350 in favor of MoM.

MoM and the A350 would compliment each other in United - or any other major airline's - fleet, not conflict with each other.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7240
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 9:03 pm

VS11 wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
VS11 wrote:

Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?


Wouldn't that be an interesting twist.


Surely, it would be very interesting. But it would not be overly illogical. Kirby comes from US so he is familiar with the type. Plus, UA must have put some money down with Airbus for the A350. Long-term having A330, B787, B77W should let them have the right aircraft for most missions, no?


I don't disagree at all. I'd be concerned with the capacity, but ultimately if they did A321neo/A330ceo they could cover the MoM pretty handily, and probably with an overall lower cost than including the MoM in the mix depending on how cheap they can get the A330s. Nothing wrong with that other than it adds another fleet type, but so would the MoM.
-Dave
 
jagraham
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:06 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
The 78J (aka -10) is far bigger than a 763 so I don't see those as a replacement. Big airlines like to have aircraft set up at seating points so up or down gauging won't have a wild swing in seat availability. The MoM concept sounds good but it's unlikely to ready before the first batch of 763s need to go. The 789s could cover it but that represents a big jump in capacity. The 788s though would be perfect but would mean they aren't opening up new thinner routes if they are switched to cover 763 routes.


The 789 - oddly enough - flies farther on the same amount of fuel (to within 100 gallons) as the 788. While carrying more payload. And the 788 is over 20% better than the 763. So trip costs between the 789 and 788 are equal at worst. The real problem is that the 789 with its higher payload and greater seating is usually put to better use where the seats can be filled. And it costs more to buy.
 
jagraham
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:11 pm

Don't forget the PIPs Stitch ;)
 
Bricktop
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Tue Mar 14, 2017 11:17 pm

Stitch wrote:
MoM and the A350 would compliment each other in United - or any other major airline's - fleet, not conflict with each other.


Hence the name MoM, right? :rotfl:
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 567
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:32 am

blockski wrote:
The A350 could easily be a simple deferral, not a cancellation.


I think this is it. UA is not likely to be able to cancel, but they could certainly defer. I think the new UA management is all about cash flow and a deferral does that job. Eventually A35Js and A359s replace the full range of 777s. I also think the 767 replacement plan is increasing in priority and thus the interest in MoM.
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 4121
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:47 am

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


Interesting how these things seem to end up with people arguing back-and-forth about minutiae not relevant to the original topic. :roll: :lol:
Last edited by iahcsr on Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:12 am, edited 2 times in total.
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Crew
Posts: 1970
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:06 am

Please keep the thread on topic. As a reminder, this is regarding UA's decision to not order additional 77Ws, nor the A330neo. Please avoid Airbus vs. Boeing arguments, because it just leads to off topic discussion and personal attacks.

Let's try to stick to United and their future widebody fleet then, shall we?

✈️ atcsundevil
Forum Moderator
 
scotron11
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:02 am

VS11 wrote:
Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?


Maybe they'll become a railroad...give up flying all together! :rotfl:
 
FrancisBegbie
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 7:22 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:58 am

scotron11 wrote:
VS11 wrote:
Joshu wrote:
Again I don't know what swamp I stepped into here, but UA will not receive the A350.


Well, if they are not taking the A350, not getting more 77Ws, not getting A330NEO but need 767 replacement, which is not 787, then what? Getting A330CEOs?


Maybe they'll become a railroad...give up flying all together! :rotfl:


They will buy 100 Boeing 747-8s. In the Blue Tulip livery. You heard it here first.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5508
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 9:49 am

120 797s + 60 777-9 + 320 737MAX - proudly all Boeing
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 10122
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:33 am

seahawk wrote:
120 797s + 60 777-9 + 320 737MAX - proudly all Boeing


Yes, they should get rid of all A320s and Rolls powered aircraft ASAP. And those A350s were never going to be delivered anyway.

I never fully understood why United had to shop abroad while superior aircraft are available domestically.

Seriously, I could see United ordering 100 A321NEO's before the summer.

