United announces order for Airbus A350-1000 aircraft
Jun 20, 2013, 6:29 pm
#46
Join Date: Mar 2009
Programs: UA 1K MM, Marriott Titanium, HH Gold
Posts: 644
I for one am really surprised. Given the projections for traffic out of major us mega-cities (NYC, SFO, LAX, ORD) and foreign cities (NRT, HKG, PEK, LHR, FRA) along with slot control at many airports, and generally increasing traffic world wide, I would have expected UA to buy a larger aircraft.
Using the seating arrangements published for 3 class AC (in actuality, airlines end up with slightly less actual seats) the Boeing current line up is:
787-8 240 7000-8200 nm
787-9 280 8-8500 nm
787-10 330 7000 nm
777-9x 407 (7 foot stretch on current 777-300ER)
777-300ER 386 7930nm
350-8 270 8480nm
350-9/ 350-9R 314 8100/10,300nm
350-10 350 8420 nm
If you assume that UA wants a larger aircraft, and they clearly do, and clearly need one their options were going with the 350-10 (as the 787-10 does not have the range for many Transpacific and west coast TATL missions they need it for) or waiting and hopping Boeing could get the 777-9x off the ground in a timely manner.
Absent, simply not trusting Boeing to get the job done, I would have assumed they would have waited for the 777-9x as it better meets there needs.
I think this is IMHO a very interesting vote of non-confidence in Boeing given UAs major need for a larger AC and the fact the 777-9x would appear to better meet UAs future needs.
Using the seating arrangements published for 3 class AC (in actuality, airlines end up with slightly less actual seats) the Boeing current line up is:
787-8 240 7000-8200 nm
787-9 280 8-8500 nm
787-10 330 7000 nm
777-9x 407 (7 foot stretch on current 777-300ER)
777-300ER 386 7930nm
350-8 270 8480nm
350-9/ 350-9R 314 8100/10,300nm
350-10 350 8420 nm
If you assume that UA wants a larger aircraft, and they clearly do, and clearly need one their options were going with the 350-10 (as the 787-10 does not have the range for many Transpacific and west coast TATL missions they need it for) or waiting and hopping Boeing could get the 777-9x off the ground in a timely manner.
Absent, simply not trusting Boeing to get the job done, I would have assumed they would have waited for the 777-9x as it better meets there needs.
I think this is IMHO a very interesting vote of non-confidence in Boeing given UAs major need for a larger AC and the fact the 777-9x would appear to better meet UAs future needs.
Jun 20, 2013, 6:49 pm
#47
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,169
Jun 20, 2013, 10:02 pm
#48
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: San Francisco
Programs: DL Plat / UA Gold 1MM.
Posts: 415
I realize this is a personal wish, but I wish that United would stick with Boeing on the wide-bodies and Airbus on the single isle. I like the wider body on the 320s and I think boeing's rehash of the 737 is stupid.
Say what you want about Boeing (and the 777 is fine in 9 across) but I would prefer an airbus, both narrow or wide body any day.
Jun 20, 2013, 10:17 pm
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,426
Absent, simply not trusting Boeing to get the job done, I would have assumed they would have waited for the 777-9x as it better meets there needs.
I think this is IMHO a very interesting vote of non-confidence in Boeing given UAs major need for a larger AC and the fact the 777-9x would appear to better meet UAs future needs.
I think this is IMHO a very interesting vote of non-confidence in Boeing given UAs major need for a larger AC and the fact the 777-9x would appear to better meet UAs future needs.
m what I know) not going to be available nearly as soon. With the delays that seem to plague some of these aircraft programs, going with something that is close derivative that is at least undergoing flight tests must have been quite attractive.
Jun 20, 2013, 10:31 pm
#50
Join Date: May 2005
Location: KFNL
Programs: UA1MM
Posts: 17
Someone quoted this before, from the ABI website:
Interestingly, the same website also has this:
Given who's running the show at UA, my bet is on 10.
The A350 also allows for high-comfort economy seating in a nine-abreast arrangement, with a generous 18-inch seat width.
The seating flexibility offered in economy class begins with a baseline nine-abreast configuration. Premium economy is created in an eight-abreast arrangement, while 10-abreast seating is available for high-density layouts – which are accommodated without the need for cabin modifications or floor reinforcement.
