United orders A350s ?????

[JF Mezei]

Saw this news title and it caught my eye:

##
United Airlines Selects Rolls-Royce Trent XWB Engines to Power New Fleet
in $2 Billion Deal
##


Since the "XWB" is associated with the Airbus 350, I looked into the
article and it appears that United has ordered 25 A350s to be delivered
2016-2019. (with rights for 50 additional aircraft).


So, how long ago did UA order 350s ? I must have been asleep that day.
Always thought UA would be a Boeing type. The timing of UA's order would
be interesting because it could just be a protest order because of the
787 delays.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Ok, I wasn't asleep. This is all happening today !


United orders 25 787s, and 25 350s.

50 options on both. So potential total of 75 787 and 75 350s.

United says that when the planes start to be delivered, it will reture
its international 747s and 767s.

(I assume that what it meant was that deliveries of 787/350s will free
up some 777s to replace the 747s). Those 747s will be pretty old by then.

UA says that compared to the 747/767, it will save 33% on carbon
emissions, maintenance costs will be reduced by 40% compared to the
older aircraft. Overall, the smaller planes represent 19% reduction in
seat capacity.

It is interesting that United would split the order. I guess the lack of
a 787-900 is probably the selling point for the 350.


The Rolls engine order could be announced today since it is the sole
supplier for the 350. United hasn't decided if it will go Rolls or GE
for the 787s.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

The plot thickens:

In a UA press release, at the bottom, there is a Question/answers section:

##
Q5: What are the benefits of placing orders with both manufacturers?

A5: Ordering aircraft from both Airbus and Boeing provides United
greater financial benefits compared to choosing a single manufacturer.
Neither manufacturer offers next generation aircraft sized to optimally
serve all of the current and future markets in United's network. The
mix of Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 aircraft give us the right range of
aircraft sizes needed to replace both our Boeing 747 and 767 aircraft.
The economic benefit of placing the right size aircraft into each market
overwhelms any benefit from ordering from one manufacturer.


Furthermore, our international fleet replacement program will reduce our
fleet complexity, and associated operating costs, by eliminating one
fleet type as we transition from three widebody aircraft types (Boeing
747, 777, and 767) to two (Airbus A350 and Boeing 787).
##


The last paragraph is interesting. This means that UA is phasing out the
777.


Another article mentioned that UA got the financing from the aircraft
manufacturers. Perhaps neither manufacturer was able to finance 50
aircraft, so their split the order half/half so that both Boeing and
Airbus would have small enough orders that they could finance.


BTW, UA's last aircraft order was in 1998.


I wonder if this opens the door for UA to order some 380s and 747-8 in
the coming years, a small number to cover specific high capacity routes.
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The plot thickens.
Furthermore, our international fleet replacement program will reduce our
fleet complexity, and associated operating costs, by eliminating one
fleet type as we transition from three widebody aircraft types (Boeing
747, 777, and 767) to two (Airbus A350 and Boeing 787).
##
The last paragraph is interesting. This means that UA is phasing out the
777.

Good catch. NPR nor FlightGlobal didn't report that, yet it's
plainly there in the Q/A section of the PR.

In fact, UAL is going with the A350-900s, as without the
second level, UAL's B744s seat config holds 310 seats in economy. In a
3 abreast config, UAL will get exactly that in the A359. By comparison,
their B772s only seat 248.

I wonder if this opens the door for UA to order some 380s and 747-8 in
the coming years, a small number to cover specific high capacity routes.

I doubt it, though I wouldn't be surprised if they went with an
A380 or two. My initial concern with the order was how many seats they
were giving up with the B744s (B762s/B763s are an even push with the
B787). The 19% seating they'd lose is obviously from the B744, meaning
they'd have to make an extra run on each route they have the B744 on to
make up for the seats they'd lose. Would that have been worth the fuel?

Also, the A350 and 787 open up more nonstop destinations and
therefore the extra capacity won't be needed to the "hub" in NRT or
Focus City in HKG. For example, the 787 opens up the possibility to
return SFO-TPE to nonstop and make the route viable, thus that's fewer
pax that need to fly SFO-NRT.

