flyingclrs727 wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

To sum up the obvious; UA has a really no win decision to make. Either deal with the high maintenance and lack of reliability of older aircraft until the ‘perfect’ is available at some as yet uncertain future time, or go with a less than perfect alternative(s). I see the odds being a bit better in the ‘alternative’ favor. Which form that will take I truely have no clue No matter what the decision, there’s going to be bitch’n and moan’n from a lot of pundants, here, and otherwise. There will be plenty of ‘I told you so’.
Oh, and just remember ‘Hindsight is always 20/20, foresight definitely not so much’.

It depending how cheap UA can get them and how quickly. If HAL is no longer going to be the launch customer, perhaps UA can be and get better discounts. The A330-800 could allow UA to fly to Europe from any of their hubs in North America. That's longer range than the 763 has. This would allow smaller than 77E capacity to Europe from the west coast. The UA's 764 fleet could be redeployed to shorter transatlantic flights and domestic routes.

The question will be at what range and cost would using and adding to the existing 788/789 fleet be more beneficial than the A338 (which remember, is an all new type for UA, they are one of the few major airlines without any A330ceos).

Polot wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

To sum up the obvious; UA has a really no win decision to make. Either deal with the high maintenance and lack of reliability of older aircraft until the ‘perfect’ is available at some as yet uncertain future time, or go with a less than perfect alternative(s). I see the odds being a bit better in the ‘alternative’ favor. Which form that will take I truely have no clue No matter what the decision, there’s going to be bitch’n and moan’n from a lot of pundants, here, and otherwise. There will be plenty of ‘I told you so’.
Oh, and just remember ‘Hindsight is always 20/20, foresight definitely not so much’.

It depending how cheap UA can get them and how quickly. If HAL is no longer going to be the launch customer, perhaps UA can be and get better discounts. The A330-800 could allow UA to fly to Europe from any of their hubs in North America. That's longer range than the 763 has. This would allow smaller than 77E capacity to Europe from the west coast. The UA's 764 fleet could be redeployed to shorter transatlantic flights and domestic routes.

The question will be at what range and cost would using and adding to the existing 788/789 fleet be more beneficial than the A338 (which remember, is an all new type for UA, they are one of the few major airlines without any A330ceos).

Both 788 and 789 cost more and are optimized for longer routes. They also have a years long backlog to clear before new orders could be delivered.
Remember UA already intends to buy A350-900's to replace its 77E's in the mid 2020's. UA already has A320 qualified pilots who could easily transition to A330's and A350's. I wonder if Airbus would be willing to allow 1 for 1 conversion of some A350 orders for A330-800Neo orders if they take early delivery to replace the 767-300's? Considering slack in the A330 line, UA could take delivery of a whole new fleet very quickly just as they took delivery of 77W's in a very short time to completely replace their 747-400 fleet earlier than originally planned. The A330 could also allow UA to increase the number of planes with Polaris seats quickly too.

Does UA not have any near-term 787 options?

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Polot wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

It depending how cheap UA can get them and how quickly. If HAL is no longer going to be the launch customer, perhaps UA can be and get better discounts. The A330-800 could allow UA to fly to Europe from any of their hubs in North America. That's longer range than the 763 has. This would allow smaller than 77E capacity to Europe from the west coast. The UA's 764 fleet could be redeployed to shorter transatlantic flights and domestic routes.

The question will be at what range and cost would using and adding to the existing 788/789 fleet be more beneficial than the A338 (which remember, is an all new type for UA, they are one of the few major airlines without any A330ceos).

Both 788 and 789 cost more and are optimized for longer routes. They also have a years long backlog to clear before new orders could be delivered.
Remember UA already intends to buy A350-900's to replace its 77E's in the mid 2020's. UA already has A320 qualified pilots who could easily transition to A330's and A350's. I wonder if Airbus would be willing to allow 1 for 1 conversion of some A350 orders for A330-800Neo orders if they take early delivery to replace the 767-300's? Considering slack in the A330 line, UA could take delivery of a whole new fleet very quickly just as they took delivery of 77W's in a very short time to completely replace their 747-400 fleet earlier than originally planned. The A330 could also allow UA to increase the number of planes with Polaris seats quickly too.

