drewguy

The range of the 777-8 and -9 is longer than for the 787-8 or -9. So if the question is why A350 over new 777, range isn't it.

drewguy

The FAs "control" the manual windows by telling you to close them too. I'd rather be able to see out a little bit than not at all.

The worst part about the 787 windows is that they cut cell reception significantly while sitting at the gate.

artvandalay

There are plenty of other sources that disagree.

LifetimeGS

Not arguing one way or another, simply reporting - there are a lot of passionate advocates for both aircraft

fumje

Seems like there is a lot of tangential discussion going on. I think there was a side question about why United never ran a 777 on the SIN route, which is what I was responding to there. But maybe if they take 777X they will try it out.

Sykes

That depends on the mission. Carrying the same payload 8-10 hours, the 789 is about 2% more fuel efficient than a A359 so the 789 has a meaningful CASM advantage for more typical long-haul flying; however, that advantage goes away for ultra long-haul flights where the 789 must go out payload-restricted.

UA_Flyer

Agree! It is like Coke vs Pepsi discussions

There are ones who focus on technical/engineering, and there are ones focus on passenger experience, and then there is also US vs EU sentiment.

lsquare

I thought Airbus also assemble planes in the US?

WineCountryUA

Yes
But it is not a major portion of its manufacturing activities. It is still basically an European operation

fumje

Also (after the above), BMW and Subaru both assemble cars in US, but they are generally viewed as foreign, which then determines sentiment.

EWR764

I have speculated for some time that UA is not particularly interested in the A359 with current engines, as its performance is sufficiently close to the existing fleet mix (789/78X/77W plus fully-depreciated 77E) that it does not justify the capex for inducting an entirely new fleet/engine... even pre-COVID. Now, with what will in all likelihood be a shrinking widebody fleet in coming years, coupled with a reduction in fleet capex, I think the A350 order, as currently contemplated, is a non-starter.

Previously, some industry observers projected Airbus would announce an A350neo with the forthcoming RR Ultrafan geared large turbofan, with a target EIS of 2025/26. An A350neo would be expected to deliver high-single-digit improved economics over the current A350 and 787 lineup, and around 25% over the 77E.

This week, RR announced they are temporarily suspending development of the Ultrafan due to a lack of an aircraft partner, which suggests to me Airbus is putting the 350neo on ice for a few years. This is expected given the likely multi-year downturn in international/long haul travel, reduced airline capex and depressed demand for large WB aircraft.

Based on that, I would expect United to further kick the can down the road on its A350 order until late in this decade, as it has limited options to get out of its RR engine contract without a prohibitive penalty. My understanding is Airbus is willing to play ball with UA on revising the 350 order (e.g., conversion to 321LR/XLR, A220) but since the Airbus narrowbody line lacks an RR engine offering, such a modification does nothing for the contract.

JimInOhio

Interesting info. Do you know which Airbus models besides the A350 for which RR supplies engines? I suppose those, in theory, are additional options for UA to convert their obligations.

artvandalay

A-380 and A-330 neo also use a version of the RR Trent engine

EWR764

In theory, yes, but the A380 program is being wound down (though I'm sure Airbus could still walk it back if hell froze over and another operator came in with a substantial order) and the A330neo presents the same problem as the 350 (comparable economics to existing fleet) with a platform that makes even less strategic sense in the long term.

Reportedly, UA was in discussions with Boeing and RR to fit the Trent TEN to the UA 787-10 fleet, with associated service contracts, which would have enabled cancellation and reallocation of the A350 order, but reliability issues of the Trent 1000 and the economics of an all-GEnx 787 fleet resulted in UA keeping GE as a single-source engine vendor for the 78X. Also weighing on the decision was the fact that DL TechOps won the worldwide line maintenance "On Wing" support contract from RR for the Trent series.

RR doesn't currently have a engine option on any of the in-production NB, so out of the existing portfolio, to avoid what is said to be at least an eight-figure penalty, it would have to be one of the Trent line for the 787, A330neo or A350.

LarryJ

Wasn't there some charts in a conference call, some time ago, which plotted the range and payload of the 777s, 787s, and A350s for comparison? Can anyone find those?

As I recall, the A350 fit into some gaps that the Boeings didn't fill.