Quite frankly, I’m really confused how this is only happening now, as this seems like the obvious choice…
In this post:
United Airlines focuses on larger Dreamliner variant
United Airlines currently has an all-Boeing wide body fleet, including 767s, 777s, and 787s. The 767s and 777s will be retired eventually — 767s will likely leave the fleet before the 777s, which will definitely be around for a decade plus. But when it comes to fleet renewal, the airline is entirely reliant on 787s.
United flies all three variants of the 787 Dreamliner, and currently has 80 of them. As it stands, the Star Alliance carrier has 12 787-8s, 47 787-9s, and 21 787-10s. United has 141 787s on order, and up until now, they’ve all been for the 787-9 variant.
I’ve found that to be really odd — while the 787-9 is the best of those planes for ultra long haul economics, the 787-10 has amazing unit costs, and can cover United’s entire network to Europe and South America, and even many parts of North Asia.
That brings us to the latest update, as reported by The Air Current. United has just converted 56 of its 787-9 orders into 787-10s, and those deliveries are supposed to start as of 2028. With that update:
- United now has 85 787-9s on order, which means the airline will eventually have 132 of these in its fleet, including the 47 existing planes
- United now has 56 787-10s on order, which means the airline will eventually have 77 of these in its fleet, including the 21 existing planes
Will there be more to United’s long haul fleet renewal?
The 787-9 is an incredible aircraft for United’s ultra long haul network, as the airline operates (by far) the most ultra long haul flights of any US carrier. So there’s no denying that United needs a sizable fleet of those planes. However, there’s simply no reason to not focus on the 787-10 for the rest of the network, including for Europe and South America.
The incremental operating costs of the 787-10 over the 787-9 are minimal, while the capacity boost is significant. Even if United doesn’t necessarily want planes to be much higher capacity in terms of passenger count, these planes can just be configured in a premium layout, with a lot of business class and premium economy seats, since that’s all the rage nowadays (like United is doing with its new 787-9s, which have just 222 seats).
I wouldn’t be surprised if these 787-10s eventually replace the 767s that United currently flies to European destinations like Frankfurt (FRA) and London (LHR), since they seem good for those kinds of missions.
I think the big mystery remains whether United has other plans for its long haul fleet renewal, beyond the 787. In other words, will United order the Boeing 777X or Airbus A350 at some point?
- The Boeing 777X seems unlikely, as it’s just “too much plane” for a US airline, at least based on their current strategies of having so many hubs
- The Airbus A350 wouldn’t be surprising at some point, especially a plane like the Airbus A350-1000, given its great economics and range
Bottom line
United Airlines has just converted 56 Boeing Dreamliner orders from the 787-9 to the 787-10. The airline had 141 787-9s on order, with (up until now) no plans to acquire 787-10s beyond the current 21 that are in the fleet. It makes perfect sense for United to focus more on the 787-10, given its extra capacity and great per-seat economics.
The 787-10 doesn’t have the range of the 787-9, but it’s sufficient for Europe, South America, and North Asia, which covers much of United’s network.
What do you make of United’s Dreamliner order update?
The bottom line is folks …. as Boeing has failed time and time again to deliver upon their order book, will Ben’s son ever see UA (or anyone else), receive any or all of their Boeing orders?
This is a non-story.
UA always had the flexibility within their 150 787 orders to switch between variants for deliveries outside of 18 months or so. And I doubt UA ordered 150 aircraft without ordering engines. They likely have an option to switch given certain parameters, but why would they not stick with GENx engines unless RR offers some unbelievable deal that also resolves the A359 engine dispute.
The real story here is how...
This is a non-story.
UA always had the flexibility within their 150 787 orders to switch between variants for deliveries outside of 18 months or so. And I doubt UA ordered 150 aircraft without ordering engines. They likely have an option to switch given certain parameters, but why would they not stick with GENx engines unless RR offers some unbelievable deal that also resolves the A359 engine dispute.
