ECOTONE

Got my fingers crossed for some good news.

spkg

A350, First delivery is suppose to be around 2013 right, with the typical 5 year delay on new models, i'm guessing we'll be able to fly it at around 2018 on uni-amera-con-elta airlines.

yogi

well, the timing is right. interest rates are low, the dollar isn't going to be getting stronger, the manufacturers are looking to keep their order booking from evaporating.... What ever they get it should be deal, even if it is 5 to 15 years in the future before the order is completely delivered.

sobore

I thought I read somewhere that UA was moving toward a more lease heavy strategy when it came to aircraft. I’m assuming that the current financial conditions made buying much more sensible than their leasing strategy.

PTahCha

Looks like the reference is incorrect and removed.

mecabq

Yeah, this is a classic. I share everyone's sense of excitement at this prospect, but I still don't see how United will actually pay for any new aircraft.

The Obama administration is basically declaring war on the airline industry -- between environmentalist hatred of air travel, his backlash against traveling in general, and his left-wing utopian quest for high-speed train travel -- so I don't see the stimulus getting to the carriers.

There is still no credit available, United is still broke, and United and every other airline are still cutting capacity (though maybe moving closer to profitability). So where will this financing come from? Let's hope they have an actual strategy that is more legitimate than this sentence from the article suggests. . .

jhayes_1780

Wow, good news.

I will echo some other posts, UA has said all along that narrowbody replacement is the next priority.

Also, I think if one manufacturer agrees to carry the paper on these, they will probably have a leg up on the other (ie: how Airbus got thier foot in the door in the 1st place).

andersjt

Sadly, I do think this is a PR stunt. So much is not making sense financially and the WSJ article also pointed out how they have kept repeating in earnings conference calls that new aircraft orders were not being planned. I am especially confused why this would come out now after when, in 2008, they wrote off and forfeited $105 million they had placed in deposits on canceled orders.

May traffic data came out for most carriers yesterday, and it was not a good month for UA with a 14% drop in mainline traffic from a year ago and another 2 point hit to their load factor. UA's demand and yield declines so far this year exceed the average for the industry by over 2 points. There is more to this than what they are saying is a disproportionate hit because of the decline in travel to China.

They also have the shareholders meeting coming up next week and I understand some big protest rallies are being organized. As I told their Managing Director of Investor Relations last Friday, those protests are not the right message a premium carrier is supposed to have getting out.

Somebody at WHQ may have decided that they needed to get something out in a big way that was positive. It may play out to be true, but I just hope this is not another waste on money for an expensive consultant that will not result in any orders. There are a lot of mixed messages coming out from WHQ, and I do think they are trying to play down or distract from their market share losses.

ORDnHKG

Not really, if you pay attention of pax loads for those routes.

UA had tried ORD-HKG and SFO-HKG for 2 flights a day, both routes had failed to get enough loads to fill up both flights. F and C are wide open for F and C awards for the days it operate 2 flights.

ORD-PVG/PEK can already keep up with one 744 a day, sometimes they can even use just one 772.

ORD-NRT defiantely not two 744 a day, 2 772 maybe, but currently UA is able to manage just one 744.

Why not ? They are other carriers out there just installed new seats on their 744, and planning to replace whenever other aircrafts are avaialble.

OZ has done with their 744, planning ot replace when more 772 available.

CX has done with their 744, will replace when more 77W avaialble, same as NH and JL.

Keep in mind, UA only have bid for boeing and airbus right now, there is not even an order, by the time UA is going to receive new aircraft, it would not be until at least 5 years later, or even 10 years. By that time, the current new seats will become old.

Lightman7

How much cargo can an A380 carry as opposed to a 747 or 777? When I see the A380 sitting on the tarmac, I think of how short it is for the number of people it carries, and that the extra luggage storage needed would bite into the cargo capacity. I would be surprised if cargo capacity is anywhere near a 747, but then again, I could be mistaken.

bmvaughn

I'd expect that the order will start with something to replace the 757s (738/739?) and then something to begin to replace the 744s (748?).

General_Flyer

Those are fine too, I said I don't like CRJs. Specifically that or more specifically CRJ-200/700/900/1000.

ccharles

This is in no way a farfetched idea; in the current market a significant amount of vendor or vendor-supported financing is almost inevitable.

milepig

Before we get all excited about the A380, can anyone list United's hubs/major destinations that are A380 ready (or that will be shortly). I'm pretty sure ORD is not, is DEN or IAD?

FWAAA

772s have almost as much cargo capacity by volume as 744s, and the 744's excess capacity (a couple hundred cubic feet) is more than consumed by the luggage of the extra 100 or more passengers on the 744.

I would expect that your hunch is right - the A380 is not ideal for belly cargo.