LightningZ71 wrote:

When you talk of a 767 with new wings, engines and cockpits, you're essentially talking about most of an all new plane. If you're going to do that much to a frame that old, you might as well just do the whole thing brand new.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but the changes described sound an awful lot like the changes Boeing made to make the 737NG or the 777X. They didn't see th need to make a whole new plane there, why would they here if they are making all the same?

I am somewhat puzzled how the A350 order is related to the B767 replacement. I have been reading here that A350 will replace the B747 at UA. If the A350 is not taken up then the 77W will replace the B747 ? In view of UA 'not comfortable operating anything larger than 77W'?

I have a feeling 350s painted with UA logos will be landing and taking off at ORD and people will still be postulating that United won't take them. That train left the station so long ago it's literally whistling it's pending arrival at the destination.

I think we can rule out the conversion of any of the A350 order to an A330 or A321NEOLR. It looks like Boeing might be ready with the MOM, which for an airline like UA would address their 752 and 763 needs. The issue is I do not see UA operating aircraft past 30 years of age. With regards to UA's 752 and 763/764 fleets most, they're split up like this:

21 763s built between 1991-1993, three class configuration converting to two class and getting major upgrades to improve product and reliability
14 763s built between 1998-2001, in two class interiors updated recently
16 764s built between 2000-2002, in two class configuration

If the MOM will not be ready until 2024 / 2025 I don't know if the first batch of 763s will still be with UA. The oldest 763s will be 34 years old in 2025, again I don't see UA operating aircraft older than 30 years. UA has 14 787-10s scheduled for delivery starting 2018, those could replace most of the 1991-1993 build 763s.

The remaining 763s and 764s will be perfectly timed for retirement (just hitting 30 years) as they transition to the MOM.

With regards to the 752s:
15 are Pratt Powered pre-merger UA , in PS configuration, that have the following age (2 1989, 3 1990, 1 1991, 1 1992, 2 1993, 2 1997, 2 1998, 2 1999)
41 are RR powered pre-merger CO, in International configuration with ages: (1994-2000).

Again I don't see the Pratt powered 75s making it to 2024, they're rumored for retirement next year. However as with the 98-01 build 763s and 764s they are perfectly time for retirement and replacement with a new MOM aircraft beginning in 2024 when they would hit 30 years of age.

As to what UA is going to replace the 15 Pratt powered 75s, my guess is a combination of widebodies put on EWR-LAX/SFO and International 752s displaced from Trans-Atlantic routes.

I DON'T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG! I'm 55 and I don't want my first 797 flight at 62 or 63 years old! If I make it to 63!

I will take one guess, I have do have faith in the NEW UNITED management team, in tandem with Boeing will make up a very smart group of people (not that the same doesn't hold true for other airlines and Airbus) and will sort this out. If Smisek (sorry) was still the CEO, I would be concerned. I believe Mr Munoz will make his dream come true for UA in time (I think he must feel like he has a new lease on life and is going to make the best of it). If he does achieve his goals; UA will bring back some of the fliers they lost, get new big corp contracts and in the next 7/8 years a whole new generation of business fliers will not recall the disaster of the merger. After reading everything on all the threads here, it does seem that in the end the UA fleet will have a good number of A350's - and after losing the 747's, I want to see them along side the 77W's, 787, 8, 9 and 10's. It will break my heart to see those 747's go (as suboptimal as they are) so let a variety of twins, with beautiful interiors (in a new United livery) help make up for the loss of the Queen.
Naturally, want this new MoM 797 to be a beautiful airplane. Are there ANY initial renderings/drawings of such an aircraft that have been released or created by an insightful engineer?

Actually, I decided to Google it, and there are a number of renderings of a potential 797, both in Boeing colors and in UNITED. I don't know who created them but they are exactly what I saw in my mind's eye. A short 787!

It "looks" so much like a 787 that mated with a 737MAX, that I can't help but wonder if 2025 isn't beatable for EIS?

That thing would look damn good in any airline's livery.

VC10er wrote:

Actually, I decided to Google it, and there are a number of renderings of a potential 797, both in Boeing colors and in UNITED. I don't know who created them but they are exactly what I saw in my mind's eye. A short 787!

It "looks" so much like a 787 that mated with a 737MAX, that I can't help but wonder if 2025 isn't beatable for EIS?

If you type "Boeing MoM" into google images, you get a lot of FS9/X renderings. But I'm sure the final result will look something like that.