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLHx8ayBkZmuMZ8L8RApkfAJ9oUeyzvDkj2E4sd02vBEus37qG2ACgoJO/
HpPGQb0afmnnIvdhrYWGBxc=
=4+Rj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
In fact, UAL is going with the A350-900s, as without the
second level, UAL's B744s seat config holds 310 seats in economy. In a
3 abreast config, UAL will get exactly that in the A359. By comparison,
their B772s only seat 248.

What the press release didn't mention is how many aircraft the new order
will replace.

Will there be a 1 for 1 replacement of aircraft, or will they add 50 and
remove 45, or add 50 and remove 55.

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
B787). The 19% seating they'd lose is obviously from the B744, meaning
they'd have to make an extra run on each route they have the B744 on to
make up for the seats they'd lose. Would that have been worth the fuel?

Or perhaps United has shrunk to a point where its passenger numbers no
longer warrant 747s and it really won't need to add frequencies to those
routes.

Also, while it is easy to look at one airline, one must not forget
liberalisation of slies. If you are the only airline flying a route, it
is easy to fill a 747. But as more and more airlines fly a route, the
market becomes fragmented and you won't be able to fill 747s anymore.

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Also, the A350 and 787 open up more nonstop destinations and
therefore the extra capacity won't be needed to the "hub" in NRT or
Focus City in HKG.

In real life, is that really going to be the case ? Doesn't UA have some
777s with half decent range ? And lets not kid ourselves, we don't
really know what the true range/capacity will be for the 787 and
especially the 350. The 340-500 showed great promise before it was built.


Also, and more importantly, is this the beginning of the end for the 777 ?

Once Boeing gets the 787-900 going, will the 777 still have any
advantages ? Is the 777's fuselage wider enough to give it an advantage
for cargo ?
(eg: support for large containser/pallets) or is the different small
enough that it gives no added advantage over a 787 fuselage ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[John Levine]

Post by JF Mezei
Or perhaps United has shrunk to a point where its passenger numbers
no longer warrant 747s and it really won't need to add frequencies to
those routes.

Aren't the routes from the US to Australia limited due to curfews? I'd
think they'd want to keep a few 747's or 777's for routes like that,
since the 787 and 350 are both considerably smaller.

R's,
John
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[Miles Bader]

Post by John Levine

Post by JF Mezei
Or perhaps United has shrunk to a point where its passenger numbers
no longer warrant 747s and it really won't need to add frequencies to
those routes.

Aren't the routes from the US to Australia limited due to curfews? I'd
think they'd want to keep a few 747's or 777's for routes like that,
since the 787 and 350 are both considerably smaller.

Certainly it seems to depend strongly on the particular route, time of
year, etc etc -- internal U.S. routes probably want a smaller plane, but
747s and 777s seem very popular on cross-pacific routes, and doubtless
some even call for the 380.

I'd think that an airline would ideally want a mixture of all different
sizes, but I suppose they can't really afford what they want...

-Miles

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by John Levine

Post by JF Mezei
Or perhaps United has shrunk to a point where its passenger numbers
no longer warrant 747s and it really won't need to add frequencies to
those routes.

Aren't the routes from the US to Australia limited due to curfews? I'd
think they'd want to keep a few 747's or 777's for routes like that,
since the 787 and 350 are both considerably smaller.

Not too sure. Their B744s and B772s (they don't use the -ER nor
- -LR variant) seat 374 and 348 respectively, so they'd lose 24 seats on
the B744 and gain 2 seats from the B772. If in their old configuration,
the B744 would seat 348. As far as the B787, it's unknown for the
seats.

Range, however, both the B787-8 and A350 beat the B767 and
B744s they would be replacing. The B787-8's lowest maximum range is
roughly 400nm more than the B744's max. range. Both the A350 and B787
would top out at 8100nm. The B772's max range is 5235nm, which both
easily beat.

