Originally Posted by
Dave Fitzgerald
I agree. The current oldest 777-200's will time out in the next 3-5 years. The first one built was 1994.
The 777-8 and -9 make a lot more sense than adding the A350's. Payload, range, seating capacity all match better than the A350's. And when we need to start replacing the -200's, the 777-8's will start to be available in significant numbers. Timing is everything.
I disagree on the payload/range/and especially the seating capacity when talking in terms of a 777-200 replacement. The 777-8 is roughly is 13 feet shorter then the current 777-300, designed to go ULH (think of it as an updated 777LR for range but much larger which means it is overbuilt except for certain niche routes. There is a reason why not many LR have been ordered, nor the -8) and the -9 is 10 feet longer then a 777-300 with Boeing touting it as a 400 seater. The A350 would be roughly 290-300 seats in a UAL configuration.
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777x/
https://www.boeing.com/commercial/777/
So if UAL cancels the 359’s and gets just 787 or 777x as replacements for the 777-200’s then there will be a big seat gap between the 787-9 and the 787-10 (currently it is 66 seats). The 777x’s will have even more capacity.
Yes from a commonality perspective an all 787/777 fleet saves some $$. But also at a cost of not having the most efficient plane flying a certain route. Either not enough seats or too many to fill. A fleet of 45 A350’s is certainly large enough to not to be an orphan fleet, and would allow the route planners to pair an appropriate aircraft to a market.