Also what comes up are various a.net pictures including a Keejse rendering, and the avatars for me, LAX772LR, KarelXWB, Lightsaber, Revelation, Francoflier, Keejse, Stitch and United787.

cledaybuck wrote:

scbriml wrote:

enzo011 wrote:

You can add the A332/A338 to the current realistic available plane that can be used as a 767 replacement.

Yes, of course.

I don't think it is very realistic for UA, though.

The issue of the A338 is very similar per flight costs to the A349 and worse economics on long range flights than the a359/789. There is a reason the type hasn't sold many.

I'll be curious as to what UA replaced the 763 with. A mix of A321LRs and 789s?

Lightsaber

Assuming that AB would still build them, I would imagine that new 332 would be quite attractively priced against the 338, and would go a long way to filling United's needs. Heck, I imagine that the used market should be rather attractive for that frame. It's as close as they are going to get to the capacity and range capability that they are looking for.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Assuming that AB would still build them, I would imagine that new 332 would be quite attractively priced against the 338, and would go a long way to filling United's needs. Heck, I imagine that the used market should be rather attractive for that frame. It's as close as they are going to get to the capacity and range capability that they are looking for.

If the MOM takes off an updated A330-200 size aircraft along with the A321 would be Airbus's quickest and cheapest way to answer that market.

LightningZ71 wrote:

Assuming that AB would still build them, I would imagine that new 332 would be quite attractively priced against the 338, and would go a long way to filling United's needs. Heck, I imagine that the used market should be rather attractive for that frame. It's as close as they are going to get to the capacity and range capability that they are looking for.

It doesn't make sense to introduce A332s at this point in time. This isn't like the 77W, UA has no existing A330 fleet so the A332s would be a whole brand new type. At that point might as well just go for the more fuel efficient A338s.

In any event it is clear what UA is interested in to replace the 767s: Boeing's paper 797 and whatever Airbus's response will be.

MoonC wrote:

That thing would look damn good in any airline's livery.

Thanks very much for the diagram. Certainly, it helps a lot to visualize and get a better sense of proportions. Now, all versions of the 797 are single-isle? Including the -10?

jfk777 wrote:

United should do what its Star Alliance cousin to our north did, Air Canada has a ton of 787-9 coming into the fleet to replace the 767( AC has many),

It's possible that will be the answer at the end of the day...UA has converted 787-10 orders to -9s and 77Ws so there is nothing written in stone that UA will ever take delivery of the -10s.

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

lightsaber wrote:

The issue of the A338 is very similar per flight costs to the A349 and worse economics on long range flights than the a359/789. There is a reason the type hasn't sold many.

I'll be curious as to what UA replaced the 763 with. A mix of A321LRs and 789s?

Lightsaber

The A338 and 788 will have its challenges obtaining sales as you posted, but if UA is looking for a plane that has similar capacity to the 763 then these are the models that fits the bill. It will be interesting to see where they go as the 789 is a real step up in capacity compared to the 763, almost 8 metres longer and 2 seats extra per row, that is a lot of extra seats to sell if you are trying to practice capacity discipline.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

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

If they really see the need UA can always order more 788s for the first 763 exits and the 797 for later.

I'm relieved to see that more 77Ws and the A330 appears to be out of the picture for UA. They're not as good from a passenger perspective, and I really don't see them being a good fit for UA either. To me the current A350 order is still best.

But I don't why UA doesn't see more 788s and 789s as a 767 replacement. I still have my doubts on the MOM being the answer. It's a gamble to rely on it. I think they can scrape by in the short-term by using 78J deliveries to replace the oldest 767s (such as 78J replacing a 764 which is replacing a 763), but long-term is a question mark.

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm relieved to see that more 77Ws and the A330 appears to be out of the picture for UA. They're not as good from a passenger perspective, and I really don't see them being a good fit for UA either. To me the current A350 order is still best.

But I don't why UA doesn't see more 788s and 789s as a 767 replacement. I still have my doubts on the MOM being the answer. It's a gamble to rely on it. I think they can scrape by in the short-term by using 78J deliveries to replace the oldest 767s (such as 78J replacing a 764 which is replacing a 763), but long-term is a question mark.

I think UA sees the 787 as being too heavy, having too much range, and is just simply not the right product for what the 757/67 fleet flies. The 787 is great for longhaul thin routes like SFO-CTU, LAX-MEL, or DEN-NRT, but not quite so ideal for EWR-LHR, IAH-GRU, or ORD-AMS.

