Comments on: United Shrinks Again, Orders 787 and A350 Aircraft

By: Dwight Looi

Dwight Looi — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 01:23:06 +0000

Mark wrote:

It seems the A350-900 offers little in terms of capacity and range compared to existing 777-200ERs. The 777-200ER already has a greater range than a 747-400. The A350 will be more fuel efficient, but if UA wants to retire 747s, they can do that today and replace them with 777s.

Not in terms of capacity. But it carries the same number of people with less structural weight, more fuel and with a lower amount of installed thrust. In general, that means it is a more economical performer all round.

B777-200ER
142.9 tons empty
297.5 tons MTOW
188,000 lbs installed thrust
7700 nm
5.86 m cabin width
300~310 seats (3-class; w/9-abreast Economy)
32 LD3 (cargo)

A350-900
115.7 tons empty
268 tons MTOW
168,000 lbs installed thrust
8100 nm
5.59 m cabin width
310~320 seats (3-class; w/9-abreast Economy)
36 LD3 (cargo)

By: David SFeastbay

David SFeastbay — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 00:17:22 +0000

CF wrote:

David SFeastbay wrote: NZ flys nonstop SFO-AKL with 777-200ER but LAX-SYD is a greater distance which might have something to do with it. Yes, and United used to fly LAX to Auckland with a 777. I believe that was the edge of its range. But other airlines may have different capabilities than United.

Totally forgot about DL using 777 for nonstop LAX-SYD but its a 777-200LR so that must be it, UA must only have the 200ER version.

By: CF

CF — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:42:51 +0000

David SFeastbay wrote:

NZ flys nonstop SFO-AKL with 777-200ER but LAX-SYD is a greater distance which might have something to do with it.

Yes, and United used to fly LAX to Auckland with a 777. I believe that was the edge of its range. But other airlines may have different capabilities than United.

By: David SFeastbay

David SFeastbay — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:41:09 +0000

CF wrote:

Mark wrote: The 777-200ER already has a greater range than a 747-400. I don’t believe United’s 777s do have better range the 744s. It might be because of ETOPS requirements, but I believe that’s why we don’t see any of their 777s going to Australia. Any know if I’m right on that?

NZ flys nonstop SFO-AKL with 777-200ER but LAX-SYD is a greater distance which might have something to do with it.

By: CF

CF — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 19:52:09 +0000

Mark wrote:

The 777-200ER already has a greater range than a 747-400.

I don't believe United's 777s do have better range the 744s. It might be because of ETOPS requirements, but I believe that's why we don't see any of their 777s going to Australia. Any know if I'm right on that?

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 18:41:39 +0000

It seems the A350-900 offers little in terms of capacity and range compared to existing 777-200ERs. The 777-200ER already has a greater range than a 747-400. The A350 will be more fuel efficient, but if UA wants to retire 747s, they can do that today and replace them with 777s.

By: Dwight Looi

Dwight Looi — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 18:26:34 +0000

The comparison of the 787 to the A350 is inherently flawed.

The baseline 787-8 is an ~230 seat airplane. The baseline A350, the -900, is an ~310 seat airplane.

Before the stretched and chopped versions come into play, it is easy to see that the 787 is optimized for the 767/A330 market segment. The A350-900 on the other hand is basically a lightened 777-200 (310 seats) with a weight loss and range increase.

The sales numbers are also similarly telling. The 787 snapped up basically all of the 767/A330 orders (840) relegating both the the annals of history. The A350 does not compete in the 210 to 250 seat market at all. That’s all Boeing.

The A350WXB is basically getting 2/3rds of the 777 market share splitting the segment 505 (A350XWB) to 290 (B777) between 2006 & 2009. The new 777 orders are nearly all for the larger 380 seat -300s, Boeing is losing the 310 seat class battle to Airbus.

Yes, there is the 787-9 and A350-800 at 270, and the 340 seat A350-1000 to muddle things at the margins. But, really, Airbus didn’t built a 787 challenger with the A350XWB, they built a 777 killer.

By: TS

TS — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:24:52 +0000

Two things. First, to Dan Hill. The new F&C cabins are a dramatic improvement today in long haul service.

Second, I do think United could make changes to this order down the line to adjust capacity if needed. They could opt for some A350-10s for something a little closer to true 747 replacement. They could also add a VLA later if they felt the market required it. As far as the delivery dates, to some extent these dates are what is available for new aircraft. UA decided not to buy the current gen aircraft like the A330 and 773 so that they could get the next gen.

By: Keith

Keith — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 00:54:46 +0000

Typical United, Egotistical and Arrogant. Buying two types of planes with similar performance, so in 5 years, they play ego Chicago politics and pit A and B in a bidding war with each other, (which IMO will create bad mojo..). UA is becoming less and less the powerful force they once were, but they dont even realize it yet. The brand sucks, they are doing business the way they did in the 80′s and they think it should still work in 2009. I used to work at UA and thank God they laid me off…. Jees, what a toxic culture they have. Good Riddance! Enjoy your imperial airline. Enjoy the ways of Pan Am!

I also dont really buy the the direct replacement bit… The Airline landscape evolves continuously, so what would seem like a good direct replacement for the 767 today, will most likely not be the case 6-7 years from now.

By: David SFeastbay

David SFeastbay — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 21:22:27 +0000

Dan Hill wrote:

United has a miserable long haul product and their solution is new planes; in 7 years! Talk about a sense of urgency in transforming their service.

Maybe it's the thought that counts. It can show employees and investors that they will be around that long to take delivery of the planes. But then again TWA had new Airbuses on long term order and we know what happen there.