UAL757222

Air Houston

mellon

really the C-Series A220 is 120 seats.
UA just actually bought 50 76 seat planes but configured them to seat 50 seats instead. When this plane arrives its will be a huge improvement if they replace some of the E145s.
https://airwaysmag.com/manufacturer/...ers-50-planes/

mellon

lol I fly ewr-yyz( Toronto) and UA only flys 145 junk. so I want those planes replaced ASAP.

schley

Boeing isn't running UA the BOD is representing their shareholders. Although an American company and I want Boeing to do well, they are contractually committed to X amount of Airbus 350's. The decision has already been made. The hypothetical question should be, what would make UA change their mind, not if they are ordered and going to be delivered. There are penalties and considerations to weigh that goes beyond what is being considered and I guarantee you it isn't how quiet the plane is or seat width.

EmailKid

Um, fake news (semi fake I suppose).

First clue:

Um, no, E+ is not a separate class, just a regular coach seat with extra legroom.

And they are buying NO new Canadair planes, they are buying a conversion of CRJ 700 to CRJ 550 so they can stay in clause with pilot contract to purchase more 76 seat ERJ 175s @:-)

jsloan

The E145 is one of the nicer planes in the fleet in Y. I'd rather fly in 18A on the E145 than most seats on the 319/320. The CR2 is horrific, and that's the plane that UA is likely planning to replace with the C550..

Airplane delivery contracts are cancelled or renegotiated all the time. You're making this out to be much more meaningful than it actually is. UA will not take the A350s if they do not want them -- just like UA is paying over a million dollars a month in rent in Cleveland for a terminal they're not using.

You are right about one thing, though -- seat width isn't entering into their calculations, no matter how much people wish that it would.

OK, but the effect is the same.

prestonh

There are two sides to every contract, unless you know every detail of the exact performance clauses, remedies etc. then you probably have no idea what is available contractually on the airframe contract. And what of the subcontracts (powerplants, avionics, etc.?) which probably have cross performance-default clauses etc.? Unless you bring specific knowledge, which I doubt because there is likely an NDA attached, then this is just speculative. And as mentioned elsewhere, everything is negotiable with contractual amendments anyways.

schley

This is a travel enthusiast anonymous message board, what ISN'T speculative? My point is there is no speculation on the contract, which could have swap rights for other airbus variants or delay clauses etc. I said nothing of the details, but they made the commitment and are legally bound by the contract or penalties for material changes. The speculation, which is just that, is will they cancel the order. Although I do know 2 VP's at UA, I have no inside knowledge, nor would I divulge.

So back to the speculation

goodeats21

Gotcha. But if they swap out your E145s for CR2s, I guarantee you would wish for their return.
I have made my peace with the E145s., and fly them a LOT. I would prefer larger planes just for better irrops protection...but CR2s are the Devil's Chariot and the worst ride in the United skies.

prestonh

Odd, claim to not speculate then speculate about penalties swap rights, delay clauses etc I'd say if you want to throw out the contract and we can pick it apart then we can move on. but until then statements of 'legally bound' is as murky as 'i know 2 vp's at UA'.

schley

Preston feeling alittle frisky today I see and so close to Mother's Day.

If you are familiar with bilateral purchase contracts, then standard options exist such as those I mentioned, which wouldn't be unique to UA's with Airbus. A contract, between UA and Airbus in this case, is a legally binding agreement that if one party doesn't fulfill their obligations they would be in breach and would carry penalties.

Are you saying this contract isn't legally binding? That is something the shareholders and the SEC would love to hear about if so. If it wasn't it wouldn't be a contract to publicize and report on one's financial statements and against US GAAP. There should be nothing ambiguous or murky with contracts but crystal clear and black/white or it wouldn't pass the 5 characteristics of a legally binding contact.

Contact me offline and we can continue with substance, as opposed to the soft pitch softballs you are throwing my way.

Don't forget to contact all the women in your life who are mom's tomorrow.^

jsloan

The question, as you well know, isn't whether or not the agreement is binding. It's whether or not UA would be willing to pay the cancellation penalties, and/or whether or not Airbus would be willing to renegotiate.

Your argument is essentially that UA is legally bound to take delivery of the A350. That's ridiculous; there's almost no chance that's true. In fact, they are legally bound to take delivery of the A350 or to compensate Airbus as per their agreement.

I continue to believe that no UA A350 will ever fly.

IAHMCI

schley

I said they are legally obligated by the contract terms which is to exchange X amount of $ for X amount of A350's at a basic level. The additional terms that include options are also legally binding. There are certainly cancellation terms with clear time horizons that escalate as we reach those delivery timelines, if UA does as you wish and cancels they will be obligated to pay.

Whether they take the 350's or not we shall see, but our conjecture here on our preferences are not near BOD approval for such a cancellation, which they most certainly will have to approve.