MSPNWA wrote:

I'm relieved to see that more 77Ws and the A330 appears to be out of the picture for UA. They're not as good from a passenger perspective, and I really don't see them being a good fit for UA either. To me the current A350 order is still best.

The A330 "not as good from a passenger perspective", seriously? It's one of the better models for Y without question and has ample room for roomy 4 abreast J. The B777 on the other hand with 10 abreast Y is much tighter.

KarelXWB wrote:

Unlike people have speculated, UA won't be buying any more new 77W aircraft. The secondary market may provide some additional lift, though nothing has been decided so far:

"we may sprinkle in some used ones - United does not plan to order any additional new 777-300ERs beyond the 14 it ordered in 2015".

UA also believes the A330neo is too large to replace the 767 fleet. .......

"Asked if the airline would look at converting the A350 order to A330neos to replace its ageing Boeing 767s, [Levy] replied: 'we think [the A330-900] is more airplane than we need'. Levy points to the size of the A330-900, which Airbus says can carry 287 passengers in a three-class configuration, compared to the 767s as an issue. United configures its 767-300ERs with 214 seats and its 767-400ERs with 242 seats".

Source https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... dy-434915/

With respects to a lively and engaging topic, lets hypothesis for a moment that this statement is inaccurate "The carrier doesn't know yet what type of aircraft should replace the 767."

used 777; Richard Anderson, an ardent used NB investor, would counsel economic caution with regard to renovating a used XWB. Majors with economic pricing power would be prudent evaluate comparative and true TCO over the life of a purchase.
77X choice; The 778 is ~14' shorter than the 773 with state-of-the-art engines. United is the second largest 777 operator in the world. While the current order book is either over-ordered or early-ordered, the 772 replacement factor model for a 778 purchase in the +7-12 year time frame deserves fact based consideration as a small sub-type.
772 life expectancy. 1/6th of passenger 772s are no longer in service. 1/4th of the 77As are no longer in service. The average age of 77A's in storage is ~20 years, the average age of 77E's in storage is ~17.4 years. The average age of scrapped 772s is ~16.6 years. United's oldest 77A is 22.7 years, first flight ~July 1994. United's oldest 77E is 20.4 years, first flight Oct 1996. Source planespotters.net
Will analytics derive 25 year lifespans or 30 year lifespans?

767 replacement "Scott Kirby, president of United, said in January that the 767 was the only aircraft that it does not have 'line of sight' to a replacement yet." For your consideration, the solutions are defined, the path is not.
1). Ron Baur, vice-president of fleet at United, said in May 2014 that the Boeing 787-9 was "ultimately a replacement for the 767-300ER". However, the airline has used the 19 787-9s it has taken since then for growth rather than replacement.
2). Extend the life of the 767. The 767 remains in production. Parts and Engines availability provide an extended support path.
3). MOM, hypothesized EIS is less relevant than a meaningful MOM production rate time-frame post 787 terrible teen issues.
footnote: United might even request the three retiring 767 BCC leased ~18yr old Hawaiian airline frames as a partial stop-gap.

The pressing/relavent problem is an economically viable solution for the 752. Using a 25 year life for the newest 752s and a 30 year life of the oldest 752s; the majority of the sub-fleet retires between 2024 and 2027.

interesting interpretations of the upcoming MOM offering:
MOM , more oval in shape 194" horizontal, 176" vertical. twin isle 2-3-2

United has alot of debt, nearly as much as AA.

It can be reasonably presumed that they are trying to decrease it in anticipation of the next downturn (already showing in intl markets).

There was an article in today's (3-9-17) Chicago Tribune. Boeing has shown a proposed new model that is a twin-aisle. in two variants. UA likes what is has seen so far. The larger plane, meant ot replace the 767-300 would have the shorter range. Presumably the larger plane could do eastern U.S. to western Europe, while the smaller plane would, meant to replace the 757, would have a longer range. For some missions, the 737-9 and the A321neo need more seats and more range, but not so mch as to justify a 787-8 or comparable Airbus widebodies.

The belief is that Boeing's board will ok the sales team to start taking orders before the end of the year. This would be the 797.

TheLion wrote:

The A330 "not as good from a passenger perspective", seriously? It's one of the better models for Y without question and has ample room for roomy 4 abreast J. The B777 on the other hand with 10 abreast Y is much tighter.

It has a 1980s interior and technology. The only nice thing is the current common 2-4-2 in Y, but only if we're comparing against a 3-4-3 777, or similar. It has no advantages against all other J, W, and many Y. It's also in danger of going 3-3-3 down the road. Then there's nothing to like about it anywhere. No thanks.

