United Airlines has just firmed up orders for 110 new aircraft, including both Boeing wide body jets and Airbus narrow body jets. In reality the airline is just firming up orders that were previous options, so let’s go over the details. With this new order, United plans to take delivery of a total of around 800 new jets over the next decade, between 2023 and 2032.
In this post:
United orders 50 Boeing 787-9s
United Airlines has converted previous options and purchase rights into firm orders for 50 Boeing 787-9s for deliveries between 2028 and 2031. The company has also secured purchase rights for an additional 50 Boeing 787 aircraft.
In late 2022, United placed an order for up to 200 Boeing 787s, which was the largest wide body aircraft order by any US airline in history. This included 100 firm orders and 100 options. So 50 of those options are being exercised with this announcement, though United is also adding an additional 50 options with this announcement.
United currently has a fleet of around 70 Boeing 787s, including the -8, -9, and -10 variant. Prior to the order in late 2022, United was more or less at the end of its 787 deliveries. With the order in late 2022 plus this order, United now has firm orders for roughly 150 additional aircraft.
The plan is for these Boeing 787s to mostly replace both 767s and 777s. All 767s will be retired as of 2030. While United isn’t close to retiring its entire 777 fleet, some of these jets are now a couple of decades old, so do need to eventually be refreshed.
United orders 60 Airbus A321neos
United Airlines has converted previous options and purchase rights into firm orders for 60 Airbus A321neos for deliveries between 2028 and 2030. The company has also secured purchase rights for an additional 60 Airbus A321neo aircraft.
With this latest order, United now has a total of 130 Airbus A321neos on order, and the first jet is expected to join United’s fleet in the near future. Along with the Boeing 737 MAX, these planes will become the future of United’s narrow body fleet. United has also ordered 50 Airbus A321XLRs, which is the longest range version of the A321.
United is betting a lot more on Boeing than Airbus narrow body jets, as the airline already has roughly 130 737 MAXs in its fleet, with orders for over 400 more. All of these planes will eventually replace previous generation Airbus A320-family and Boeing 737 aircraft.
Bottom line
United Airlines has placed firm orders for 110 additional jets, including 50 Boeing 787-9s and 60 Airbus A321neos. United is exercising previous options, and you can expect most of these planes to be delivered in the late 2020s.
The wide body aircraft order in particular seems necessary, given United’s impressive long haul network. Up until less than a year ago, United barely had any more wide body aircraft on order, despite having an aging fleet. Suffice it to say that a firm order for 150 Boeing 787s in less than a year does the trick.
What do you make of United’s latest Airbus and Boeing aircraft order?
good
Tim Dunn sounds like he was behind the “Fund the Future” part of the Go Forward Plan for Continental in 1994. That explains his fascination with airline profits AND his hate for United.
uh, no.
CO also was a niche player that built a niche for itself but also delivered profits.
As hard as it is for you to understand, UA is currently underperforming AA and DL on profits and yet is spending far more.
I would be convinced of the brilliance of UA's plan if they delivered industry-leading profits or told investors how they will overtake AA and DL. But Scott Kirby came to UA promising...
uh, no.
CO also was a niche player that built a niche for itself but also delivered profits.
As hard as it is for you to understand, UA is currently underperforming AA and DL on profits and yet is spending far more.
I would be convinced of the brilliance of UA's plan if they delivered industry-leading profits or told investors how they will overtake AA and DL. But Scott Kirby came to UA promising to match DL's profits, never succeeded and gave up on that claim, pivoting just to the size argument.
Problem is that size means nothing about sustainability in a highly competitive industry.
IT is SO CLEAR you have NO IDEA what you are talking about lol! The worst analysis literally EVER haha and NO ONE on Wall Street agrees with you. The profit margins are meaningless, and every single research analyst has picked Delta and United as Buy or outperform, while not a single one has ever picked AA as a forward looking investment due to its balance sheet, limited network internationally, and capital expenditure liabilities.
...IT is SO CLEAR you have NO IDEA what you are talking about lol! The worst analysis literally EVER haha and NO ONE on Wall Street agrees with you. The profit margins are meaningless, and every single research analyst has picked Delta and United as Buy or outperform, while not a single one has ever picked AA as a forward looking investment due to its balance sheet, limited network internationally, and capital expenditure liabilities.
You also don't understand operations or the route network decision matrix. The 787 covers literally 99% or the realistic routes that are of financial interest to United such as SFO to Auckland and does it with a lower MTOW, thus saving money on operating costs. No one that understands aviation cares if the plane can fly further if the destination is within reach at a lower weight and fuel cost, which the 787 provides...
