soorox

Well that famous line "if it ain't boeing, i ain't going" just doesn't sit well with me - arrogance is bliss. (not saying you are though )

I think Airbus will give UA a serious offer, if the plane is what Airbus advertises it to be, then its just too good for UA to give up.

sbm12

That map shows ideal operations. Getting to many of the cities you've listed, particularly with headwinds returning to the US from Europe, would not actually be viable. And do you really think DL is going to suddenly feel a need to switch to a 160 seat plane for ATL-LON/PAR/BRU/AMS?? Hawaii is almost certainly out of the question with the westbound headwinds as well.

The secondary Brazil markets open a bit and access to those markets is now wide open IIRC. SCL & CNF are still a bit too far.

3Cforme

DL doesn't even have any NEOs on order. The two orders of A321s are current engine option with deliveries scheduled to start in 2016.

The age of DL's narrowbody Airbus fleet ranges from 24 years (its oldest in-service A320) to not quite 11 years (its youngest A319). UA's narrowbody 'busses were delivered between 1993 and 2002.

As presented, the A321NEO_LR (whatever it may be called) greatly narrows the range of current ops for which the 757-200 is the first choice. Short-field and hot/high performance compared to a 757 is yet to be seen.

UA, DL, AA (and WN although they are in denial) are all big enough to have economically efficient levels of multiple narrowbody types.

DL's oldest (chronological age) aircraft isn't an MD-88 - there are two or three 757s that entered service in 1985. Those 757s are among the ~30 oldest to be retired by the present fleet update plan.

wto605

Also keep in mind we haven't seen Boeing's response to this... comparing the basic specs of the 737-9 to the A321NEO (non-LR) the starting point is similar. Both MTOW and engine thrust are numbers that are manipulated by marketing in order to segment the aircraft sales and/or reduce fees for operators who aren't using the full capacity of the aircraft. When announcing a product this far out there's plenty of margin left for the aircraft to hit it's stated specs. As development continues and the performance envelope solidifies CFM and or Boeing may find the extra wiggle room they need to come out with a similarly spec'ed model.

For better or worse UA is barreling down the 737 track with Jeffy leaning on the throttle. Somewhere in a conference room at 100 North Riverside engineers and marketing officers are shouting at each other while Uncle Jeff throws cash at them (probably e-certs actually ).

lhrsfo

CO is an all Boeing shop with a legacy of some Airbii which they've tried to make unpopular with their customers. A UA decision on this plane won't be made on commercial grounds but political with the numbers tweaked to justify the desired outcome.

fly18725

Current management went all-in on the A350, effectively ignoring the 777X. While the narrow body fleet is currently focused on 737s, Airbus products have and will almost certainly continue to get a serious look.

Passengers need to remember while that extra width is appreciated, that results in a wider, heavier fuselage that costs more to fly around. There's lots of other factors invisible to passengers that make a huge impact on fleet decisions.

spin88

I think you are correct re everyone being big enough to have a sub-fleet, but absent other Airbus equipment, having a sub-fleet would be expensive. Until the above posts I has assumed that the neo would not be fully compatible with the early gen UAL fleet. Airbus however is saying they will be 95% compatible, but I don't know if that is for current generation airbus, or also the older (c1993-2002) UAL fleet, or the similar aged ex-NW fleet. Airbus makes incremental changes in its aircraft (unlike Boeing which waits for a new model to come out).

Re range, I pulled the ranges of various aircraft:

The 321neoLR is to have a range of 4833mi (100nmi more than the 757W)
the 757W has a range of 4718 mi
The 321neo will have a range of 4200 mi
the 737max9 will have a range of 4140 mi
the 739ER has a range of 3757 mi.

With head winds United already has problems at times with West Coast-Hawaii with the 739ER. While the Max/Neo will be able to do west coast to Hawaii routes that are currently problematic, it will not be able to do any of the East Coast to Europe routes. With a fuel burn of 25% less than the 757 (what is being said now), this plane would open up a lot of routes, and for AA in particular, it is a good fit.

Routes such as BOS-Europe, NYC/ORD-secondary cites in Europe (EDI-ORD is 3702 mi, EWR-BCN is 3839) would be a good match as would routes like DEN-NHL (3360 mi, or even DFW-HNL (3778 mi). This plane could also do certain south American routes that the 321neo could not do most of the year. For example EWR-LIM (3648 mi). American in particular though could use this plane from MIA to reach secondary cities with large populations, but no direct service. MIA-SSA (Salvador, Brazil) is 3888 mi, MIA-BSB (Braslia) is 3609 mi.

