That could be our "out", if the 797 actually becomes more than a paper airplane.

Yup.

Plus, $$$ is being put into the 767s with the Polaris mods. Looks like management is planning on them being around a bit longer---or at least long enough for their replacements (whatever that it.)

The oldest 767-300s are getting the Polaris Mods with the traditional layout of 30BF/46E+/138E. The youngest are slated to get a new mod that is 46BF/22PE/99E. Not sure what the route plan is for these, but it shows that 14 of them will be configured that way. There are also the 3 Hawaiian birds, the first of which just went to HKG for the mods. The Hawaiian birds are young, so they will be in the low density mods as well, at least according to the UA fleet documents.

That will mean 17 in this configuration and 14 in the Polaris configuration and 7 that will stay in the two class configuration done 7-8 years ago. The 14 Polaris and the 7 old configuration have the same total seats, so they are basically interchangeable. What remains to be seen is how long the 7 old configuration will remain around. Then how long the 14 Polaris aircraft remain after that.

It does seem that they have determined which aircraft are the highest priority to keep around, now we will have to wait and see when the economics (as United sees it) and replacement aircraft availability determine that they are no longer worth keeping around.

That's really the issue.

As long as Jacques Lapointe isn't involved in the math we have a chance at reaching the correct answer to the math problem.

The real issue is lift capacity on international long haul routes. We need more lift. The guppy can't do it all.

the super low density 763 (the 738 has as many seats) will be UA’s LHR RASM beast. GVA/ZRH and other heavy biz markets may see it as well, but that config is designed for LHR.

Interesting and it makes sense. Where did you hear this is UA's plan? Any idea what the plan is for the 7 763s not slated for Polaris?

Pardon me if I don’t take a blog that has been in existence for 5 months as gospel regarding airplane economics. Heck even the same blog has an article about fuel efficiency that says the 350 is the worlds most fuel efficient aircraft.

https://simpleflying.com/norwegian-i...-is-the-worst/

For further review check this out.

https://www.airliners.net/forum/view...?f=5&t=1406387

From post #36 in that thread based on performance models the fuel burn difference is very close when comparing the same payload, over the same distance.

Im not disputing that the 787 is efficient, but so is the A350. It just depends on what size aircraft you need and how far you need to fly it. Will the 350 burn more? Yes. It is a bigger airplane with higher thrust engines, but the 350 can carry a larger payload then the 787, and carry that payload further. So if marketing thinks they can profitably sell the increase in seats on a 350 vs the 787 the fuel burn advantage on a particular route of the 787 is offset.

And the 350 has the same cabin altitude of 6000’ and same on the humidity so no difference there. And can one really tell if it’s bleed air or not? The 350 is a quieter cabin as measured by 6 DB according to Airbus (https://www.travelandleisure.com/air...0-first-flight)

As far as the FCRF, since we don’t have them, kinda hard to compare don’t you think? And don’t tell me because it’s UAL ALPA disapproved that it isn’t comfortable. The 350 doesn’t meet the FAR requirements for square footage, that doesn’t say anything about comfort levels. And to date the CROC and MEC have not given the company any relief from needing to meet the FAR (by not asking for a waiver from the FAA) which I totally support.

That's funny. Zeke (post #36 chart) is compelling, but the following data is not? 787 is 6% more fuel efficient.

https://30f32a2c7su109xzp2ea3gjj-wpe...aircraft-2.png

Apparently, they are leaning towards using 777x to cover those few longer haul markets and the 787s for the rest while benefitting from one less fleet-type.

Fume events are becoming a huge potential legal liability for the airline industry that is completely avoided by the 787, but not with the A350 or 777s and other airliners for that matter.

It is difficult to get into and out of and even more so when the other pilot is in there bunk. Delta got some kind of waiver or amendment to the class 1 requirements which is not helpful. But hey Singapore reportedly has custom individual bunks for each pilot. I am sure United would pay for those for us too (TIC).

Can't speak to the 787 FCRF but, if the B777 FCRF is called "the condo," the A350 must be the "studio apartment." 😁

Just out of curiosity how senior does the 777 FO or CA go in general?