• 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

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

Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:38 pm

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.


I think the opposite is true. They probably don't nerd the range of the 777-8, but the -9, in theory, could work well for them.

But unlike AA, UA probably doesn't have the routes or capacity to support the 777X at this point in time.
Been On: 722 733 73G 738, 752, 763, 788, A319, A320, A321, E140, E145, E45X, E175, C208, Q400, CRJ7, CRJ9, MD82, MD83
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 9:07 am

If this ends up to be a deferral, sure, that makes sense. If it's a cancellation, I'll be happy to eat my words. A major airline in good financial health like UA is not the typical customer to cancel such a large and long-standing order, no matter whether it's Airbus or Boeing, and even if it was reportedly placed on very favorable terms early on in the program. Airlines canceling orders just doesn't really happen in the developed world in the way that it used to. Then again, I was someone who did think we would eventually see the 787 in DL colors, and I didn't think the orange man in the bad suit would win the presidency or that Brexit would happen either, so maybe I really do have a bad track record...

PlanesNTrains wrote:

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. :-)


It's a deal! Though remember the terms are that if we find out that we'll *never* see the A350 in UA colors, then yes, I owe you a drink. Short of UA pulling some sort of monkey business like painting them all in Star colors like LH's Jump project or a resurrection of the Ted brand for longhaul markets, my deal is only good if it ends up in a cancellation or conversion into another type. ;)
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
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 22663
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:45 am

Newbiepilot wrote:
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.


Airbus order book doesn't show a cancellation. Axed production slots can also indicate a deferral. We have seen AA moving up production slots from MSN 108 to MSN 240, and BA moving up from MSN 225 to 342. Lot's of producten slots have been shuffled lately.
This server is powered by a lemon and two electrodes.
 
planespotter20
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:12 am

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


Only the first two, MSN 194/222 have been marked as "delivery postponed." MSN 237 is still going to United Airlines atm, same with the rest, I'm not sure where you got Qatar airways, Cathay, and China Eastern, but my source says different.

https://sites.google.com/site/a350xwbpr ... ction-list
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Crew
Topic Author
Posts: 22663
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:24 am

planespotter20 wrote:
Only the first two, MSN 194/222 have been marked as "delivery postponed." MSN 237 is still going to United Airlines atm, same with the rest, I'm not sure where you got Qatar airways, Cathay, and China Eastern, but my source says different.

https://sites.google.com/site/a350xwbpr ... ction-list


The list you linked is not up to date.
This server is powered by a lemon and two electrodes.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1955
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 3:08 pm

I think its reasonable to assume Airbus and UA have talked extensively about the 35K order. Airbus likely has made proposals to swap for 359, swap for 339s, swap for 321s etc. The 35K is a beautiful plane but UA management is looking at the CapEx commitment and the capacity increase represented by the 35K order and likely doesn't see the business case.

UA has to consider what to do to replace the 763/764 fleet within the next ten years as well as consider the international 752 role as those planes are aging as well.

Some news sources suggest UA is willing to wait for MoM. I'm not sure they will wait that long though they could cut a deal with Boeing for additional 787s with a clause to allow conversion to MoM within a certain time frame.

The 321NEO is a great plane and UA might just have quietly cut a deal to take a bunch of those but Airbus wanted to wait on the timing so as to not have it announced in the middle of the 35K flight test program. If nothing is signed, UA doesn't need to disclose etc.

For those who don't follow this site often and/or don't track individual posters, KarelXWB has extensive knowledge about Airbus and I've grown to trust his insight and appreciate the information. He doesn't bash anything, he just provides information and loves airplanes as we all do.
 
planespotter20
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:41 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
planespotter20 wrote:
Only the first two, MSN 194/222 have been marked as "delivery postponed." MSN 237 is still going to United Airlines atm, same with the rest, I'm not sure where you got Qatar airways, Cathay, and China Eastern, but my source says different.

https://sites.google.com/site/a350xwbpr ... ction-list


The list you linked is not up to date.


What's the most current site where you can find the entire production list? I'm not very good with finding information...
 
jbs2886
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:51 pm

planespotter20 wrote:
KarelXWB wrote:
planespotter20 wrote:
Only the first two, MSN 194/222 have been marked as "delivery postponed." MSN 237 is still going to United Airlines atm, same with the rest, I'm not sure where you got Qatar airways, Cathay, and China Eastern, but my source says different.

https://sites.google.com/site/a350xwbpr ... ction-list


The list you linked is not up to date.