I also think there is a big difference in passenger comfort on an airbus (which is 6" wider) than a Boeing. a 17" seat is just not comfortable for a long flight, the 18" seats on the airbus are.

I not only don't think Boeing can get the 737Max9 to go further range wise (the plane is tapped out as it is), but the narrow platform on those ranges would not be comfortable.

The A350 was ordered by the prior pmUA management. There currently is no Boeing plane in the size range of the 350-1000 (seating 315), and the 777x was a paper airplane when UAL up-sized its A350 order. Were I UAL, I would also be very doubtful that Boeing will actually get the 777x launched in 2020 as promised (Boeing has shot itself in the foot and destroyed its ability to manage complex projects) and I doubt that they could get any delivery slots until 3-4 years after the plane currently gets launched. Even then, its not clear that the slightly larger 777x is a better fit for UAL, and its also not clear that it will be as efficient as the A350-1000 will be. Given the need to retire the 744 fleet quickly, and the age of some of its 772 classics and early ERs United really has no choice at this point but the A350-1000s they have ordered.

As to the Airbus difference. I've done about 20 flights in the last 6 months between SFO and SEA. The fare is always the same (roughtly $300 one way) but given a choice of a 7narrow7 or a "slimmed" airbus on UAL (with a change of an upgrade) or taking AS (7narrow7) or flying VX on an airbus 320/319, VX has won every time. And the one time I took UAL (due to flight times) they were late...

So it matters to me, and talking to other passengers on VX, they notice the difference in comfort as well. Once you have flown VX, its hard to go back to the awful seats and/or narrow cabins on United.

fly18725

The previous UAL management team ordered the A350-900 and the current management team converted the order to the A350-1000 and order 10 additional aircraft last year. The 777X was very much in play at that time and I'm sure Boeing would have loved to have UAL, who was the launch customer of the current 777, as the launch customer of the 777X.

While the 777X doesn't exist yet, every piece of data points to a more efficient airplane than anything else being offered. Such is the benefit of having a wing and engine that is a generation ahead of the A350 and 787.

I agree that UAL needed new, large airplanes earlier to replace 747s, which is probably why they doubled-down on the A350. The attempts to paint management teams as pro-Airbus or Boeing is misguided. Every legitimate airline is focused on maintaining a fleet of aircraft that meets their operational requirements with the best economics, which means considering every option before placing an order. There are a few folks, most noteably David Neelman, that have a purely emotional connection to a manufacturer and will refuse to consider another alternative. These people tend to be great at start airlines but horrible at running them.

787fan

how is ANY of this remotely relevant to the A321neoLR disucssion ? Even if UA orders them, the chance of them deploying that bird on SFO-SEA is as good as world peace happening

Baze

Boeing seems to be quite happy just updating a 1968 design. Keeps prices down which makes customers happy. But performance is hurting on the ancient design. Think it was the ask the pilot thread but I think one of the pilots mentions takeoff performance has really gone downhill on the new 737's. You can only take ancient designs so far before they suffer so much that suddenly no one wants them. And if Airbus comes up with new fresh designs, Boeing will be left in the dust. Especially if Airbus makes the price somewhat competitive with the 1968 designed airframe.

But both manufacturers keep shooting themselves in the foot by promising delivery dates then missing them by years costing millions in penalties.

fly18725

The only thing 1968 about the 737 is the fuselage cross section. The A330 fuselage is also quite old, having originated with the A300.

Of course, we all know that the fuselage only impact aerodynamics and the real technology is in the wing, engines, and other systems.

787fan

not just take-off ... landings too

whenever i'm on the 737-900ER it lands really fast and the stop is quite abrupt even on runways that 744s can takeoff at MTOW

NYTA

The place where this plane is most interesting is the Gulf. Do the great circle mapper with Dubai at the center and you can reach all of Europe and just about all of Asia. If a gulf carrier wanted to change the model and do frequent flights of smaller planes vs. the current strategy of fewer flights on massive planes, it could be quite interesting. Ultimately, the gulf airlines are the biggest buyers of planes, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did this with one or more of them in mind. That said, all of western Europe is reachable from EWR, so you might make a good case for UA to offer a configuration similar to the AA A321T for flights to secondary European destinations.

mduell

The current management didn't really pick the A350XWB, they just delayed delivery a bit. If they want to go 777X, maybe they could swap the A350XWB orders for A321neoLR.

Madone59

Well I do agree this would be a good swap for UA to make. I am guessing the current management was well aware of the A350XWB order.....as it was placed about two months before the merger.