C11DCA

Not saying it can't do it but it's range is limited as compared to the 787-9 or A350-900, close to what the 767-300er currently does, thus it will primarily be a Europe or South America focused aircraft.

From Lufhansa's order announcement a few years ago:

Lufthansa Commits To 777-9X and A350-900 | Commercial Aviation content from Aviation Week

Boeing Aviator

No, that is the way there were built for all carriers. There may have been cutbacks and redesigned. This occurred with the 787 from initial designs, although the 787 is much better and meets the contract.
I'm told the 777-300 is outstanding and has no issues.

UALfoLIFE

Something doesn't add up with the crew rest storing. Here's an article with pics of the forward and aft A350 bunks. Google search for the bunks turns up lots of pictures and info about the bunks. Which look really nice.

http://www.ausbt.com.au/the-airbus-a350-s-secret-loft-where-pilots-and-cabin-crew-sleep

zippinbye

From a Delta guy who's on the verge of being flushed from the 744 to the A350, can somebody give me the low-down on the UAL PWA that would render the 350 crew rest facility unsuitable for augmented ops? I've seen the pics and find myself confused - it looks comfy. Admittedly, we have had some spineless bums sign off on unsat crew rest situations (the old curtain around a business class seat trick). If you guys have leverage to turn down something that looks like the 350 facility, you're in control. Good for you. But I'm curious as to what the argument could possibly be. Thanks.

CLazarus

Just thought I'd try connecting some dots or following bread crumbs from the recent developments:

At the investor day it was made pretty clear that UAL is weak domestically compared to DAL and AA. That does not bode well for bumping up our international fleet with 35 A350s that may or may not meet ALPA crew rest criteria. I think Levy's comments about looking at the A330 were pretty obviously a smoke screen, kind of like when you go to a Ford dealer and say you saw some nice cars on the Chevy lot next door. Although I do believe we've listened to Boeing's pitch on the 10 Max, I bet we said so just because we want the Chevy dealer to know we've been looking at Fords.

Meanwhile, we think the CS is nice but are 'trying to figure out whether or not such an aircraft fits into our system'. Maybe Embraer will offer us a smoking hot deal on E2s when they see that comment. Considering Kirby's love of RJs and the desire to compete better domestically with an airframe designed in this century, a NSNB order will be forthcoming before long. I'll guess C series (perhaps finally taking over Republic's recently deferred slots), and they will enter the fleet in a few years at a stately pace compared to next summer's deferred deluge of 700s. Buying a nice new NSNB is one of the ways we are going to improve our domestic offering and performance.

Meanwhile, they did say at the investor day that 25+ years is about the limit for an airliner. And a lot of our 756s are approaching that age. So, like many others, I'm thinking A321NEOs in place of the A350s. Just in time to replace the PS 757s. I also think more 787s down the road in place of some of our Max orders. I'm guessing more 77Ws to replace all of the 747-400s and older 777s. I expect we'll be in the used aircraft or leasing market looking for more Airbii and maybe even additional 767s. All in all, pretty much what Sniper66 declared a few pages ago.

If we buy Max 10s, cross your fingers that they add a few extra feet to the flight deck and a bigger skid plate. Wishful thinking, I know. Feel free to add any breadcrumbs I missed.

Grumble

I was curious as well. Not a global guy. Anyone know what's wrong with the 350 bunks that makes it non compliant from a 117 or UPA stand point?

To the 321 comments, does it have the legs to replace the 757? Will it go to Hawaii? Or even DEN-Hawaii like the 757?

cadetdrivr

Airbus claims the upcoming A321NEO LR has longer legs (on paper) than a 757 with winglets.

That said, and without seeing the numbers, I'm confident it does not have the "hot & high" nor the shortfield performance of the 757.

Regularguy

I would imagine the problem with the 350 bunk is width and height.

Currently our 747s are not in compliance with the rule because the upper bunk is not big enough. We are actually flying around with an on-going waiver from the FAA and an agreement from ALPA to do so. It's kind of the grandfather idea in process with the 747 and it looks like the 350 was designed before the FAR changes took place.

On the ALPA side I believe the issue is every new airplane going into service must have the correct rest per FAR and of course Airbus wants to sell as is. The issue isn't how good or bad they might be, but are they in compliance.

Grumble

They're bigger than the coffin racks in my three my state room...

Boeing Aviator

What I was told by a MEC member twice was the MEC was briefed either late Summer or early Fall. The briefing was held in open session (so ask any reps for confirmation). The briefing was conducted by the crew rest committee I believe they are called the CROC committee.

Rest facility is too small, bunks were cut narrow and overall space and associated crew rest seat woefully unacceptable. Company counterparts agreed with ALPA CROC. Apparently very unlikely Airbus can make any significant changes tried one with another carrier but didn't yeild any better results.

I'm told, again and please verify with one of your reps. That 350 crew rest is non compliant with UPA and FAR 117. We can prevent 350 flying in any augmented legs st UAL. Was told by this rep that DAL and AA language wasn't as strong as ours and most likely their union will support with their companies a waiver from FAA, but our MEC will not.

That's all I know talk to any rep for verification and more info.