We’ve known for quite some time that United Airlines was planning on placing a huge wide body aircraft order. That’s now closer to becoming a reality, and a formal announcement is expected next week.
In this post:
United planning to refresh long haul fleet
Last week The Wall Street Journal reported that United Airlines and Boeing are nearing a deal for a huge 787 Dreamliner order, to be announced before the end of the year. We now have further confirmation of this, as United and Boeing have sent out media invites for an event on Tuesday, December 13, 2022. I don’t think there’s much of a mystery as to what’s being announced here.
In mid-October we learned how United was looking at ordering 100+ jets, and was allegedly trying to decide between the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787. It’s now apparent that Boeing won out in these negotiations.
For context, United Airlines currently has an all-Boeing wide body fleet. The airline flies 767-300ERs, 767-400ERs, 777-200ERs, 777-300ERs, 787-8s, 787-9s, and 787-10s. The 767s are an average of 24 years old, the 777s are an average of 18 years old, and the 787s are an average of five years old, so those 767s and 777s will eventually have to be replaced.
United is more or less at the end of its wide body order book, as the airline only has a handful of 787-10s still on order, and that’s it. Given how global of an airline United is, the company sure could use a fleet renewal plan.
Now, United does technically have 45 Airbus A350s on order, but that’s an order that has been deferred for years, and currently deliveries are expected to start in 2027. United obviously doesn’t intend to follow through on that order, and United executives have even been on record as saying that they’re considering canceling the order, as it’s not cost prohibitive to do so.
Furthermore, while not a wide body jet, United does have 50 Airbus A321XLRs on order, which is the long haul narrow body jet that United will use for transatlantic flights, largely replacing Boeing 757-200s.
United also has Boom Overture’s supersonic jet on order, but personally I don’t take that too seriously.
My take on United’s wide body fleet refresh
The first interesting thing to note is that United has only been considering the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787 — it sounds like Boeing’s new 777X, which has been delayed until 2025 (at the earliest), isn’t even being considered anymore. That’s not too surprising, both because of the plane’s uncertainty, and because airlines are largely looking for lower capacity long haul jets.
I’m not surprised to see United pick the Boeing 787 over the Airbus A350. The way I view it:
- There are efficiency gains if United goes with the 787, since the airline already has so many of those jets, and maybe United will eventually exclusively fly the 787 on long haul flights; there would be savings in terms of crewing, maintenance, training, fleet utilization, etc.
- With the Boeing 787-10 getting a higher MTOW (and therefore better range), it’s a much more competitive plane than before
- If United goes with Airbus, it makes sense that the airline goes “all-in,” and orders 100+ of those planes, so that there’s sufficient diversification; at that point both fleet types would be big enough that they’d be pretty efficient
- While there’s efficiency to having one plane type, often the “underdog” aircraft manufacturer (in this case Airbus) ends up making a better offer, which is why we often see fleet diversification; furthermore, United has some deposit with Airbus and Rolls Royce for these planes
At this point it’s certain that United is going with the Boeing 787 over the Airbus A350. That’s not too surprising, given United’s current long haul fleet, and it’s what I had assumed all along would happen.
Bottom line
United Airlines is expected to place a huge wide body jet order. While the airline has been trying to decide between the Airbus A350 and Boeing 787, United has ultimately decided on the latter, and an order is expected to be announced next week, on Tuesday.
The 787 seems like the logical option, given that United already has so many of these jets, along with the performance of these planes continuing to improve over time.
What do you make of United finalizing a Boeing 787 order?
Yes Buy and Support USA ! Made and designed in America !
you do realize that major portions of the 787 wing and wing box are made in Japan and other major components are made in S. Korea and various countries in Europe? etc.
There is no such thing as an "American" or "European" plane or even a car for that matter.
The difference is that you can tell the percentage of content by major country of origin on a car sold in the US...
you do realize that major portions of the 787 wing and wing box are made in Japan and other major components are made in S. Korea and various countries in Europe? etc.