You're right on the curfews. They'd only have a limited window
to arrive in for the flights to Oz. I don't know if that would exist in
SGN, or TPE. Also, they could drop the frequency of those routes and
use those when they start their Bahrain service...

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLIJMmyBkZmuMZ8L8RAk96AJ0SWXWYq5fShfUlAjShTWmSSzxnnwCglqid
cSbjJwcNAwK1Z7Tkfkh4V4s=
=guXv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[JF Mezei]

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Not too sure. Their B744s and B772s (they don't use the -ER nor
- -LR variant) seat 374 and 348 respectively, so they'd lose 24 seats on
the B744 and gain 2 seats from the B772.

Wouldn't the math be different if they had 777-300s ?

It is interesting that it appears to be easy to dismiss 24 extra seats
in a plane when talking about a "legacy" 747, but when the time comes to
compare the 787 with the various versions of the 350, when it was
revealed that most 787 customers intended to use 9 abreast seating (an
extra 20 or so seats), it forced Airbus back to thr drawing board with
yet another version of the 350 to increase capacity of the 350.

IF you can fill the plane, those extra 24 passengers on a 747 will be
quite profitable. As will the extra cargo.



Yet, this order is interesting as it starts to ask questions about the
future of the 777. UA could have ordered modern 777s with long range and
the -300 with extra capacity. It didn't.

Was this because the 777 is a dead-end product ? Or was it simply
because Boeing was more keen to discount the 787 to make up for all the
cancellations due to delays, and Airbus despoerate to get more customers
on the 350 which is still vapourware.

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Range, however, both the B787-8 and A350 beat the B767 and
B744s they would be replacing.

There is no denying that the 787 will beat the 767 for range. However,
Airbus' record on range/capacity isn't good enough for anyone to bet on
the true range of the 350 with a half decent load on it. Do I need to
say "340-500" ????

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
The B772's max range is 5235nm, which both
easily beat.

UA has the problem that it got only early models of the 777, and by the
time better/bigger 777s were around, UA was in bankrupcy quagmire.
Remember that this is UA's first order since 1998.

Consider Air Canada that recently converted from 340 to 777s. It got
models with range to do Vancouver-Sydney non-stop.

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
You're right on the curfews. They'd only have a limited window
to arrive in for the flights to Oz.

Is UA competitive on the SYD-LAX market ? Are its 747s outfitted with
modern services/amenities ? Or are they old-tired and causing passengers
to move to Qantas with its brand spanking new 380s with all the bells
and whistles ?

IF this is the case, than UA may be seeing market share erosion and its
reaction might be to give up and downscale the metal. But if they get
new planes with upgraded amenities etc, wouldn't they be able to gain
back market share ? Or has the loss of Ansett permanently reduced demand
because UA doesn't have a domestic AU feed ?
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.

[A Guy Called Tyketto]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Post by JF Mezei

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
Not too sure. Their B744s and B772s (they don't use the -ER nor
- -LR variant) seat 374 and 348 respectively, so they'd lose 24 seats on
the B744 and gain 2 seats from the B772.

Wouldn't the math be different if they had 777-300s ?

In a 3-class configuration, yes, but not much. 365 in a 3-class
config, so they'd lose 55 seats, plus still be down nearly 200nm for
range. Only one type of engine for the B773ER, as well. Not sure how
fuel consumption is between the 3 types of engines that would be used.

Post by JF Mezei
It is interesting that it appears to be easy to dismiss 24 extra seats
in a plane when talking about a "legacy" 747, but when the time comes to
compare the 787 with the various versions of the 350, when it was
revealed that most 787 customers intended to use 9 abreast seating (an
extra 20 or so seats), it forced Airbus back to thr drawing board with
yet another version of the 350 to increase capacity of the 350.

I think what they were doing was planning for one aircraft to
compete on multiple fronts. The A350-800 would compete with the B787-8
and B767, the A350-900 would compete with the B747 and B777, while the
A350-1000 would be the replacement for the A340. Each one would call
for different seating configurations, even though it would be the same
body and style of aircraft, compared to 3 - 4 different aircraft.