Please stop wasting everyone's time and go get an education on aviation before babbling on any further about an industry that you do not know anything about.
Breaking News: UA fires Scott Kirby & hires Tim Dunn because he’s never wrong. His intellectual superiority of airline management is out of this world. He will immediately cancel all 150 787 orders, and order Airbus A350-1000’s instead because that’s what Delta would do. UA would rebrand to Epsilon since it’s the closest letter in the Greek alphabet to Delta. Stay tuned as we continue coverage on this breaking story.
since you mentioned it, it is notable that UA will be at a significant disadvantage in the very and ultra long haul market by having to compete with the 787-9 up against other airlines - not just DL - which will use larger aircraft, including at least for now, the A350-900 which is larger and currently longer range.
Of course UA has its 777-300ERs but they burn 25% more fuel. I'm sure every airline...
since you mentioned it, it is notable that UA will be at a significant disadvantage in the very and ultra long haul market by having to compete with the 787-9 up against other airlines - not just DL - which will use larger aircraft, including at least for now, the A350-900 which is larger and currently longer range.
Of course UA has its 777-300ERs but they burn 25% more fuel. I'm sure every airline loves the idea of competing with UA on ultra long haul flying against either the costly 777-300ER or the fairly small 787-9 where labor costs are spread over a relatively few number of passengers.
On the part that Ben brings up about UA's labor costs, paying pilots premium rates to the global industry, even if they are similar to AA and DL's, and then using them on 265 aircraft, is the disadvantage for UA.
You really are in need of mental help.
UA also has the 787-10, allowing UA to match the plane to appropriate mission.
UA has a decade of numbers and performance to make a decision, but yes I’m sure you know better, about everything, always.
the 787-9 can't fly anywhere near as far as the 787-9 or either version of the A350. both of which are new generation, ultra long haul capable aircraft, or even the 777-300ER which has more range than the 787-10 but much worse economics.
The 787-10 has outstanding economics for the routes it can't fly but, for an airline that prides itself on its size across the Pacific, it is notable that they do not...
the 787-9 can't fly anywhere near as far as the 787-9 or either version of the A350. both of which are new generation, ultra long haul capable aircraft, or even the 777-300ER which has more range than the 787-10 but much worse economics.
The 787-10 has outstanding economics for the routes it can't fly but, for an airline that prides itself on its size across the Pacific, it is notable that they do not have a new generation ULH capable aircraft larger than 265 seats.
noting those realities requires a great deal of mental acuity despite what some want to believe.
“the 787-9 can’t fly anywhere near as far as the 787-9…”. “The 787-10 has outstanding economics for the routes it can’t fly…”. Have you checked your “mental acuity” lately?
FIFY
“the 787-10 can’t fly anywhere near as far as the 787-9…”. “The 787-10 has outstanding economics for the routes it can’t fly…”. Have you checked your “mental acuity” lately?
I was quoting what you wrote. What are you quoting?
A350 likely to be cancelled now. Expected. No big deal at all. Lots of A350 orders coming for much better airlines.
I'm pretty sure United knows far more about its financial strengths and weaknesses than Tim Dunn does. It has real data - not DOT data
of course.
All of the DOT data is fake.
United runs a great business and it's all top secret.
Seriously, son.
United has long had an ego a mile wide.
How long did service to all 50 states last? UA sure touted that accomplishment - which did absolutely nothing.
Did or did not UA restructure on the longest and most costly bankruptcy in US airline history?
no, ghost, United does...
of course.
All of the DOT data is fake.
United runs a great business and it's all top secret.
Seriously, son.
United has long had an ego a mile wide.
How long did service to all 50 states last? UA sure touted that accomplishment - which did absolutely nothing.
Did or did not UA restructure on the longest and most costly bankruptcy in US airline history?
no, ghost, United does not have access to private information that shows how great they run their business and we are all mistaken.
United Airlines has long been driven by ego and Scott Kirby has been the perfect person to lead them.
You and others just can't accept that a business can't spend more than others, get less revenue, and remain financially viable.
Pan Am, Eastern, TWA and Braniff all had access to secret financial information that showed how great they were running their businesses too, right?
Using an example of UA flying from 40 years ago to prove your point? When no more recent data is available, your point is inaccurate.
How strange to bring up decades old bankruptcies of a completely different United Airlines.