So, that's all set then.

:wink2:
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:27 pm

keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
120 797s + 60 777-9 + 320 737MAX - proudly all Boeing


Yes, they should get rid of all A320s and Rolls powered aircraft ASAP. And those A350s were never going to be delivered anyway.

I never fully understood why United had to shop abroad while superior aircraft are available domestically.

Seriously, I could see United ordering 100 A321NEO's before the summer.

So, that's all set then.

:wink2:


In your world every airline would have a A321neo.....
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5508
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:27 pm

keesje wrote:
seahawk wrote:
120 797s + 60 777-9 + 320 737MAX - proudly all Boeing


Yes, they should get rid of all A320s and Rolls powered aircraft ASAP. And those A350s were never going to be delivered anyway.

I never fully understood why United had to shop abroad while superior aircraft are available domestically.

Seriously, I could see United ordering 100 A321NEO's before the summer.

So, that's all set then.

:wink2:


Seriously man, I heard it from a guy, who knows a guy, whose sister dates a guy, whose brother works at LAX and he heard some real bad-ass dude come up to a guy at LAX saying: "We are looking for some real fresh bomb aircraft. What you got?" And the other guys is like: "Well, we got everything nowadays. We got a plane which is better than the A321, we got the killer 3x7 and we even got the magic plane even your MoM is dreaming about."
 
mjoelnir
Posts: 5869
Joined: Sun Feb 03, 2013 11:06 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:33 pm

I think UA having ruled out the A330-900 is an over interpretation of the quote in the flight global article.

The quote is " Levy points to the size of the A330-900, which Airbus says can carry 287 passengers in a three-class configuration, compared to the 767s as an issue."

size being an issue with the A330-900 is not ruling out the A330-900. The 787 has the same size issue as a replacement for the 767.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1342
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 1:54 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
I think UA having ruled out the A330-900 is an over interpretation of the quote in the flight global article.

The quote is " Levy points to the size of the A330-900, which Airbus says can carry 287 passengers in a three-class configuration, compared to the 767s as an issue."

size being an issue with the A330-900 is not ruling out the A330-900. The 787 has the same size issue as a replacement for the 767.


So what is he saying then? That UA cannot fill anything larger than a 767 over the Atlantic? Kinda crazy compared to the EU carriers with multiple 744s and A380s plying the Atlantic every day.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:03 pm

scotron11 wrote:
mjoelnir wrote:
I think UA having ruled out the A330-900 is an over interpretation of the quote in the flight global article.

The quote is " Levy points to the size of the A330-900, which Airbus says can carry 287 passengers in a three-class configuration, compared to the 767s as an issue."

size being an issue with the A330-900 is not ruling out the A330-900. The 787 has the same size issue as a replacement for the 767.


So what is he saying then? That UA cannot fill anything larger than a 767 over the Atlantic? Kinda crazy compared to the EU carriers with multiple 744s and A380s plying the Atlantic every day.


More like they need an aircraft in that capacity range most likely.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7151
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 2:10 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
size being an issue with the A330-900 is not ruling out the A330-900. The 787 has the same size issue as a replacement for the 767.

Hence UA's interest in a MoM. They never say they see the 787 as an ideal 767 replacement either. But they already have 787s for flights that need more capacity or range than the 767, so what else would the A339 bring to the table?
 
User avatar
Joshu
Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:03 pm

Listen, I don't follow aircraft orders nor to I really care about them. All I can say is that I had a lengthy conversation with an employee in Airbus' sales division. Airbus had employees in Chicago two weeks ago doing damage control when UA wanted out. UA, Delta, and American do not want the A350. Delta is being forced to take delivery of 24 (I believe that's the number that was mentioned) and converting the rest. I do not know what AA's and UA's orders are being converted to. I recognize this is a lot of hearsay and carries little weight. I just wanted to share what was discussed.
Washington-Baltimore Spotters Group
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:33 pm

Joshu wrote:
Listen, I don't follow aircraft orders nor to I really care about them. All I can say is that I had a lengthy conversation with an employee in Airbus' sales division. Airbus had employees in Chicago two weeks ago doing damage control when UA wanted out. UA, Delta, and American do not want the A350. Delta is being forced to take delivery of 24 (I believe that's the number that was mentioned) and converting the rest. I do not know what AA's and UA's orders are being converted to. I recognize this is a lot of hearsay and carries little weight. I just wanted to share what was discussed.



