The old Unimatic page showed 12/15/2015 but that DIS page is gone. That was a while back.

Either way as long as I have an Airbus on the property to fly I'm happy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you believe the info at the 787 blog, which seems pretty up to date, our 25th airplane is due to be delivered on 11/20/2015.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...=2&output=html



theoretically that could change if the deliveries were modified based on a 777-300 order, but since we are now 10 months out from that delivery, I think it is unlikely.

Not so sure this is true. We're almost certainly taking the AF/KLM deferral that was slated for 2015/2016 and that's obviously within 12 months. So allowances were made somewhere and I don't think they will want much of a delay since they're apparently so hot and bothered to get them as replacement aircraft. If its not meant to replace any of this years 78's then we're talking 2017 due to the 78 delivery gap in 2016 and I just don't think that was the plan. But you're right in that the crux of the issue is how many of this years orders can be converted and how quickly.

Today's news

United Readies Order for 10 Boeing 777s (NYSE: BA) (NYSE: UAL) - 24/7 Wall St.

I understand why they proposed it to. But in my opinion, it ended up backfiring..... at least here on the West Coast. The problem is that there have been almost ZERO 400 Cap bids, and many Sparky Cap bids. And if the 777-300ER is going to replace the 400, then there will most likely not be any more 400 bids soon. The replacement airplane ANYONE can bid, so we are losing fenced airplane bids to non fenced airplane bids. And IF the 777's are truly an order conversion from the 787-9, AND if the 787-9's that are being converted are the ones that come before #25, then the fence won't come down quite some time. We will see how it plays out.

Hmmmm.... the picture gets clearer

Which backfire would you rather have? Proposing fences for less than 5% of the aircraft or not having your proposal even considered and letting the other side decide the methodology because you proposed 1-for-1.

I agree it affects some people more than others. Its what we got. Its part of the deal. I'm at peace with the decision.

Are those my only two choices? I would rather have had our proposal in it's entirety.... minus the fences. I thought it was a mistake at the time of the proposal considering it was LUAL who made brought the issue to the table. I've been scolded for not having all the facts behind the decision, and it's true - I certainly don't. We will never know what would have happened if there WERE no fences, but I'm sticking to my hunch that we would have been better off without them.

Like you, I'm at peace with it. It is what it is, and is definitely all water under the bridge. But do I wish we hadn't brought the issue of fences into the SLI discussion? Yes.

All mental knob schlobing. We continue to go round and round. This is such an old, worn out tune.

So we are getting 10 unfenced airplanes, and both sides are complaining about fences???????????????????????????????

For a 400 guy the 777 is quieter.
For a 787 guy you don't have to worry about leaning forward and hitting your forehead on the HUD on a 777.

You both win.

I am stuck on the Uberguppy. The cockpit is too small and loud, no intercom, and the toilet seat won't stay up.

There is something for everybody with 10 777-300ER.