Training for the A330 would likely be open for bidding, with anyone with enough seniority elegible no matter their current equipment, and everyone receiving the same training to ensure all training standards (which for UA may go above and beyond minimal requirements) are uniform.

If the 757/767 fleets are being removed, those would be the most likely pilots to be on the A338. UA can’t just fire them, they have to train them on something and that would depend on their seniority and what’s available.

heavymetal wrote:

jagraham wrote:

UA will not order the A321NEO for TATL. No cargo on TATL with A321LR. At all. See Leeham analysis.

There is a reason they are flying their 763s and 757s until their wings fall off. And buying 763s in the used market when they are available. But Amazon is seriously crimping this approach.

Something has to give.

I think you are overstating the impact of cargo here.

Several people have already posted links above that show UA was routinely making fuel stops on TATL 757 flights, especially in winter. I would assume that UA prefers to not make stops, so they would withhold payload to attempt to prevent it - and you can sure bet that cargo will be left behind before passengers.

The Leeham analysis shows that at 3,900nm both the 757-200 and the A321LR have the same payload capability, with no room leftover for additional payload. If you are referencing cargo volume issues on the A321LR for shorter markets like KEF, I would say that markets like NYC-KEF and even some NYC-UK markets won't even need all 3 of the extra fuel tanks, as we've seen with WOW's KEF-LAX flight, so that should alleviate some (not all) of the cargo volume problems.

I would guess that the reason big 757 carriers like DL, AA, UA, etc. haven't yet ran to the A321LR is because the cost to own an A321LR must offset the economic improvements it offers. If your 757's are fully paid off, and you can still maintain them for reasonable rates, why bother spending $60-70M now on an A321LR when you could do it later? Especially if some of these routes are marginal to begin with? Didn't UA just cut some of their TATL 757 routes last summer?

But I don't think UA would accept that performance from a 757 replacement ordered specifically to do transatlantic routes. The 757 fleet was pressed into transatlantic service, because CO already owned the planes, and they were paid for. As the more efficient 739ER's replaced 757's on domestic service, the 752's could be used on routes too small for a 764 but that no 737 could perform. They had the range for shorter transatlantic flights, and could allow CO siphon traffic from the UK as a way to increase pressure on the UK to ditch the restrictions on LHR. Any 757 replacement for transatlantic service must be able to fly US east coast to Western European destinations year round without technical stops for refueling.

Polot wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Polot wrote:

The question will be at what range and cost would using and adding to the existing 788/789 fleet be more beneficial than the A338 (which remember, is an all new type for UA, they are one of the few major airlines without any A330ceos).

Both 788 and 789 cost more and are optimized for longer routes. They also have a years long backlog to clear before new orders could be delivered.
Remember UA already intends to buy A350-900's to replace its 77E's in the mid 2020's. UA already has A320 qualified pilots who could easily transition to A330's and A350's. I wonder if Airbus would be willing to allow 1 for 1 conversion of some A350 orders for A330-800Neo orders if they take early delivery to replace the 767-300's? Considering slack in the A330 line, UA could take delivery of a whole new fleet very quickly just as they took delivery of 77W's in a very short time to completely replace their 747-400 fleet earlier than originally planned. The A330 could also allow UA to increase the number of planes with Polaris seats quickly too.

Training for the A330 would likely be open for bidding, with anyone with enough seniority elegible no matter their current equipment, and everyone receiving the same training to ensure all training standards (which for UA may go above and beyond minimal requirements) are uniform.

If the 757/767 fleets are being removed, those would be the most likely pilots to be on the A338. UA can’t just fire them, they have to train them on something and that would depend on their seniority and what’s available.

Of course any pilots could apply to train for the A330's, but A320 pilots could transition more quickly due to similarly between Airbus cockpits. The 764's will still be around. Also this seems to be about getting rid of 763's. The 752's are younger than the 763's, plus they are RR powered. UA can probably hold out for Boeing's MOM to replace them. UA's 763's are PW powered and are needing more and more maintenance. Boeing said no to restarting 763 passenger production. The A330-800 is more similar in passenger capacity to a 764 but has longer range and more cargo capacity.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Polot wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Both 788 and 789 cost more and are optimized for longer routes. They also have a years long backlog to clear before new orders could be delivered.
Remember UA already intends to buy A350-900's to replace its 77E's in the mid 2020's. UA already has A320 qualified pilots who could easily transition to A330's and A350's. I wonder if Airbus would be willing to allow 1 for 1 conversion of some A350 orders for A330-800Neo orders if they take early delivery to replace the 767-300's? Considering slack in the A330 line, UA could take delivery of a whole new fleet very quickly just as they took delivery of 77W's in a very short time to completely replace their 747-400 fleet earlier than originally planned. The A330 could also allow UA to increase the number of planes with Polaris seats quickly too.

