• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 24583
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:34 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
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.


That's very plausible. Though it's worth mentioning that AA deferred A350 deliveries from 2017 to 2018. That's just a small delay. If they don't want the A350 anymore, one would had expected a much larger delay. Like DL did with the 787.

AA's next production slot is MSN 239 so they better hurry up.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 5290
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Tue Mar 21, 2017 6:54 pm

Eyad89 wrote:
[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.


Both would need to report such a decision quickly to the shareholders.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7184
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:02 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
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.


That's very plausible. Though it's worth mentioning that AA deferred A350 deliveries from 2017 to 2018. That's just a small delay. If they don't want the A350 anymore, one would had expected a much larger delay. Like DL did with the 787.

AA's next production slot is MSN 239 so they better hurry up.


I'd actually forgotten about their short deferral. I was just responding to the Leeham article. They may very well take delivery as planned. :-)
-Dave
 
bigb
Posts: 796
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

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

Tue Mar 21, 2017 7:32 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
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.


That's very plausible. Though it's worth mentioning that AA deferred A350 deliveries from 2017 to 2018. That's just a small delay. If they don't want the A350 anymore, one would had expected a much larger delay. Like DL did with the 787.

AA's next production slot is MSN 239 so they better hurry up.


I'd actually forgotten about their short deferral. I was just responding to the Leeham article. They may very well take delivery as planned. :-)


Don't be surprised to see another deferral
ETSN Baber, USN
 
JeffinMass
Posts: 52
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:29 pm

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

Tue Mar 21, 2017 8:11 pm

If I am correct I believe that Etihad took the PIA B773s. Boeing was upset because PIA sold them for less than they should have.
 
scotron11
Posts: 1319
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 4:54 pm

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

Tue Mar 21, 2017 11:48 pm

jetblastdubai wrote:
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.


It is also quite telling that UA only ordered 10 77Ws and converted 4 787-9s to 77Ws. I believe it,s because they know that fuel will not be low priced forever, and in 5 - 10yrs time those 77Ws could be an albatross around their neck!
 
User avatar
GreenArc
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 10:59 am

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

Wed Mar 22, 2017 1:09 am

scotron11 wrote:
It is also quite telling that UA only ordered 10 77Ws and converted 4 787-9s to 77Ws. I believe it,s because they know that fuel will not be low priced forever, and in 5 - 10yrs time those 77Ws could be an albatross around their neck!


All the 77Ws where order conversions from 787's, not just the last 4.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ual-fleet-idUSKBN0NE19N20150423
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 546
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

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

Wed Mar 22, 2017 2:12 am

scotron11 wrote:
jetblastdubai wrote:
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.


It is also quite telling that UA only ordered 10 77Ws and converted 4 787-9s to 77Ws. I believe it,s because they know that fuel will not be low priced forever, and in 5 - 10yrs time those 77Ws could be an albatross around their neck!


Could be, but it's not like the 77W is a DC10 or 742. They're getting the latest PIP, low acquisition costs and something far more efficient than it replaces. They are only taking 14 of them which is a 10-15% of their WB fleet so nothing that major in the scheme of things.
 
jagraham
Posts: 187
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

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

Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:08 pm

When the range payload charts are overlaid, it turns out the 789 flies about 100 nm less than the 788 when carrying the 788 MTOW. Or 480000 lb, which is the highest brake release weight line both charts share. 100 nm is a rounding error in the whole scheme of things. And the slope is identical, so ho benefit from reduced fuselage wetting area is apparent.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 2198
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

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

Wed Mar 22, 2017 5:30 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
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.

Well, clearly you're going to continue to avoid the question you cannot answer in favor of your original statement. I rest my case.

I'll also make mention that the same model of J seat in the A330's narrower cabin is generally inferior in space compared to wider cabins, like it is with DL's herringbone A330 seat. The staggered Vantage/Vantage XL experiences the same issue. There's simply less room for seat and aisle width. Even the airline-controlled selection up front is generally restricted and inferior on the A330. I don't want that for the next 30 years when there's something better out there.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 24583
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Wed Mar 22, 2017 6:52 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Well, clearly you're going to continue to avoid the question you cannot answer in favor of your original statement. I rest my case.


The A330neo is getting a A350 style cabin. Everyone knows that. You may refuse to believe it, here are a few articles worth reading:

http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-e ... rformance/
http://www.airbusgroup.com/int/en/news- ... space.html
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2016/04/0 ... ness-seat/
https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2016/03/2 ... new-cabin/
http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-e ... e-a330neo/
https://thepointsguy.com/2016/04/inside ... -airspace/

etc

Airlines put new seats in older aircraft all the time, there's nothing new about that.

I'll also make mention that the same model of J seat in the A330's narrower cabin is generally inferior in space compared to wider cabins, like it is with DL's herringbone A330 seat. The staggered Vantage/Vantage XL experiences the same issue. There's simply less room for seat and aisle width. Even the airline-controlled selection up front is generally restricted and inferior on the A330. I don't want that for the next 30 years when there's something better out there.


The 777 cabin is also wider than the 787. What exactly are you trying to say?

