WkndWanderer wrote:

EChid wrote:

And for those praising UA's "strategic" purchase of the 77Ws, it was only barely strategic. As far as I recall, the whole deal started with UA looking for a new smaller a/c a la Airbus A223 but Boeing, wanting to snuff out the competition, came in with an absolute bottom-of-the-barrel offer on some 738s that UA absolutely did not need but accepted for a ridiculous price. When management changed, they realized the stupidity of the deal and swapped their 738s for some end-of-the-line (well, almost) 77Ws for a good price. I call that turning a sow's ear into a silk purse, not wonderfully "strategic." The 77Ws have worked well as a flagship debut for the Polaris hard product, do there's that.

United's initial 77W order was a year before the sweetheart 737 deal, which was for 73G's, the initial 10 were 787 conversions I think. The 73G order ended up converted to 61 MAX's.

CALTECH wrote:

Airbus A-350 is in serivce around the world.
Boeing B-787 is in service around the world.
Airbus A-350 order keeps getting deferred. Increasing the order while delaying deliveries kept a contract penalty from kicking in for the deferral.
Boeing B-787 keeps getting ordered and delivered.

A-350 might still happen, but events and actions are leaning towards a different outcome.

iahcsr wrote:

But what outcomes are possible without said penalties being so kicked? I can’t see much way a new Airbus product of some sort won’t be in UA colors.

Bald1983 wrote:

EChid wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

Why? Southwest has an all 737 fleet. Alaska did as well until it purchased Virgin America. Continental was successful with all Boeing. Others with all Airbus. It really comes down to which aircraft best suit your needs.

I don't think these are comparable examples. Southwest just isn't the same type of company/fleet, they have the same damn plane across their whole fleet. Same goes for Easyjet, Ryanair, etc. But while these companies are almost guaranteed to buy a certain plane - they'll do it in such massive quantities that they have negotiation power. Plus, they make up such large numbers for the manufacturer that the desire is high to keep them happy when developing new products - or else risk losing a HUGE customer. UA is buying fewer planes of one type but more planes of various types, which means they don't have as much negotiating power because they make smaller orders (witness this one). In that scenario, it's more within their interest play the two major manufacturers off of each other when deciding on a new type - even if the order is small. This means, naturally, that either can win.

Besides all that, what happened to loving the free market? This is already essentially a global duopoly. Why the heck would UA *NOT* want to do everything in its power to encourage competition, innovation, and aggressive pricing? It's not UA's job to prop up Boeing just 'cause.

United has orders of large numbers of planes. Most are from Boeing. Your comment "the same damn plane across their whole fleet" says it all. Your issue is not economics but ascetics. You want to see different aircraft. UAL had 161 737 Max s on order with seven delivered. This was a top off order and UAL still has 14 787-10 to be delivered and 12 787-9's. They are buying those planes because they need those planes. Although not followed as much today, it does cost more to operate multiple aircraft that do the same mission as each other. Manufactures do get played but it does not mean that airlines keep a few examples of every aircraft.

jayunited wrote:

EChid wrote:

Actually, one source I've found seems to indicate they were converted to a mix of 739s and MAXs.

The 77Ws (at least some of them) got converted from the 78J order apparently, possibly because UA got tired of waiting for their Dreamliners and realized they could get a sweet deal on the 777s and get them delivered quickly OR because they just need the extra lift. Ack, this story his hard to track.

UA never intended to replace the entire 744 fleet with Dreamliners, originally UA wanted to replace the 744 fleet with A359s which was then changed to the A35J after the merger because A359 wasn't large enough to meet UA's needs especially out of SFO. On a side note how could UA get tired of waiting for an aircraft that didn't exist in 2015? The 78J which had officially been launch wasn't expected to be in service until 2018. The reason why UA order the original 10 77W's then topped off the order later was because UA wanted to accelerate the retirement of the 744 fleet. I believe (and I could be wrong) but I think Airbus tried again to get UA to take a hard look at the A380 and Boeing originally offer up the 748-i. Once current management made it clear they were not interested in 4 engine aircraft Airbus at that point had nothing to offer except the A35J, which UA couldn't get its hands on until late Q3 2018. This left the door wide open for Boeing and the 77W. Not only did Boeing supposedly offer UA an unbelievable deal but UA would have the the 77W in the fleet by the Q4 2016. I distinctly remember people asking how Boeing was able to guarantee UA a delivery slot so quickly in Q4 2016 when UA order the 77W in Q2 2015.
Boeing saw an opportunity to get the 77W in our fleet and took it in an effort to close the deal and perhaps block Airbus's A35J which we were supposed to start taking delivery of this year late 3rd quarter. United current management team got what they wanted the accelerated retirement of the 744 fleet. Boeing got what they wanted another 77W operator which extended the production line. So far it seem as though Boeing and United won and and which these additional orders for a total of 13 more 789 frames it seem as though Boeing isn't letting up while Airbus is sitting on the sidelines waiting for 2022 to arrive.