Did you forget your precious delta and NW were in chapter 11 after United?
so tell us when do bankruptcies and previous business strategies no longer make sense? like one year less than when it includes United, but not Delta?
how about you and others explain with numbers (I know I'm asking alot) how UAL will spend much more than other airlines, make less than them, and not significantly increase its debt, and thus further lower their profits?
THAT is the issue that is on the table which you seem incapable or unwilling to discuss.
You’re asking how a fleet renewal plan or growth plan for the biggest international airline in the US with the best international hubs makes sense?
United has plenty of old planes they can retire if the economy goes south.
The real question you hate answering is how a fleet growth plan is perfect when delta does it but not anyone else.
swing and a miss.
No one said fleet replacement and growth is bad.
You can't explain how one airline can spend 3X more doing it, think they will end up with better opportunities than their competitors, and not end up in worse financial shape, which will impact customers and employees as well as stockholders.
And you can’t say how it’s bad either. Because neither of us know United’s long term analysis or the cost for these planes for United.
You’re speculating and calling it fact.
Don’t confuse speculation with your usual dogma
Between the generous pilot contract, debt service, and cost for the new planes, I wonder how much money will be left to reinvest into the other aspects of the business (IT, clubs, wifi...)
Tim Dunn is a False Prophet! #Deltageddon
Is United planning to replace the 767's with A321XLRs for Transatlantic flights such as IAD-LHR? That would suck...
The 321XLRs will be used on tertiary TATL and Deep South America routes, where the 787 is too much plane. EDI, SNN, OPO, KEF, PMI, and so forth. UA removed many 757s off TATL routes and replaced them with 763s, except for LHR/GVA/ZRH, which got the high-density premium outfitted 76s. LHR routes will probably gravitate to all 787 eventually, when the 76s are gone or well on their way out.
To South America, the 321XLR will be used on routes like EWR-LIM, etc...
As long as they don't miniturize the seats and give passengers room to breathe!
How Tim Dunn read this headline:
"Tim Dunn Didn't Order 50 Boeing 787-9s, 60 Airbus A321neos"
Below is his counter to the nefarious Ben, who's just baiting him with these posts.
Scott Kirby is spending money like a drunken sailor.
UAL had $30 BILLION MORE debt than DAL, the US airline with the next largest order book.
Ben has voiced concern about soaring labor costs - but all airlines are increasing labor costs - or losing pilots.
But not all airlines are placing orders as large as UAL. Either UAL will use large portions of this order book for fleet replacement - and end up w/...
Scott Kirby is spending money like a drunken sailor.
UAL had $30 BILLION MORE debt than DAL, the US airline with the next largest order book.
Ben has voiced concern about soaring labor costs - but all airlines are increasing labor costs - or losing pilots.
But not all airlines are placing orders as large as UAL. Either UAL will use large portions of this order book for fleet replacement - and end up w/ much larger debt service than any other airline - or UAL will use large amounts of its revenue for growth which will be very costly.
UAL simply cannot sustain the level of spending when it makes LESS money than other airlines.
As much as UAL wants to talk otherwise, we are still in a huge demand surge which WILL slow down.
United has given American and Delta and Southwest clear financial guidance on what they can spend for fleet replacement and growth - and then they can come in and undercut those UAL costs.
Timmy Translation: United overpaid for these planes and are dummies. Delta super smarty pants and will come after and buy same planes for less monies. Delta Good. United BAD.
thank you for letting me live rent free in your head. You clearly are the one that has issues.
And the REAL issue is that UA simply cannot be in anywhere near the same financial condition as other airlines when UA makes less money than other airlines right now, is spending more on airplanes, pays the same price for labor but more for fuel, and has more debt than some of its competitors.
Scott Kirby...
thank you for letting me live rent free in your head. You clearly are the one that has issues.
And the REAL issue is that UA simply cannot be in anywhere near the same financial condition as other airlines when UA makes less money than other airlines right now, is spending more on airplanes, pays the same price for labor but more for fuel, and has more debt than some of its competitors.
Scott Kirby clearly falsely believes that he can 1. buy so many airplanes that no one else can expand 2. he can get into markets that will stop other carriers 3. that UA can be less profitable than everyone else but keep growing.
It all sounds very much like Pan Am. You remember that airline that had grandiose dreams of flying to every corner of the world?
It also sounds like United of the late 1990s but ended up in the most expensive and lengthy bankruptcy in airline industry history.