What's the most current site where you can find the entire production list? I'm not very good with finding information...


It looks like that site has been mostly updated.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:29 pm

I agree with the people pointing to deferral. I see UA trying to slow CapEx and not needing them as quickly with lots of new 77W/789 lift coming and 763 life extension. Certainly they could attempt to continue deferring for a long time, but that still wouldn't change whatever the status of their cancellation rights are and may increase acquisition cost.
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 6512
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:30 pm

I am expecting a deferral possibly combined with a swap of some/all of the models, but not a cencellation per se. I'm guessing we'll know more fairly soon.
-Dave
 
TheGeordielad
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:08 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:49 pm

Shouldn't the B787-10 replace some of the B767s
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 5:54 pm

TheGeordielad wrote:
Shouldn't the B787-10 replace some of the B767s


With the conversion and updates to the three class 763s (going to 2 class) they intent was to extend all the 767 ac. I did see some rumblings here a few months ago that maybe there was some reconsideration of keeping the 3class 763s.
 
atlflyer
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:13 am

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 6:41 pm

United should just release their updated fleet plan already.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:00 pm

I have been saying for a long time now, something is "off" about the 350 order here at UA.

I remember when the 787's were being built, and about to come on-line. There was so much buzz around the airplane in the company. Simulators installed, daily emails from United Daily about the progress, updates, marketing all over the place, pens, stickers, Boeing reps, 787's showing up at hubs for employee events...etc. They were putting the 787 front and center for a good 2 years before delivery. Same can be somewhat said about the 77W as well. Lots of buzz, and hype from within and outside the company.

The A350? DEAD SILENCE. NOTHING

Very, VERY few people here think we are going to get the airplane anytime soon. If at all even and those who say otherwise probably aren't at liberty to say we aren't.

Until that plane lands here in ORD, I refuse to admit its coming.
 
United1
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 7:23 pm

atlflyer wrote:
United should just release their updated fleet plan already.


We might hear something on the earnings conference call on 4/18...UA generally publishes its fleet plan once a quarter.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
DLHAM
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 1:10 am

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:08 pm

I think the UA 767s (and also Deltas) will easily operate much more than 30 years. The A330-200 and 787-8 are too heavy, the A350 is too big, the A321LR is too small.

I am sure they will wait for the MOM and the 767s will see some extensive life extensions and modernizations. They are still good, United should just manage to reduce those many maintenance delays with the 767-300s (UA).
 
727200
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:31 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:31 pm

If UA takes the MOM's, they pretty much become all-Boeing fleet. Around that time frame their A-320's will be nearing the end of the road and will need to be made into Pepsi can's.
 
cruiseshipcrew
Posts: 211
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2008 10:30 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 10:42 pm

Talked to my buddy who flies the A330 for Cathay and he said they just got updated news that they are getting 8 A350s next year instead of the original 6. Sounds to show the above information is correct about the slot swaps.
Road Warrior
 
Beatyair
Posts: 723
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:09 pm

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

Sat Apr 08, 2017 11:43 pm

TheGeordielad wrote:
Shouldn't the B787-10 replace some of the B767s


The 787-10 is the size of a 772. Someone mentioned the MOM, that bird will not even show up for another 5 years. Boeing has too much on there plate, unless they move it ahead of the 777x. There fleet of 763's are fairly small. Either suck it up and use 787-8's or buy newer 767-300's then you have or buy A332's.

Yes,it would be really good to here there fleet stratagy.
 
SCAT15F
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 8:34 am

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

Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:12 am

Honestly, the proposed 777-10x would work best for their route structure. They don't need the range of the 9.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

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

Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:57 am

SCAT15F wrote:
Honestly, the proposed 777-10x would work best for their route structure. They don't need the range of the 9.


Except the -10X will never be made, or unless I see it roll out!
Been On: 722 733 73G 738, 752, 763, 788, A319, A320, A321, E140, E145, E45X, E175, C208, Q400, CRJ7, CRJ9, MD82, MD83
 
User avatar
rotating14
Posts: 1253
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2012 11:54 pm

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

Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:28 am

Boeing778X wrote:
SCAT15F wrote:
Honestly, the proposed 777-10x would work best for their route structure. They don't need the range of the 9.