VC10er wrote:

I DON'T WANT TO WAIT THAT LONG! I'm 55 and I don't want my first 797 flight at 62 or 63 years old! If I make it to 63!

I will take one guess, I have do have faith in the NEW UNITED management team, in tandem with Boeing will make up a very smart group of people (not that the same doesn't hold true for other airlines and Airbus) and will sort this out. If Smisek (sorry) was still the CEO, I would be concerned. I believe Mr Munoz will make his dream come true for UA in time (I think he must feel like he has a new lease on life and is going to make the best of it). If he does achieve his goals; UA will bring back some of the fliers they lost, get new big corp contracts and in the next 7/8 years a whole new generation of business fliers will not recall the disaster of the merger. After reading everything on all the threads here, it does seem that in the end the UA fleet will have a good number of A350's - and after losing the 747's, I want to see them along side the 77W's, 787, 8, 9 and 10's. It will break my heart to see those 747's go (as suboptimal as they are) so let a variety of twins, with beautiful interiors (in a new United livery) help make up for the loss of the Queen.
Naturally, want this new MoM 797 to be a beautiful airplane. Are there ANY initial renderings/drawings of such an aircraft that have been released or created by an insightful engineer?

VC10er. I would not be that impressed with Mr. Munoz and his management team. I have read two articles recently, where he or his management team was asked about the 747-400 being retired. The answers they gave, where so incredibly stupid. I couldn't believe they where talking to aviation audience!! In one of those Mr. Munoz says that well the 747-400 are old and you just can't find parts for them anywhere in the world. In another interview his new president Scott Kirby, said they are old, worn out, and are gas guzzlers. In both of these cases they compare an older airplane, with older designs, and older engines to new 787 or 777-300. Never mind that is like comparing apples to oranges, but that's not even a fair competent argument to make to an aviation audience. It's as if he and his staff had never heard of the 747-800 that is currently being built. Maybe if some one knows the boeing 747 sale rep, have him go meet with Mr. Munoz. I really do not believe Mr. Munoz knows that the new 747-800, incorporates the same wing, engines, and cabin interior design as in the 787. So, the aerodynamics, fuel burn, and interior cabin closely matches that of their new darling the 787. But, they don't want to consider this new 747 when talking about current purchases or feature purchases. It's probably the old Continental people who are killing the 747 and with the new guy from American, well they stopped believing in the 747 long ago. United has problems with weight restrictions on 777, weather is going to India or even as close as to Hawaii. The new 747-8 would help , but when you don't want to even consider it that's their fault. Well, Mr. Munoz is a train guy, not an airplane guy right!!!

I once heard a response to a question that was asked to Mr. Munoz by a flight attendant, that lead me to understand why investors wanted to bring Gordon Bethune back to help out. Mr. Munoz was asked by a flight attendant who told him she had more than twenty-five years of experience; "why would he not use people like herself with that amount of experience and others instead of bringing new people with almost none or no experience into the company"
Mr. Munoz answer was; "Well not to offend, by your years of service you might be retiring soon. I have to bring new people. That it's a catch 22. How do you hire someone with experience , if no one hires them so that they gain experience"
That's where he lost me!!! It's called and apprenticeship!!! An airlines operation is not for on the job training. Mr. Munoz knew a hell of alot about trains more than he knew about airplanes when he took the job. For him being on the board of Continental, did not teach him how to run an airline. Now he has Scott Kirby as his President. We will see...

MSPNWA wrote:

TheLion wrote:

The A330 "not as good from a passenger perspective", seriously? It's one of the better models for Y without question and has ample room for roomy 4 abreast J. The B777 on the other hand with 10 abreast Y is much tighter.

It has a 1980s interior and technology. The only nice thing is the current common 2-4-2 in Y, but only if we're comparing against a 3-4-3 777, or similar. It has no advantages against all other J, W, and many Y. It's also in danger of going 3-3-3 down the road. Then there's nothing to like about it anywhere. No thanks.

None of that is really true. Airbus has updated the interior to make it look pretty nice, and the A330neo will have essentially the same cabin design as the A350. J will depend on each airline, but DL has been or will be able to fit the reverse herringbone seat into the 777, A330, and A350, while they had to go with the inferior staggered product on the 767. And since so few airlines have gone for 9-abreast on the A330/340 as it is, I doubt we'll see very many more airlines go for it. It's about the same as it is with the 8-abreast 767 operators. Only the charters and ultra ultra cheap will go for it.