Delta ordered the A350 in 2014 (November 2014, less than 3 years ago) and they don't want the aircraft now? :confused:
 
bigb
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:41 pm

Joshu wrote:
Listen, I don't follow aircraft orders nor to I really care about them. All I can say is that I had a lengthy conversation with an employee in Airbus' sales division. Airbus had employees in Chicago two weeks ago doing damage control when UA wanted out. UA, Delta, and American do not want the A350. Delta is being forced to take delivery of 24 (I believe that's the number that was mentioned) and converting the rest. I do not know what AA's and UA's orders are being converted to. I recognize this is a lot of hearsay and carries little weight. I just wanted to share what was discussed.


I can confirm about AA pushing pause on the A350. There is a lot of rumblings here in flight ops about us not taking them here at AA..........
ETSN Baber, USN
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7151
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:43 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Joshu wrote:
Listen, I don't follow aircraft orders nor to I really care about them. All I can say is that I had a lengthy conversation with an employee in Airbus' sales division. Airbus had employees in Chicago two weeks ago doing damage control when UA wanted out. UA, Delta, and American do not want the A350. Delta is being forced to take delivery of 24 (I believe that's the number that was mentioned) and converting the rest. I do not know what AA's and UA's orders are being converted to. I recognize this is a lot of hearsay and carries little weight. I just wanted to share what was discussed.



Delta ordered the A350 in 2014 (November 2014, less than 3 years ago) and they don't want the aircraft now? :confused:

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.
 
User avatar
Joshu
Crew
Posts: 441
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:05 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:11 pm

That would make sense, Polot. I was told they don't want them because the Asain market isn't as healthy as they would like.

Mark my words, the A350 is in big trouble with US carriers.
Washington-Baltimore Spotters Group
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 1941
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:14 pm

I would guess the A350 is a whole lot more expensive than A330, yet the A330 is a very capable and more versatile aircraft when considering other routes it can be used on.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:27 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
Size being an issue with the A330-900 is not ruling out the A330-900. The 787 has the same size issue as a replacement for the 767.


Well the 787-9 to be sure, as it is similar in size to the A330-900. The 787-8 is a smaller, however.


Polot wrote:
...TATL getting more competitive with LCCs moving in...


And while we're talking A350 now, it will be interesting to see how UA feels about their 787-10 order in a few years if TATL yields start to suffer from the "LCC Effect".
 
User avatar
enzo011
Posts: 1458
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:28 pm

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.



Sure, 3 years is a long time. But it is more like 2 years 4 months since the order and what about the challenges you mention could not have been predicted in that time? Did the Chinese carriers order and receive their aircraft in between then? Did the LCC's only state their intention to fly TATL in between then? The oil price has gone down in that time as well so while there are pressures on airlines there should be reduced cost as well, as long as they haven't hedged too badly.

Seems to me more like the US3 will start running out of taxes they can write off against their earlier losses so the profits will not look as great in the next few years and this has caused them to start looking at capital discipline where the cheapest aircraft will do. Now in my eyes that is short term thinking that will only cause more problems in the long term. What will happen in 10 years time when the aircraft they fly around are all last generation and their competition are all flying new generation 787's and A350's? Another round of bankruptcy and taxes that can be written off in a few years, rinse and repeat then I guess.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7151
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:37 pm

enzo011 wrote:

Sure, 3 years is a long time. But it is more like 2 years 4 months since the order and what about the challenges you mention could not have been predicted in that time? Did the Chinese carriers order and receive their aircraft in between then? Did the LCC's only state their intention to fly TATL in between then? The oil price has gone down in that time as well so while there are pressures on airlines there should be reduced cost as well, as long as they haven't hedged too badly.