If I'm Airbus I would be desperately looking for any opening to get my A359 into UA's fleet as early as possible and stop these incremental Dreamliner orders.

adamblang wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

But what outcomes are possible without said penalties being so kicked? I can’t see much way a new Airbus product of some sort won’t be in UA colors.

45 A350-900 for 55 A321LR and 80 A220-100.

EChid wrote:

Nah, I have no issues with airlines operating the same airplane across their entire fleet.

jetblastdubai wrote:

EChid wrote:

Nah, I have no issues with airlines operating the same airplane across their entire fleet.

One Emergency AD could shut down your entire long-haul operation if all your 'eggs' were in one type A/C basket.

I personally don't see that the A359 adds much of anything unique to UAs fleet that a combination of the 787s can't match or almost match capacity/performance-wise. WN obviously has restrictions placed on it by having only one type but there are savings attached to those efficiencies as long as your markets support your fleet types. If you can't get into markets because your smallest plane is too large or you can't fly certain routes because your planes don't have the range then the single-type fleet has limitations.

gwrudolph wrote:

I’ll conjecture here and say that I believe they originally intended the 350-1000s as the 744 replacement and the 350-900 as the 777e replacement

hOMSaR wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

I’ll conjecture here and say that I believe they originally intended the 350-1000s as the 744 replacement and the 350-900 as the 777e replacement

This isn't at all likely. First, they never had both types on order at the same time. The original order was for the A350-900, and was placed in 2009 (before the merger) when the first 77Es were only 12 years old and in no way close to needing replacement. News articles at the time specifically mentioned replacing the 747 with the A350.

A few years later (in 2013), the entire order was converted to the -1000, and increased from 25 to 35.

EChid wrote:

I didn't infer that UA intended to replace 744s with Dreamliners, I meant that they identified that they had a higher need for 77Ws ASAP to replace the 744s and so chose to receive a plane type they could use more quickly while losing some of the type they were to receive later (i.e., now). According to one press release I found, some of their 78J order was therefore converted over to the 77Ws, since the delivery of the 78Js was still a fair way off and they could get some good deals on the 77Ws. When I said that UA got 'tired' of the waiting, I'm just referring to the immediacy of the 77W deliveries vs. the A350s/78Js AND all of the previous early challenges that Boeing had with delivering the other 787 types on time, even though I think that delivery timelines for the 78Js have been fine. As for the A350, the issue seems that this deal for the 77Ws clearly diminished the immediacy of the need for the A359/Js, which is presumably why we're seeing delays etc. and things are being questioned. I assume that the need still exists, and that we'll see them eventually, but that is TBD.

A UA A380 would have been interesting.

snuggs28 wrote:

A couple of things that a lot of you have gotten slightly to all wrong.

The 789 is partially replacement and growth aircraft. The last 9 orders are actual 763 replacements. The 91 to 93 763 builds are getting long in the tooth and are close to their lifetime end. A couple of them are already over the 110 thousand hour mark. Hence the reason those airplanes will not be getting Prem Plus added. And the reason why we bought the 3 Ex Hawaiian birds.

The A350-9 to -1000 to -9 orders is a little bit more involved. One the A350-1000 and the 77W are basically the same aircraft. Once we went with the 77W. It made no sense to have 2 different type aircraft do the same flying. Costs are a factor here. While the A359's are basically the same as a 772. This order is a direct replacement for the 772's.

