What happened to the a350 order?
May 2, 2019, 5:29 pm
#31
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429
May 2, 2019, 7:12 pm
#32
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: UA
Posts: 1,098
I have to disagree there.
I have flown 8 flights on the A350 on all variants in all different cabin configs and airlines. From CX/QR J on a -900, to SQ W on the -900ULR, and one segment on QR in Y on a -1000.
It feels way more modern on the inside then a 787, and is certainly more quiet aircraft there is no doubt there.
I have flown 8 flights on the A350 on all variants in all different cabin configs and airlines. From CX/QR J on a -900, to SQ W on the -900ULR, and one segment on QR in Y on a -1000.
It feels way more modern on the inside then a 787, and is certainly more quiet aircraft there is no doubt there.
Also from my perspective, the loudest thing inside a plane is the HVAC, I hear it over the 787 and even 777 engine noise.
Last edited by thejaredhuang; May 2, 2019 at 7:17 pm
May 2, 2019, 7:50 pm
#33
Moderator, Amtrak & Spirit Airlines
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: EWR :rolleyes:
Programs: AC 50K, AS MVP, AA Plat Pro, DL Plat, UA Silver, IHG Spire, Marriott Titanium, Hertz PC
Posts: 9,623
All Skytrax 5* airlines, its kind of comparing apples to oranges if comparing it to UA's 787. A lot of the "modern" feeling comes down to decor, IFE, seats, etc. I bet UA's A350s won't feel much different to the Polaris 772s which also feel more "modern" compared to the 787s. Keep in mind, 787s are approaching 7 years in the fleet already.
Also from my perspective, the loudest thing inside a plane is the HVAC, I hear it over the 787 and even 777 engine noise.
Also from my perspective, the loudest thing inside a plane is the HVAC, I hear it over the 787 and even 777 engine noise.
I am talking about the digital seat belt signs, the faucets in the lavs, etc.
I understand cabin fit and finish vary a lot I've flown on very young 787s on African carriers that looked like they'd already been in service for 20 years. I flew on a young 777-200LR operated by Turkmenistan Airlines where even the reading lights didn't work.
However, after a pretty large sample size of flying the 787 and 350 its my favorite long haul bird right now.
May 2, 2019, 8:54 pm
#34
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 66
They’re ideal for replacing 772’s in the upcoming years. They’ve upped the order to 45, first from 25, then 35, as they’ve kicked the can down the road.
The cancellation penalty on these is going to be pretty big. IIRC, the deposits from cancelled A319/320 orders pre bankruptcy were used on these in 2009 when they were first ordered.
The cancellation penalty on these is going to be pretty big. IIRC, the deposits from cancelled A319/320 orders pre bankruptcy were used on these in 2009 when they were first ordered.
I think the order was delayed to better align deliveries with early model 772ER retirements, give Airbus time to make further performance (range and/or fuel economy) improvements and work out bugs. UA was subject to a lot of teething issues with the early 787s.
The 9 abreast 18” Y seats would be a huge win from the passenger experience perspective and hope UA is genuinely committed to taking the aircraft.
May 5, 2019, 2:48 am
#36
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 812
UA will have to take some sort of aircraft from Airbus or lose a substantial deposit.
All Airbus aircraft have minimum 18" wide seats in Y, so more Airbus is good news regardless of what model ends up getting delivered.
All Airbus aircraft have minimum 18" wide seats in Y, so more Airbus is good news regardless of what model ends up getting delivered.
May 5, 2019, 9:42 am
#38
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 9,005
At least based on my experience on TG's A359 in J, I would definitely take it any day over any variant of the 787. It's a phenomenal bird.
May 5, 2019, 10:42 am
#39
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Bellingham/Gainesville
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 2,808
I believe there are also deposits paid to Rolls Royce for the engines. Canceling would have a cost and perhaps continuing with a single supplier strategy for new planes may represent costs and risks UA should think about carefully.
I think the order was delayed to better align deliveries with early model 772ER retirements, give Airbus time to make further performance (range and/or fuel economy) improvements and work out bugs. UA was subject to a lot of teething issues with the early 787s.
The 9 abreast 18” Y seats would be a huge win from the passenger experience perspective and hope UA is genuinely committed to taking the aircraft.
May 8, 2019, 9:05 am
#40
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 12,332
I have done a few A350 flights and love flying them. More spacious, quiet and bigger bathrooms than 787, but also love flying the 787s.
After flying a number of refitted 772s with Polaris and premium economy seats, I appreciate the upfront investments made by UA to install new seats and refurnish the interiors and bathrooms to the entire fleet of 772s. With that kind of investments, I just don’t see UA start retiring its 772s in 2022 to make rooms for A350. The investment made to refurbish 772s need a few more years of services to justify the investments. Unless it is for capacity building, IMHO, the A350 order will be delayed once again.
After flying a number of refitted 772s with Polaris and premium economy seats, I appreciate the upfront investments made by UA to install new seats and refurnish the interiors and bathrooms to the entire fleet of 772s. With that kind of investments, I just don’t see UA start retiring its 772s in 2022 to make rooms for A350. The investment made to refurbish 772s need a few more years of services to justify the investments. Unless it is for capacity building, IMHO, the A350 order will be delayed once again.
