Good point. It could be something similar though. ie: United buys $10B worth of planes 5 years from now if Airbus/Boeing loan them $1B right now.

Either way, this deal seems odd and theres got to be more to the story than is being told. United is simply not in the financial position to do something like this without someone taking on a lot of risk.

 

That is correct. It would be odd for a airline manufacturer to do that since airlines generally have to front a sizable down payment in each jet.

 

United is not suppose to take delivery of the first aircraft until 2016. This is just a PR stunt.

 

Duh- of course there is more to the story. When is there not in this industry? UAL is as capable of processing this order as Delta was in merging with Northwest.

You guys kill me with your biased negativity. Yes, UAL has plenty of problems. But to spend two pages hashing possible spins is ridiculous. If Delta had put in the same order, the latest and greatest would have gone on and on about new routes, new bidding cycles, reduced upgrade times and all the chest beating that goes with "I work for the best airline".

This isn't to start a flame, merely to call foul.

Nevermind......, the future will playout according to its own plans. Rest assured labor won't have squat to say about it.

 

There will be that talk on that "other" thread. Someday

As for UAUA, they actually have one of the best fleets out there. There is no reason to replace a lot of it.

 

On the assumption that they're serious about this, the order split makes some sense. United never signed one of those exclusive supplier deals with Boeing like CAL, AA, & DL, preferring to play the manufacturers off of each and this continues that methodology. It's hard to say which is better as there are several successful carriers using both methods. Also, at some point they had to get in the game. I think the 787 has 800+ orders and the 350 has 500+ orders with a later service entry date. Neither one of these aircraft were launched by a US carrier, and contrary to the past I don't think either manufacturer is so worried about cowing to the U.S. carriers on delivery positions.

Looking at the aircraft themselves, it's not so surprising either and I don't believe they are the only carrier to order both planes. The 787 is primarily a 767-300ER replacement brought about because Boeing was losing sales to the A330-200 in that segment. It's optimized for those roles, and Boeing has been hesitant to offer stretched versions because it doesn't want to cannibalize the still successful 777 line. They've agreed on paper to longer variants, only to win orders imo and those decisions seem a ways off.

Similar to when Boeing initially pooched it against the A330/340 by offering another 767 variant, Airbus thought they could compete with 787 with a modified A330. The market told them no, and that coupled with their A380 problems made it take longer for them to put all new a/c on the table. With a later service entry date and orders already lost to the 787, Airbus decided to go after the 777 which has pretty much shut down the base A340 market. The A350 is a bigger aircraft than the 787 with only one later variant scheduled to compete with the stretched 787-9, not the baseline versions. That seems like a smart decision for Airbus as it gives them a strong A340/777 replacement aircraft long before Boeing will be able to consider a response as they are going through similar stuff with the 787 as Airbus did with the 380. They're still selling A330-200's in the meantime, a few due to 787 issues, and seem likely to be able to put together a strong A330 freighter conversion program based on the A330-200F. Boeing probably going to get the larger end with it's eventual 777F conversion, but if range isn't a factor, I'm betting A330-300's will be cheaper hulls to acquire for conversions.

So in the end, 787 replaces the 767-300's and A350's replace the 777/747-400's. Commonality isn't that big of an issue as it's unknown when Boeing will stretch the 787 that far or if it will workout. Also it's not like the 787 shares much in common with the 777. The 350 probably shares a lot with the 380, but UA doesn't have those at this point and it seems doubtful that they ever will. Whatever the purpose for the order, we'll have plenty of time to figure it out. With EIS dates that far back, I doubt it has anything to do with upcoming labor negotiations. If they want to play that game, I suppose it will have to be with the rumored NB order next year.

 

True, the way people act you'd think they were still flying Caravelles, DC-8's, DC-10's and 747-100's. Some of their 757 are probably long in the tooth, but most companies are as there really isn't an equivalent replacement.

 

Agree real pilot. What you see on this site much of the time is many of your alpa brothers knocking ual no matter what move they make. I assume it is the same brothers that hoped ual would liquidate in the past or now.

 

My comments had no hope in them. It was what the street was talking about, noting more nothing less.

 

Was not directed at you acl, but really go back read some of the comments from various people on some of the ual topics and I will stand by my comment.