If you're looking for an aircraft with the widest fuselage diameter, perhaps the A380 may fit your needs.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
planespotter20
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

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

Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:25 pm

Looks like United is taking the a350, they have selected a company to supply the seats, so one way or another the idea of them cancelling is getting cast further into doubt.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... id=2259528
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

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

Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:30 pm

[url]s[/url]
planespotter20 wrote:
Looks like United is taking the a350, they have selected a company to supply the seats, so one way or another the idea of them cancelling is getting cast further into doubt.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... id=2259528


Given that these seats are for other widebodies economy seats at UA, this press statement is not really indicative of anything.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7184
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:32 pm

planespotter20 wrote:
Looks like United is taking the a350, they have selected a company to supply the seats, so one way or another the idea of them cancelling is getting cast further into doubt.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... id=2259528


I saw that noted and thought the same thing, but then figured that it could mean "...if...".
-Dave
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

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

Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:39 pm

airzim wrote:
[url]s[/url]
planespotter20 wrote:
Looks like United is taking the a350, they have selected a company to supply the seats, so one way or another the idea of them cancelling is getting cast further into doubt.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... id=2259528


Given that these seats are for other widebodies economy seats at UA, this press statement is not really indicative of anything.

Just gonna leave this here, FWIW.
WELLINGTON, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 4, 2017-- B/E Aerospace, Inc. (NASDAQ: BEAV), the world’s leading manufacturer of aircraft cabin interior products, today announced that United Airlines is expanding the transformation of their customer experience with major investments in best-in-class economy seating innovation. B/E Aerospace is pleased to announce the selection of the latest B/E Aerospace economy class seating platforms – Aspire, selected for the 787-10 and A350, as well as 777-200 retrofits and Meridian, selected for the next generation 737 MAX 9.
Eat 'em up Kats!
 
MD80MKE
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:26 am

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

Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:22 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
airzim wrote:
[url]s[/url]
planespotter20 wrote:
Looks like United is taking the a350, they have selected a company to supply the seats, so one way or another the idea of them cancelling is getting cast further into doubt.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... id=2259528


Given that these seats are for other widebodies economy seats at UA, this press statement is not really indicative of anything.

Just gonna leave this here, FWIW.
WELLINGTON, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Apr. 4, 2017-- B/E Aerospace, Inc. (NASDAQ: BEAV), the world’s leading manufacturer of aircraft cabin interior products, today announced that United Airlines is expanding the transformation of their customer experience with major investments in best-in-class economy seating innovation. B/E Aerospace is pleased to announce the selection of the latest B/E Aerospace economy class seating platforms – Aspire, selected for the 787-10 and A350, as well as 777-200 retrofits and Meridian, selected for the next generation 737 MAX 9.


As the article mentioned the specific types for 787 and 777 but not A350, it's still possible for a conversion from -1000 to -900 for UA. Considering the number of 77Ws coming in to cover the 744 flying for trans-pac trunk routes, I wouldn't be surprised if UA actually takes the smaller sibling.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

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

Wed Apr 05, 2017 10:48 pm

airzim wrote:
[url]s[/url]
planespotter20 wrote:
Looks like United is taking the a350, they have selected a company to supply the seats, so one way or another the idea of them cancelling is getting cast further into doubt.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... id=2259528


Given that these seats are for other widebodies economy seats at UA, this press statement is not really indicative of anything.


I've said this before and I'll say it again: Boeing partisans will continue to second guess UA's A350 operations even after they take delivery of them. For as long as UA operates the A350, there will be a group of people on this site and in the industry cheering for UA to dump them, saying that UA couldn't possibly be happy with an Airbus widebody product, that it doesn't make any sense in their fleet, etc. etc. etc.

I think UA seriously did consider canceling or converting the A350 order into A321s, but it's way too late for any of that now. Had Mr. Kirby arrived at the company about a year or two before he did, it may be a different story. But there still is no evidence otherwise that we *won't* see A350s in UA colors.

MD80MKE wrote:
As the article mentioned the specific types for 787 and 777 but not A350, it's still possible for a conversion from -1000 to -900 for UA. Considering the number of 77Ws coming in to cover the 744 flying for trans-pac trunk routes, I wouldn't be surprised if UA actually takes the smaller sibling.


I don't know if I would read too much into that. It's important to make the distinction for the 787 fleet because the 787-10 will have a cabin different from the -8s and -9s. The -10 is scheduled to have the Zodiac Polaris seat along with this new Aspire Y seat, while the -8s and -9s (including those yet to be delivered) will still have the Diamond J seat. Meanwhile, as it stands, UA will only be operating one subtype of the A350, the A350-1000, and there's no reason to think the A350 fleet won't have a uniform cabin unlike the 787 fleet.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7184
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:51 am

intotheair wrote:
airzim wrote:
[url]s[/url]
planespotter20 wrote:
Looks like United is taking the a350, they have selected a company to supply the seats, so one way or another the idea of them cancelling is getting cast further into doubt.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zht ... id=2259528


Given that these seats are for other widebodies economy seats at UA, this press statement is not really indicative of anything.


I've said this before and I'll say it again: Boeing partisans will continue to second guess UA's A350 operations even after they take delivery of them. For as long as UA operates the A350, there will be a group of people on this site and in the industry cheering for UA to dump them, saying that UA couldn't possibly be happy with an Airbus widebody product, that it doesn't make any sense in their fleet, etc. etc. etc..


I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For some of us, it isn't a matter of the A350 not being good enough or us not wanting it in UAs fleet. I couldn't care less What we are responding to are repeated internal rumblings including from UA insiders (of some sort) saying or implying that they either aren't coming or are being pushed out.
-Dave
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 6:14 am

PlanesNTrains wrote:
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For some of us, it isn't a matter of the A350 not being good enough or us not wanting it in UAs fleet. I couldn't care less What we are responding to are repeated internal rumblings including from UA insiders (of some sort) saying or implying that they either aren't coming or are being pushed out.


I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that UA's A350 order could seriously be cancelled or converted into other aircraft types by this point. From what I know that we know through public/official sources, Andrew Levy spoke to Bloomberg in November about possibly swapping some or all of the A350-1000s into "smaller long range models." That could have meant swapping either some or all A350-1000s for -900s or A330s, and I believe (though couldn't find the link to if immediately) that Levy later reportedly ruled out A330s at some investor or staff event. The Bloomberg article never really mentioned much about the A321. Levy then said something similar again to FlightGlobal in February, but his comments shifted more toward what will happen with the 767 fleet.