There is no such thing as an "American" or "European" plane or even a car for that matter.
The difference is that you can tell the percentage of content by major country of origin on a car sold in the US but commercial aircraft are only required to detail the final assembly country - whic is on the safety card in the seat back on US registered aircraft.
The 787 family product spread is what airbus did not have here. 350 great aircraft it is but it’s slightly losing its unique selling point with the 787-10 increasing its range to match the 777-200ER the 350 just made no sense for United. Add that to the fact that the 787 family is very broad and comprehensive that it could go down to replace the 767-300s and go all the way up to replace the...
The 787 family product spread is what airbus did not have here. 350 great aircraft it is but it’s slightly losing its unique selling point with the 787-10 increasing its range to match the 777-200ER the 350 just made no sense for United. Add that to the fact that the 787 family is very broad and comprehensive that it could go down to replace the 767-300s and go all the way up to replace the 777-200ERs something the 350 family on its own cannot do.
350 still has more payload/range capability over the 787 as a whole. But the 787 goes far enough and carries enough payload that in most cases its extra payload/range is actually redundant.
If you take out the 45 350 order from airbus’ order book and add the 100+ 787s to Boeings order book the 787 will have a total order book of 1600 aircraft and the 350 will have 874. Bear in mind the 787 doesn’t even have a freighter (yet). That’s the power of a complete family. And this is the most likely outcome as Bloomberg has noted that United is converting the 350 to 321NEOs.
If you just put your bias aside. You’ll see that it is obvious
not sure who you are addressing but
1. The B787 has been in service for longer than the A350
2. You are right that the smallest version of the A350 didn't sell precisely because the wing is optimized to be a longer haul aircraft and does not have the economics to support a shortened fuselage. The same economics is true of the 787-8 vs. the other 787 family members but some airlines like...
not sure who you are addressing but
1. The B787 has been in service for longer than the A350
2. You are right that the smallest version of the A350 didn't sell precisely because the wing is optimized to be a longer haul aircraft and does not have the economics to support a shortened fuselage. The same economics is true of the 787-8 vs. the other 787 family members but some airlines like AAL continued to buy the -8 even after the -9 became available. It isn't clear if UAL will do the same since the trip costs are marginally higher for the -9 but with higher capacity. that is as true for the 787 as it is for the 737 and other aircraft families.
3. Airbus chose to re-engine the A330, partially at Delta's record, and offer it as a competitive alternative to the B787. The A330-900 easily has 7000 miles of range, seats about the same numbe rof passengers as the B787-9 and can cover most routes that the B787-9 can at seat mile costs including ownership costs (because the A350 and B787 cost more due to their use of polymers) that are within a few percent of the B787.
4. Both A350 models are lower CASM because of their larger size and the A350-1000 is the longest range new generation aircraft on the market. The 777X might top the 350-1000s performance and range but Qantas chose to go with the A350 to operate what will likely be the longest route in the world - SYD to LHR.
I actually like competition and am happy to debate facts - and let them speak for themselves.
I am glad that Delta and United have taken different routes but both are vying for leadership as global airlines.
and specific to the AIP at Delta that will make Delta's order of the A350-1000 possible, United pilots themselves are saying that it takes real leadership at Delta and DALPA to get a deal done that early readings show is far superior to what AA and UA offered their pilots only to see both of those proposals rejected.
Not addressing anyone in particular just general biases.
That is true. But the 787 outsells the A350 almost every year. Even many years after EIS, including this year.
The 350-900 does not have lower CASM compared to the 787-10 actually
And Bloomberg is reporting that United is expected to load up on the 787-8 to replace their 767s
The 330NEO is very efficient but has had little to no impact in the...
Not addressing anyone in particular just general biases.
That is true. But the 787 outsells the A350 almost every year. Even many years after EIS, including this year.
The 350-900 does not have lower CASM compared to the 787-10 actually
And Bloomberg is reporting that United is expected to load up on the 787-8 to replace their 767s
The 330NEO is very efficient but has had little to no impact in the market if we are being honest. It has an order book of about 250 aircraft since air Asia cancelled their order and loses most campaigns to the 787, in many cases it’s not really considered at all.