Scott Kirby was at America West and USAirways through 2 bankruptcies and then expanded AA's route system while its losses soared. It isn't a coincidence that AA's losses have dropped considerably in the international arena since Scott Kirby and Doug Parker left.
you really need mental help.
I always laugh when you bring up SEC filings (EBITDA per seat mile) on a miles and points website. The airline industry on a whole is a historically awful investment. Just let me know how it looks compared to a simple S&P500 index fund. Really not sure why you continue to try and bring this up every single post.
The general public does not care what that the Q1 filing is or about the...
I always laugh when you bring up SEC filings (EBITDA per seat mile) on a miles and points website. The airline industry on a whole is a historically awful investment. Just let me know how it looks compared to a simple S&P500 index fund. Really not sure why you continue to try and bring this up every single post.
The general public does not care what that the Q1 filing is or about the cash flow burn through 2030. They care about getting to the destination alive, at a decent price, and reasonably comfortable.
Do you review the recent profits of Coca Cola, Pepsi, and Dr. Pepper prior to making every purchase?
Sincerely,
A delta diamond of 7 years.
I absolutely do know the financial quality of the companies with which I do business.
And it is honestly astounding that you and others don't get that the financial strength of a company DOES impact the quality of service they can offer.
You do know how bad Pan Am and Eastern and TWA's service fell in their final years?
You do realize how bad United service was in the multiple years they were...
I absolutely do know the financial quality of the companies with which I do business.
And it is honestly astounding that you and others don't get that the financial strength of a company DOES impact the quality of service they can offer.
You do know how bad Pan Am and Eastern and TWA's service fell in their final years?
You do realize how bad United service was in the multiple years they were in bankruptcy?
You do realize how much American's service has suffered because of high debt levels that is a fraction of what UAL's will be?
United is a business. I hope I am not breaking any news to you. If they run their business less well than other airlines, they simply have to cut somewhere. You let us know where that will be if you don't think it will be their service.
So emirates has a far inferior first class product compared to delta because they earn less profit?
Is that how this works Timmy?
I don’t doubt you re Kirby.
But long-term maintenance and fuel v capitalized debt?
It’s a long-term solution.
you need only look at income statements, Leigh.
it is absolutely true that replacing older aircraft w/ new aircraft save on operating costs - maintenance and fuel - at the expense of debt.
The problem is not that UA is buying airplanes to replace older ones and grow. All airlines do that.
The problem is that UA is buying so many MORE airplanes than every other airline and saying it will grow but...
you need only look at income statements, Leigh.
it is absolutely true that replacing older aircraft w/ new aircraft save on operating costs - maintenance and fuel - at the expense of debt.
The problem is not that UA is buying airplanes to replace older ones and grow. All airlines do that.
The problem is that UA is buying so many MORE airplanes than every other airline and saying it will grow but will do all of that growth at much higher costs, including more debt payments, because UA simply cannot take on that many new aircraft without taking on debt.
AA and DL ARE growing. They just are buying far fewer aircraft and paying down debt.
We have American as a great example of what happens when you spend more money on airplanes than you can pay for in cash. Not surprisingly, that plan came heavily under Scott Kirby. AAL is currently the most indebted US airline and wasn't able to compete because its interest expenses were so much higher than other airlines - and that was all in a lower interest rate environment.
and let's not forget that all of this growth has to be put into airports. UAL hasn't even begun to tell us the cost of building new terminals or how their hubs are going to handle all of these new airplanes - if they can at all. Remember that EWR is now smaller than it has been in years because the FAA finally said UA's aggressive hub building is not sustainable. UA and WN are aggressively building DEN and DEN had on-time as bad as EWR earlier this summer. There simply is not the airspace or terminal capacity to massively grow as UA has to do with this many new airplanes.
UA and Scott Kirby have always been driven by egos. So were Pan Am. UA also has a history of falling faster and harder than anyone else in bankruptcy. Not sure why some people think this time will be any different.
I’ve met with the Big 3 network planners.
Not for me to say much…
But UA a bit fickle (to my shock, even trash talked one of their hubs)
DL much more conservative.
AA the most conservative, as their focus is domestic at DFW and CLT to bracket ATL.
@Leigh
Stereotyping in 2023 are we?
Have you met with all 3 of the network planners? Probably not...so why you made the comment is absurd. It's not stereotyping when it's the fact.
I otherwise actually find you knowledgeable...
Which hub did UA network planner trash talk? IAD?
Ben, why is there what looks like a German flag on the fin of that United plane?