Aside from that, what other convincing piece of evidence is there that we will not see A350s in UA colors? Most of the "insiders" on here claiming the A350 won't ever be in the UA fleet are fairly new users or users with not much of a track record to go off of. As for some of the other insiders who occasionally have accurate information about what's going on at UA, they almost never have any sort of special insight into fleet planning decisions. Some of those people are the same ones who claimed at the beginning of this thread that UA was about ready to place an order for 40 77X in January, among many other aircraft. So in short, I haven't seen any information posted exclusively on here that is compelling. Then there's the crew rest issue, but I haven't heard anything about that for quite a while now, and it was still all coming from one group— pilots. And as we all know, it's the corporate bean counters who make the fleet decisions, not pilots.

So if United's public position remains that they still anticipate the A350 joining the fleet, I'll take their word for it. I just haven't really seen anything compelling to suggest otherwise. Had Levy and Kirby arrived at UA 18-24 months ago, I think it could have been a different story, absolutely. But the fact remains that UA has chosen a seat supplier for the A350, MSN143 already has parts arriving, and UA's first A350 is MSN194 — that's likely less than a year away. I think it's very possible the newest UA management reviewed the order, sure, but if anything were to have changed with it, I think it would have happened by now.

Of course, if there's anything else credible that suggests otherwise, I'd listen. And in the chance that UA does end up canceling the order, my offer still stands: free drink on me at any bar in LAX TBIT.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7184
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 8:23 am

intotheair wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For some of us, it isn't a matter of the A350 not being good enough or us not wanting it in UAs fleet. I couldn't care less What we are responding to are repeated internal rumblings including from UA insiders (of some sort) saying or implying that they either aren't coming or are being pushed out.


I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that UA's A350 order could seriously be cancelled or converted into other aircraft types by this point. From what I know that we know through public/official sources, Andrew Levy spoke to Bloomberg in November about possibly swapping some or all of the A350-1000s into "smaller long range models." That could have meant swapping either some or all A350-1000s for -900s or A330s, and I believe (though couldn't find the link to if immediately) that Levy later reportedly ruled out A330s at some investor or staff event. The Bloomberg article never really mentioned much about the A321. Levy then said something similar again to FlightGlobal in February, but his comments shifted more toward what will happen with the 767 fleet.

Aside from that, what other convincing piece of evidence is there that we will not see A350s in UA colors? Most of the "insiders" on here claiming the A350 won't ever be in the UA fleet are fairly new users or users with not much of a track record to go off of. As for some of the other insiders who occasionally have accurate information about what's going on at UA, they almost never have any sort of special insight into fleet planning decisions. Some of those people are the same ones who claimed at the beginning of this thread that UA was about ready to place an order for 40 77X in January, among many other aircraft. So in short, I haven't seen any information posted exclusively on here that is compelling. Then there's the crew rest issue, but I haven't heard anything about that for quite a while now, and it was still all coming from one group— pilots. And as we all know, it's the corporate bean counters who make the fleet decisions, not pilots.

So if United's public position remains that they still anticipate the A350 joining the fleet, I'll take their word for it. I just haven't really seen anything compelling to suggest otherwise. Had Levy and Kirby arrived at UA 18-24 months ago, I think it could have been a different story, absolutely. But the fact remains that UA has chosen a seat supplier for the A350, MSN143 already has parts arriving, and UA's first A350 is MSN194 — that's likely less than a year away. I think it's very possible the newest UA management reviewed the order, sure, but if anything were to have changed with it, I think it would have happened by now.

Of course, if there's anything else credible that suggests otherwise, I'd listen. And in the chance that UA does end up canceling the order, my offer still stands: free drink on me at any bar in LAX TBIT.


https://leehamnews.com/2017/03/20/major ... us-boeing/

I'll be at LAX on the 17th and the 21st. If something happens between now and then, I enjoy Mojitos. :-)
-Dave
 
ual777
Posts: 1597
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2003 6:18 am

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 11:43 am

intotheair wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For some of us, it isn't a matter of the A350 not being good enough or us not wanting it in UAs fleet. I couldn't care less What we are responding to are repeated internal rumblings including from UA insiders (of some sort) saying or implying that they either aren't coming or are being pushed out.


I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that UA's A350 order could seriously be cancelled or converted into other aircraft types by this point. From what I know that we know through public/official sources, Andrew Levy spoke to Bloomberg in November about possibly swapping some or all of the A350-1000s into "smaller long range models." That could have meant swapping either some or all A350-1000s for -900s or A330s, and I believe (though couldn't find the link to if immediately) that Levy later reportedly ruled out A330s at some investor or staff event. The Bloomberg article never really mentioned much about the A321. Levy then said something similar again to FlightGlobal in February, but his comments shifted more toward what will happen with the 767 fleet.

Aside from that, what other convincing piece of evidence is there that we will not see A350s in UA colors? Most of the "insiders" on here claiming the A350 won't ever be in the UA fleet are fairly new users or users with not much of a track record to go off of. As for some of the other insiders who occasionally have accurate information about what's going on at UA, they almost never have any sort of special insight into fleet planning decisions. Some of those people are the same ones who claimed at the beginning of this thread that UA was about ready to place an order for 40 77X in January, among many other aircraft. So in short, I haven't seen any information posted exclusively on here that is compelling. Then there's the crew rest issue, but I haven't heard anything about that for quite a while now, and it was still all coming from one group— pilots. And as we all know, it's the corporate bean counters who make the fleet decisions, not pilots.