United would’ve had to split this order between the 330neo and 350 to get airbus on site and that would’ve been two more types.
For delta for example. It doesn’t make much sense to get the 787 and for United and American it doesn’t make much sense to get the 787 or A350.
As for DLs a350-1000 order none of the usual big accredited names (Bloomberg, Reuters, WSJ) have run that story. So I’m taking it with caution
again, Airbus divided the mid-size new engine widebody market between the A330-900 and the A350; the sales totals for the -900s of both models are higher than the 787-9 and all are similarly sized.
you are right that the UA 787-10 is currently the best CASM widebody among US operators. Since the A350-1000 is not used by any US airline, we cannot make that comparison with real data - and marketing fluff from A...
again, Airbus divided the mid-size new engine widebody market between the A330-900 and the A350; the sales totals for the -900s of both models are higher than the 787-9 and all are similarly sized.
you are right that the UA 787-10 is currently the best CASM widebody among US operators. Since the A350-1000 is not used by any US airline, we cannot make that comparison with real data - and marketing fluff from A or B doesn't mean anything. It is possible that the 787-10 may be lower CASM than even the 350-1000 but the -10 is much less capable and a little bit smaller; extra weight for performance and range costs money to haul around.
It is very possible that the A330-900 will have more range than the 787-10 even after Boeing adds its enhancements.
I agree that there is no reason for AA or DL or UA to have A and B widebodies. Neither has exactly comparable models so there is not going to be a 1 to 1 comparison for every aircraft.
And the real CASM comparison will be between the -1000 if DL orders it and the 777-300ER at AA and UA since they are most closely matched in size and range. The -1000 will have a 20% cost advantage per seat - which is huge.
The only way that AA or UA will get past that disadvantage is if they order the 777X - which I wouldn't be surprised for UA to do eventually; not so sure about AA. But their 777-300ER fleets are so young that they will have at least a 10 year disadvantage to DL's 350-1000s unless they get rid of the 777-300ERs early.
Don't forget that Delta has been getting fuel costs/gallon 5-15% better than UA for over a year and that won't change.
the reason why you have read about the potential UA deal is because Scott Kirby has talked about it to the press while DL's president only addressed employees - some of whom turned around and posted it on open websites. Only when either signs a contract do they have to make public disclosures.
There are lots of reasons for DL to order the 350-1000 including that they are the only one of the ten largest global airlines that doesn't have a big twin or quadjet. Airbus only has a backlog of about 60 -1000s and also has 5 of the whitetails from the cxld QR deal which they surely want to move.
enjoying the dialogue with you...
This is too bad. The A350 is a superior plane from the perspective of a coach passenger. I'll take a 9 abreast A350 any day over a 9 abreast 787. It's miserable.
not to worry.
Delta and its pilots have reportedly reached an agreement in principle on a new contract that will pave the way for an add-on order for more A350s and specifically the A350-1000, the largest and longest range in the A350 and B787 model lines.
787's aren't that bad. If you spent a little more cash, 787's 2-3-2 PE cabin is also superior to an A350's 2-4-2, so it evens out, I think.
Jan,
both the A350 and B787 are outstanding aircraft and there is room enough in the world for Delta to operate a large fleet of A350s and United to operate a large fleet of B787s.
I don't think the point is trying to argue that one is better by citing frations of an inch worth of a difference. Most people choose an airline based on other factors.
The point is that Delta...
Jan,
both the A350 and B787 are outstanding aircraft and there is room enough in the world for Delta to operate a large fleet of A350s and United to operate a large fleet of B787s.
I don't think the point is trying to argue that one is better by citing frations of an inch worth of a difference. Most people choose an airline based on other factors.
The point is that Delta and United seem to be both very committed to growing internationally while American is being much more reserved with their execs saying that they will focus on their partners with a smaller international fleet than they had pre-covid.