Training for the A330 would likely be open for bidding, with anyone with enough seniority elegible no matter their current equipment, and everyone receiving the same training to ensure all training standards (which for UA may go above and beyond minimal requirements) are uniform.

If the 757/767 fleets are being removed, those would be the most likely pilots to be on the A338. UA can’t just fire them, they have to train them on something and that would depend on their seniority and what’s available.

Of course any pilots could apply to train for the A330's, but A320 pilots could transition more quickly due to similarly between Airbus cockpits. The 764's will still be around. Also this seems to be about getting rid of 763's. The 752's are younger than the 763's, plus they are RR powered. UA can probably hold out for Boeing's MOM to replace them. UA's 763's are PW powered and are needing more and more maintenance. Boeing said no to restarting 763 passenger production. The A330-800 is more similar in passenger capacity to a 764 but has longer range and more cargo capacity.

And like I said the A320 pilot transitioning to the A330 will likely receive the exact same training, taking the exact same amount of time, at UA as a 757/767 pilot transitioning over. Theoretically a A320 pilot can be trained faster with a simplistic program. That doesn’t mean that is how UA actually performs their training. With such a large and diverse fleet, with pilot seniority deciding who is flying what, it is usually just easier to have one training program for a brand new pilot type that assumes you have no experience with a common/similar/whatever type than multiple ones that depend on what the pilots current equipment is.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

heavymetal wrote:

jagraham wrote:

UA will not order the A321NEO for TATL. No cargo on TATL with A321LR. At all. See Leeham analysis.

There is a reason they are flying their 763s and 757s until their wings fall off. And buying 763s in the used market when they are available. But Amazon is seriously crimping this approach.

Something has to give.

I think you are overstating the impact of cargo here.

Several people have already posted links above that show UA was routinely making fuel stops on TATL 757 flights, especially in winter. I would assume that UA prefers to not make stops, so they would withhold payload to attempt to prevent it - and you can sure bet that cargo will be left behind before passengers.

The Leeham analysis shows that at 3,900nm both the 757-200 and the A321LR have the same payload capability, with no room leftover for additional payload. If you are referencing cargo volume issues on the A321LR for shorter markets like KEF, I would say that markets like NYC-KEF and even some NYC-UK markets won't even need all 3 of the extra fuel tanks, as we've seen with WOW's KEF-LAX flight, so that should alleviate some (not all) of the cargo volume problems.

I would guess that the reason big 757 carriers like DL, AA, UA, etc. haven't yet ran to the A321LR is because the cost to own an A321LR must offset the economic improvements it offers. If your 757's are fully paid off, and you can still maintain them for reasonable rates, why bother spending $60-70M now on an A321LR when you could do it later? Especially if some of these routes are marginal to begin with? Didn't UA just cut some of their TATL 757 routes last summer?

But I don't think UA would accept that performance from a 757 replacement ordered specifically to do transatlantic routes. The 757 fleet was pressed into transatlantic service, because CO already owned the planes, and they were paid for. As the more efficient 739ER's replaced 757's on domestic service, the 752's could be used on routes too small for a 764 but that no 737 could perform. They had the range for shorter transatlantic flights, and could allow CO siphon traffic from the UK as a way to increase pressure on the UK to ditch the restrictions on LHR. Any 757 replacement for transatlantic service must be able to fly US east coast to Western European destinations year round without technical stops for refueling.

Bristol was a good example of an airport CO took the 757s too. Too big for a 767 but too far away for a 737.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

To sum up the obvious; UA has a really no win decision to make. Either deal with the high maintenance and lack of reliability of older aircraft until the ‘perfect’ is available at some as yet uncertain future time, or go with a less than perfect alternative(s). I see the odds being a bit better in the ‘alternative’ favor. Which form that will take I truely have no clue No matter what the decision, there’s going to be bitch’n and moan’n from a lot of pundants, here, and otherwise. There will be plenty of ‘I told you so’.
Oh, and just remember ‘Hindsight is always 20/20, foresight definitely not so much’.

