LA_Traveler

Well, we'll find out if their predicted data is accurate when they complete the fatigue airframe testing.... long before any in service airplane reach that level of flight cycles.

Luvs2snowbordbut1kSEA

787 787 787 787

pleasee!!

gbsfo

The whole point is that even if a route is doable, it may not "make sense" from a business point of view. If EK can do it has no bearing on if UA can do it. EK has traffic rights SYD-DXB, and DXB-SFO, does UA? Would UA be able to carry passengers for only the SYD-DXB sector?

Also, think route networks. EK's model relies heavily on traffic converging on DXB and being routed onto their final destination. SYD-DXB pax could be going to many many final destinations on EK metal onward from DXB. What about UA pax (even if they can carry SYD-DXB only)? DXB is not exactly a *A fortress, and even then, why connect in DXB and not SIN/BKK on SQ/TG?

Unless there is massive high yield O&D traffic for SYD-DXB and UA could get rights, I don't see why they would ever do such a fantasy route. If they were only transporting mainly through pax to IAD/JFK/BOS etc, then they would only be cannibalizing their own SYD-SFO/LAX traffic.

UALUNOK

Here's a cool chart from FlightBlogger showing the current fleet (in UA livery) and the capacity and range options from both Boeing and Airbus.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/fl...ualoptions.pdf

Count me with those saying I don't really care who they pick. Just give me newer planes with cleaner, better interiors, and modern power, entertainment, and connectivity options.

JonathanIT

And larger F and C cabins!

UAL awesome

Kinda sad the 737 is no longer there

And where are the Busses? But the 787-822, 777-222LR and 747-822i would sure look damn good in UA livery ^

colonius

What the article doesn't say is that Boeing gets subsidies, too. But since this is a "hush-hush" topic for US governments, those subsidies are usually hidden in nice, lush US military contracts.

colonius

Gladly, but that doesn't mean that I want to be on any of those early rides. Just look up the "deHaviland Comet" or look at early DC-10 problems. I am all for giving a new airplane model a few years in the air before my butt is in one of its seats.

On that behalf, neither the B787 nor the A350 are to appealing to me, but I would rather sit in a "new" airplane of more conservative design.

PHLGovFlyer

Of course EADS (Airbus parent co.) gets lots of "lush" military contracts too. I guess that fact must be pretty "hush-hush" too...

mauiUAflyer

I've worked at entities that do US government contracting since I got out of grad school. As one might expect, the gov imposes lots of rules and regulations, and there is a lot of oversight. There is a lot of accounting and auditing. There are no "subsidies". A company can't really move funds from a gov't contract over to the commercial side of the house, unless the company decides to invest profit earned on the contract (if there is any) on other ventures; the funds from the gov't have certain "colors of money" attached to them, and aren't generally fungible.

About the closest one could get to a 'subsidy' IMO, is when Congress will fund the procurement of more aircraft of a certain type than the military branch is requesting. But this falls more in to the "jobs bill" arena for some Senator's state, and allows the government to keep more than one supplier "alive" so that the Gov't doesn't have to sole-source the procurement. As they say, "at the convenience of the Government".

LA_Traveler

Absolutely right... if a contractor uses government contract fund to work on another project, even for the same agency of the government, without written contractual authorization, the contractor project managers go to jail for fraud.

The closest thing to a government subsidy that Boeing can be accused of receiving is NASA basic research programs that may produce knowledge that might get applied to a future Boeing product. But this is not the same as a direct subsidy for the development of a product, such as Airbus received for each of its aircraft programs.

jmr50

Military contracts kept some of Boeings lines churning long after commercial demand had ended. Heck, the tanker controversy was at least in part an attempt by Boeing to keep building the 767.

jhayes_1780

UA specifically said the 748 was not part of the RFP.

LA_Traveler

Nothing wrong with military being a customer buying some customized version of a commercial product. Heck, I think that's the right direction to go instead of wasting money developing a unique military product when there is already a commercial solution that works. My point still stands that no federal government subsidy was used to fund the design work of a commercial aircraft like the 777 or the 787. Anyway... this is going OT... so I won't further comment on this topic.

danville 1K

Based upon how business class shrank when they rolled out the new 747 configuration I somehow doubt you're going to see that happen.

On the 747 all three premium class cabins (F, B & E+) lost seats and the area devoted to business class shrank.

Old New
172 E 240
88 E+ 70
73 B 52
14 F 12

On the 767 fleet the size of each cabin remained the same, as did the number of E+ and E- seats. But first class lost 2 seats and business lost 6.

The trend is not in our favor by any stretch as companies cut back on premium class travel.