The reason why the A350 orders are still on the books. The Rolls Royce Engine contract. We have to pay them regardless if we cancel the order or not. This is all do the original order placed by Sub UA Mgmt prior to the UA/CO Merger. No one then had the foresight to see what would happen. It's basically a poison pill contract.

EChid wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

EChid wrote:

I don't think these are comparable examples. Southwest just isn't the same type of company/fleet, they have the same damn plane across their whole fleet. Same goes for Easyjet, Ryanair, etc. But while these companies are almost guaranteed to buy a certain plane - they'll do it in such massive quantities that they have negotiation power. Plus, they make up such large numbers for the manufacturer that the desire is high to keep them happy when developing new products - or else risk losing a HUGE customer. UA is buying fewer planes of one type but more planes of various types, which means they don't have as much negotiating power because they make smaller orders (witness this one). In that scenario, it's more within their interest play the two major manufacturers off of each other when deciding on a new type - even if the order is small. This means, naturally, that either can win.

Besides all that, what happened to loving the free market? This is already essentially a global duopoly. Why the heck would UA *NOT* want to do everything in its power to encourage competition, innovation, and aggressive pricing? It's not UA's job to prop up Boeing just 'cause.

United has orders of large numbers of planes. Most are from Boeing. Your comment "the same damn plane across their whole fleet" says it all. Your issue is not economics but ascetics. You want to see different aircraft. UAL had 161 737 Max s on order with seven delivered. This was a top off order and UAL still has 14 787-10 to be delivered and 12 787-9's. They are buying those planes because they need those planes. Although not followed as much today, it does cost more to operate multiple aircraft that do the same mission as each other. Manufactures do get played but it does not mean that airlines keep a few examples of every aircraft.

Nah, I have no issues with airlines operating the same airplane across their entire fleet. Those airlines are almost always the most profitable in the world, it's an excellent formula. But it's usually not a formula compatible with longhaul or non-LCC flying. I understand perfectly that UA still places large orders, and needs specific planes - the Dreamliner has been an excellent product for them and they clearly have additional need. Great. But I'm not sure why you're saying that UA shouldn't therefore buy another plane from another manufacturer - especially when that plane fulfills a different role. There is tremendous value in encouraging both major manufacturers to work hard for their sales, and that's how you do it. The only way of encouraging true competition though is by actually being willing to accept the best product/offer, no matter which company it comes from. That might mean an 80% Boeing / 20% Airbus fleet, but that's okay, since the airline already has to operate a wide variety of plane types and therefore doesn't suffer as much by adding another type as a company like Alaska would.

codc10 wrote:

727200 wrote:

No, this is how co operates. UA didn't order piecemeal, instead they made large order announcements.

UA makes orders for airplanes it can finance, to operate where it has the demand. This is in contrast to massive, costly orders which end up as albatrosses when the economy turns south and the company doesn't have enough profitable flying to deploy them and generate a ROI.

Gigantic 747/777 orders in the 90s (and the accompanying boatload of debt) were just one of a number of factors which directly led to the company's bankruptcy in 2002, wiping out tens of thousands of retirements, career prospects and billions in shareholder value. Only now is the company finally recovering.

Fortunately, this is a much more responsibly-run airline today.

DL757NYC wrote:

Isn’t the 789 a little too much airplane for a 767 replacement.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Any chance United can sell their a350 delivery slots to other airlines? Or lease them out?

Bald1983 wrote:

EChid wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

United has orders of large numbers of planes. Most are from Boeing. Your comment "the same damn plane across their whole fleet" says it all. Your issue is not economics but ascetics. You want to see different aircraft. UAL had 161 737 Max s on order with seven delivered. This was a top off order and UAL still has 14 787-10 to be delivered and 12 787-9's. They are buying those planes because they need those planes. Although not followed as much today, it does cost more to operate multiple aircraft that do the same mission as each other. Manufactures do get played but it does not mean that airlines keep a few examples of every aircraft.