Except the -10X will never be made, or unless I see it roll out!


We can't be so sure. If a string of A380 operators show enough interest, there could be a soft launch down the road.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

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

Mon Apr 10, 2017 7:02 am

For UA, I think the following fleet should be the goal:

788
789
78J - Replaces 767
A359 - Replaces 77A and pmUA 77E
A35K - Replaces 747
77E - pmCO units
77W - Replaces 747

The addition of the A350-900 would provide an elegant replacement to older 777s, while the 787 can take care of 767 missions.

Anything below is MoM or the like.
Been On: 722 733 73G 738, 752, 763, 788, A319, A320, A321, E140, E145, E45X, E175, C208, Q400, CRJ7, CRJ9, MD82, MD83
 
User avatar
iahcsr
Posts: 3904
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 1999 2:59 pm

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

Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:36 am

Pardon me for asking a dumb question:
This FAA rest area matter has been on the books for a few years now. AB had to know it could/would be a factor for US carriers. So why no accommodations for it in the 350 design?
Working Hard, Flying Right Friendly....
 
WIederling
Posts: 3201
Joined: Sun Sep 13, 2015 2:15 pm

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

Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:38 pm

PlanesNTrains wrote:
zeke wrote:
When I pull someone up for being factually wrong, I get personal attacks in return.

Thank you.


I would think attacking someone's credibility is quite personal.


Correcting information that is wrong/misstated or otherwise misleading is just that.
A correction.
If the initial giver of ( wrong ) information can't take that hint it starts to get personal.

But that is a receiver issue and not a sender issue.
Acts of tribal loyalty shown from bystanders don't change that either.
Murphy is an optimist
 
PlanesNTrains
Posts: 6512
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2005 4:19 pm

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

Mon Apr 10, 2017 6:48 pm

WIederling wrote:
PlanesNTrains wrote:
zeke wrote:
When I pull someone up for being factually wrong, I get personal attacks in return.

Thank you.


I would think attacking someone's credibility is quite personal.


Correcting information that is wrong/misstated or otherwise misleading is just that.
A correction.
If the initial giver of ( wrong ) information can't take that hint it starts to get personal.

But that is a receiver issue and not a sender issue.
Acts of tribal loyalty shown from bystanders don't change that either.


True, so why did you choose to do so then?
-Dave
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1955
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:23 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
For UA, I think the following fleet should be the goal:

788
789
78J - Replaces 767
A359 - Replaces 77A and pmUA 77E
A35K - Replaces 747
77E - pmCO units
77W - Replaces 747

The addition of the A350-900 would provide an elegant replacement to older 777s, while the 787 can take care of 767 missions.

Anything below is MoM or the like.


By 78J I assume you mean the 787-10? If so, that is a massive bump in seats between the 763 (214) and the 787-10 (which will seat close to 300).
The 359 is bigger than the 772 but the size difference only should equate to an increase of 15 or so seats.

The 35K and 77W are very similar in sizes but from two different generations so the 35K is more fuel efficient. However, given their difference in ranges does not matter to UA given their route structure, they have the same mission. One plane can be had on the cheap and doesn't require a lot of training/retraining. The other requires a complete set up with simulators, full retrain and build up of spares.

I think that is why UA is balking and at least deferring deliveries.
 
Cerecl
Posts: 461
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 10:22 am

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

Mon Apr 10, 2017 11:34 pm

iahcsr wrote:
This FAA rest area matter has been on the books for a few years now. AB had to know it could/would be a factor for US carriers. So why no accommodations for it in the 350 design?

As far as I can see this crew rest issue is a rumour with no official confirmation at all. This is also not a problem with meeting FAA regulation per se. No other airline has raised the issue and apparently this is more of a UA-specific issue. Allegedly in the pilot contract a certain dimension was specified and this was not met (surprise surprise no other aircrafts in the fleet has this issue). In the big scheme of things this is surely a red herring. With some $10 billion at stake it would be incredible that Airbus would not come up with a way to meet the requirement if this is the hurdle.
 