Post by JF Mezei
IF you can fill the plane, those extra 24 passengers on a 747 will be
quite profitable. As will the extra cargo.
Yet, this order is interesting as it starts to ask questions about the
future of the 777. UA could have ordered modern 777s with long range and
the -300 with extra capacity. It didn't.
Was this because the 777 is a dead-end product ? Or was it simply
because Boeing was more keen to discount the 787 to make up for all the
cancellations due to delays, and Airbus despoerate to get more customers
on the 350 which is still vapourware.

I think it is because they could reach further destinations
with less fuel consumption and nonstop compared to the B777. The -300ER
has the longest range out of them all, with 7930nm. The A350-900 nets
you 8100nm at maximum range, while the -1000 nets 8200nm maximum range.
The B777 can't really compete with that, unless every model was the
- -300ER.

Also, seeing the no-show by Boeing at the Farnsborough and
Dubai airshows, Airbus scored some serious deals with the A350. I think
it's safe to say, especially with the UAL deal, that this is no longer
vapourware.

Post by JF Mezei
There is no denying that the 787 will beat the 767 for range. However,
Airbus' record on range/capacity isn't good enough for anyone to bet on
the true range of the 350 with a half decent load on it. Do I need to
say "340-500" ????

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
The B772's max range is 5235nm, which both
easily beat.

UA has the problem that it got only early models of the 777, and by the
time better/bigger 777s were around, UA was in bankrupcy quagmire.
Remember that this is UA's first order since 1998.

True.. but also with that in mind, by the time UAL gets these,
their B772s will be roughly 20 years old. How old are their B744s and
B767s?

Post by JF Mezei
Consider Air Canada that recently converted from 340 to 777s. It got
models with range to do Vancouver-Sydney non-stop.

Those were the -300ERs, IIRC.

Post by JF Mezei

Post by A Guy Called Tyketto
You're right on the curfews. They'd only have a limited window
to arrive in for the flights to Oz.

Is UA competitive on the SYD-LAX market ? Are its 747s outfitted with
modern services/amenities ? Or are they old-tired and causing passengers
to move to Qantas with its brand spanking new 380s with all the bells
and whistles ?

Good question. But they have more than just QFA to deal with.
DAL, ANZ, and VAU are also on that run, with all but QFA using B777s.
OpenSkies has really torn into their comfort zone on this route.
However, with DAL and VAU going into a codeshare agreement, that would
cause prices to go up a bit, because 2 airlines wouldn't be competing
against eachother anymore.

Post by JF Mezei
IF this is the case, than UA may be seeing market share erosion and its
reaction might be to give up and downscale the metal. But if they get
new planes with upgraded amenities etc, wouldn't they be able to gain
back market share ? Or has the loss of Ansett permanently reduced demand
because UA doesn't have a domestic AU feed ?

I don't believe they would give up the route, as that would
leave DAL and HAL as the only mainline US carriers with service to
Australia (with COA going to Cairns through Continental Micronesia).
Plus outside of ANZ, there wouldn't be a Star Alliance presence there
either (since Ansett folded). Skyteam and OneWorld would still be there
(though once again, Continental Micronesia has that small presence in
Cairns, and they went Star Alliance with COA. HAL has service via HNL,
but they aren't really interlined with anyone).

BL.
- --
Brad Littlejohn | Email: ***@sbcglobal.net
Unix Systems Administrator, | ***@ozemail.com.au
Web + NewsMaster, BOFH.. Smeghead! :) | http://www.wizard.com/~tyketto
PGP: 1024D/E319F0BF 6980 AAD6 7329 E9E6 D569 F620 C819 199A E319 F0BF

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFLIMMhyBkZmuMZ8L8RAkmIAKDkJnbCF/Z0T/w18+cNqZh2VqwsxACg5x2S
cUjHukKbtPxK/OE/e1wHb/w=
=gX33
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
misc.travel.air-industry is a moderated newsgroup. Please mail messages to
***@airinfo.aero, and see http://mtai.airinfo.aero for the FAQ and policies.