MSPNWA wrote:

TheLion wrote:

The A330 "not as good from a passenger perspective", seriously? It's one of the better models for Y without question and has ample room for roomy 4 abreast J. The B777 on the other hand with 10 abreast Y is much tighter.

It has a 1980s interior and technology. The only nice thing is the current common 2-4-2 in Y, but only if we're comparing against a 3-4-3 777, or similar. It has no advantages against all other J, W, and many Y. It's also in danger of going 3-3-3 down the road. Then there's nothing to like about it anywhere. No thanks.

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

ER747 wrote:

VC10er. I would not be that impressed with Mr. Munoz and his management team. I have read two articles recently, where he or his management team was asked about the 747-400 being retired. The answers they gave, where so incredibly stupid. I couldn't believe they where talking to aviation audience!! In one of those Mr. Munoz says that well the 747-400 are old and you just can't find parts for them anywhere in the world. In another interview his new president Scott Kirby, said they are old, worn out, and are gas guzzlers. In both of these cases they compare an older airplane, with older designs, and older engines to new 787 or 777-300. Never mind that is like comparing apples to oranges, but that's not even a fair competent argument to make to an aviation audience. It's as if he and his staff had never heard of the 747-800 that is currently being built. Maybe if some one knows the boeing 747 sale rep, have him go meet with Mr. Munoz. I really do not believe Mr. Munoz knows that the new 747-800, incorporates the same wing, engines, and cabin interior design as in the 787. So, the aerodynamics, fuel burn, and interior cabin closely matches that of their new darling the 787. But, they don't want to consider this new 747 when talking about current purchases or feature purchases. It's probably the old Continental people who are killing the 747 and with the new guy from American, well they stopped believing in the 747 long ago. United has problems with weight restrictions on 777, weather is going to India or even as close as to Hawaii. The new 747-8 would help , but when you don't want to even consider it that's their fault. Well, Mr. Munoz is a train guy, not an airplane guy right!!!

I once heard a response to a question that was asked to Mr. Munoz by a flight attendant, that lead me to understand why investors wanted to bring Gordon Bethune back to help out. Mr. Munoz was asked by a flight attendant who told him she had more than twenty-five years of experience; "why would he not use people like herself with that amount of experience and others instead of bringing new people with almost none or no experience into the company"
Mr. Munoz answer was; "Well not to offend, by your years of service you might be retiring soon. I have to bring new people. That it's a catch 22. How do you hire someone with experience , if no one hires them so that they gain experience"
That's where he lost me!!! It's called and apprenticeship!!! An airlines operation is not for on the job training. Mr. Munoz knew a hell of alot about trains more than he knew about airplanes when he took the job. For him being on the board of Continental, did not teach him how to run an airline. Now he has Scott Kirby as his President. We will see...

This means you are only impressed by the management of LH and KE? I'm not here to defend UA's management team, but they are hardly the only management team out there that decided to forgo on the 747-8...

TWA772LR wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Actually, I decided to Google it, and there are a number of renderings of a potential 797, both in Boeing colors and in UNITED. I don't know who created them but they are exactly what I saw in my mind's eye. A short 787!

It "looks" so much like a 787 that mated with a 737MAX, that I can't help but wonder if 2025 isn't beatable for EIS?

If you type "Boeing MoM" into google images, you get a lot of FS9/X renderings. But I'm sure the final result will look something like that.

Also what comes up are various a.net pictures including a Keejse rendering, and the avatars for me, LAX772LR, KarelXWB, Lightsaber, Revelation, Francoflier, Keejse, Stitch and United787.

Thanks, looking at google images was pretty amusing.

FrancisBegbie wrote:

ER747 wrote:

VC10er. I would not be that impressed with Mr. Munoz and his management team. I have read two articles recently, where he or his management team was asked about the 747-400 being retired. The answers they gave, where so incredibly stupid. I couldn't believe they where talking to aviation audience!! In one of those Mr. Munoz says that well the 747-400 are old and you just can't find parts for them anywhere in the world. In another interview his new president Scott Kirby, said they are old, worn out, and are gas guzzlers. In both of these cases they compare an older airplane, with older designs, and older engines to new 787 or 777-300. Never mind that is like comparing apples to oranges, but that's not even a fair competent argument to make to an aviation audience. It's as if he and his staff had never heard of the 747-800 that is currently being built. Maybe if some one knows the boeing 747 sale rep, have him go meet with Mr. Munoz. I really do not believe Mr. Munoz knows that the new 747-800, incorporates the same wing, engines, and cabin interior design as in the 787. So, the aerodynamics, fuel burn, and interior cabin closely matches that of their new darling the 787. But, they don't want to consider this new 747 when talking about current purchases or feature purchases. It's probably the old Continental people who are killing the 747 and with the new guy from American, well they stopped believing in the 747 long ago. United has problems with weight restrictions on 777, weather is going to India or even as close as to Hawaii. The new 747-8 would help , but when you don't want to even consider it that's their fault. Well, Mr. Munoz is a train guy, not an airplane guy right!!!

