UA Inspects 787s following BOS fire
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: BOS (South End)
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP, TrueBlue, IHG Plat Amb, SPG Gold, Marriott Gold, Accor Platinum, National Exec Elite
Posts: 907
UA Inspects 787s following BOS fire
#2
Join Date: Apr 2010
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 697
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: LAX/BOS/HKG/AMS/SFO...hmm, I need a life.
Programs: United1K, AA ExPlAAt, DL MM/Gold, Hilton Diamond, Avis First
Posts: 13,316
#5
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SFO South Bay
Programs: UA 2MM
Posts: 3,052
#7
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
looks like Continental's decision to be the first to order a highly complex next generation composite airframe, then bank their international wide body lift on said aircraft (not ordering the required 777/767) and being pinched when delivery slipped, wasn't the wisest decision that could've been made. The first couple air frames are even overweight. Another PR disaster for Boeing and this aircraft.
#8
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston
Programs: UA Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 12,623
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: LAX/BOS/HKG/AMS/SFO...hmm, I need a life.
Programs: United1K, AA ExPlAAt, DL MM/Gold, Hilton Diamond, Avis First
Posts: 13,316
Not sure but Boeing stock is already taking a hit....
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
This new incident wont help.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing...3Rpb25z;_ylv=3
This new incident wont help.
#10
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA*G, UA 1MM
Posts: 1,277
United finds improperly installed wiring on one of it's Dreamliners.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories
(Sorry, WSJ is a pay site, maybe someone can find the article on a free site)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories
(Sorry, WSJ is a pay site, maybe someone can find the article on a free site)
#11
Moderator: United Airlines
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Plat 1.99MM, Hyatt Discoverist, Marriott Plat/LT Gold, Hilton Silver, IHG Plat
Posts: 66,425
looks like Continental's decision to be the first to order a highly complex next generation composite airframe, then bank their international wide body lift on said aircraft (not ordering the required 777/767) and being pinched when delivery slipped, wasn't the wisest decision that could've been made. The first couple air frames are even overweight. Another PR disaster for Boeing and this aircraft.
United finds improperly installed wiring on one of it's Dreamliners.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories
or google search "U.S. Opens Dreamliner Safety Probe"
(Sorry, WSJ is a pay site, maybe someone can find the article on a free site)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopStories
or google search "U.S. Opens Dreamliner Safety Probe"
(Sorry, WSJ is a pay site, maybe someone can find the article on a free site)
or Google search "U.S. Opens Dreamliner Safety Probe"
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Jan 8, 2013 at 3:31 pm
#12
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,420
looks like Continental's decision to be the first to order a highly complex next generation composite airframe, then bank their international wide body lift on said aircraft (not ordering the required 777/767) and being pinched when delivery slipped, wasn't the wisest decision that could've been made. The first couple air frames are even overweight. Another PR disaster for Boeing and this aircraft.
These issues will not continue in perpetuity, and the result will give United an exceptionally modern, fuel-efficient fleet that positions them well vis-a-vis the competition. The obligatory Continental bash may be somewhat deserved in this case, but lest we forget United's static (actually, progressively reduced) widebody fleet from post-9/11 until the merger...
Last edited by EWR764; Jan 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm
#13
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: IAH
Programs: UA/CO-GS/PPlat,AA-Gold,SPG-Plat,Hilton-Diamond,Marriott-Plat,Hertz-Pres_Circe
Posts: 824
looks like Continental's decision to be the first to order a highly complex next generation composite airframe, then bank their international wide body lift on said aircraft (not ordering the required 777/767) and being pinched when delivery slipped, wasn't the wisest decision that could've been made. The first couple air frames are even overweight. Another PR disaster for Boeing and this aircraft.
It's not good news but neither is it the end of the world.
#14
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
looks like Continental's decision to be the first to order a highly complex next generation composite airframe, then bank their international wide body lift on said aircraft (not ordering the required 777/767) and being pinched when delivery slipped, wasn't the wisest decision that could've been made. The first couple air frames are even overweight. Another PR disaster for Boeing and this aircraft.
- new aircraft models are almost always overweight: see this quote from UA in 1995 regarding their first 772s for example: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...t-happy-24291/
- CO didn't "bank their international wide body lift" on this aircraft. They ordered 777s an 767s - they just didn't continue to grow their wide body fleet after those orders. Whether or not that is seen as a problem is not something you have the ability to know. The reality is that the CO subsidiary of UA held one of the youngest fleets in the US. Do you have data that shows they could have added more wide body aircraft while aggressively replacing the shorthaul fleet and operated at responsible profit margins?
- the risk that UA is taking with this aircraft is a competitive advantage on some existing routes, where competitors are operating 767s, and growth into new markets. It's not going to kill them if there are some delays in orders - and any further material delays would appear to be quite unlikely anyway.
#15
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
Only a clairvoyant could have anticipated all these issues in late 2004 when Continental first ordered the 787s. Still, in the meantime, they have ordered and taken delivery of 4 additional 777s. As to ordering more 767s, why take on the tremendous capital expense of buying new 767s that are made obsolete by airplanes already on order? I imagine it would be difficult to make the case for new 767s that are 20% less fuel-efficient than the 787s they would serve alongside for the next 20+ years.
These issues will not continue in perpetuity, and the result will give United an exceptionally modern, fuel-efficient fleet that positions them well vis-a-vis the competition. The obligatory Continental bash may be somewhat deserved in this case, but lest we forget United's static (actually, progressively reduced) widebody fleet from post-9/11 until the merger...
These issues will not continue in perpetuity, and the result will give United an exceptionally modern, fuel-efficient fleet that positions them well vis-a-vis the competition. The obligatory Continental bash may be somewhat deserved in this case, but lest we forget United's static (actually, progressively reduced) widebody fleet from post-9/11 until the merger...
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 9, 2013 at 9:32 am Reason: unnecessary