Delta has far more widebody on firm order right now and appears closer to being able to add to its longhaul fleet than United.
https://www.lufthansa.com/content/dam/lh/documents/discover-lufthansa/lufthansa-fleet/35a/201907_A359_48-21-224B_updated.pdf
https://www.china-airlines.com/tw/en/Images/A350-900-20221103_tcm264-34084.jpg
but with the redesigned sidewalls for A350, expect more 10-abreast A350s
I don't think it is enough added space - only 4 inches - for many airlines to try to fit another seat in each row.
The A350 New Production Standard - which is the whole program of which the wider cabin is part - also increases aircraft performance and range in part due to getting rid of a couple tons of weight as well as extends the rear galley back and the front cabin forward...
I don't think it is enough added space - only 4 inches - for many airlines to try to fit another seat in each row.
The A350 New Production Standard - which is the whole program of which the wider cabin is part - also increases aircraft performance and range in part due to getting rid of a couple tons of weight as well as extends the rear galley back and the front cabin forward - so even if airlines don't take full advantage of the increased width, they will still gain cabin space.
Delta receives its first 2 A350-900s with the New Production Standard before the end of the year; every A350 built after this point have NPS.
And Boeing is coming up w/ similar improvements for the 787 although I'm not sure there is any increase in cabin space. Airplanes are being more and capable.
United must fulfill its BOOM orders or they will go bankrupt. I thought the US was going zero net carbon emissions. Won’t that apply to the 787 ?
Excellent decision! I’m a big fan of 787s!
United needs to replace its fleet of 777-200/ERs, the most fuel INEFFICIENT aircraft in the US airline widebody fleet. United held onto those aircraft throughout the grounding of the Pratt powered 777 grounding and used as much of that capacity as possible this summer to capture demand - but the economics simply are not favorable when crude is going to stay at $80/bbl or higher - and United does not hedge or get a refinery...
United needs to replace its fleet of 777-200/ERs, the most fuel INEFFICIENT aircraft in the US airline widebody fleet. United held onto those aircraft throughout the grounding of the Pratt powered 777 grounding and used as much of that capacity as possible this summer to capture demand - but the economics simply are not favorable when crude is going to stay at $80/bbl or higher - and United does not hedge or get a refinery benefit, the latter of which Delta does.
Let's not forget that United was originally founded as a division of Boeing but spun off under federal regulations that required that airlines and airplane manufacturers not be the same.
American and Delta each have about 4 dozen widebody jets on order so both could have a competitive advantage if there is an opportunity to add capacity. AA's orders are for 787-9s which they are deferring waiting on the performance upgrades Boeing is going to incorporate while Delta is taking delivery of a dozen or more new widebodies per year for the foreseeable future.
And United, like American, have fleets of 777-300ERs which are fairly young. Not getting the 777X is similar to not choosing the A350-1000 since both offer better fuel efficiency than the 777-300ER.
you really have no clue how depreciation expense factors into new aircraft orders, huh? It's ironic such a delta fanatic doesn't know anything about the value of a depreciated asset.
Your campaign against the 77E is always amusing as is your amusing act about Delta's supposedly young wide body fleet when Delta actually relies upon ancient 767s.
Like any older wide body, the "fuel inefficient" nonsense you love to spout about the 777 is...
you really have no clue how depreciation expense factors into new aircraft orders, huh? It's ironic such a delta fanatic doesn't know anything about the value of a depreciated asset.
Your campaign against the 77E is always amusing as is your amusing act about Delta's supposedly young wide body fleet when Delta actually relies upon ancient 767s.
Like any older wide body, the "fuel inefficient" nonsense you love to spout about the 777 is entirely dependent on number of seats on the aircraft. Of course the 77E uses an older engine than a 787 or A350 but if a 77E operator loaded up the seats to where the 77E had the same range as a 763, the 77E casm economics would be insane and far above the 763, but... keep up your weird drivel about the 77e. Your complete ignorance on the industry is impressive. You have this strange need to display your ignorance about depreciated assets and economics vs range of widebodies to say nothing of how you love to manipulate what CASM is and isn't for your own Delta-drivel where Delta densifies its wide bodies more. Perhaps just keep it to yourself since you're clearly not an expert.