May 8, 2019, 10:25 am
#41
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
The A359 makes perfect sense at United, but I think UA will wait until the second-generation (NEO) engine is available, and from then, wait until that tech matures before replacing the bulk of its 77Es. We're talking middle of the decade or so. After speaking to some senior UA management, it seems they have no qualms with operating 25-30 year old widebodies, so 2024 and later would seem to be the right point to start retiring 77Es. Similarly, everyone responds with enthusiasm for the A359, but the message seems to be "when the time is right."
Reading between the lines, my impression is that United isn't satisfied with the 359's economics compared to the 787-9/10 or even a fully-depreciated, densified 77E (same with the A350-1000 vs. a sweetheart-deal 77W), which is the primary reason the 350s have been deferred, not because it doesn't know what to do with the order. The fact that the 787 does better than the 350 in terms of trip costs and per-seat fuel economy is reflected in the nearly 2:1 sales advantage. Airbus knows it, and desperately wants to keep United as a customer, so that's why it's playing ball with the order instead of telling United to take-it-or-leave-it. A NEO will close that gap, and for Boeing to meaningfully improve the 787-10's performance, a major redesign will be necessary.
At current density, the 787-9 is not a great 77E replacement, and the 787-10 doesn't have the same mission capability. The A359 fits perfectly and a few percentage points improvement in fuel burn the new engines are supposed to confer will make a difference. A massive widebody order is a huge capex commitment, so the incoming aircraft must have materially better operating economics than the generation it replaces.
Reading between the lines, my impression is that United isn't satisfied with the 359's economics compared to the 787-9/10 or even a fully-depreciated, densified 77E (same with the A350-1000 vs. a sweetheart-deal 77W), which is the primary reason the 350s have been deferred, not because it doesn't know what to do with the order. The fact that the 787 does better than the 350 in terms of trip costs and per-seat fuel economy is reflected in the nearly 2:1 sales advantage. Airbus knows it, and desperately wants to keep United as a customer, so that's why it's playing ball with the order instead of telling United to take-it-or-leave-it. A NEO will close that gap, and for Boeing to meaningfully improve the 787-10's performance, a major redesign will be necessary.
At current density, the 787-9 is not a great 77E replacement, and the 787-10 doesn't have the same mission capability. The A359 fits perfectly and a few percentage points improvement in fuel burn the new engines are supposed to confer will make a difference. A massive widebody order is a huge capex commitment, so the incoming aircraft must have materially better operating economics than the generation it replaces.
Last edited by EWR764; May 8, 2019 at 10:40 am
May 8, 2019, 10:51 am
#42
Moderator: Budget Travel forum & Credit Card Programs, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: YYJ/YVR and back on Van Isle ....... for now
Programs: UA lifetime MM / *A Gold
Posts: 14,429
.....
The fact that the 787 does better than the 350 in terms of trip costs and per-seat fuel economy is reflected in the nearly 2:1 sales advantage. Airbus knows it, and desperately wants to keep United as a customer, so that's why it's playing ball with the order instead of telling United to take-it-or-leave-it. A NEO will close that gap, and for Boeing to meaningfully improve the 787-10's performance, a major redesign will be necessary.
.....
The fact that the 787 does better than the 350 in terms of trip costs and per-seat fuel economy is reflected in the nearly 2:1 sales advantage. Airbus knows it, and desperately wants to keep United as a customer, so that's why it's playing ball with the order instead of telling United to take-it-or-leave-it. A NEO will close that gap, and for Boeing to meaningfully improve the 787-10's performance, a major redesign will be necessary.
.....
May 8, 2019, 11:23 am
#43
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,405
At current density, the 787-9 is not a great 77E replacement, and the 787-10 doesn't have the same mission capability. The A359 fits perfectly and a few percentage points improvement in fuel burn the new engines are supposed to confer will make a difference. A massive widebody order is a huge capex commitment, so the incoming aircraft must have materially better operating economics than the generation it replaces.
That said, I remain convinced that current UA management has no interest in Airbus widebodies.
May 8, 2019, 11:57 am
#44
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
You shouldn't compare the rumored future performance of the A359 to the current performance of the 787. It's entirely possible that the A359 fuel improvements will never materialize, or that, if they do, Boeing is able to provide similar improvements to the 787 in the same timeframe.
not be on the cutting edge of that development, given its 787 woes in early 2013 and the ongoing RR Trent problems (which UAL fortunately missed out on).
For a long-term sales perspective, Airbus has a greater impetus to improve the economics of the A350 now than Boeing does for the 787.
Everything is negotiable.
That said, I remain convinced that current UA management has no interest in Airbus widebodies.
That said, I remain convinced that current UA management has no interest in Airbus widebodies.
Keep in mind the person steering United’s ship (Scott Kirby... Oscar is little more than a figurehead) has generally been at Airbus-supplied carriers for the last 20 years or so. There’s no reason to believe he has any sort of anti-Airbus bias.
May 8, 2019, 12:10 pm
#45
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,405
I may be proven wrong. I don't care for the A350 myself, but then again, I haven't had the (dis)pleasure of flying the 781 J seat yet. Since UA will presumably try to squeeze 1-2-1 Polaris seating into the A350 (if they were to accept it), I imagine it'd be somewhat less cramped.
Last edited by jsloan; May 8, 2019 at 12:53 pm