Jun 20, 2013, 11:14 pm
#51
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Syd
Programs: UA 1k 1MM, VA G
Posts: 886
One thing of note, UA had the chance when they converted the 777's to go with 3/4/3 as a number of other airlines have but they kept the 9 seat layout
They MIGHT just go with the 3/3/3 layout to reduce seat costs as much as anything else as they could standardise on the same seats with both the A320/19 and the 350.....
Otherwise....
I still think they will just flog the orders off to other cariers and will buy 777's as the fleet cost savings should easily outweigh the initial cost savings
They MIGHT just go with the 3/3/3 layout to reduce seat costs as much as anything else as they could standardise on the same seats with both the A320/19 and the 350.....
Otherwise....
I still think they will just flog the orders off to other cariers and will buy 777's as the fleet cost savings should easily outweigh the initial cost savings
Jun 20, 2013, 11:25 pm
#52
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ICT
Programs: AA EXP, UA Plat, DL G, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,330
Jun 20, 2013, 11:52 pm
#53
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Programs: UA-1k, 1mm, Marriott-LT Platinum, Hertz-Presidents Circle
Posts: 6,355
I would prefer more C seats over direct aisle access. As someone who uses GPU's I need as many chances as possible. If I have to step over someone, so be it, it is better than Y.
Jun 21, 2013, 12:01 am
#54
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: if it's Thursday, this must be Belgium
Programs: UA 1K MM
Posts: 6,484
Please think about the math/economics. How could UA stand to reduce its cabin capacity by that much? If we are to believe everyone over on the other thread who say they'll defect, UA will need to pack as many people as they can into paying C, at the density they have now.
Jun 21, 2013, 12:03 am
#55
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,426
rget about people threatening to 'defect.' UA will pack as many in as they reasonably can. They would be foolish not to do so.
Jun 21, 2013, 12:09 am
#56
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 5,825
Jun 21, 2013, 12:26 am
#57
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
Good news ^
Plenty of people here will be very surprised by this order, given CO's longstanding relationship with Boeing and the assumption that the former CO management calls all the shots at United. This is one of the biggest post-merger investment decisions the management team has made, and it's for an Airbus product. Maybe the inherent bias towards the "CO" way of doing things just isn't as strong as some people would like to think it is.
Plenty of people here will be very surprised by this order, given CO's longstanding relationship with Boeing and the assumption that the former CO management calls all the shots at United. This is one of the biggest post-merger investment decisions the management team has made, and it's for an Airbus product. Maybe the inherent bias towards the "CO" way of doing things just isn't as strong as some people would like to think it is.
Don't be fooled for one second - UA is going by the best deal and are pushing back on the manufacturers and, in turn, Airbus and Boeing are pushing back on their contractors. There's no love lost here.
Jun 21, 2013, 12:55 am
#58
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: ICT
Programs: AA EXP, UA Plat, DL G, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,330
It's a premium cabin, so people must be willing to pay a premium for it. Consider this: would you pay the same to sit in a middle seat of a 2x4x2 UA C cabin, as you would to pay in a LX 1x2x1? Ignoring all other variables and just looking at seat comfort, if you're willing to pay more to fly on LX, then the equation becomes: How many seats can you sell? At what premium can you sell the seats? I have zero evidence, but I'd be willing to say airlines such as LX and others generate more $$ from their C cabins than UA does (again, don't ask me for evidence, it's a hunch).
Now, if we're talking about upgrades, then I agree: the easier to snag a free/cheap upgrade, the better! But a premium cabin can't survive on upgrades only, someone has to be willing to pay for it.
Jun 21, 2013, 1:30 am
#59
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: 대한민국 (South Korea) - ex-PVG (上海)
Programs: UA MM / LT Gold (LT UC), DL SM, AA PLT (AC), OZ, KE; GE and Korean SES (like GE); Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,995
It is most unfortunate that an American airline is channeling even more dollars overseas (the A350 is not one that Airbus will ever produce in the U.S. - not even most parts). But, it makes economic sense for UA (and AA) to let German and French taxpayers support EADS so they can sell their product for less. While Boeing was forward-looking with the all-composite B787, they have been falling behind the Europeans in many areas. As a lover of the B747 and a fan of Boeing, I am disappointed with the folks at Boeing. I am happy that KE is buying five B747-8i units, though. I'll be flying more KE when they arrive.
Jun 21, 2013, 1:47 am
#60
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MEL
Programs: VAG
Posts: 1,865
Looking at the widths according to wikipedia, though, the cabin of the A350 (221") is a full ten inches narrower than the 777 (231"), so ten abreast would be tricky. Nine abreast doesn't exactly sound luxurious either, though.