Some things like Trump being president were unpredictable 2 years ago, and with others they may have simply misjudged the extent that it would effect them. It happens, airline decision making is not infallible- sometimes they are a bit over optimistic about how things would go. DL wouldn't be the first airline to do so and they wouldn't be the last. Maybe they thought Norwegian LH would struggle more and end up pulling out, maybe they thought Norwegian would split their focus more between US/Asia instead of basically exclusively the US, maybe they thought Chinese carriers would focus more on Domestic/Asian regional/Europe than transpac with all their new capacity coming in.

Also DL was technically under different management at the time, although most of the current management was around in power positions. Maybe Richard Anderson had a different vision of the future DL than Ed Bastian has.

enzo011 wrote:
Seems to me more like the US3 will start running out of taxes they can write off against their earlier losses so the profits will not look as great in the next few years and this has caused them to start looking at capital discipline where the cheapest aircraft will do. Now in my eyes that is short term thinking that will only cause more problems in the long term. What will happen in 10 years time when the aircraft they fly around are all last generation and their competition are all flying new generation 787's and A350's? Another round of bankruptcy and taxes that can be written off in a few years, rinse and repeat then I guess.


I don't think anyone is saying US carriers will never pick up A350s, but rather there is the sentiment of lets wait until ~2020+ instead of getting them right now.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:38 pm

enzo011 wrote:
Seems to me more like the US3 will start running out of taxes they can write off against their earlier losses so the profits will not look as great in the next few years and this has caused them to start looking at capital discipline where the cheapest aircraft will do. Now in my eyes that is short term thinking that will only cause more problems in the long term. What will happen in 10 years time when the aircraft they fly around are all last generation and their competition are all flying new generation 787's and A350's?


The US industry cyclically goes through booms and busts. During the good times, they order new equipment by the flock and increase labor costs (via better contracts) which then saddle them with high debt and costs during the lean times, causing them to go under and have to reorganize to shed themselves of both. And I doubt they foresaw the election of President Trump (Hillary had it locked per the polling) and the effect the Administration's policies are now having on international relations and travel.

So some "capital discipline" might very well be a prudent thing to do now while times are still good. As you noted, fuel prices are very low and look to stay that way for some time. One of the reasons airlines have bought so hard into the neo/MAX/787/A350 is their fuel efficiency and they did so when fuel prices were consistently climbing. With that fear now lessened, keeping older planes longer is likely starting to look more attractive. Keep them up to date in hard product and service and the passengers will be satisfied.
Last edited by Stitch on Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DeSpringbokke
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:27 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:44 pm

Joshu wrote:
That would make sense, Polot. I was told they don't want them because the Asain market isn't as healthy as they would like.

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. Its been reported, for what its worth, that the earliest Delta could have received the 787-9 was 2020 and Delta could not wait that long. Boeing attempted to bridge the gap so to speak with six 77Ls, which Delta still have options for, but Delta declined for obvious reasons. Delta has delayed some A350-900 deliveries from 2018-2019. By the end of next year, Delta is scheduled to have 11 instead of 15 as originally planned. Is it possible the A330-900 NEO will be able to perform some routes where Delta originally penciled in for the A350-900? Yes. But unless Delta continues to scale back from the Pacific, which would be a massive mistake in my opinion, I don't see how they could justify walking away from the A350-900. The aircraft is much smaller the 747, 70 seats to be exact, and carries 15 more seats than the 777s, while burning much less fuel. I can believe Delta converting some A350-900s, but no more than ten, into A330-900 NEOs. In fact, that rumour has surfaced on pilot forums. Might be more things at play here than replacing 747s but its possible Delta might end up keeping fewer 767s long term and rely much more on the A330-900 NEOs fleet and the ten A330-300 242 tonne they are almost complete receiving in replacing 767s.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1696
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:46 pm

There was a comment made on another board about UA possibly being interested is some lease-returned/used ex-EK 77Ws. Could this be legit?
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
VS11
Posts: 1135
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2001 6:34 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:51 pm

This article, which may have been mentioned before, plainly quotes UA CFO Levy of possibly converting A350 to the smaller A330 plane:
"Levy wants to look at whether United should swap out some or all of those aircraft for other wide-body jets, such as the A350-900, which can fly longer routes, or the smaller A330.
“Since we have the opportunity let’s look at what we think would be ideal,” he said."