So if United's public position remains that they still anticipate the A350 joining the fleet, I'll take their word for it. I just haven't really seen anything compelling to suggest otherwise. Had Levy and Kirby arrived at UA 18-24 months ago, I think it could have been a different story, absolutely. But the fact remains that UA has chosen a seat supplier for the A350, MSN143 already has parts arriving, and UA's first A350 is MSN194 — that's likely less than a year away. I think it's very possible the newest UA management reviewed the order, sure, but if anything were to have changed with it, I think it would have happened by now.

Of course, if there's anything else credible that suggests otherwise, I'd listen. And in the chance that UA does end up canceling the order, my offer still stands: free drink on me at any bar in LAX TBIT.


I wouldn't call it in doubt but It is up in the air. The 777x stuff is BS though. Company is studying the 330neo but it's all complicated by engine contracts with RR as well.
It is always darkest before the sun comes up.
 
30west
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:18 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 2:50 pm

intotheair wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
I think you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For some of us, it isn't a matter of the A350 not being good enough or us not wanting it in UAs fleet. I couldn't care less What we are responding to are repeated internal rumblings including from UA insiders (of some sort) saying or implying that they either aren't coming or are being pushed out.


I just haven't seen any convincing evidence that UA's A350 order could seriously be cancelled or converted into other aircraft types by this point. From what I know that we know through public/official sources, Andrew Levy spoke to Bloomberg in November about possibly swapping some or all of the A350-1000s into "smaller long range models." That could have meant swapping either some or all A350-1000s for -900s or A330s, and I believe (though couldn't find the link to if immediately) that Levy later reportedly ruled out A330s at some investor or staff event. The Bloomberg article never really mentioned much about the A321. Levy then said something similar again to FlightGlobal in February, but his comments shifted more toward what will happen with the 767 fleet.

Aside from that, what other convincing piece of evidence is there that we will not see A350s in UA colors? Most of the "insiders" on here claiming the A350 won't ever be in the UA fleet are fairly new users or users with not much of a track record to go off of. As for some of the other insiders who occasionally have accurate information about what's going on at UA, they almost never have any sort of special insight into fleet planning decisions. Some of those people are the same ones who claimed at the beginning of this thread that UA was about ready to place an order for 40 77X in January, among many other aircraft. So in short, I haven't seen any information posted exclusively on here that is compelling. Then there's the crew rest issue, but I haven't heard anything about that for quite a while now, and it was still all coming from one group— pilots. And as we all know, it's the corporate bean counters who make the fleet decisions, not pilots.

So if United's public position remains that they still anticipate the A350 joining the fleet, I'll take their word for it. I just haven't really seen anything compelling to suggest otherwise. Had Levy and Kirby arrived at UA 18-24 months ago, I think it could have been a different story, absolutely. But the fact remains that UA has chosen a seat supplier for the A350, MSN143 already has parts arriving, and UA's first A350 is MSN194 — that's likely less than a year away. I think it's very possible the newest UA management reviewed the order, sure, but if anything were to have changed with it, I think it would have happened by now.

Of course, if there's anything else credible that suggests otherwise, I'd listen. And in the chance that UA does end up canceling the order, my offer still stands: free drink on me at any bar in LAX TBIT.



Well I can't comment on most of your post but the underlined portion I do know about. The A-350 as currently configured does NOT comply with FAA FAR 117 rest requirements, the process around the reg is a FAA waiver that is long and complicated but possible at DAL and AA, not as UAL unless you get the pilot union to agree since contractually all FAR 117 waivers at UAL must be a JOINT application from the company and the union. At DAL and AA their pilot union contract does NOT have the language requiring a joint application so they don't need the unions approval. But AA and DAL will still have to go thru the waiver process.
 
mig17
Posts: 57
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 8:34 am

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 3:36 pm

Today, between 767-300ER, 767-400ER, 777-200, 777-200ER and 747-400, United still has around 143 "old generation" wide-body aircraft that will need to be replaced sooner or later.

On the other hand, they have 18*787, 9*77W and 35*A35K on order. That is a total of only 62 planes. In the 10 to 20 years to come, they will need at least 80 more. I don't know what is to come but since both Airbus & Boeing have just renewed their wide-body catalog, I don't think we will see completely new type soon. Meaning, the offer now is A330NEO, 787, A350, 77X and A388(+?). United is going to buy neither the A380 nor the 77X, they recently said no to the A330 and the 77W was only a good but limited opportunity. It left only the A350 and the 787 who in a way are complementary to complete their long haul fleet.

Even if today, the new management, due to the economical context, would love to slow down new planes entrance, in the end, those aircraft will be needed. It makes no sence now for United to cancel this order, espacialy so close to the 1st contractual delivery. United like most of the Majors will operates both A350 and 787 and they may even have every versions, 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900 and A350-1000, in their fleet.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:14 pm

mig17 wrote:
Today, between 767-300ER, 767-400ER, 777-200, 777-200ER and 747-400, United still has around 143 "old generation" wide-body aircraft that will need to be replaced sooner or later.

On the other hand, they have 18*787, 9*77W and 35*A35K on order. That is a total of only 62 planes. In the 10 to 20 years to come, they will need at least 80 more. I don't know what is to come but since both Airbus & Boeing have just renewed their wide-body catalog, I don't think we will see completely new type soon. Meaning, the offer now is A330NEO, 787, A350, 77X and A388(+?). United is going to buy neither the A380 nor the 77X, they recently said no to the A330 and the 77W was only a good but limited opportunity. It left only the A350 and the 787 who in a way are complementary to complete their long haul fleet.

