United Boosts Boeing 787-10 Order, Converts 787-9: An Obvious Upgauge

and yet, you still can't grasp that the number of routes that are 15 hours or longer has nothing to do with the discussion.

The amount of payload those aircraft can carry at those lengths does matter.

The A350 in both versions is more capable of carrying more payload further. That is just a fact.

UA is pulling seats off of its 787s and blocking seats on existing flights to get that range.

and the A350-1000 even in DL"s low density rumored configuration will seat 75-100 more passengers than UA's low density 787 configurations.

UA went with the 787 and they will pay the price in the ability to carry the same payload that DL can carry on either version of the latest 350s on the longest flight.
but because you incessantly need to argue, you are incapable of admitting what everyone else knows which is that the A350 is a more capable ultra long range aircraft.

jeremy,
thanks for proving EXACTLY my point. UA is NOT closing the profit gap with DL in 2025, your own copied guidance says they won't in 2026 and there is no guidance for 2027 or beyond from any US airline.

And UA's guidance does not include increased labor costs for an FA and mechanic settlement which UA execs say is coming.

You make up the facts you want, reject the facts you don't like and then wonder why you and your ilk are so easy to pick off.

Talk about your preference for UA's wine menu but stay away from facts because it is obvious you are incapable of accurately handling them which is why I have such a field day taking you apart.

and you realize that DL's profits including on its smaller international network far exceed UA's?
DL has the cash to add what it wants on top of what is clearly working better than UA - but you all have proven while hiding under your cubicles that you can't admit that UA really is second fiddle to DL in the metrics that really matter and you love to talk about.

you are free to argue all you want, and I am sure you will.

DL didn't buy the A350 for range. It had the 777LR. It retired the LR during covid because they could see that Airbus was adding more and more range to the A350 and the LR was simply not necessary.

AA and UA went with the 787 which was never designed to be an ULH aircraft; Boeing had the 777LR and even the 777-300ER to do that.

payload and range are related and you know it.

You can load up any airframe w/ fuel but have such a low payload that it is not economically viable. Airbus and Boeing both proclaim the best range while also talking all their planes can carry and yet, surely, you realize both things are not true at the same time.

Boeing has been able to stretch the range of the 787 and will do it with the new MTOW versions.
But the A350 was always designed to be larger and more capable across the product range than the B787.
That is why Boeing has now launched the 777X but Boeing isn't even saying it will have a plane that will match the A350-1000s range until the 777-8 comes out.

There is a very small incremental benefit for UA to get a plane comparable in size to the A350-1000 at a range beyond what the 777-300ER can do now or for that extra range the 787-9 can do but with far fewer seats.

No, UA's 787s will not destroy DL's A350s in CASM. If you actually thought instead of dreaming about DL losing to UA you would see why your argument is so wrong.

UA might have spent a lot of time building their TPAC network after DL CHOSE TO no longer be the largest but the evidence overwhelmingly shows that DL is more profitable per seat mile than UA over the Pacific -but that is a completely different argument than UA vs. DL's fleet and whether UA will take the A350.

The A350-1000 will simply be the largest and longest range widebody in the US carrier fleet and DL will have an advantage UNLESS UA chooses to order it - but I believe the benefit from it is not worth it for the relatively small benefit that UA can get compared to the rest of its Boeing widebody fleet.

As hard as it is for you to admit, DL might have a better TPAC fleet strategy which will give it advantages that UA cannot or will choose not to try to match.

thank you for proving that you would rather argue instead of read and THAT is why you don't understand what has happened.

DL did NOT buy the A350 because it was the highest range aircraft; it didn't need the A350 for range. It wanted a new generation carbon fiber aircraft and the A350 was and still is that.
DL had the 777LR for range but it was an expensive plane to operate and DL had a pretty small fleet of them.

Airbus has steadily improved the performance and range of the A350, first the -900 which DL first ordered and then the -1000 which DL now is waiting to be delivered.

The A350 was ALWAYS intended to be a larger aircraft than the 787; Airbus has come after Boeing with a new product - the A350 was developed after the 787 - and built a larger and more capable model.