I once heard a response to a question that was asked to Mr. Munoz by a flight attendant, that lead me to understand why investors wanted to bring Gordon Bethune back to help out. Mr. Munoz was asked by a flight attendant who told him she had more than twenty-five years of experience; "why would he not use people like herself with that amount of experience and others instead of bringing new people with almost none or no experience into the company"
Mr. Munoz answer was; "Well not to offend, by your years of service you might be retiring soon. I have to bring new people. That it's a catch 22. How do you hire someone with experience , if no one hires them so that they gain experience"
That's where he lost me!!! It's called and apprenticeship!!! An airlines operation is not for on the job training. Mr. Munoz knew a hell of alot about trains more than he knew about airplanes when he took the job. For him being on the board of Continental, did not teach him how to run an airline. Now he has Scott Kirby as his President. We will see...

This means you are only impressed by the management of LH and KE? I'm not here to defend UA's management team, but they are hardly the only management team out there that decided to forgo on the 747-8...

If that really is the case, then he must loathe Emirates.

ual747den wrote:

Wpr8e wrote:

I've heard from someone directly impacted by on boarding any new fleet, has been told to "hold" the introduction of the A350. It will not be joining United. The consensus is United is going all Boeing moving forward. This is also the word on the street at Airbus. Of course it's hearsay at the moment, so take it for what's it worth.

But suffice it to say, if you don't prepare your backend systems, it's the proverbial canary in the coal mine.

I hate when I come on here and read completely made up garbage! Please for the love of god tell me who you know that gave you this information? Even just tell me what department they are in? No one who would be in a position to get the "hold" information has or would tell you anything and that is assuming that someone at United was even told to "hold" something. In addition to your serious inside knowledge of United you also seem to have some pretty high level inside knowledge of business operations at Airbus, care to share how these relationships came to be?

This is completely made up. I liked the site a lot better when you had to pay something to post and 13yr old kids who have been a member for 3 weeks weren't allowed to act like they have inside information from all over the industry.

Based on the fact that he has inside information from both United and Airbus, it's doubtful that he works for United. So he may not know exactly what department his source is in. If he did, he would probably not have access to the "word on the street" at Airbus. Perhaps he is connected to a consulting company or a law firm. Or more likely a third party that supplies simulators (like FlightSafety) or maintenance tools or training. This would be about the only explanation for having access to inside information from both United & Airbus.

I would be surprised if UA cancels the A350, if only because it would be very expensive. And if they did, they would need more 77Ws or 77Xs to replace the 747s. I will wait for definite word from UA on such matters, and also on 767 replacement. But it does sound like the MOM is going to happen, and UA will be on board with it.

I just can't see UA not taking the A350 at this time. The order has been hanging around for too long for it to be cancelled now. With all of the "life" extensions going on, I'm not sure where it will really fall in. The 747 has for the most part been replaced by the 77Ws. The rest of the 777 fleet is continuing on and the A350 wasn't ordered to replace it.

United seems to be extremely bullish on the potential 797s. Maybe that's where they will put the money they gave Boeing for the 60+ 737-700s!

KarelXWB wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

TheLion wrote:

The A330 "not as good from a passenger perspective", seriously? It's one of the better models for Y without question and has ample room for roomy 4 abreast J. The B777 on the other hand with 10 abreast Y is much tighter.

It has a 1980s interior and technology. The only nice thing is the current common 2-4-2 in Y, but only if we're comparing against a 3-4-3 777, or similar. It has no advantages against all other J, W, and many Y. It's also in danger of going 3-3-3 down the road. Then there's nothing to like about it anywhere. No thanks.

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

1980s interior and technology? All the lols MSPNWA. As Karel says, if an airline doesn't retrofit its aircraft then they will look old.

The A330 itself is a 1990s built plane. Most models flying today are post-2000 however, so are modern in every way.