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... eet-revamp
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7151
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 4:58 pm

jetblastdubai wrote:
There was a comment made on another board about UA possibly being interested is some lease-returned/used ex-EK 77Ws. Could this be legit?

Well as the linked article in the opening post says UA "may sprinkle in some used [77Ws]." EK would be a likely candidate for the source of used 77Ws coming on to the market in the next few years.
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:08 pm

jagraham wrote:
The 789 - oddly enough - flies farther on the same amount of fuel (to within 100 gallons) as the 788. While carrying more payload...


Hmmm...does the 789 have more efficient engines than the 788? Otherwise, you have an aircraft that is heavier, has more fuselage wetted area and yet uses the same amount of fuel...the 789 would have to fly with different laws of physics, True?
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
caverunner17
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:50 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:19 pm

Joshu wrote:
That would make sense, Polot. I was told they don't want them because the Asain market isn't as healthy as they would like.

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

I doubt it's in "big trouble"

DL has 18 777's and 7 remaining 747's - That's 26 birds

UA has 55 77E's and ~20 747's - That's 75 birds

AA has 47 77E's and 9 A333's - That's 56 birds

We all know that 747's for UA and DL are gone this year.

DL is in the biggest trouble -- Without the 747/777, their A330-200's can only reach northern Asia from DTW, and I'd imagine are weight restricted on SEA-HKG. SYD and JNB would be out of the question as would anything ATL-TPAC.

UA/AA both have 787's to cover thinner TPAC routes and some 77W's to cover the heavier ones. UA does a lot of cargo hauling though. I believe they have a contract with USPS.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:22 pm

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. Its been reported, for what its worth, that the earliest Delta could have received the 787-9 was 2020 and Delta could not wait that long. Boeing attempted to bridge the gap so to speak with six 77Ls, which Delta still have options for, but Delta declined for obvious reasons.


That was the early prognostication of some analysts at the time of the order, but DL's CEO subsequently stated that they wanted the A330 and A350 and that airframe availability did not play a role. And that DL formally cancelled their 787-8 order a couple of years on is, I believe, an indication that DL did not want the 787.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 24555
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:31 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The 789 - oddly enough - flies farther on the same amount of fuel (to within 100 gallons) as the 788. While carrying more payload...


Hmmm...does the 789 have more efficient engines than the 788? Otherwise, you have an aircraft that is heavier, has more fuselage wetted area and yet uses the same amount of fuel...the 789 would have to fly with different laws of physics, True?


I believe the Trent 1000-TEN is exclusive to the 787-9 and 787-10 platforms? (It's being tested on the 787-8.) Boeing also spent a fair bit of effort on countering the extra natural drag the 787-9's larger size and heavier weights incurred - effort that they say was successful, though they declined to give specifics (perhaps on trade secrets grounds). The 787-9 also has passive hybrid laminar flow control on the vertical stabilizer to reduce stabilizer drag by around 1% compared to the 787-8.
 
jagraham
Posts: 197
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 6:34 pm

QuarkFly wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The 789 - oddly enough - flies farther on the same amount of fuel (to within 100 gallons) as the 788. While carrying more payload...


Hmmm...does the 789 have more efficient engines than the 788? Otherwise, you have an aircraft that is heavier, has more fuselage wetted area and yet uses the same amount of fuel...the 789 would have to fly with different laws of physics, True?


