Aircraft types
 

Does UAL have a replacement plan for the 744? Is it a type of the 787, maybe the 773 or nothing at all? Any talk of reducing the number of different fleet types that the combined UAL/CAL will operate?

I believe they ordered the A350 as a 747 replacement and they start arriving in 2016 barring any negotiation with Boeing on there own 747 replacement.

The new United will eventually be all Boeing, as it should be. That Airbus order is a joke. Time will tell...

United had a $90 million dollar penalty due for non-delivery of A320s.(Fact)

So, they negotiated out of it by placing an order for A350s. (Guess)

How about some heavy lift like the 748. I'm tired of other people carrying cargo out of IAH.

Remember, there is no money in cargo.:rolleyes:

I hope you're right. But I don't think so.

Considering the McQuality that Boeing is turning these days, I'm not sure it matters.

To the OP:

United converted 25 orders for the A350-900 to -1000's, plus another 10 aircraft in June of 2013. The first of the 35 deliveries is currently published to start in 2018.

The EASA granted 370 minutes ETOPS last week, FAA reviews flight test data next (787 has 330 minute ETOPS for comparison). The 350 flight tests have been virtually flawless and production is ramping up MUCH faster than the 787. The -1000 which will compete with the 777X will almost certainly beat the Boeing product to market.

Thats an awful lot of speculation

Doesn't seem like a lot to me. He just opined that the -350 will beat the 777X to market. The rest is verifiable fact.

I jumpseated (jumpsat?) on a 787 once. For all the hype, I wasn't all that impressed. The screens are big, and I guess they are cheap to replace (compared to current MFDs), but they almost seemed too big for an easy scan.

I hope we do get the A-350. I really liked the 320, even with its quirks. Boeing's cockpit layout still has its roots in the XB-15 of the 1930s. I get tired of craning to see around the control column on approach, or the awkward balance of eating my crew meal with a seat I can never move back quite far enough. Significant on an airplane that can fly for 12 hours or more. The Bus cockpits have a reputation for being roomy, quiet, and comfortable.

Other than the 380, I'm not aware of any major program glitches Airbus has had. Boeing had issues with the 707 (gear trucks), 727 (#2 engine compressor stalls), 737 (drag/range in the -100), 747 (engines); the -800 had lots of problems (including flutter) for a growth aircraft. The 757, 767, and 777 had no major issues I know of; and the 787 is legendary.

So, given the current status of the A-350 program, CRM's estimate seems reasonable to me.

Strange, all the 78 guys I know absolutely love it and say it's the best airplane we have hands down. I guess the large screens don't distract from their cross check but I know everyone is diff. Looking forward to going to training for it when I come off mil leave.

Airbus a joke?

What this airline needs is another 50-100 319's at a minimum. The 350 will be a welcome addition.

I'd take an Airbus over a super guppy any day..

Told to me, fourth and fifth-hand:

1. 787 burns gas like a 757, but carries pax like a 777 (or 767-400).

Good.

2. 787 dispatch reliability: 40% of flights go out 30 or minutes late for mx.

Bad.

Please correct me where needed, if you can.

Check the Boeing delivery schedule, It's Mc Boeing that's saying that 777x-9 production starts in 2017 as where Airbus is reporting -1000 delivery in 2017.

Airbus doesn't have a stellar record of hitting performance numbers like Boeing (used to do), but, if they do, the 350 will be what airline execs opt for. Compared to the the 777x, the 350 is 15% more efficient. The 777 will have to make that gap up by selling the extra 35-40 seats (insert lament about the effect that increased capacity has on yield here).

I could actually care less, it all pays the same for me.

I'm assuming based on fourth or fifth hand you don't know if those are factual or not. Didn't you know...80% of all statistics are made up? In all seriousness I think the 78 is going much better now, but it did have its growing pains initially...like every new jet.

The 787 is performing 17% better than planned on fuel burn.
Maintenance is still 22% higher than targeted (every month there is about .5-1% reduction in this metric).
It's a good plane to replace the 767. I think we need the 350 or 77X too.
We need 99-120 seat planes too.
The most important thing is more planes that make money for mainline. I don't care if it is a crappy guppy or crappy fifi. What we all should care about is these things that are all priority number one.
1. Does it make money? This is key!
2. Is is mainline? If not it doesn't help as much.
3. Do I have a contract that affords me the most pay for the best quality of life? Just as critical to be in parallel with the two above.

I assume from the tone of the rest of the post that you actually "couldn't" care less.

+1! .

I use to be an all Boeing guy, until I flew the A320 I absolutely love this airplane. (and yes, I do hand fly the departure).

Hence my disclaimer...I don't know the actual numbers, but true as you say. I have seen the "improvement" numbers...but they don't tell us where that leaves us standing....

I think the A-350 and 777-X will be near-parity in performance and efficiency. I think the nod will go the jet with the estimated best reliability, lowest logistics cost, or lowest initial cost.

I always thought the 777 very reliable. friend of mine just did 9.5 hours IAD-IAD because the lavs crapped-out (pun intended) over the Pole.

No, I always keep some apathy in reserve just in case.

350 vs 777X? Unfortunately Boeing finally threw in the towel with airbus's marketing BS and now they both engage in the same mud slinging.

Airbus claims theirs is better by X amount. But Airbus is assuming 9 across seating on the 777. Over 80% of 777's are being ordered and delivered with 10 across seating. Boeing's numbers use the 10 across cost per seat mile number.

I have had the displeasure to ride in a 10 row 777 a couple of times and it sucks. But who cares. I bought the cheapest tickets just like the other wankers riding in the cheap seats with me.

Dispatch reliability is better than the 777 at 2 years into the program. Fuel burn (-8) is approx 10.8K/ hour at 450K lbs. Within 2 hours your able FL 400 or better (assuming 10+ hour flight) Around the half way point or 2/3 your burning less than 10K / hour. Assuming .86M.

Problem isn't broke jet. Problems with delays are pluggin computers into the jet and figuring out how to fix the little stuff

40 mins late is nothing. Can easily make that up. Departed CTU 4 hours late, planned a 500 CI, programmed 787 CI. .89M. Made up an additional 45 mins off the 500 CI planned and landed with better than planned fuel......FWIW

Very true statement

It was very reliable when we did mx on them

I bet you have never flown any of the Airbus planes.

Saying "...United will eventually be all Boeing, as it should be" is like saying; we should all drive Ford Model T.
Personally I don't give a $h...t what we fly as long as the airline is profitable, I'm employed, and making good money till I retire.

Not to mention that there is pad built into the flights.

Nice!
:D

Wrong. And fwiw I enjoyed flying the bus, and probably will bid the 350 at some point. You need to relax sport!

CI is planned at .84-ish. We can cruise at .90 and the fuel burn isn't that much of a difference. As stated, the 500CI planned and we still made up an additional 45 minutes and better than planned FOD. Just sayin, the airplane is incredible.

When it's not grounded......or on fire, and then there's that issue about the folks in the left seat. Other than that, it's a game changer. ;)

Just sayin'!