MAX,
fuel INEFFICIENCY is related to a comparable configuration between aircraft.
Scott Kirby has repeatedly touted that UA's domestic 777-200s were good CASM aircraft - but those aircraft are not configured with business class cabins even remotely similar to United's 777-200ER fleet.
oh, and since we're talking about configuration - you do realize that United's 777s and 787s have much narrower seats in economy that dozens of other competitor widebodies? For someone...
MAX,
fuel INEFFICIENCY is related to a comparable configuration between aircraft.
Scott Kirby has repeatedly touted that UA's domestic 777-200s were good CASM aircraft - but those aircraft are not configured with business class cabins even remotely similar to United's 777-200ER fleet.
oh, and since we're talking about configuration - you do realize that United's 777s and 787s have much narrower seats in economy that dozens of other competitor widebodies? For someone that spends time looking for inches in seat difference in competitor aircraft, you should be able to see the difference in seat dimensions between the 787 as United has configured it and multiple other aircraft types - including United's own 767s.
And the Wall Street Journal is actually reporting that the primary focus of the first round of orders is to replace the 767 fleet, not the 777s.
The 767, on a per seat basis IS considerably more efficient than the 777-200 because the 777 was built for 14 plus hour flights - and has the structure to support those types of flights - while the 767 was built for 10-12 hour flights and that has almost entirely how it has been used.
The B787, like the A350 have not only new technology engines but they get lost of weight out.
None of which changes that United already has an order book worth twice as much as American or United's which means that they will be spending far more on fleet than every other US airline.
Depreciation is an expense that reduces the value of an asset but says nothing about how that asset is financed. It is still an expense, no different than fuel burn or maintenance. A fully depreciated asset that burns more fuel might be lower cost overall but depreciation is a non-cash cost so higher fuel burn might result in greater cash usage.
...United has an order book worth twice as much as American and Delta
enjoy your day, Timmy. I'm aware of how depreciation works on an income statement. You, apparently, are not.
Max,
depreciation IS a non-cash expense that shows up on the income statement just like fuel, labor and maintenance. Replacing a fully depreciated asset like the 767s and 777-200s (non ER) with new aircraft will INCREASE United's expenses.
Further, United will add stress to its balance sheet to take on new aircraft - either by increasing debt, reducing cash, or adding leases to the balance sheet.
If United is moving to replace...
Max,
depreciation IS a non-cash expense that shows up on the income statement just like fuel, labor and maintenance. Replacing a fully depreciated asset like the 767s and 777-200s (non ER) with new aircraft will INCREASE United's expenses.
Further, United will add stress to its balance sheet to take on new aircraft - either by increasing debt, reducing cash, or adding leases to the balance sheet.
If United is moving to replace the 767s because they are becoming more expensive from a maintenance standpoint, then they are willing to trade higher depreciation for lower maintenance costs and those two factors don't move proportionately over time.
None of the discussion about depreciation changes that 1. The 777-200/ER burns more fuel than any other US aircraft type for the distance it covers and the passengers it carries in a premium international configuration as United operates on its 787s and its 777-300ER/200ER fleets.
And the 787 and 777 coach configuration has narrower seats than many airlines have on other aircraft, including Delta has on its 717s (see their website) which also shows that those aircraft have 110V and USB power throughout the aircraft.
Steve has a point, you know.
GPG,
yes, that was highlighted as a likelihood in the WSJ article.
Given that United has well over 100 777-200/ERs and 767s, they will have to spend well over $15 billion even considering discounts to replace those two fleets plus add net new aircraft.
Tim, stick to what you know. It's not finance. Though I appreciate you FINALLY admitting that depreciation matters on the income statement, despite your flawed knowledge of how it actually works. You go off on the 77e then admit that United will have an increase of expense on the income statement but you honestly have no idea of the offset over time... MY POINT. You say nonsense and have no idea what you're talking about...