User avatar
Boeing778X
Posts: 2669
Joined: Sun Nov 17, 2013 7:55 pm

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

Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:40 am

SonomaFlyer wrote:
Boeing778X wrote:
For UA, I think the following fleet should be the goal:

788
789
78J - Replaces 767
A359 - Replaces 77A and pmUA 77E
A35K - Replaces 747
77E - pmCO units
77W - Replaces 747

The addition of the A350-900 would provide an elegant replacement to older 777s, while the 787 can take care of 767 missions.

Anything below is MoM or the like.


By 78J I assume you mean the 787-10? If so, that is a massive bump in seats between the 763 (214) and the 787-10 (which will seat close to 300).
The 359 is bigger than the 772 but the size difference only should equate to an increase of 15 or so seats.

The 35K and 77W are very similar in sizes but from two different generations so the 35K is more fuel efficient. However, given their difference in ranges does not matter to UA given their route structure, they have the same mission. One plane can be had on the cheap and doesn't require a lot of training/retraining. The other requires a complete set up with simulators, full retrain and build up of spares.

I think that is why UA is balking and at least deferring deliveries.


Good post!

Affirm, the 78J is the 787-10.

Having a 787/A350/777 fleet isn't a bad move. UA has 35x A35Ks on order. Ordering 20x-30x A350-900s makes training and ROI all the more worthwhile.

I did not list a specific 767 model when implying the 787-10 could replace it. Some 767 missions can be done with the 737 MAX 9 and MoM.
Been On: 722 733 73G 738, 752, 763, 788, A319, A320, A321, E140, E145, E45X, E175, C208, Q400, CRJ7, CRJ9, MD82, MD83
 
User avatar
RL777
Posts: 368
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2016 1:43 am

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

Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:13 am

Boeing778X wrote:
For UA, I think the following fleet should be the goal:

788
789
78J - Replaces 767
A359 - Replaces 77A and pmUA 77E
A35K - Replaces 747
77E - pmCO units
77W - Replaces 747

The addition of the A350-900 would provide an elegant replacement to older 777s, while the 787 can take care of 767 missions.

Anything below is MoM or the like.


That's probably the best proposal I've seen yet, however I think its yet to be seen what UA would like to do in regards to the A350. I think it would be a huge mistake to forgo it.
 
AA737-823
Posts: 5024
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2000 11:10 am

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

Tue Apr 11, 2017 9:54 am

I disagree.
While I think the A350 is a great airplane, and would be good for United, I do NOT think it would be good enough to justify yet...another...fleet...type.
Between three versions of 787, and potentially FOUR versions of 777 in the fleet (772,77W, 778, 779 if desired), United has no shortage of options WITHOUT adding an entirely new family.
Frankly, I think United should be 777/787 OR A350, rather than both.
But time will tell. I'm so fed up with UA at this point that I'm flying American. So it's quite possible that I'll never have the opportunity to fly on any of these future UA birds!
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Crew
Posts: 12419
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:16 pm

The crew rest issues make this an interesting tale.


Polot wrote:
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.

It is also a vendor issue. Seats, Galleys, Labs, and a few other customer specific items have a 2 year lead time. With Zodiac having issues, the other vendors with competitive product were also swamped with customers reducing risk by transferring components.

So some airlines can swap as the alliances have made agreements to simplify spare parts amount each other.

Switching orders can be done, but it is a multi-party negotiation typically.

Lightsaber
"They did not know it was impossible, so they did it!" - Mark Twain
 
jbs2886
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Tue Apr 11, 2017 2:08 pm

AA737-823 wrote:
I disagree.
While I think the A350 is a great airplane, and would be good for United, I do NOT think it would be good enough to justify yet...another...fleet...type.
Between three versions of 787, and potentially FOUR versions of 777 in the fleet (772,77W, 778, 779 if desired), United has no shortage of options WITHOUT adding an entirely new family.
Frankly, I think United should be 777/787 OR A350, rather than both.
But time will tell. I'm so fed up with UA at this point that I'm flying American. So it's quite possible that I'll never have the opportunity to fly on any of these future UA birds!


UA has an enormous fleet, it can add another fleet type. Are there some extra costs, sure. But UA revenue management can put those birds on the most optimum routes (in a certain class configuration, fuel, etc.).
 