Even though DL did not buy the A350 for range, Airbus has delivered more and more of it and DL got rid of the LRs and also has taken delivery of the most capable -900s and ordered the -1000s because those two models are larger and more capable than the 777LRs.

and both A350 models are BOTH larger and longer range than the 787-9 which Boeing did not intend to be their best large, long-range aircraft. They had the 777LR at one time but it did not sell well because of costs while the 787 has sold very well but is not as large at anywhere close to the range the LR had.
Boeing has come out with the 777X but the -9 uses larger size to reduce costs because the 777X is heavier per seat because it still has a mostly metal fuselage even though it has a carbon fiber wing.
The 777-9 doesn't have the range of either A350 model. the 777-8 will have the range but is well down the road.

Yes, it is possible that UA could choose to go with the 777X - which does have some commonality with the 777s UA already has - but unless UA goes with either the 777-8 or the A350-1000, DL will have an advantage in range and capability that UA does not have.

I am not a betting man but I would be more likely to bet that UA will take 777Xs including 777-8 which might not be available until the early 2030s rather than take the A350.
and if the cost to get rid of the Airbus obligation from the A350 is to put Rolls Royce engines on some UA 787s, UA will do it if they believe -and Rolls Royce convinces them that the Trent 1000 is now a competent enough engine.

credibility involves being able to accurately present facts and not your ability or inability to understand them.

DL will have an advantage over UA because of the A350; you can argue all you want that will not be true but it is already true by the fact that DL already generates higher profits per ASM than UA.

You can say that is because of the airplane or you can just admit that DL does a better job of generating revenue and controlling costs.

Your choice as to the reason you want to use - but arguing that DL doesn't have a profit advantage is simply factually not possible.

and I have no idea what UA or PR makes on its MNL flights which is why I wouldn't make that statement.

We do know what DL and UA make across the Pacific which is why it is very possible to accurately note the TPAC comparisons between DL and UA.

It is not my job to make you believe the truth.
You are simply the person that argues with me so I can present the truth to those that are interested in the truth.

first, I strongly commend your civil but still passionate defense of your position. I can debate and discuss anything w/ anyone as long as they are civil - and we don't need to come to agreement to treat each other well. I commend you.

DL ALREADY has a CASM advantage over UA across the Pacific - you can do the math from published DOT data. DL's CASM advantage RIGHT NOW is because DL flies a higher percentage of new generation aircraft than UA across the Pacific; in fact, DL's TPAC fleet is almost entirely 359s. Newer aircraft burn less fuel and have less maintenance.

UA simply does not have a stage length twice of DL's across the Pacific. DL flies far more of its TPAC capacity from the Eastern US than the west coast. UA does not fly that much more deeper into SE Asia that offsets DL's greater presence from Eastern Europe to E. Asia.

your discussion about RASM is fine but you fail to note that CASM DOES NOT drop as fast as RASM on long to ULH flights. That is the reason why widebodies were invented in the first place. Larger airplanes have lower CASM than smaller aircraft and the CASM advantage is more necessary the longer the flight goes.

And as much as you want to argue otherwise, UA is taking seats off of the 787-9 for its newest most premium configuration in order to fill the planes that are on the plane, something it cannot consistently do on its longest routes with the 265 seat versions.

DL's A359s w/ 275 seats and UA's 789s w/ 265 seats have very similar CASM. The 359 is heavier and burns more fuel but 10 more passengers and more cargo capacity is enough to pay that extra cost.
the 35K will seat somewhere around 315 passengers (DL hasn't confirmed the configuration) which will be about 90 more passengers than UA's 225 seat 789s.
the CASM simply will be much higher for UA's 789s... pilot costs and fuel burn don't go down as you take seats off of the 265 seat configuration. And UA does not make up for it with higher RASM. Average fare data shows that DL gets slightly higher average fares on a stage length adjusted basis over the Pacific than UA at slightly lower costs.

That will skew even more in DL's favor as the 35Ks are added - DL's largest plane over the Pacific since the 744s - and as UA adds more 225 seat 789s.

the facts, not general guesses, do not support your position.

Larger airplanes become more valuable the longer a route becomes.

But answer simply the number of carriers that use airplanes with 225 or fewer seats on routes longer than 16 hours - other than on airlines that already have lower seats/aircraft such as the Japanese carriers.
There is a good reason why airlines use larger aircraft on the longest flights and that is to get the CASM down faster than the decrease in RASM.

thanks for the civil conversation but the bottom line is that UA will not be competitive flying 225 seat 787s on routes that other airlines including DL are using 300 plus seat aircraft - which the 787 cannot do