Nah, I have no issues with airlines operating the same airplane across their entire fleet. Those airlines are almost always the most profitable in the world, it's an excellent formula. But it's usually not a formula compatible with longhaul or non-LCC flying. I understand perfectly that UA still places large orders, and needs specific planes - the Dreamliner has been an excellent product for them and they clearly have additional need. Great. But I'm not sure why you're saying that UA shouldn't therefore buy another plane from another manufacturer - especially when that plane fulfills a different role. There is tremendous value in encouraging both major manufacturers to work hard for their sales, and that's how you do it. The only way of encouraging true competition though is by actually being willing to accept the best product/offer, no matter which company it comes from. That might mean an 80% Boeing / 20% Airbus fleet, but that's okay, since the airline already has to operate a wide variety of plane types and therefore doesn't suffer as much by adding another type as a company like Alaska would.

United does not restrict with whom who they speak. What they will not do or any successful airline is to buy planes from a manufacturer simply to have a variety and keep the producers happy. You encourage the aircraft manufacturers to compete by allowing them to pitch their product and choosing what is best for your company. Almost all airlines do precisely that. For some Boeing products are a better fit, for some Airbus, for others, mixed. Your whole point starts off on a false premise that most major airlines will only speak with one provider. That is false, except for airlines that only need one type of aircraft, which you admit tend to be very successful operations.

jayunited wrote:

EChid wrote:

I didn't infer that UA intended to replace 744s with Dreamliners, I meant that they identified that they had a higher need for 77Ws ASAP to replace the 744s and so chose to receive a plane type they could use more quickly while losing some of the type they were to receive later (i.e., now). According to one press release I found, some of their 78J order was therefore converted over to the 77Ws, since the delivery of the 78Js was still a fair way off and they could get some good deals on the 77Ws. When I said that UA got 'tired' of the waiting, I'm just referring to the immediacy of the 77W deliveries vs. the A350s/78Js AND all of the previous early challenges that Boeing had with delivering the other 787 types on time, even though I think that delivery timelines for the 78Js have been fine. As for the A350, the issue seems that this deal for the 77Ws clearly diminished the immediacy of the need for the A359/Js, which is presumably why we're seeing delays etc. and things are being questioned. I assume that the need still exists, and that we'll see them eventually, but that is TBD.

A UA A380 would have been interesting.

Think back on the entire event UA originally was supposed to start taking delivery of A359's in 2016 but when the order was changed to the A35J the delivery dates were pushed back to Q3 2018. I wonder when it became clear UA wanted to retire the 744's earlier than expected if Airbus would have offered the A359 as a stop gap just until the A35J arrival with guaranteed delivery dates to begin in Q4 2016 I wonder if UA would have gone for that. Instead Airbus wanted to get at least one of the US3 to order their A380 and when that failed Boeing jumped all over the opportunity. Think about it UA in 2015 converted 10 78J's to 77W's fast forward to today and although UA hasn't topped off the 78J order we have order 13 additional 789's. Which for the entire 787 order and fleet means UA now has a surplus of 3 extra frames on order today v.s. 2015 and also in a few weeks will have a total of 18 77W's in the fleet which were not on the order books at the beginning of 2015.
Once UA's plans for the 744 fleet became clear if Boeing was the architect of whats taken place so far it was a very smart move. They haven't lost any orders, in fact quite the opposite has happened and United couldn't be happier. While Airbus technically hasn't lost any UA orders either its not looking good for them. I really feel if Airbus wants to get new (not used) new aircraft into the United's fleet their sales team is going to have to get creative. I just don't see Boeing taking a back seat and allowing United to take delivery of the A359 with taking some type of counter measures. I think Boeing even now is thinking of ways to keep new Airbus aircraft especially the A359 out of United's fleet and Airbus needs to be doing the same and somehow make the A359 more appealing to UA.

kitplane01 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

727200 wrote:

No, this is how co operates. UA didn't order piecemeal, instead they made large order announcements.

UA makes orders for airplanes it can finance, to operate where it has the demand. This is in contrast to massive, costly orders which end up as albatrosses when the economy turns south and the company doesn't have enough profitable flying to deploy them and generate a ROI.

Gigantic 747/777 orders in the 90s (and the accompanying boatload of debt) were just one of a number of factors which directly led to the company's bankruptcy in 2002, wiping out tens of thousands of retirements, career prospects and billions in shareholder value. Only now is the company finally recovering.

Fortunately, this is a much more responsibly-run airline today.