Even if today, the new management, due to the economical context, would love to slow down new planes entrance, in the end, those aircraft will be needed. It makes no sence now for United to cancel this order, espacialy so close to the 1st contractual delivery. United like most of the Majors will operates both A350 and 787 and they may even have every versions, 787-8, 787-9, 787-10, A350-900 and A350-1000, in their fleet.

The MoM would also take a chunk off the low end of the widebody spectrum for UA. I think the 777X is still on the table for UA but not within the next 5 years. I'm willing to bet they will revisit it around 2020, but I have a feeling on a lot of that will be based on what happens in India and China between now and then. A top off for 787s is almost a guarantee since they've been chipping away at their remaining orders for other Boeing aircraft. The only question is if UA really will operate both versions of the A350 and I agree with you on that.
Eat 'em up Kats!
 
User avatar
JerseyFlyer
Posts: 989
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 7:24 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 4:19 pm

30west wrote:
Well I can't comment on most of your post but the underlined portion I do know about. The A-350 as currently configured does NOT comply with FAA FAR 117 rest requirements, the process around the reg is a FAA waiver that is long and complicated but possible at DAL and AA, not as UAL unless you get the pilot union to agree since contractually all FAR 117 waivers at UAL must be a JOINT application from the company and the union. At DAL and AA their pilot union contract does NOT have the language requiring a joint application so they don't need the unions approval. But AA and DAL will still have to go thru the waiver process.


I would be surprised if these airlines did not have a plan for resolution of this at the time of ordering the aircraft. If not, this is a "bet the farm" matter, risking their financial existence.
 
Quint1
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 5:20 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:10 pm

The 35 -1000's seems like such a big capacity increase to me, where will they sent these birds and what will they replace, knowing that the -300ER is replacing their 747s?
I still have this gut feeling they will be converted to -900 to start replacing some of the 767 and the older 777 fleets. Who knows, maybe even some A330ceo's as well.
 
727200
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:31 pm

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 5:21 pm

You buy the 350's if you think that capacity restraints are in place; if not and frequency is the driving factor, then they won't need them. Problem is with few exceptions, they won't be able to fill them year round unless all the routes that were opened up by the 787 mature, and even then they transfer to 777 then something larger. Word on the street is they have been deferred and wont be seen for a while, if at all.
 
User avatar
GreenArc
Posts: 93
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 10:59 am

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

Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:35 pm

Quick question in relation to the 350 crew rest issue for those familiar: To what extent does the rest facility seat recline? Is there leg support? Can this seat be used in the fully reclined position whilst still allowing access to the bunk(s)? I am assuming only one seat and two bunks.

Thanks.
 
30west
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:18 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:18 am

JerseyFlyer wrote:
30west wrote:
Well I can't comment on most of your post but the underlined portion I do know about. The A-350 as currently configured does NOT comply with FAA FAR 117 rest requirements, the process around the reg is a FAA waiver that is long and complicated but possible at DAL and AA, not as UAL unless you get the pilot union to agree since contractually all FAR 117 waivers at UAL must be a JOINT application from the company and the union. At DAL and AA their pilot union contract does NOT have the language requiring a joint application so they don't need the unions approval. But AA and DAL will still have to go thru the waiver process.


I would be surprised if these airlines did not have a plan for resolution of this at the time of ordering the aircraft. If not, this is a "bet the farm" matter, risking their financial existence.



Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 873
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:40 am

30west wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:
30west wrote:
Well I can't comment on most of your post but the underlined portion I do know about. The A-350 as currently configured does NOT comply with FAA FAR 117 rest requirements, the process around the reg is a FAA waiver that is long and complicated but possible at DAL and AA, not as UAL unless you get the pilot union to agree since contractually all FAR 117 waivers at UAL must be a JOINT application from the company and the union. At DAL and AA their pilot union contract does NOT have the language requiring a joint application so they don't need the unions approval. But AA and DAL will still have to go thru the waiver process.


I would be surprised if these airlines did not have a plan for resolution of this at the time of ordering the aircraft. If not, this is a "bet the farm" matter, risking their financial existence.



Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.


So where is the cancellation? Wing production for the first UA A350 should start in June. It is now April and first parts should be in production and a lot of components on (firm unconditional) order. So every day you wait penalties go up. And still there is no cancellation. Does UA love penalties?

For a reference AA deferred its A350 in July 2016 and that was extremely late - probably just before the ultimate deadline. Relatively to AA, UA is already running 3-4 months behind that timeline. So why if the cancellation of the UA A350 is so sure, there is no formal announcement yet? I keep hearing that the crew rests are a show stopper and UA "does not like" the A350 anymore but the hard evidence - a cancellation and with it a minimization of penalties - is just not there. The only hard fact is that time is running out or already has run out for this decision. We are looking now at the same time frame as Sri Lanka and those planes were build and the lessor is stuck with them.

I can imagine the order being changed or partially cancelled but it is just getting too late for UA#1.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739 739ER 742 743 744 752 762 772 773 77W 789 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7184
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:50 am

AngMoh wrote:
30west wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:

I would be surprised if these airlines did not have a plan for resolution of this at the time of ordering the aircraft. If not, this is a "bet the farm" matter, risking their financial existence.



Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.


So where is the cancellation? Wing production for the first UA A350 should start in June. It is now April and first parts should be in production and a lot of components on (firm unconditional) order. So every day you wait penalties go up. And still there is no cancellation. Does UA love penalties?

For a reference AA deferred its A350 in July 2016 and that was extremely late - probably just before the ultimate deadline. Relatively to AA, UA is already running 3-4 months behind that timeline. So why if the cancellation of the UA A350 is so sure, there is no formal announcement yet? I keep hearing that the crew rests are a show stopper and UA "does not like" the A350 anymore but the hard evidence - a cancellation and with it a minimization of penalties - is just not there. The only hard fact is that time is running out or already has run out for this decision. We are looking now at the same time frame as Sri Lanka and those planes were build and the lessor is stuck with them.