Tim, stick to what you know. It's not finance. Though I appreciate you FINALLY admitting that depreciation matters on the income statement, despite your flawed knowledge of how it actually works. You go off on the 77e then admit that United will have an increase of expense on the income statement but you honestly have no idea of the offset over time... MY POINT. You say nonsense and have no idea what you're talking about but take the delta talking point whenever it comes up despite ZERO knowledge how the offset between fuel expense and depreciation expense work over 30 years when it includes new ownership expense, including Time Value of money. But blindly love to talk about 777 fuel cost in absence of all relevant data.
You love to talk about your knowledge in the industry. How about you tell everyone about your background in aviation? You use a pseudonym for your work on blogs and other places and have admitted, repeatedly, to that on other blogs. You love to tell everyone how much they don't know. Tell everyone your background. As a member on a.net, you were banned and others that knew you told MANY people you were fired from delta and they also told MANY people who Tim Dunn is today.
So, how about you tell people why they should listen to your drivel? You're on other websites, as you've said. Why are you relevant? You post dogmatic statements expecting belief over nothing except drivel. Why are you relevant? Would you care to share your background via a verified source to share your relevance? I post references to my statements whether delta.com, airbus, boeing, or you name it. you do not. You never link ANYTHING.
Your knowledge about widebody fuel efficiency is just comical.
And, just to address it... how about you explain how narrow seats on a 717 vs widebody narrow seats matter... Because, it doesn't. If you're in economy flying to Sydney, no one care about their ATL-CHA seat width vs a widebody. They care about how far their legs stretch and how big the person is next to them. and what a weird thing to say. Are you suggesting a DL 717 has better product than ANY UA/AA widebody? lol. It doesn't in ANY way in economy or first. Whether IFE (obviously), power, or space. How do you take yourself seriously?
As I’m sure you know, all depreciation schedules are the not the same, by far. That said really has little bearing in this case. On a much smaller asset, I can section 179 an asset to zero
but obviously it has worth. It’s according to who you are presenting the statement. IRS is one, Wall Street another. Can be a very big spread.
You know Max you are allowed to explain your point and correct someone else's inaccuracies without being rude and being so combative.
Hey Steve, if you want to defend the ultimate internet troll that says the same thing over and over and over again across the internet, regardless of facts and data, go for it. Tim is all yours.
Tim is well aware of the fake info he shares and he knows his own stupid Delta bias. Delta is a great company, but it's not Jesus. He chooses to keep going after Lucky, Gary Leff, and...
Hey Steve, if you want to defend the ultimate internet troll that says the same thing over and over and over again across the internet, regardless of facts and data, go for it. Tim is all yours.
Tim is well aware of the fake info he shares and he knows his own stupid Delta bias. Delta is a great company, but it's not Jesus. He chooses to keep going after Lucky, Gary Leff, and others whenever they say ANYTHING critical of Delta whatsoever. Gary and Lucky can defend themselves but they shouldn't have to vs a huge troll desperate for readership and relevance. I'm happy to tell Tim off when he's being an idiot, which he usually is. The owners of a blog shouldn't have to defend their negative analysis of AA, DL, or UA from fanboys with huge bias, like Tim. They're trying to make the industry better for customers, regardless of airline and regardless of whether I agree with them about AA and UA. AA and UA mess up a lot but you don't find me channeling Herman Goebbels to make up for AA or UA's nonsense.
Tim has told Gary & Lucky that they aren't even allowed to talk about Delta unless they fly them xx amount per year.
He's all yours. Tim has been spreading fake data and info for years. I've started pushing back on him with data only recently. There's a reason Tim is banned from other websites. It's not a secret to most people.
MAX,
when you mock someone else for using a pseudonym while using your own - MAX POWER - you simply show us all not only your hypocrisy but that you can't see yourself by the same standards you hold other people to.
The simple fact is that Delta's 717s have more seat width than United's 787s and it doesn't matter whether the plane flies 8 miles or 8000. And both have USD and...