All of the arguments for small, bite sized orders make sense. But I was under the impression that larger orders got a larger discount. I wonder how much more UA had to pay to order in smaller increments.

kitplane01 wrote:

All of the arguments for small, bite sized orders make sense. But I was under the impression that larger orders got a larger discount. I wonder how much more UA had to pay to order in smaller increments.

jayunited wrote:

EChid wrote:

Actually, one source I've found seems to indicate they were converted to a mix of 739s and MAXs.

The 77Ws (at least some of them) got converted from the 78J order apparently, possibly because UA got tired of waiting for their Dreamliners and realized they could get a sweet deal on the 777s and get them delivered quickly OR because they just need the extra lift. Ack, this story his hard to track.

UA never intended to replace the entire 744 fleet with Dreamliners, originally UA wanted to replace the 744 fleet with A359s which was then changed to the A35J after the merger because A359 wasn't large enough to meet UA's needs especially out of SFO. On a side note how could UA get tired of waiting for an aircraft that didn't exist in 2015? The 78J which had officially been launch wasn't expected to be in service until 2018. The reason why UA order the original 10 77W's then topped off the order later was because UA wanted to accelerate the retirement of the 744 fleet. I believe (and I could be wrong) but I think Airbus tried again to get UA to take a hard look at the A380 and Boeing originally offer up the 748-i. Once current management made it clear they were not interested in 4 engine aircraft Airbus at that point had nothing to offer except the A35J, which UA couldn't get its hands on until late Q3 2018. This left the door wide open for Boeing and the 77W. Not only did Boeing supposedly offer UA an unbelievable deal but UA would have the the 77W in the fleet by the Q4 2016. I distinctly remember people asking how Boeing was able to guarantee UA a delivery slot so quickly in Q4 2016 when UA order the 77W in Q2 2015.
Boeing saw an opportunity to get the 77W in our fleet and took it in an effort to close the deal and perhaps block Airbus's A35J which we were supposed to start taking delivery of this year late 3rd quarter. United current management team got what they wanted the accelerated retirement of the 744 fleet. Boeing got what they wanted another 77W operator which extended the production line. So far it seem as though Boeing and United won and and which these additional orders for a total of 13 more 789 frames it seem as though Boeing isn't letting up while Airbus is sitting on the sidelines waiting for 2022 to arrive.

If I'm Airbus I would be desperately looking for any opening to get my A359 into UA's fleet as early as possible and stop these incremental Dreamliner orders.

VC10er wrote:

How many years (in general) will the Polaris refurbished 772’s last until they “must” be replaced? I have to assume plenty of years because those entirely refurbished ac’s must have cost a fortune in CapEx and the UA will need the ROI on them.
Unless (and I’m way outside my depth here) the new seats on the renovated 772’s can be moved to the A350?
It seems like from my novice POV, if the hands of time could be swept WAY back, today’s UA management would have preferred to have a large flexible fleet of 788, 789 & 78J and then move to 77X.

EChid wrote:

Keep in mind that the 77X is larger than their current 777s, so if UA went with them they would be committing to a sizeable increase in seats at a time when most airlines are choosing to limit seat growth.

snuggs28 wrote:

A couple of things that a lot of you have gotten slightly to all wrong.

The 789 is partially replacement and growth aircraft. The last 9 orders are actual 763 replacements. The 91 to 93 763 builds are getting long in the tooth and are close to their lifetime end. A couple of them are already over the 110 thousand hour mark. Hence the reason those airplanes will not be getting Prem Plus added. And the reason why we bought the 3 Ex Hawaiian birds.

The A350-9 to -1000 to -9 orders is a little bit more involved. One the A350-1000 and the 77W are basically the same aircraft. Once we went with the 77W. It made no sense to have 2 different type aircraft do the same flying. Costs are a factor here. While the A359's are basically the same as a 772. This order is a direct replacement for the 772's.

The reason why the A350 orders are still on the books. The Rolls Royce Engine contract. We have to pay them regardless if we cancel the order or not. This is all do the original order placed by Sub UA Mgmt prior to the UA/CO Merger. No one then had the foresight to see what would happen. It's basically a poison pill contract.