BG777300ER
Posts: 266
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2005 3:22 am

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

Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:43 pm

Boeing778X wrote:
For UA, I think the following fleet should be the goal:

788
789
78J - Replaces 767
A359 - Replaces 77A and pmUA 77E
A35K - Replaces 747
77E - pmCO units
77W - Replaces 747

The addition of the A350-900 would provide an elegant replacement to older 777s, while the 787 can take care of 767 missions.

Anything below is MoM or the like.


This is good, however I think the 789/788 is more suited to replace the 764/763 respectively. They literally have equal seat counts.

I do like the idea of A359 replacing 772ERs, however I can also see the 787-10 doing that (better option).

As far as replacing the 747s, I think the 777-9/777ER is a better option? As a UA 1K, I would LOVE to get the fly A350 with UA, I just don't see it's place in the fleet.

I really haven't done enough research MTOW/Distance/etc, going purely by seat counts with these suggestions.

What I am really wondering is, what do they plan to replace their new domestic configuration 77As that have 360 seats? Densely configured domestic 789s?
Last edited by BG777300ER on Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Koi mi sra v gashtite?
 
lhrnue
Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:32 pm

The MoM with twin aisles would all United unbeatable access to all seats.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:56 pm

To add to the discussion, United's recently filed 10-Q includes an amendment to the A350 purchase agreement. While we cannot see the amended terms, we can tell that the delivery schedule was amended. See page 36.

http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/unit ... F&hasPdf=1
 
MD80MKE
Posts: 49
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2016 2:26 am

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

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:10 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
To add to the discussion, United's recently filed 10-Q includes an amendment to the A350 purchase agreement. While we cannot see the amended terms, we can tell that the delivery schedule was amended. See page 36.

http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/unit ... F&hasPdf=1

Looks like a adjustment of delivery schedule of A350 for UA. Entire order is still firm.

Copied from the documents:
Aircraft Type Number of Firm Commitments (a)      
Airbus A350 35
Boeing 737NG/737 MAX 165
Boeing 777-300ER 6
Boeing 787 19
Embraer E175 24
 
jbs2886
Posts: 489
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:21 pm

MD80MKE wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
To add to the discussion, United's recently filed 10-Q includes an amendment to the A350 purchase agreement. While we cannot see the amended terms, we can tell that the delivery schedule was amended. See page 36.

http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/unit ... F&hasPdf=1

Looks like a adjustment of delivery schedule of A350 for UA. Entire order is still firm.

Copied from the documents:
Aircraft Type Number of Firm Commitments (a)      
Airbus A350 35
Boeing 737NG/737 MAX 165
Boeing 777-300ER 6
Boeing 787 19
Embraer E175 24


Yes, I checked that, too. I will note that the capital expenses have gone up for 2018 and 2019, but no idea what that relates to.

Also, on their presentation, UA said they were still conducting a "fleet review" so who knows.
 
planespotter20
Posts: 95
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 5:03 pm

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

Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:49 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
To add to the discussion, United's recently filed 10-Q includes an amendment to the A350 purchase agreement. While we cannot see the amended terms, we can tell that the delivery schedule was amended. See page 36.

http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/unit ... F&hasPdf=1


It's a relief to see that UA still has the a350 in its plans.. for now. I personally think that it is a great plane, and it's great to see UA sticking with it. Does anyone know when we can expect the deliveries for the a350-1000 start for UA? Has there been any solid data on how many did they defer and what the adjusted delivery schedule is?
 
United1
Posts: 3061
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

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

Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:04 pm

planespotter20 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
To add to the discussion, United's recently filed 10-Q includes an amendment to the A350 purchase agreement. While we cannot see the amended terms, we can tell that the delivery schedule was amended. See page 36.

http://otp.investis.com/clients/us/unit ... F&hasPdf=1


It's a relief to see that UA still has the a350 in its plans.. for now. I personally think that it is a great plane, and it's great to see UA sticking with it. Does anyone know when we can expect the deliveries for the a350-1000 start for UA? Has there been any solid data on how many did they defer and what the adjusted delivery schedule is?


UA and Airbus have not released dates or what the amendment to the contract entailed but per the 350 production thread the first 5 UA production slots have been canceled or given to other carriers. As UA was not planning on taking delivery until late 2018 I think we can safely assume that no 350s will enter the UA fleet until at least 2019.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
NeBaNi
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Dec 20, 2009 10:45 am

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

Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:58 am

lhrnue wrote:
The MoM with twin aisles would all United unbeatable access to all seats.