MAX,
when you mock someone else for using a pseudonym while using your own - MAX POWER - you simply show us all not only your hypocrisy but that you can't see yourself by the same standards you hold other people to.
The simple fact is that Delta's 717s have more seat width than United's 787s and it doesn't matter whether the plane flies 8 miles or 8000. And both have USD and 110V power when you specifically said otherwise, you clearly don't get even the basic facts right - which can easily be verified.
United's fleet spending will be expensive and increase their fleet related expenses to higher levels than any other airline. That isn't opinion. It is FACT and it is detailed in the very financial documents that you claim you can read.
Don't lash out at others because YOU are called out for the incorrect posts you write.
And the rest of the world is simply not at war with everyone as you clearly seem to be.
Gary, Ben and the entire rest of them are more than capable of defending themselves. IT IS NOT YOUR JOB TO JUMP INTO CONVERSATIONS THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED TO YOU in the name of defending someone else. All doing so does is show your jealousy that someone else is capable of interacting with blog content AND in writing published content on other sites under their own REAL NAME - which just happens to be the same I use here as well.
Let us know where we can find your published content under the name "MAX power"
Awww, Timmy
You flatter me. Start your own blog. No one cares about your trolling.
And everyone now knows how you don’t know anything about the industry.
Get a life and a job. It’s a constant amusement that you clearly don’t have a Job
Awww Timmy
It’s truly adorable how you hide behind a pseudonym then try to call out others on the topic. No one on earth thinks Max is my first name or Power is my last name.
But, if they want to know about your past, they’ll want to know that Tim Dunn isn’t your real name but that he’s been banned (actually blocked on an IP) from normal blogs due to his crazy....
Awww Timmy
It’s truly adorable how you hide behind a pseudonym then try to call out others on the topic. No one on earth thinks Max is my first name or Power is my last name.
But, if they want to know about your past, they’ll want to know that Tim Dunn isn’t your real name but that he’s been banned (actually blocked on an IP) from normal blogs due to his crazy. They’ll be amused to know you were fired from delta as much as you now seem embarrassed by it. Lol
Be less crazy and you’ll do well, Timmy. Wish you the best
Or just stop trolling and you won’t get called out as much for actual facts.
you've said more than enough to implicate yourself and your behavior to anyone that cares.
Accusing someone else of using a pseudonym while using your own is the height of hypocrisy.
You run around the internet replying to MY posts - not the other way around - and you have the nerve to say that I am trolling.
You simply cannot accept the verifiable facts - not opinions - which you claim...
you've said more than enough to implicate yourself and your behavior to anyone that cares.
Accusing someone else of using a pseudonym while using your own is the height of hypocrisy.
You run around the internet replying to MY posts - not the other way around - and you have the nerve to say that I am trolling.
You simply cannot accept the verifiable facts - not opinions - which you claim to be knowledgeable about - and yet you get wrong whether the topic is aircraft fuel burn, seat size or passenger amenities.
It is clear that you are absolutely obsessed with me contributing to discussions on sites - so you want to do everything possible to get them to shut off the discussion because you can't handle the facts.
I don't need my own blog. In fact, I just wrote another article last night on Delta's AIP with its pilots which was published under editorial review on one of the world's largest investment sites. Since they pay me, they know full well what my real name is - which is exactly what I use here.
Now go play at the kiddie table - aka airliners dot net
Awww Timmy
Joking about a.net because they banned you for being dumb.
Cute. Just adorable
You better watch how you talk to my boy or I will find you Max Power
It is frightening how obsessed you are with bashing Tim Dunn. Did you bash other kids while in school? Why do you care so much? Let him write what he wants to write and get a life.
This isn’t a 777 replacement order Dunn, just a 767 replacement and net growth order.
"This isn’t a 777 replacement order"
Perhaps not some of the late-model GE-powered 77Es or the 77Ws, but it'd be beyond shocking if these weren't used to replace the PW-powered 772As, and many of the early PW 77Es.