I can imagine the order being changed or partially cancelled but it is just getting too late for UA#1.


You can argue it all day long, and you might be right. It's just one of those rumors that seems to have legs, though. Who knows what's going on behind the scenes - it could all just be negotiating in the press. We'll see.
-Dave
 
enzo011
Posts: 1415
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 8:12 am

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 6:48 am

30west wrote:
Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.



This is the third time FAR 117 is being touted as a reason for the cancellation of the order and the second time the Pilot contract has been mentioned as well. We had this discussion before where both the FAR 117 requirements and the pilots contract has been discussed, but there seems to be no clear reason why the A350 doesn't comply with FAR 117 regulations or the pilots contract.

FAR 117 doesn't specify sizes for crew rest facilities, only that "means a bunk or other surface that allows for a flat sleeping position and is located separate from both the flight deck and passenger cabin in an area that is temperature-controlled, allows the flightcrew member to control light, and provides isolation from noise and disturbance."

The Pilot contract doesn't have sizes either specified but it lists what the requirements are for each model. It doesn't have the A350 and what the requirements are yet (or ever), but seeing that the A350 crew rest is similar to the 787 crew rest you would think it would be a simple process.

So I will ask, what is it about FAR 117 or the pilot contract that the A350 doesn't comply to?

Previous discussion on UA pilot contract and link to contract in post
 
planespotter20
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:26 am

Quint1 wrote:
The 35 -1000's seems like such a big capacity increase to me, where will they sent these birds and what will they replace, knowing that the -300ER is replacing their 747s?
I still have this gut feeling they will be converted to -900 to start replacing some of the 767 and the older 777 fleets. Who knows, maybe even some A330ceo's as well.


The 35 a350's will probably he used to expand internationally some of the capacity constrained airports like ORD. ORD used to have many UA 747s and is getting no 77W international flights ATM, so the only option left is the a350-1000. I see a lot of the a350-1000s being split between SFO, ORD, and EWR, where they'll fly TPAC routes and trunk/premium TATL routes.

Could a few be used to fly to Latin America or is that a waist of plane?
 
planespotter20
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:33 am

AngMoh wrote:
30west wrote:
JerseyFlyer wrote:

I would be surprised if these airlines did not have a plan for resolution of this at the time of ordering the aircraft. If not, this is a "bet the farm" matter, risking their financial existence.



Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.


So where is the cancellation? Wing production for the first UA A350 should start in June. It is now April and first parts should be in production and a lot of components on (firm unconditional) order. So every day you wait penalties go up. And still there is no cancellation. Does UA love penalties?

For a reference AA deferred its A350 in July 2016 and that was extremely late - probably just before the ultimate deadline. Relatively to AA, UA is already running 3-4 months behind that timeline. So why if the cancellation of the UA A350 is so sure, there is no formal announcement yet? I keep hearing that the crew rests are a show stopper and UA "does not like" the A350 anymore but the hard evidence - a cancellation and with it a minimization of penalties - is just not there. The only hard fact is that time is running out or already has run out for this decision. We are looking now at the same time frame as Sri Lanka and those planes were build and the lessor is stuck with them.

I can imagine the order being changed or partially cancelled but it is just getting too late for UA#1.


I agree with you 100%. It is already too late for UA to cancel their initial batch of a350-1000s. We'll probably see a few deferrals of the later ones and probably some conversions to -900's.


I think all the rumors are more wishful thinking that UA would stay loyal to Boeing in the widebody segment...
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 24583
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:34 am

planespotter20 wrote:
I agree with you 100%. It is already too late for UA to cancel their initial batch of a350-1000s.


I wouldn't be so sure about that.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 11:49 am

enzo011 wrote:
30west wrote:
Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.



This is the third time FAR 117 is being touted as a reason for the cancellation of the order and the second time the Pilot contract has been mentioned as well. We had this discussion before where both the FAR 117 requirements and the pilots contract has been discussed, but there seems to be no clear reason why the A350 doesn't comply with FAR 117 regulations or the pilots contract.

FAR 117 doesn't specify sizes for crew rest facilities, only that "means a bunk or other surface that allows for a flat sleeping position and is located separate from both the flight deck and passenger cabin in an area that is temperature-controlled, allows the flightcrew member to control light, and provides isolation from noise and disturbance."

The Pilot contract doesn't have sizes either specified but it lists what the requirements are for each model. It doesn't have the A350 and what the requirements are yet (or ever), but seeing that the A350 crew rest is similar to the 787 crew rest you would think it would be a simple process.

So I will ask, what is it about FAR 117 or the pilot contract that the A350 doesn't comply to?

Previous discussion on UA pilot contract and link to contract in post

And as I pointed out in that very thread you linked to, there are specific numbers for dimensions and volumes in a rest facility.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... -chg_1.pdf


So somewhere the 350 rest facility fails to meet those standards. Where exactly is the issue and how close it is I don't know, but unless United gets ALPA to agree to file a waiver.....the 350 can be flown without augmentation or they use 1-2 of the passenger lie flat seats to have a rest facility in lieu of an overhead facility.

DC
 
Wpr8e
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2017 10:15 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:08 pm

planespotter20 wrote:
AngMoh wrote:
30west wrote:


Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.


So where is the cancellation? Wing production for the first UA A350 should start in June. It is now April and first parts should be in production and a lot of components on (firm unconditional) order. So every day you wait penalties go up. And still there is no cancellation. Does UA love penalties?