EChid wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

EChid wrote:

Nah, I have no issues with airlines operating the same airplane across their entire fleet. Those airlines are almost always the most profitable in the world, it's an excellent formula. But it's usually not a formula compatible with longhaul or non-LCC flying. I understand perfectly that UA still places large orders, and needs specific planes - the Dreamliner has been an excellent product for them and they clearly have additional need. Great. But I'm not sure why you're saying that UA shouldn't therefore buy another plane from another manufacturer - especially when that plane fulfills a different role. There is tremendous value in encouraging both major manufacturers to work hard for their sales, and that's how you do it. The only way of encouraging true competition though is by actually being willing to accept the best product/offer, no matter which company it comes from. That might mean an 80% Boeing / 20% Airbus fleet, but that's okay, since the airline already has to operate a wide variety of plane types and therefore doesn't suffer as much by adding another type as a company like Alaska would.

United does not restrict with whom who they speak. What they will not do or any successful airline is to buy planes from a manufacturer simply to have a variety and keep the producers happy. You encourage the aircraft manufacturers to compete by allowing them to pitch their product and choosing what is best for your company. Almost all airlines do precisely that. For some Boeing products are a better fit, for some Airbus, for others, mixed. Your whole point starts off on a false premise that most major airlines will only speak with one provider. That is false, except for airlines that only need one type of aircraft, which you admit tend to be very successful operations.

Who are you speaking to here? Because your point is almost exactly the point I was making in the posts you quoted...

Bald1983 wrote:

EChid wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

United does not restrict with whom who they speak. What they will not do or any successful airline is to buy planes from a manufacturer simply to have a variety and keep the producers happy. You encourage the aircraft manufacturers to compete by allowing them to pitch their product and choosing what is best for your company. Almost all airlines do precisely that. For some Boeing products are a better fit, for some Airbus, for others, mixed. Your whole point starts off on a false premise that most major airlines will only speak with one provider. That is false, except for airlines that only need one type of aircraft, which you admit tend to be very successful operations.

Who are you speaking to here? Because your point is almost exactly the point I was making in the posts you quoted...

NO, you were lamenting that airlines often seem to focus on one manufacturer and they should order from multiple. My point is that airlines, for the most part, focus on obtaining the best deals to get the planes that they need. Generally, having multiple types to do the same mission is not cost effective.

CassidysVacay wrote:

I'll be there to capture all the CHS built frames!

SQ789 wrote:

Will the new 787-9 order could cancel their A350 order soon?

Aic97 wrote:

What routes will the 787's be used on?

EChid wrote:

Bald1983 wrote:

EChid wrote:

Who are you speaking to here? Because your point is almost exactly the point I was making in the posts you quoted...

NO, you were lamenting that airlines often seem to focus on one manufacturer and they should order from multiple. My point is that airlines, for the most part, focus on obtaining the best deals to get the planes that they need. Generally, having multiple types to do the same mission is not cost effective.

Read again. I wasn't lamenting any single approach, but saying that each approach had value depending on the type of airline. WN wouldn't work like it does without their approach, just as UA would not be the airline they are without multiple plane types and a willingness to accept types from more than one manufacturer (even if they end up choosing one more often based on price, shared efficiencies between models, etc.). I was responding, originally, to someone who seemed overly tied to the idea of UA being an all-Boeing airline. My point is and was that, unless there is financial gain for them, there is no point in UA focussing on being an all-Boeing company. That concept, alone, is not reason for UA to not take the A350. There has be a financial purpose behind it.

CONTACREW wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if we cancel the A350 orders and just go with all Boeing for the international fleet. It would surprise me if we do take delivery of the A350s.

iahcsr wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if we cancel the A350 orders and just go with all Boeing for the international fleet. It would surprise me if we do take delivery of the A350s.

Anyone know what the penalty costs will be if that’s the ultimate decision?

EChid wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

It wouldn't surprise me if we cancel the A350 orders and just go with all Boeing for the international fleet. It would surprise me if we do take delivery of the A350s.

Anyone know what the penalty costs will be if that’s the ultimate decision?

Well, as was mentioned, they'd have to deal with the massive cancellation costs of the contract with Rolls-Royce and, as someone else mentioned, usually the cost of cancelling a purchase contract increases when it's renegotiated (which it has been once already with Airbus) so - high, since the cancellation would be for two separate agreements. I'm not sure anybody but those party to the actual contracts would know the dollar value, but I could be wrong..