Boeing's range and payload numbers confirm the 789's greater range - carrying a 789 max payload. And the fuel capacities are likewise public knowledge. Usually, airplanes don't work that way, hence my "oddly enough" quote. Stitch gave some reasons why the 789 might be more efficient than the 788 - but it's not the whole explanation. And I haven't heard a full explanation yet. So I am puzzled. But since these are Boeing vs Boeing numbers, I accept that the 789 is better than it should be versus the 788 while continuing to look for why that is.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7151
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:00 pm

jagraham wrote:
QuarkFly wrote:
jagraham wrote:
The 789 - oddly enough - flies farther on the same amount of fuel (to within 100 gallons) as the 788. While carrying more payload...


Hmmm...does the 789 have more efficient engines than the 788? Otherwise, you have an aircraft that is heavier, has more fuselage wetted area and yet uses the same amount of fuel...the 789 would have to fly with different laws of physics, True?


Boeing's range and payload numbers confirm the 789's greater range - carrying a 789 max payload. And the fuel capacities are likewise public knowledge. Usually, airplanes don't work that way, hence my "oddly enough" quote. Stitch gave some reasons why the 789 might be more efficient than the 788 - but it's not the whole explanation. And I haven't heard a full explanation yet. So I am puzzled. But since these are Boeing vs Boeing numbers, I accept that the 789 is better than it should be versus the 788 while continuing to look for why that is.


The 788's range is weight limited. You cannot have both a full passenger load and full fuel tanks at the same time, the plane will weigh too much. The 789's range is volume limited (or near volume). It's MTOW is just under 30t higher than the 788's, so the plane can hold both a full passenger load and have full(er) fuel tanks (extra OEW and passengers of the 789 don't eat up all the MTOW gain) hence its greater range. If airlines so desire and pressure Boeing for it, Boeing can increase the 788's range by raising its MTOW and allowing it to carry more fuel with its payload. To increase the 789's range Boeing needs to add more fuel capacity.

With fuel tanks completely full the 788 will fly further. You have to sacrifice a lot more payload versus the 789 however.
 
Bricktop
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2016 11:04 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:09 pm

Joshu wrote:
That would make sense, Polot. I was told they don't want them because the Asain market isn't as healthy as they would like.

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


That would be a shame. It would look very nice in any of the liveries. If only airlines cared about what I want to see instead of their own selfish needs and wants.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7240
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:44 pm

enzo011 wrote:
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.



Sure, 3 years is a long time. But it is more like 2 years 4 months since the order and what about the challenges you mention could not have been predicted in that time? Did the Chinese carriers order and receive their aircraft in between then? Did the LCC's only state their intention to fly TATL in between then? The oil price has gone down in that time as well so while there are pressures on airlines there should be reduced cost as well, as long as they haven't hedged too badly.

Seems to me more like the US3 will start running out of taxes they can write off against their earlier losses so the profits will not look as great in the next few years and this has caused them to start looking at capital discipline where the cheapest aircraft will do. Now in my eyes that is short term thinking that will only cause more problems in the long term. What will happen in 10 years time when the aircraft they fly around are all last generation and their competition are all flying new generation 787's and A350's? Another round of bankruptcy and taxes that can be written off in a few years, rinse and repeat then I guess.


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

Joshu wrote:
That would make sense, Polot. I was told they don't want them because the Asain market isn't as healthy as they would like.

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


I seriously doubt that "the A350 is in big trouble with US carriers" beyond normal deferrals or conversions. It's too compelling of a frame to not have for a few of them. However, we've seen this cycle over and over, and the A350 might just be suffering from timing more than anything. If the rumors pan out, I can't imagine that it's only a temporary delay for the most part.
-Dave
 
User avatar
QuarkFly
Posts: 161
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 4:20 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:45 pm

Stitch wrote:
I believe the Trent 1000-TEN is exclusive to the 787-9 and 787-10 platforms? (It's being tested on the 787-8.) Boeing also spent a fair bit of effort on countering the extra natural drag the 787-9's larger size and heavier weights incurred - effort that they say was successful, though they declined to give specifics (perhaps on trade secrets grounds). The 787-9 also has passive hybrid laminar flow control on the vertical stabilizer to reduce stabilizer drag by around 1% compared to the 787-8.