For a reference AA deferred its A350 in July 2016 and that was extremely late - probably just before the ultimate deadline. Relatively to AA, UA is already running 3-4 months behind that timeline. So why if the cancellation of the UA A350 is so sure, there is no formal announcement yet? I keep hearing that the crew rests are a show stopper and UA "does not like" the A350 anymore but the hard evidence - a cancellation and with it a minimization of penalties - is just not there. The only hard fact is that time is running out or already has run out for this decision. We are looking now at the same time frame as Sri Lanka and those planes were build and the lessor is stuck with them.

I can imagine the order being changed or partially cancelled but it is just getting too late for UA#1.


I agree with you 100%. It is already too late for UA to cancel their initial batch of a350-1000s. We'll probably see a few deferrals of the later ones and probably some conversions to -900's.


I think all the rumors are more wishful thinking that UA would stay loyal to Boeing in the widebody segment...


The issue I'm hearing it is CapEx pressure especially when the used aircraft market is looking more cost effective.

So while partisans like to argue that it is some anti-Airbus conspiracy, it's really a financial decision. Look to the 73G if you want evidence of this methodology
 
BG777300ER
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:22 am

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:13 pm

May I ask why United is not interested in the 777-8? Seems like a great replacement for all their aging 777s.

Have they explicitly said they are not interested in both of the new 777s, or just the 777-9? I can see the 777-9 being too much airplane for them, but not the -8.
 
30west
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:18 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:07 pm

Wpr8e wrote:
planespotter20 wrote:
AngMoh wrote:

So where is the cancellation? Wing production for the first UA A350 should start in June. It is now April and first parts should be in production and a lot of components on (firm unconditional) order. So every day you wait penalties go up. And still there is no cancellation. Does UA love penalties?

For a reference AA deferred its A350 in July 2016 and that was extremely late - probably just before the ultimate deadline. Relatively to AA, UA is already running 3-4 months behind that timeline. So why if the cancellation of the UA A350 is so sure, there is no formal announcement yet? I keep hearing that the crew rests are a show stopper and UA "does not like" the A350 anymore but the hard evidence - a cancellation and with it a minimization of penalties - is just not there. The only hard fact is that time is running out or already has run out for this decision. We are looking now at the same time frame as Sri Lanka and those planes were build and the lessor is stuck with them.

I can imagine the order being changed or partially cancelled but it is just getting too late for UA#1.


I agree with you 100%. It is already too late for UA to cancel their initial batch of a350-1000s. We'll probably see a few deferrals of the later ones and probably some conversions to -900's.


I think all the rumors are more wishful thinking that UA would stay loyal to Boeing in the widebody segment...


The issue I'm hearing it is CapEx pressure especially when the used aircraft market is looking more cost effective.

So while partisans like to argue that it is some anti-Airbus conspiracy, it's really a financial decision. Look to the 73G if you want evidence of this methodology



Here is what I know , I know Kirby knows the price paid by AA for the A-350 and UAL paid way to much (deal was negotiated outsourced to a consulting group by Smizek the old CEO) Kirby won't say what AA paid just UA overpaid by way too much, next I'm 100% positive the crew rest doesn't currently comply with FAR 117 so either you change the reg (unlikely) or you ask for an FAA waiver except that REQUIRES ALPA approval and as of today ALPA won't approve for an over 8 hour flight in the current configuration, last UAL has delayed the delivery of the first 350 simulator that was to be delivered this summer and pushed it until next year sometime. Also, as of yesterdays during the announcement of moving the 787s pilot base out of IAH the upper management stated in the meeting "we don't want the A-350 its too expensive".

I realize everything is negotiable and we will see where it ends up. I'm sure if Airbus wants to cut a deal price wise and fix the crew rest then UAL may end up with the plane. My sources say the engine deal is the biggest sticking point can't get out of that contract other than just paying up.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:15 pm

It is never too late to cancel or defer an order. Boeing and Airbus at the end of the day cannot force an airline to take something they don't want. How late you wait just effects how much money it costs you. UA may feel that paying the penalties of a later deferral/cancellation is still cheaper than the cost of taking on the plane at this time (remember the A350 is an all new fleet type for UA, that comes with huge introductory costs in addition to the cost of the plane!)

We are also assuming that there have been no private conversations between Airbus and United about deferral. Airbus may still decide to build a frame if they feel they can easily sell/allot it to another customer.
 
User avatar
N14AZ
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 10:19 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:49 pm

KarelXWB just posted this information on the A350-production-thread. I thought it's worth to post it here...

KarelXWB wrote:
According to the latest firing order, United Airlines' A350 production slots have been axed/swapped:

> MSN 194: UA #1, not built
> MSN 222: UA #2, not built
> MSN 237: UA #3, Qatar Airways
> MSN 264: UA #4, Cathay Pacific
> MSN 272: UA #5, China Eastern Airlines
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 1:52 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
enzo011 wrote:
30west wrote:
Like I said DAL and AA can apply for a waiver with out their unions approval, my guess is that is what they are planning on doing. I have no idea if the FAA will approve the waiver via an FRMS study or not (my guess is, in the long run, politically it will be approved in some manner) . UAL is a whole other ball game their pilots union will not agree to a joint application, my understanding was the answer was you can fly them 8 hours or less if you get them but the union won't do a joint app for a waiver for flights over 8 hours. So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built I have no information as to why they didn't do it properly the first time to comply with the reg. Airbus did modify the pilot crew rest at Singapore airlines at considerable cost is what I was told and NOT interested in doing that again for someone else. I don't know what the modification was at Singapore and if it then would comply with FAR 117.