@ Jerry Wheen -- Hah, good question. United hasn't yet taken delivery of its first A321neo, so it's still a test aircraft in Germany (hence it's flying with a German flag, until United takes delivery of it).
It is most interesting that United (and for matter American and Delta) have not opted for any of the next generation 777 aircraft (whenever they REALLY are deliverable).
Even the 787-10 does not have the capacity as well as the range of the 777-300ER, much less the next generation 777s.
I suspect United is counting on more flights with non-massive widebody aircraft, let's say three SFOFRA daily with 787-9 as opposed to two SFOFRA with a 777-300ER.
Is the order for a350-900 still on the books at United? This order for 787's is practically identical to that order.
Where is United going to get pilots for those a350?
The A350 order is likely being whittled away through the A321 orders.
The Reuters artical quoted United CCO saying "there's no change to the A350 order".
United said the plans for those A350s are to replace the 777-200ER at the end of the decade which still make sense even in today's context. The 787-10 are similar in size to the 777-200ER but doesn't fly as far and the 787-9 does fly further than the 777s but is much smaller. The A350-900 seats about the same as...
The Reuters artical quoted United CCO saying "there's no change to the A350 order".
United said the plans for those A350s are to replace the 777-200ER at the end of the decade which still make sense even in today's context. The 787-10 are similar in size to the 777-200ER but doesn't fly as far and the 787-9 does fly further than the 777s but is much smaller. The A350-900 seats about the same as the 777-200ER and have better range so it's a logical replacement. The 777-8X is more similar to the 777-200ER and the A350 but United doesn't have an order in the book and deliveries doesn't start until 2025/2026 which is a problem if United wanted to retire those 777-200ER ontime.
The A350 order may not materialize given UA's large numbers of 787 ordered. They may be delaying the decision as they weight the reach of the A350 for ULH flying.
For a person who don't normally track orders, is it normal to exercise options less than a year after a firm order?
Just wondering how UA justifies an extra 50, which is also half of 787 order in less than a year.
Why not 150 firm order last year? Or they are just making a bet base off 2023 summer?
United has a huge fleet of rapidly aging jets (757s, 763s, 764s, and 777-200s) that altogether number 175-200 frames. They will need to be replaced. The 767-300ER fleet is around 30 years old, on balance. The 764s were built in 1999-2001, and UA was the launch customer for the 777, and most of its 777-200s were built in the 1990s. The CO 777-200s were built from 1997 to 2002. Further, UA's A319/A320 fleet date mostly...
United has a huge fleet of rapidly aging jets (757s, 763s, 764s, and 777-200s) that altogether number 175-200 frames. They will need to be replaced. The 767-300ER fleet is around 30 years old, on balance. The 764s were built in 1999-2001, and UA was the launch customer for the 777, and most of its 777-200s were built in the 1990s. The CO 777-200s were built from 1997 to 2002. Further, UA's A319/A320 fleet date mostly back to a 1992 order, save for a couple of dozen frames acquired second hand in the last decade. UA also has aging 737-700s and 737-800s that need to be replaced. This is a gradual, accelerated re-fleet, not unlike what AA did in 2011 when it ordered 400 planes from Boeing and Airbus.
Eskimo: I would assume it's because they want to lock up the assembly lines for the that time period. They can always defer jets, switch jets, or outright cancel and lose deposits. But they can't "jump the line". Boeing gets to plan ahead and reduce costs by saying that their order book is full through 2032 and that makes investors happy. Now AA or DL or whoever can order more, but they have to wait...
Eskimo: I would assume it's because they want to lock up the assembly lines for the that time period. They can always defer jets, switch jets, or outright cancel and lose deposits. But they can't "jump the line". Boeing gets to plan ahead and reduce costs by saying that their order book is full through 2032 and that makes investors happy. Now AA or DL or whoever can order more, but they have to wait until more slots open up after 2033 (or for an airline with an earlier date to go bankrupt or to be banned like S7 and Aeroflot, Russia). That's why we saw a feeding frenzy when those slots opened up and certain airlines took the ready planes and didn't worry about interiors and painted them.
@shoeguy
@BenjaminGuttery
I don't disagree to any of your points. But what I'm pointing out is at the end of 2022 they already knew all of that.
And it's not that they couldn't pick the available slots back in 2022 either.
The only reason I can think that they want to lock in the production of 50 extra 787s is based on 2023 performance. But does summer 2023 really justifies an extra 50?