Trent-TEN is not in service yet. Except for the 6-meter stretch, the 788 vs 789 external profile is the same...little room for countering natural drag, which at cruise is dominated by skin friction. A 10 ton-increase in empty-weight alone for 788 to 789. Sorry, not buying any "trade secrets" overcoming this...at least five-percent increase in fuel across the range profile if the payload is the same. Even the Trent-TEN won't cover all of that.

...And last I read, the passive laminar flow on 787 vertical stab is a large insect trap near tropical areas and is being abandoned (no longer on 787-10, confirm anyone?).

jagraham wrote:
...Stitch gave some reasons why the 789 might be more efficient than the 788 - but it's not the whole explanation. And I haven't heard a full explanation yet. So I am puzzled...


I'm really not puzzled...788 will burn less fuel than a 789 with the same payload-range, unless engine technology is substantially different. Somebody's numbers are wrong here.
Always take the Red Eye if possible
 
DeSpringbokke
Posts: 221
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 3:27 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:54 pm

Stitch wrote:
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. Its been reported, for what its worth, that the earliest Delta could have received the 787-9 was 2020 and Delta could not wait that long. Boeing attempted to bridge the gap so to speak with six 77Ls, which Delta still have options for, but Delta declined for obvious reasons.


That was the early prognostication of some analysts at the time of the order, but DL's CEO subsequently stated that they wanted the A330 and A350 and that airframe availability did not play a role. And that DL formally cancelled their 787-8 order a couple of years on is, I believe, an indication that DL did not want the 787.


Well then why have there been rumours of Delta potentially converting some of the A350-900s? Delta already has pushed back several deliveries of the aircraft. Instead of receiving nine next year, Delta is only receiving five and will receive seven each in 2019 and 2020, well at least at this time. Its possible Bastian was not particularly keen on ordering the A350-900 as a 747 replacement favoured the 787-9 instead. But as Delta has gotten this close to receiving the aircraft, makes little sense to hold onto the 787-8 order, hence the recent cancellation. I recall availability was the primary reason for the A350-900 over the 787-9 was Airbus was able to deliver the aircraft in 2017/2018 whereas the 787-9 was not going to be available at that time.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 7151
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 7:59 pm

DeSpringbokke wrote:
Stitch wrote:
DeSpringbokke wrote:

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. Its been reported, for what its worth, that the earliest Delta could have received the 787-9 was 2020 and Delta could not wait that long. Boeing attempted to bridge the gap so to speak with six 77Ls, which Delta still have options for, but Delta declined for obvious reasons.


That was the early prognostication of some analysts at the time of the order, but DL's CEO subsequently stated that they wanted the A330 and A350 and that airframe availability did not play a role. And that DL formally cancelled their 787-8 order a couple of years on is, I believe, an indication that DL did not want the 787.


Well then why have there been rumours of Delta potentially converting some of the A350-900s? Delta already has pushed back several deliveries of the aircraft. Instead of receiving nine next year, Delta is only receiving five and will receive seven each in 2019 and 2020, well at least at this time. Its possible Bastian was not particularly keen on ordering the A350-900 as a 747 replacement favoured the 787-9 instead. But as Delta has gotten this close to receiving the aircraft, makes little sense to hold onto the 787-8 order, hence the recent cancellation. I recall availability was the primary reason for the A350-900 over the 787-9 was Airbus was able to deliver the aircraft in 2017/2018 whereas the 787-9 was not going to be available at that time.


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.
 
User avatar
diverdave
Posts: 607
Joined: Sun Mar 07, 2010 1:00 am

Re: UA won't ordering additional 77W aircraft, rules out A330neo

Wed Mar 15, 2017 8:03 pm

Polot wrote:
Also DL was technically under different management at the time, although most of the current management was around in power positions. Maybe Richard Anderson had a different vision of the future DL than Ed Bastian has.


I think the folks at the Trainer refinery would agree with your observation here. :)
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 9

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos