my bet is that UA replaces both the 767 and 77E fleet with the 789 and 78J. they're clearly very pleased with both variants, kirby has said as much to employees. they'll probably also add at least a few more A321XLR and 77W, but i don't think we see the 779 in UA livery (and the 778 will never be built as a passenger aircraft, regardless of QF's project sunrise).

the 788 is a nice aircraft, but UA not adding to the subfleet of 12 frames that they've operated for 5 (!) years now is telling, especially when they've added to their 789/J orders.

It does seem like UA is still open to the NMA as a 767 replacement. Don’t think it’s going to happen within the timeframe UA needs it.

As for the 789/78J replacing the 767, that would be a decent capacity upgrade on the 767 routes. Makes me wonder if they might do a high-J version of one down the road - could maybe serve LHR down the road, increase Y capacity, and possibly enable some ULH routes they can’t do with a regularly-configured 789.

Hope they won't use slimline seats in Y

Glad to see United do this. The reality is that the 797 might have been a better (as in more comfortable for passengers) aircraft, it was going to be less efficient for smaller applications where the A321neoLR was the perfect fit. It is a really nice aircraft, and frankly I would much rather spend 6-7 hours in it in Y than a 757, let alone a 737, and I would take it any day over a 777 at 10x across.

I just wish they would have gotten earlier slots.

I think this is the takeway. The business case for the A321neoLR - even without a stretch and wing improvements, which Airbus could do for a few billion - just swamps the 797. The 797 made sense if it could capture the 757 and 763 markets, with the replacement of the 757s at some carriers having now committed to the A321neoLR (which now has 283 orders). UA and AA both ordered 50 each, Delta will follow at some point (no way they take the 797), and suddenly part of the 797 market is gone.

Boeing under it's current leadership "never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity" (credit to Abba Eban). late 90s, new narrow body 737 replacement, no lets squeeze the goose. Airbus jumps ahead, forces NG. Lets spend less and offshore the 787, put off a narrow body till its done. 787 delays put off new narrow body, put Boeing behind the 8 ball. Airbus jumps on the neo, forces Boeing to go with the inferior MAX due to an inability to get a replacement aircraft out in time. Now the MAX disaster has caused the 797 business case to go away due to (a) lack of investment, and (b) prior disasters due to lack of investment.

Lets be clear on what this is, Boeing is now the second string, lower quality aircraft provider, it has become what McDonald Douglas was when McDonald Douglas management took over Boeing. Boeing is now no longer the Boeing it was pre-1990s.

Bottom line is that Boeing is going to have to accept much lower margins and invest the $15B+ that it will cost for a new narrow-body with cabin fiber and better fuel burn. Do a 170 seat version, a 220 seat version, and perhaps a further stretch to 250 seats with a lower range. Make the floor another 4-5" inches wider than the A321neoLR, to allow slightly larger aisles, and then give another .5" in width to each of the Y seats. Would make the plane more comfortable for longer flights, and is a much smaller issue weight wise with a cabin fiber design. Unless Boeing does this, it will stop being a major compitor in the narrow body market with the much nicer A321neo and A220-300 taking away orders from the MAX.

I love the 757 in F/J. Second door boarding is great. But in Y (and also in F/J with the wider cabin and more modern design) the A321 is a much more comfortable plane, with 7" more width, meaning that the seats are a full 1" wider.

They haven't decide to build new 797 yet. Not yet. It will be announced in Summer 2020.

They goes for CFM.

Yes, they will resolved it soon. It will take a time. They still have to be removed MCAS.

Not a chance they won't. Need to shave every pound and inch, because there's very limited capacity for making money below the deck.

Yes, they do! It has more capabilities, more range and more fuel-efficient, as well. They surely can flying more nonstop flight from SFO to Singapore, New Delhi and a few other routes, as well.

Virtually every new-generation Y seat is a 'slimline' frame. Some have slightly better cushioning than others, but gone are the days of thick, padded backrests. Even the Weber 5751, billed as a slimline seat a decade ago, is being replaced by thinner models allowing additional rows of seating.

NMA decision is perpetually 6-12 months away. The business case was always difficult to close, and it's only become harder with MAX-related distractions and the raft of A321LR/XLR orders, even from "loyal" Boeing customers like UA. I certainly wouldn't bet money on it now...Boeing has bigger fish to fry anyway.

It will be interesting how they equip the plane. They can't run a whole bunch of Y with 30" pitch and have the range. They can (1) equip it with PE and then 32" Y, or (2) I guess do three classes, say 8 J seats, 12 PE then 32" Y, would help with range, or (3) do what Aer Lingus and TAP are doing with 16 J staggered then some Y+.

Probably YT or SFG. Surely not WQ or TRO. The last time they went for GFG they learned their lesson and went for TYE after that.

i don't see the A321 being exceedingly premium-heavy, as UA will need to use it on the thinner TATL routes that include summer seasonal leisure destinations. i'd expect UA to continue adding new 'trendy' seasonal routes like BUD and DBV. those won't be able to fill a large J cabin, and a 764 is too much plane for these destinations.

the younger 763 birds are the ones UA is converting to the premium-heavy config. these will continue to serve LHR/GVA/ZRH, etc. through the next decade. the remainder of the 763 fleet was built in the early 90s and will presumably be retired through the 2020s - although UA installed polaris on these (but no PE), so i could be wrong. that leaves UA a choice between using the A321 or the 764 for thin TATL, which is a fairly large disparity. they'll need to configure the A321 such that it can support summer seasonal routes.

I thought the -XLR is getting a different landing gear as well as a larger tail. In addition to the different fuel tank design.

Modified gear to support the extra weight of more fuel and a different flaps configuration to fly with the extra weight.

Basically, more fuel/weight and a few minor changes to accommodate.

That, and due to curvature differences the A32X window seats feel even more spacious (hah, as if economy could ever be spacious).

This could easily be one of the best TATL aircraft for economy, not too far behind the 767.