The real story here is how UA and Kirby nailed it making massive orders for 150 787s and over 500 narrow body aircraft during Covid at advantageous terms that puts them in the front of a huge order backlog (5 years). Advantage United.
so are you saying that Jon Ostrower doesn't know what he is talking about?
He is far more credible than the other Jon.
Jon O says that UA has the opportunity to choose engine orders on the 787s due for delivery beyond 2028.
UA could very well order Rolls Royce engines as Rolls tries to get back into the 787 engine game, a business it has badly blundered as a result of the very poor...
so are you saying that Jon Ostrower doesn't know what he is talking about?
He is far more credible than the other Jon.
Jon O says that UA has the opportunity to choose engine orders on the 787s due for delivery beyond 2028.
UA could very well order Rolls Royce engines as Rolls tries to get back into the 787 engine game, a business it has badly blundered as a result of the very poor T1000 rollout.
UA could also extinguish the A350 order.
and, no, Kirby didn't gain any advantage over any other competitor in massive orders for 787s or MAXs. He cashed in a bunch of customer compensation for previously delayed 787s and MAXs.
and UA is simply not going to be able to grow at the pace you want and perhaps UA execs hoped because they have no choice but to start retiring their Pratt powered 777 fleet because there simply are not enough parts to support that engine. UA is yet one more engine failure - of which there have been multiple over the years - away from losing use of the entire fleet, as happened after the UA DEN engine failure.
UA's advantage WAS in the years post covid because it chose not to retire older aircraft. They now have the liability of a much older widebody fleet than AA or DL; airplanes simply don't last forever and maintenance gets even more expensive with age and, as is the case with the Pratt 4000 engines and the IAE engines on the 319/320CEOs, there simply aren't parts to support them.
Let's see what UA does but I will strongly bet that they will start drawing down their 50 strong PW 777 fleet in the next few years which will slow their growth and then they will have to retire their 767-300s also because of age followed by their 764s. UA will have far less growth capacity than you think.
Ostrower is merely quoting the UA spokesperson. The rest of your post is more of your tired tirade. Your MRO nonsense proves you simply aren't credible.
All-Boeing wide-body fleet, yet an A350 “looms”? Is that just speculation, or literal order? I mean, glad to see them go with a321neos, but wasn’t aware of anything else. Would love to see it, and a220s, too, ideally.
UA has an order for 45 A359s of which they have repeatedly postponed deliveries that are now schedule for 2030 at the earliest. They can also change those to A35Xs. In fact the order has switched back and forth between those variants.
Thank you, rebel. Good to have those orders in their back pocket.
I don't see UA ordering anytime soon the A350's their 777-300 ER fleet still young.
Yeah, if Boeing could ever actually get 777X into service, I’d’ve expected UA to order those, if they need capacity.
They already have an order for A359s.
glad you covered this, Ben.
First, UA is clearly realizing that gauge is more important than range for the vast majority of its network. The 787-10 even with its current lower takeoff weights does fly the Pacific for UA.
the irony is that UA is upgauging on the upper end of its widebodies while also dying to take delivery of A321XLRs. Given that the XLR has poor takeoff performance, there is no route operationally...
glad you covered this, Ben.
First, UA is clearly realizing that gauge is more important than range for the vast majority of its network. The 787-10 even with its current lower takeoff weights does fly the Pacific for UA.
the irony is that UA is upgauging on the upper end of its widebodies while also dying to take delivery of A321XLRs. Given that the XLR has poor takeoff performance, there is no route operationally that an XLR can do but a widebody cannot. All a competitor has to do is plop a widebody on an XLR route and UA - or AA - which will also use low capacity "premium configured" XLRs will be finished on that route.
second, UA specifically noted that it is considering Rolls Royce or GE engines on the latest set of orders. UA has already said that Airbus will let them out of the A350 order by converting to other Airbus products such as the A320NEO family. But Rolls only makes widebody engines so UA has to either pay the penalty to Rolls or buy engines from them. The Trent 1000 on the 787 has had a whole lot of problems but Rolls has invested alot to get that engine working again; it is just a no bleed version of what is on the 330NEO.
Rolls will deal to win the business and will be happy to write off the A350 order in the process. Winning a key customer for the Trent 1000 is far more valuable than having UA stand in line for a decade for A350s.
There is a very good chance the A350 is no longer an option at UA and they will have Rolls engines on some of their 787s. And the 787 was built to be able to change engine types on in-service aircraft, unlike any other commercial aircraft.
third, UA realizes that it will play second fiddle to DL and its A350s on ultra long haul flights including over the Pacific and to S. Asia. UA has to keep taking seats off of its 787s - even with higher takeoff weights - in order to approach - let alone match - the range of the A350. There is a very low marginal benefit to add the A350 just to chase that extra 100 seats on 17+ hour flights that UA can't carry compared to the cost of a new fleet type.
UA jumped on the 787 and it makes the most sense for UA to maximize the 787 family more than to chase the A350.
In contrast, DL chose the A350 first and it has chosen to become the most capable and efficient long and ultra long haul aircraft. DL is ordering the 787 with GE engines as much to gain the GEnx overhaul deal which will add billions in profit and $1 billion plus in profits via Delta Tech Ops.
As DL has demonstrated w/ other fleets, complexity works to DL's advantage because of its ability to make money fixing other airlines' engines. DL is the only US airline and one of only a couple of MROs worldwide that has the exclusive authorization to overhaul every in-service new generation western built commercial aircraft engine - which means UA and a whole lot of other US airlines will be directly or indirectly sending their engines and profits to DL
lmao i was literally typing "I cant wait for Tim to tell us how the A350 is amazing when DL has it but shitty when UA gets it" but i deleted because I thought nah he won't go that far.
you are truly beyond parody officially
In don’t understand why you’re surprised. He can’t help himself. It’s beyond medical intervention by now.
Tim, I’m still surprised Delta came back to Boeing for the 787 orders, even with all the issues over there (was it political pressure, tariffs, after all?); like, a35K should’ve covered nearly all the long-haul, wide-body needs for it (or any) legacy carrier offering intercontinental commercial air travel in the next few decades.
the 787 was always designed to be a great aircraft. It, like a lot of Boeing products was just poorly executed for about 20 years.
Boeing is delivering good quality 787s now and is increasing production.
and, as I have stated, DL's biggest reason for getting the 787 is to get the GE engine contract. The GEnx is already the most sold widebody engine in history and will only grow. DL could have...
the 787 was always designed to be a great aircraft. It, like a lot of Boeing products was just poorly executed for about 20 years.
Boeing is delivering good quality 787s now and is increasing production.
and, as I have stated, DL's biggest reason for getting the 787 is to get the GE engine contract. The GEnx is already the most sold widebody engine in history and will only grow. DL could have passed on the MAX but the LEAP engine on the MAX and as an option on the 320NEO family is the most sold new generation narrowbody engine. The same is true for the GEnx.
DL's first generation of aircraft engines got them engine maintenance rights on all new generation Rolls Royce widebody engines as well as the Pratt Geared Turbofan.
This cycle of aircraft orders gives DL MRO rights on GE's engines which are the best selling overall including on both widebody and narrowbody aircraft.
DL's overhaul revenue will soar as it takes even more share of the overhaul revenue on new generation engines.
The 787-10 is an incredible CASM machine and more than capable for what DL (and UA and AA) needs for the Atlantic and S. America). Unlike AA and UA which will send their engines to GE or an authorized repair facility - of which DL is the only airline facility in the Americas, that revenue and profits will go into DL's pockets.
There’s a whole lot of conjecture here like:
1) DL is going to expand its MRO business to $1B in profits today (that is the goal but they have never done this yet) - will they get enough order volume from into carriers and competitors given the HCOL in the U.S.? I have doubts
Ironically enough for all of TD’s talk about DL expansion, all the 787 order shows is that:
UA (and even AA)...
There’s a whole lot of conjecture here like:
1) DL is going to expand its MRO business to $1B in profits today (that is the goal but they have never done this yet) - will they get enough order volume from into carriers and competitors given the HCOL in the U.S.? I have doubts
Ironically enough for all of TD’s talk about DL expansion, all the 787 order shows is that:
UA (and even AA) intl growth is going to significantly outpace DL until 2030
DL only has 4 A350-900 (2026) and 20 A350-1000s (starting in 2027) that will be delivered by 2030. The B787-10s will not start arriving until 2031.
However, DL is also retiring its 29-year old B767-300 fleet by 2030 (37 planes). That alone accounts for just as many seats (~8k) and more frequencies than DL is adding on wide bodies until 2030.
Further, by the time it’s 2031 and DL starts getting B787-10s, DL’s B767-400 fleet (20 planes) will be an average of 30 years old. Those retirements will also start very soon.
In comparison, United has a ton of retirements with its over 50 B767-300s, B767-400’s, and B777-200’s, but it also is receiving 30 B787-9s in this order by 2027 and another 50 B787-9/10s by 2031 as part of a top off. That’s in addition to 50 A321XLRs that will predominantly be used for expansion.
Even AA will not retire any planes and is adding 50 XLRs (2 have arrived; ~15-20 will be used for domestic so ~30 for intl) and another 19 B789-Ps by 2030. JonNYC is rumoring another AA wide body order.
DL has a dearth of wide body deliveries between 2029-2031, and given fewer planes, there will be a net loss in frequencies. There will be no gaining in long-haul market share vs UA and AA.
That is nothing to say about profitability though Wall Street expects both UA and AA to have larger earnings improvements in 2026 than DL, but it is ironic and funny to see given how confident you’ve been that DL is going to bridge the intl gap. It’s actually going to grow with AA catching up to DL until 2031 - DL will add a few sexy ultra long-haul routes, but there will be a ton of cuts in the background like in 2026 such as JFK-LGW, JFK-BRU, JFK-GVA, 3-4 frequencies each on JFK-FCO, JFK-BCN, ATL-EDI and ATL-FCO, etc.
jeremy.
as usual, you and others of the UA fan club reject the facts that you don't want to believe are true and make up your own if the actual facts don't fit your narrative.
DL has said that the MRO engine business will deliver $5 billion in revenue and $1 billion in profits. that estimate is now further to the right due to supply chain issues but it will happen.
UA is one...
jeremy.
as usual, you and others of the UA fan club reject the facts that you don't want to believe are true and make up your own if the actual facts don't fit your narrative.
DL has said that the MRO engine business will deliver $5 billion in revenue and $1 billion in profits. that estimate is now further to the right due to supply chain issues but it will happen.
UA is one Pratt 777 disaster away from being without 50+ widebodies. I'd love to see them tempt fate but I think their management is smart enough to start retiring those planes which means UA's growth will be cut.
UA still trails DL in 2025 by $2.7 billion going into 4th quarter and full year earnings. It is an even bigger hill to climb for AA.
You and rebel love to talk about rates of change until someone accurately points out to you that UA has been saying for a decade that they were going to catch up to DL - and yet they simply have not.
As for growth, DL managed to add the 2nd most capacity in the 3rd quarter behind only UA. The difference is that DL didn't trash its revenue performance in every global region and lose money flying to Latin America, as it has now done every year post covid.
the sooner you and rebel and the rest of you UA cubicle dwellers learn to accept reality as it exists - not what you want - and realize what matters in the airline industry which is not incessant growth, the faster this place will get real boring real fast.
LOL you can't even use the correct earnings figures for DL - you're using the figure that accounts for ~$1.2B in investment gains to buoy DL's numbers. There is no $2.7B earnings gap like-for-like between DL and UA.
Also nothing to mention on the basic math that DL is going to lag AA and UA's intl growth until 2030?
Wall Street's EPS projections as of today:
UA: $10.49 (2025) & $13.07 (2026)
DL: $7.19...
LOL you can't even use the correct earnings figures for DL - you're using the figure that accounts for ~$1.2B in investment gains to buoy DL's numbers. There is no $2.7B earnings gap like-for-like between DL and UA.
Also nothing to mention on the basic math that DL is going to lag AA and UA's intl growth until 2030?
Wall Street's EPS projections as of today:
UA: $10.49 (2025) & $13.07 (2026)
DL: $7.19 (2025) & $8.20 (2026)
AS: $2.14 (2025) & $5.57 (2026)
AA: $0.56 (2025) & $1.96 (2026)
WN: $0.98 (2025) & $3.22 (2026)
Adjusted for the current # of shares:
DL (~653M shares): ~$4.70B -> ~$5.35B (+$0.65B)
UA (~324M shares): ~$3.40B -> ~$4.25B (+$0.85B)
WN (~517M shares): ~$0.55B -> $1.65B (+$1.10B)
AA (~660M shares): ~$0.35B -> ~$1.30B (+$0.95B)
AS (~116M shares): ~$0.25B -> $0.65B (+$0.40B)
DL continues to be #1, but the gap continues to shrink.
Not to mention way to have a short memory - DL trashed its own yields on Pacific by over 5% overall in FY25 trying to up-gauge and add capacity. UA was the only one that added significant capacity to LATAM and saw significant yield deterioration as a result - DL held its yields and capacity flat in the region. In TATL, DL saw yield improvement in Q1 and Q4, but yields were hit in Q2...
Not to mention way to have a short memory - DL trashed its own yields on Pacific by over 5% overall in FY25 trying to up-gauge and add capacity. UA was the only one that added significant capacity to LATAM and saw significant yield deterioration as a result - DL held its yields and capacity flat in the region. In TATL, DL saw yield improvement in Q1 and Q4, but yields were hit in Q2 and especially Q3
So, no this idea that DL is smartly restraining capacity for yields doesn't hold - where DL is trying to grow capacity significantly (Pacific), they are seeing big yield hits which also goes against what you've claimed that DL will easily and successfully grow the Pacific:
Q1 2025 yield YoY change:
LATAM: flat
Pacific: -7%
Q2 2025 yield YoY change:
LATAM: flat
TATL: -2%
Pacific: -6%
Q3 2025 yield YoY change:
LATAM: +1%
TATL: -5%
Pacific: -6%
Q4 2025 yield YoY change:
TATL: +2%
LATAM: flat
Pacific: -1%
@Tim. "third, UA realizes that it will play second fiddle to DL and its A350s on ultra long haul flights including over the Pacific and to S. Asia. UA has to keep taking seats off of its 787s - even with higher takeoff weights - in order to approach - let alone match - the range of the A350."
And yet, UA is flying ULH flights with the current fleet today, whereas DL is still...
@Tim. "third, UA realizes that it will play second fiddle to DL and its A350s on ultra long haul flights including over the Pacific and to S. Asia. UA has to keep taking seats off of its 787s - even with higher takeoff weights - in order to approach - let alone match - the range of the A350."
And yet, UA is flying ULH flights with the current fleet today, whereas DL is still in the dugout. Not sure how the A350 is going to make UA second fiddle when UA already dominates the Pacific and can operate all major business centers nonstop from LAX/SFO, with the fleet they have on property today (allowing for exceptions from the East Coast given the Russia overly exceptions).
" All a competitor has to do is plop a widebody on an XLR route and UA - or AA - which will also use low capacity "premium configured" XLRs will be finished on that route."
Airlines have been flying narrow body airplanes TATL for nearly 30 years (not including the 707/DC-8s of yesteryear). There hasn't been one example that I can think of that an airline was driven off a route because they flew a 757 and the competition flew a widebody. The XLRs are to be used for secondary and tertiary markets, and supplemental frequencies to larger hub markets. UA is not going to suddenly replace the 767s to LHR with XLRs. Plus it's already happening today with IB/EI/SK/TP/BO/AA/AC/UA.