It's also unlikely to ever go 3-3-3 in Y for the mass market; very few airlines use this configuration now. Sub 17" seats are simply too tight to be widespread.

TheLion wrote:

KarelXWB wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

It has a 1980s interior and technology. The only nice thing is the current common 2-4-2 in Y, but only if we're comparing against a 3-4-3 777, or similar. It has no advantages against all other J, W, and many Y. It's also in danger of going 3-3-3 down the road. Then there's nothing to like about it anywhere. No thanks.

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

1980s interior and technology? All the lols MSPNWA. As Karel says, if an airline doesn't retrofit its aircraft then they will look old.

The A330 itself is a 1990s built plane. Most models flying today are post-2000 however, so are modern in every way.

It's also unlikely to ever go 3-3-3 in Y for the mass market; very few airlines use this configuration now. Sub 17" seats are simply too tight to be widespread.

Isn't the A330neo the first aircraft family to use the new Airspace by Airbus cabin?

http://airspace.airbus.com/a330-neo/

MSPNWA wrote:

It has a 1980s interior and technology. The only nice thing is the current common 2-4-2 in Y, but only if we're comparing against a 3-4-3 777, or similar. It has no advantages against all other J, W, and many Y. It's also in danger of going 3-3-3 down the road. Then there's nothing to like about it anywhere. No thanks.

The only A330s with 3-3-3 I can think of ATM is Air Caraibes which shuttles people to French Caribic islands. Technically a domestic line. It is an atrocity on the same level a typical 777 with 10-abreast is.
I absolutely love flying on 767s and A330 as they seem to be reasonably sized planes with reasonable seating config.
I am not sure what you mean by "1980s interior and technology" but if that means relatively comfortable seats and seat pitch and a good book as opposed to 21st century paper-thin seats and hi-tech electronic gadgetry to keep you distracted from thinking how awfully uncomfortable you are, then I would gladly take the 1980s retro.

L410Turbolet wrote:

The only A330s with 3-3-3 I can think of ATM is Air Caraibes which shuttles people to French Caribic islands.

There are a few others such as AirAsiaX and CebuPacific. I had been on the latter's once, soon after they took delivery of their first bird. It's fine for my 200mins flight. Not the most comfortable but i'll take it again anytime for the price I paid. Btw, I'm 5'6" and 160lbs, so......

I'm surprised that UA hasn't asked Boeing about a lower-MTOW 787-8--something with a range of around 6,000 nm with smaller fuel tanks and other weight saving measures since the plane won't need to travel very long routes. That would make it a viable 767 replacement. Surprisingly, I think such a lower-MTOW 787-8 derivative could find a very large market for regional routes.

Airbus has the A330-300 regional and I would assume they could do a A330-200/800 regional. The only frames ruled out at UA were thw A380 and 747-8.
A Boeing MOM could be a contender, but that depends on the time frame, the 767, especially the 737-300 at UA are rather old.

To ER747, I prayed United would be early follower of Lufthansa (once the true numbers were in) to replace their 744's with 748i and stay a 747 airline.

My high regard for Mr Munoz is based on one thing; UA changed for the better almost overnight after he returned to the job. It reminded me of living in NYC all my life and seeing and feeling everything changed the day Police Chief Bratton took over...safer and cleaner virtually overnight and has gotten better and better ever since (although now too expensive)

As for his working knowledge of an airline or 747-8, I read that is EXACTLY why he brought in Kirby in such a bold move.

Reading STT757: As for 21 767's dating back to 1991, it does seem to make it rather urgent to replace those. I, who know nothing, would like to understand why United wouldn't order some 788's with Polaris to replace some if not all of those? Then wait for the Boeing MoM for the balance of the 757/767's.

Regardless, I stand by my guess: these folks aren't stupid, not UA not Boeing or Airbus. (Although the merger felt like it was one bad decision after another)

I don't want to be put on a new aircraft with a cane. But such is life and the time it takes to design and build a new aircraft. I'm just hoping for some rides on the A350 (and 787-10's) with United out of EWR.

RayChuang wrote:

I'm surprised that UA hasn't asked Boeing about a lower-MTOW 787-8--something with a range of around 6,000 nm with smaller fuel tanks and other weight saving measures since the plane won't need to travel very long routes.

An operator is free to purchase their plane with operating weights below the maximum values offered by the OEM to save money on both the purchase price and various airport and navigation fees that are indexed to such weights.