Those were literally among the first 777s to ever enter service, and will be in their 30s by the time the new inventory starts arriving.
That is incorrect, they won’t be. United will actually grow the number of wide body aircraft it owns. The 777-200ER’s stay put. Those will be replaced with the 777-X family. United will NOT become a just 787 exclusive carrier, far from it. It will not only grow at its current hubs but will also build a new hub while at the same time, they’ll rehub JFK. They have HUGE growth plans and IMO, they’ll be hard to stop.
wow, GPG,
you laid out some pretty hefty statements there.
Care to provide some roadmap as to how those will happen? The "rehub JFK" part is particularly interesting since United just walked away from JFK because they couldn't get enough slots to operate TWO ROUTES.
How much of any aircraft order is used for growth vs. replacement is pure speculation until the entire order is actually delivered.
let's start with you...
wow, GPG,
you laid out some pretty hefty statements there.
Care to provide some roadmap as to how those will happen? The "rehub JFK" part is particularly interesting since United just walked away from JFK because they couldn't get enough slots to operate TWO ROUTES.
How much of any aircraft order is used for growth vs. replacement is pure speculation until the entire order is actually delivered.
let's start with you letting us know a delivery schedule for the dozens of 787s that United is reportedly buying according to the WSJ.
It won't be next year or likely even the next to even get the first aircraft under a new order. Widebody aircraft - not whitetails typically need at least an 18 month lead time.
I appreciate anyone's optimism but your post seems a tad disconnected from reality. If you have evidence to back up your statements, we're all ears.
Some of them are already here, with white tails due to cancellations over the past year by 2 or 3 carriers…
Wouldn't mind seeing UA pick up a few more 777-300ERs in big markets, I do like having a window shades on the flights where you're supposed to sleep but end up flying in the daytime...
Semi-Related, on Monday I flew on a brand new United 787-10 from Houston to Dulles. They had just gotten the plane last week and this was its second passenger flight (the first being earlier that morning from Dulles to Houston). It had reverse herringbone seats in business class and it was a very nice, comfortable ride.
@RCB
Did it have the new car smell ?
There’s a competitive angle at play here as well. Boeing’s 787 deliveries could be mostly spoken for through the next 8+ years and so AA/DL needing to replace or add to their widebody fleets would be left with Airbus and also not get the best deal given there isn’t another option. This forces AA to mix their widebody fleet with airbus and DL will need to continue perusing the secondhand market.
American has time specific orders and options.
And there are far more airlines in the world ordering the 787 than American and United. Boeing is simply not going to allow any airline to buy up its entire delivery portfolio for years at a time.
And Delta already is flying 40 A330-900s and A350-900s, both of which seat more passengers than United's 787-9s.
And Delta has a dozen more of both models due...
American has time specific orders and options.
And there are far more airlines in the world ordering the 787 than American and United. Boeing is simply not going to allow any airline to buy up its entire delivery portfolio for years at a time.
And Delta already is flying 40 A330-900s and A350-900s, both of which seat more passengers than United's 787-9s.
And Delta has a dozen more of both models due for delivery in each of the next two years - plus putting a half dozen more of the ex-Latam fleet in service - which means Delta's A330NEO/A350 fleet will overtake United's entire in-service and on order B787 fleet. and they still have another dozen on order after that.
The reason why United has to order is because Delta continues to receive new aircraft
And in case you missed it, Delta's President also said that Delta is likely to place another order - this time for the A350-1000 - which would be the most cost-effective widebody among AA, DL and UA's in service or on order fleet - and also be the longest range.
DL and AA could threaten Airbus with a LOI order of CR929 though, or buy second hand aeroflot widebody jets
AA has access to the lease market for BA aircraft.
UA Polaris are not reverse herringbone (this type of seats are similar to Colin Aerospace Super Diamond), they use staggered seats
Maybe this is an intentional leak to encourage Airbus to attempt to save the deal.
Good for UA! They've done a great job with the 787 fleet and the deployment of it all over the world