This is the third time FAR 117 is being touted as a reason for the cancellation of the order and the second time the Pilot contract has been mentioned as well. We had this discussion before where both the FAR 117 requirements and the pilots contract has been discussed, but there seems to be no clear reason why the A350 doesn't comply with FAR 117 regulations or the pilots contract.

FAR 117 doesn't specify sizes for crew rest facilities, only that "means a bunk or other surface that allows for a flat sleeping position and is located separate from both the flight deck and passenger cabin in an area that is temperature-controlled, allows the flightcrew member to control light, and provides isolation from noise and disturbance."

The Pilot contract doesn't have sizes either specified but it lists what the requirements are for each model. It doesn't have the A350 and what the requirements are yet (or ever), but seeing that the A350 crew rest is similar to the 787 crew rest you would think it would be a simple process.

So I will ask, what is it about FAR 117 or the pilot contract that the A350 doesn't comply to?

Previous discussion on UA pilot contract and link to contract in post

And as I pointed out in that very thread you linked to, there are specific numbers for dimensions and volumes in a rest facility.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/med ... -chg_1.pdf


So somewhere the 350 rest facility fails to meet those standards. Where exactly is the issue and how close it is I don't know, but unless United gets ALPA to agree to file a waiver.....the 350 can be flown without augmentation or they use 1-2 of the passenger lie flat seats to have a rest facility in lieu of an overhead facility.

DC


I've read the circular
It is "recommandations" for volume / bed size and so on,
It is not set in the stone

So can it be used as a bargaining lever by unions and also by UA ?
 
Aviaponcho
Posts: 811
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 12:13 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 2:05 pm

Maybe we can have a look at this special condition for the A350 crew rest

https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... mpartments

What do you think ?
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7184
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:36 pm

planespotter20 wrote:
I think all the rumors are more wishful thinking that UA would stay loyal to Boeing in the widebody segment...


Yes, we're all Airbus haters. Ugh.

BG777300ER wrote:
May I ask why United is not interested in the 777-8? Seems like a great replacement for all their aging 777s.

Have they explicitly said they are not interested in both of the new 777s, or just the 777-9? I can see the 777-9 being too much airplane for them, but not the -8.


If they don't want to take the A350 right now, I can't imagine they're even considering ordering the 77X for the forseeable future.

N14AZ wrote:
KarelXWB just posted this information on the A350-production-thread. I thought it's worth to post it here...

KarelXWB wrote:
According to the latest firing order, United Airlines' A350 production slots have been axed/swapped:

> MSN 194: UA #1, not built
> MSN 222: UA #2, not built
> MSN 237: UA #3, Qatar Airways
> MSN 264: UA #4, Cathay Pacific
> MSN 272: UA #5, China Eastern Airlines


Airbus hater.
-Dave
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1684
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:44 pm

30west wrote:
So unless there is some give by someone the A-350 can't be flown over 8 hours at UAL.

Airbus knew the pilot crew rest wasn't FAA FAR 117 compliant when it was built


On the other hand, when did UA know that the crew rest wasn't FAR 117 compliant? Did they know and place the order thinking they'd get some relief from ALPA at a later date or was this an oversight?

Someone mentioned that converting 1-2 premium seats to dedicated crew rest areas is an option. While not optimum, it at least makes the plane usable. An 8-hour max would eliminate flights as short as LHR-east coast or ORD/IAH -HNL. Not a very good use of such a capable aircraft.
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
Varsity1
Posts: 1043
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:53 pm

350-1000's should be converted to 321NEO's.

737 Max 9 swapped to 787-9/10.

Use the 787-9/10 to cover all widebody flying and simplify the fleet. 757's replaced with 321's, all long range fleet could be renewed.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 1090
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 4:58 pm

Varsity1 wrote:
350-1000's should be converted to 321NEO's.

737 Max 9 swapped to 787-9/10.

Use the 787-9/10 to cover all widebody flying and simplify the fleet. 757's replaced with 321's, all long range fleet could be renewed.


Not this again in this thread: UA should buy A321s and not 737MAXs. :banghead:
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1239
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:03 pm

N14AZ wrote:
KarelXWB just posted this information on the A350-production-thread. I thought it's worth to post it here...

KarelXWB wrote:
According to the latest firing order, United Airlines' A350 production slots have been axed/swapped:

> MSN 194: UA #1, not built
> MSN 222: UA #2, not built
> MSN 237: UA #3, Qatar Airways
> MSN 264: UA #4, Cathay Pacific
> MSN 272: UA #5, China Eastern Airlines


Okay, now this is at least something I would consider to be credible. All I asked was for some new convincing evidence, this is it. Should be interesting to see if this is just a deferral of the first few frames, or a complete conversion into something else. I still think an outright cancellation would be unlikely. We shall see!
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 1793
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:11 pm

N14AZ wrote:
KarelXWB just posted this information on the A350-production-thread. I thought it's worth to post it here...

KarelXWB wrote:
According to the latest firing order, United Airlines' A350 production slots have been axed/swapped:

> MSN 194: UA #1, not built
> MSN 222: UA #2, not built
> MSN 237: UA #3, Qatar Airways
> MSN 264: UA #4, Cathay Pacific
> MSN 272: UA #5, China Eastern Airlines


Wow, I didn't really expect that to happen. Between all the A vs B rhetoric, there were a few people who had predicted this. It goes to show that some users do know what they are talking about.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 7184
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:36 pm

I guess I'm stunned at the amount of pushback this issue has received on here. There was an article linked upthread, a number of different posters with similar claims, and other anecdotal evidence that it wasn't a made-up story. While we didn't - and don't - know how it will turn out, the fact that it was discussed so broadly seemed to make it more credible than a lot of what we hear on here.
-Dave
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 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