Stitch wrote:

RayChuang wrote:

I'm surprised that UA hasn't asked Boeing about a lower-MTOW 787-8--something with a range of around 6,000 nm with smaller fuel tanks and other weight saving measures since the plane won't need to travel very long routes.

An operator is free to purchase their plane with operating weights below the maximum values offered by the OEM to save money on both the purchase price and various airport and navigation fees that are indexed to such weights.

Stitch, is this what essentially doomed the 787-3? I wonder if that platform, coupled with 787-9-esque savings could be repurposed to serve the NSA/MOM market. As is, it failed to garner the necessary orders. Perhaps now, with the need to replace 767s - it might work if better optimized?

If anyone can add some perspective for me - why did the 787-3 ultimately fail?

VC10er wrote:

I don't want to be put on a new aircraft with a cane. But such is life and the time it takes to design and build a new aircraft. I'm just hoping for some rides on the A350 (and 787-10's) with United out of EWR.

Don't despair. I'm almost 71, have two artificial knees and COPD and I still board planes without a cane. Even if you do need a cane, that's better than flying in the hold under the alias "Mr. Jones."

Rajahdhani wrote:

Stitch wrote:

RayChuang wrote:

I'm surprised that UA hasn't asked Boeing about a lower-MTOW 787-8--something with a range of around 6,000 nm with smaller fuel tanks and other weight saving measures since the plane won't need to travel very long routes.

An operator is free to purchase their plane with operating weights below the maximum values offered by the OEM to save money on both the purchase price and various airport and navigation fees that are indexed to such weights.

Stitch, is this what essentially doomed the 787-3?

What doomed the 787-3 was the 52m wingspan. It degraded the aerodynamic performance so much in comparison to the 60m of the 787-8 that once Boeing had hard data from the 787-8 flight test program to plug into the models, the 787-3's efficiency window over the 787-8 dropped to around 500km. At that point, JAL and ANA both swapped their -3 orders for the -8 and anyone else who might have been interested in the model lost said interest. So it was cancelled.

Are we looking at a 797 launch by Paris Air Show?

If the A330 and the B77W are out, then more B789s are likely the answer. The real issue is: will United consider the A321neoLR as a Boeing 757-200 (International) replacement? The B789s can fly both out of SFO, regular transcon runs to EWR, and then to Europe. (The 789s would replace heavier classic 3-class B772s flying EWR-SFO.) UA could easily support having SFO-EWR and LAX-EWR being done by 787-9s and A321neoLRs, and then rotate them to Europe (this being necessary because of constraints at EWR, meaning that bigger planes are needed).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

If the A330 and the B77W are out, then more B789s are likely the answer. The real issue is: will United consider the A321neoLR as a Boeing 757-200 (International) replacement? The B789s can fly both out of SFO, regular transcon runs to EWR, and then to Europe. (The 789s would replace heavier classic 3-class B772s flying EWR-SFO.) UA could easily support having SFO-EWR and LAX-EWR being done by 787-9s and A321neoLRs, and then rotate them to Europe (this being necessary because of constraints at EWR, meaning that bigger planes are needed).

I have the feeling that if UA orders the MOM, then the A321LR won't come, because they will Ander the 767 and 757 routes across the Atlantic to the MOM. My question is, if Boeing does launch the MAX10, would UA acquire that? That would leave the 10 as a domestic people mover. I also wonder if they are looking at the MAX7 after it got revamped. That would be a very flexible plane especially for thin TCONs, IAH-LatAm, and the GUM hub, and even secondary/tertiary cities in Europe, like the resumption of Belfast and Bristol.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

If the A330 and the B77W are out, then more B789s are likely the answer. The real issue is: will United consider the A321neoLR as a Boeing 757-200 (International) replacement? The B789s can fly both out of SFO, regular transcon runs to EWR, and then to Europe. (The 789s would replace heavier classic 3-class B772s flying EWR-SFO.) UA could easily support having SFO-EWR and LAX-EWR being done by 787-9s and A321neoLRs, and then rotate them to Europe (this being necessary because of constraints at EWR, meaning that bigger planes are needed).

I think we will see:

1. 787-9 add'l for medium long haul esp Asia for some lh/ulh 772 replacement
2. MoM for 767 EWR/IAD/ORD to Europe to replace 767/757 replacement plus more for hub-to-hub and west coast to Hawaii
3. A35J and A359 deferred but ultimately replacing 772ER and 77Ws
4. 737-8/9/10MAX for future domestic fleet

This let's them keep some commonality, use their existing committed spend with A & B and best in class CASM.