I know you probably didn't mean to be punny, but this made me lol given recent events.
 
lhrnue
Posts: 245
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:13 pm

NeBaNi wrote:
lhrnue wrote:
The MoM with twin aisles would all United unbeatable access to all seats.

I know you probably didn't mean to be punny, but this made me lol given recent events.


That was exactly the purpose of my post.
 
727200
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:31 pm

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

Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:43 pm

It's a relief to see that UA still has the a350 in its plans.. for now. I personally think that it is a great plane, and it's great to see UA sticking with it. Does anyone know when we can expect the deliveries for the a350-1000 start for UA? Has there been any solid data on how many did they defer and what the adjusted delivery schedule is?[/quote]


I don't know if I would be doing cart-wheels over the language in the 10K. I read they show all deliveries for the next 10 years in the filing for 3 manufacturers. If they delayed them once, or is it 3x since this is the 3rd amendment to the contract, and they have found buyers for the 1st 5 plane slots, what is to stop UA from selling the slots, making more than the cancel fees and moving on? Nothing. It looks to me that is what they might be doing.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1955
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Thu Apr 20, 2017 11:21 pm

As far as the 35J is concerned, UA and Airbus can negotiate further deferrals if they wish or even switching to different planes if they wish. Everything is negotiable and at this point, UA doesn't need that lift in the 2017 time frame.

Once the 744s are gone and UA has some time to see how the 77W folds into their operations and more importantly, how international traffic grows/shrinks, whether they need the 35J in 2018/19.

Kirby is a far different manager than those who decided to make such a large wide body order in the 35J. Conditions changed with new 77W being sold at rock bottom prices plus the 787 fleet provides them with operational flexibility when combined with the 763s. If there isn't a really big need for the 35J, UA will do what it can to defer and "wait n see."
 
trex8
Posts: 4754
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

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

Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:20 am

727200 wrote:
what is to stop UA from selling the slots, making more than the cancel fees and moving on? Nothing. It looks to me that is what they might be doing.

Contracts may exclude such sales, at least without the manufacturers approval. Now if they take delivery and then sell it thats another story.
 
JAAlbert
Posts: 1616
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:43 pm

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

Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:25 am

It seems to me that the 350 is a very comfortable plane from a passenger perspective and would be very popular in UA's fleet. I am surprised that UA might be hesitant on the plane.
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 4481
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Apr 21, 2017 4:54 am

High capital exposure, not suitable crew rest area and maybe a bit of an orphan in the fleet, if they come to the conclusion to need 787s and 777-9s.
 
Egerton
Posts: 516
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:50 am

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

Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:51 am

Well, there may be lots of very inexpensive 777-9 on the market soon if the ME3 continue to be treated badly by President Trump.
 
Asiaflyer
Posts: 728
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 11:50 am

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

Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:31 am

seahawk wrote:
High capital exposure, not suitable crew rest area and maybe a bit of an orphan in the fleet, if they come to the conclusion to need 787s and 777-9s.

For the near future, yes, as long as UA has plenty of 777 in their fleet. For an airline of UAs caliber, I have hard to imagine the A359 and A3510 wont have a natural place in their future fleet.
SQ,MI,MH,CX,KA,CA,CZ,MU,KE,OZ,QF,NZ,FD,JQ,3K,5J,IT,AI,IC,QR,SK,LF,KL,AF,LH,LX,OS,SR,BA,SN,FR,WF,1I,5T,VZ,VX,AC,NW,UA,US,
 
User avatar
seahawk
Posts: 4481
Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 1:29 am

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

Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Asiaflyer wrote:
seahawk wrote:
High capital exposure, not suitable crew rest area and maybe a bit of an orphan in the fleet, if they come to the conclusion to need 787s and 777-9s.

For the near future, yes, as long as UA has plenty of 777 in their fleet. For an airline of UAs caliber, I have hard to imagine the A359 and A3510 wont have a natural place in their future fleet.


That depends, you can do a fleet planing with 787-9/10 and 777-8/777-9 that covers all needs. However you could also cover large parts of that fleet with A350s.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

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