It depending how cheap UA can get them and how quickly. If HAL is no longer going to be the launch customer, perhaps UA can be and get better discounts. The A330-800 could allow UA to fly to Europe from any of their hubs in North America. That's longer range than the 763 has. This would allow smaller than 77E capacity to Europe from the west coast. The UA's 764 fleet could be redeployed to shorter transatlantic flights and domestic routes.

That’s why no clue on what UA will do yet. It’s pretty much up to how much A and B are willing to play “Let’s Make a Deal” to get the order. I’m sure UA would prefer to stick with B if possible. But B will have to offer a diabetes inducing sweet deal to keep A out in the cold. And A is could be almost equally motivated, especially now the 338 is an orphan. Either way UA is going to get some new aircraft at a bargain basement price I think.

iahcsr wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

To sum up the obvious; UA has a really no win decision to make. Either deal with the high maintenance and lack of reliability of older aircraft until the ‘perfect’ is available at some as yet uncertain future time, or go with a less than perfect alternative(s). I see the odds being a bit better in the ‘alternative’ favor. Which form that will take I truely have no clue No matter what the decision, there’s going to be bitch’n and moan’n from a lot of pundants, here, and otherwise. There will be plenty of ‘I told you so’.
Oh, and just remember ‘Hindsight is always 20/20, foresight definitely not so much’.

It depending how cheap UA can get them and how quickly. If HAL is no longer going to be the launch customer, perhaps UA can be and get better discounts. The A330-800 could allow UA to fly to Europe from any of their hubs in North America. That's longer range than the 763 has. This would allow smaller than 77E capacity to Europe from the west coast. The UA's 764 fleet could be redeployed to shorter transatlantic flights and domestic routes.

That’s why no clue on what UA will do yet. It’s pretty much up to how much A and B are willing to play “Let’s Make a Deal” to get the order. I’m sure UA would prefer to stick with B if possible. But B will have to offer a diabetes inducing sweet deal to keep A out in the cold. And A is could be almost equally motivated, especially now the 338 is an orphan. Either way UA is going to get some new aircraft at a bargain basement price I think.

If UA buys the A338, I doubt it will be an orphan. Also it's likely to be pretty good P2F feed stock in the future. I could also imagine the A338 being used for military platforms including as a tanker.

G'day

As of today the MoM/797 is far from being defined, it appears the main issues remaining are engine selection and freight haulage capability where requirements seem to differ between US airlines and potential Asian customers. Seating capacities and ranges seem to have been pretty much defined.

More important, Boeing is still working on a business case. There is definitely interest from most major airlines, but how much are they willing to pay? New technologies and new production methods may potentially lower manufacturing costs, but they are expensive to develop and carry a substantial risk. So how much is the thing going to cost and over how many units can those costs be spread, both required to define the sales price. In comparison reading tea leaves seems easy.

If the 797 is certified in 2025 as presently envisaged with the first units delivered that year it will be some time until production is ramped up and planes roll off the assembly line in any meaningful quantities. With likely numerous airlines signing up as launch customers those first units will have to be spread amongst those launch customers, meaning it will take longer than desired to build up a standalone fleet. So we are looking at 2027/2028 for airlines operating the 797's as being part of their main fleet - that is if there are no delays.

Too big an IF for some airlines I guess. Even if the future B 797 turns out to be the greatest invention since sliced bread many airlines will likely be forced to acquire interim transport until they get delivery of their planes and to cover for potential delays. Lets face it, an all new design with new production methods and all new engines carries a high risk of having some delays - just trying to be realistic. Those being the very reasons airlines are looking for interim lift, in particular with Boeing seemingly unable to find a positive to the 797 business case. The need to coordinate resources with a midterm requirement for the 737 does not help to speed up the decision process.

Airlines patience is limited, else we all would still be waiting for the NSA and the 320 NEO and the 737 MAX'es would still be paper planes.

With all those uncertainties around the 797 there appears to be a sizeable market for an aircraft to bridge the gap until it is available, I would not be surprised if both AA and UA will end up operating the A 338.

Just some thoughts

Cheers

Peter