UA orders 50 aircraft, 100 purchase rights

[Dennis]

United Airlines has announced orders for 25 Dreamliners, 25 A350-900 and purchase rights for 50 of each.

The 787 will replace the 767s and the A350s will replace the 747 fleet.

Scoop

[flybywire22]

Awesome news for United!

[Northwestdc9]

Ewww, A350 but 787s are good!
United is in desperate need of new airplanes and they finally get to it. Good to see them looking forward. Now bring on the narrowbody order.

[RatherBFlyin]

I hate the WSJ, and their "pay us to read our articles" nonsense. They have to generate revenue somehow, but I still don't like it.

http://www.united.com/press/detail/0,7056,61384,00.html

I blogged about this this morning. The new aircraft should fit into United's international fleet very well, and should give them a great deal of flexibility and savings, even if it does reduce their capacity somewhat.

[caps1237]

Looks good to me! Confusing right off the bat but thinking about it for a sec and it makes perfect sense for UA. And I'm glad capacity will be down, should give them a higher load factor which would be good of they can find a way to make these planes more profitable.

[Dennis]

I'm not a big fan of the order but I have to admit that it suits them very well. Lower your high capacity 747 with A350s. Expand your range with 787s. However, Airbus has infiltrated what was once considered an all Boeing fleet (save the short haul). Eventually United wants to have only the 787 and A350 as the widebodies of its fleet. So unless UA goes for some 737NG we could see a second US in the making here. Not good news for Boeing who is headquartered just barely some blocks away from UA.

[RatherBFlyin]

Both new aircraft will be expanding the range of the aircraft they are replacing, as well as increasing efficiency and decreasing maintenance costs. It will be interesting to see what United does with the purchase rights.

[RatherBFlyin]

Hmmm, now this is becoming interesting. Glenn Tilton is now saying that United may consider Bombardier CSeries aircraft as replacements for Boeing 737s, instead of waiting for Boeing and Airbus to develop new narrowbody aircraft.

He also stated that they may use the purchase rights in their order yesterday to obtain replacement aircraft for the older 777s in the fleet.

http://ratherbflyin.wordpress.com/2009/ ... -upgrades/

[Northwestdc9]

United does have the oldest 777-200s which are now approaching 15 years old. First delivered in 1995, United has the original 777-200 non-ERs with Pratts and those could definitely use a replacement when available.

[DMM200]

United does have the oldest 777-200s which are now approaching 15 years old. First delivered in 1995, United has the original 777-200 non-ERs with Pratts and those could definitely use a replacement when available.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Cathay Pacific has the oldest original 777-200.

And I don't know why airlines are so interested in getting rid of these models. They're only 14 going on 15 years old (assuming that you don't have the prototype like CX), and perfectly good airplanes. Yes fuel efficiency is a factor, but wouldn't a re-engine do the trick to a certain extent?

[Dennis]

Actually, United was the launch customer of the 777 program altogether so they should have the oldest 777s flying around. Fuel efficiency? Yes. Re-engine? Look at is this way: would you put a new engine on a 1990s car? You can but it'll be expensive. And what happens when other parts start giving you problems? It would be a bit more costly trying to repair and maintain a frame than it would be to replace it altogether, at least, that's how I view it.

[Aaron Robinson]

And I don't know why airlines are so interested in getting rid of these models. They're only 14 going on 15 years old (assuming that you don't have the prototype like CX), and perfectly good airplanes. Yes fuel efficiency is a factor, but wouldn't a re-engine do the trick to a certain extent?

Please provide us with an example of a major re-engining program undertaken by an OEM. (CFM re-engining 707s and DC-8s do not count, as the CFM56 had no new-build platform at the time and the joint venture was trying to establish itself.) While re-engining 737s and A320s may be forthcoming, re-engining 777s is not an option. Finally, please keep timeline in perspective. The first aircraft of this order is not arriving for seven years, and the order will probably be wrapping up in about ten years, at which point the oldest 777 will be 25 years old, nearing the end of its useful life.

[RatherBFlyin]

Do military re-engining programs count? Most (if not all) KC-135's have been re-engined, as well as pretty much all of the Cobra Ball, Rivet Joint, etc models. The C-5 RERP (Reliability Enhancement and Re-engine Program) began in 2005.

It may not be as cost effective as obtaining a new-build aircraft (efficiencies gained from a new engine design may be compromised by an old aircraft design), but it can provide enough of an efficiency gain to justify continued use of an old aircraft until new-build replacements are available (speaking primarily of narrowbody aircraft).

I don't see any reason why 777's would be re-engined though, since replacements will be available relatively soon in the form of 787 and A350 aircraft.

[seahawks7757]

I can tell you that they are beggining to have more mtx. issues with the T7. The SEA-NRT has been cancelled after a RTF and other issues and last saturday it left at about 2300 Local time only about 11 hours late.

[Aaron Robinson]

Do military re-engining programs count? Most (if not all) KC-135's have been re-engined, as well as pretty much all of the Cobra Ball, Rivet Joint, etc models. The C-5 RERP (Reliability Enhancement and Re-engine Program) began in 2005.

KC-135 = 707. And we are talking about airliner airframes anyways, which have much higher cycles and hours than military aircraft and therefore face a different binding lifetime constraint.

I can tell you that they are beggining to have more mtx. issues with the T7. The SEA-NRT has been cancelled after a RTF and other issues and last saturday it left at about 2300 Local time only about 11 hours late.

Sorry, but what can one really tell about United 777's maintenance performance from a one-time sample?

[seahawks7757]

Well I am saying in the last month it has been canceled a few times. There has been more then one

[Northwestdc9]

United does have the oldest 777-200s which are now approaching 15 years old. First delivered in 1995, United has the original 777-200 non-ERs with Pratts and those could definitely use a replacement when available.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Cathay Pacific has the oldest original 777-200.

And I don't know why airlines are so interested in getting rid of these models. They're only 14 going on 15 years old (assuming that you don't have the prototype like CX), and perfectly good airplanes. Yes fuel efficiency is a factor, but wouldn't a re-engine do the trick to a certain extent?

Cathay eventually bought the prototype 777-200 from Boeing in 2000 but as a whole United does have the oldest 777s.
Fun fact: The first delivered 777-200 was line number 7, first delivered to United in May, 1995.

[Dennis]

Well I am saying in the last month it has been canceled a few times. There has been more then one

I'll second Aaron's question on this one. Older planes are bound to have more problems, but does that mean that the entire 777 fleet is facing problems?