In what may end up being the biggest aircraft order of 2009, United Airlines appears close to purchasing a massive number of widebody aircraft by the end of the year from Boeing and/or Airbus to replace the airline's aging 747, 777, 767 and 757 fleets. I've put together a graphic that lays out all of United's options (PDF) for fleet renewal that shows the existing fleet and potential replacements from both Boeing and Airbus.
757-200 - United's narrowbody workhorse seats 182 (3-class) or 110 (United ps.) and could be replaced by the A321 or 737-900ER for hub-to-hub or coast-to-coast operations.
767-300ER - The 787-8 or A330-200 would fit for United in this 183 and 244-seat category for trans-Atlantic, Trans-Pacific and Latin America operations. The A330-200 could offer an interim solution before the larger A350-800 is available, but it fits in a category closer to United's 777 rather than the 767.
777-200ER - The stretch 787-9 and A350-800 or even larger A350-900 would be ideal replacements for long-haul trans-Pacific 253 and 258-seat 777-200ER operations. Even the 777-200LR could fit for ultra-long haul operations opening up new markets from the airline's US bases. United is also keen to continue to compete on the US-Australia routes against Delta (777-200LR) and V Australia (777-300ER).
777-200 - As the launch customer for the type back in 1995, United's early non-ER 777s have a range of just over 5,200 nm for 348-seat Hawaii flights and 258-seat trans-Atlantic flights. The 787-3 or A330-300 may fit on these routes designed for high density operations of 5-6 hours or less.
747-400 - As the largest aircraft in United's fleet, the 747-400 could be replaced by four potential aircraft. The twin-engined 777-300ER and A350-1000 are the closest in seat count to the existing 374-seat 747-400. However, the larger 747-8 or A380 would offer significant growth for the airline flying high-capacity long haul routes between large cities.
United appears to be leaning away from the A380 and 747-8 and 777, potentially opting for a mix of 787s or A350s. In addition, a report by Leeham.net says that United is concerned the 787 won't be able to perform the missions the airline is looking for. The report also indicates that any A321 purchase would come with winglets to put them in line with the 757 in terms of performance.
on November 11, 2009 8:12 PM | Reply
Unless the A350 offers a significant performance or price advantage it would not be a politically savvy maneuver to buy Airbus aircraft. In fact I am should there would be hell to pay later on.
on November 11, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply
If they were so inclined, they could simplify ops to only the A32X and A350, but that would require over 200+ orders, but since the "150" being thrown around before seems to be popping up less and less, it appears they may be willing to go over.
How succesful could that be though? No carrier has ever attempted such a simple fleet, could it work? This could be another stupid act by Tilton, or it could be his one moment of genius.
on November 11, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply
Jon, do you believe a tit-to-tat replacement is a must ? In my opinion, they should go for A321/ A350-800/ A350-1000 or 737-900ER/ 787-8/ 777-300ER in the longer term. As interim capacity, only A330-200 would be needed if they select the latter.
on November 11, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply
The question I'm reading into this is: Who does UA merge with, Continental or US Airways? Sure it's a post-Bethune era at CO, but I don't see them owning Airbus products anytime soon.
on November 11, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply
The word on the street is that banks are no longer providing 100% financing. I am hearing that banks are insisting that the purchaser put up 20% to 40% of the acquisition cost.
Unless Boeing/Airbus are going to provide the financing I don't see how this deal can fly.
on November 11, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply
Jon,
The graphics for 757 (182 pax) and 757 (110 pax) are the same.
Could this be a mistake?
on November 11, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply
Well if it is going to boil down to a B787 vs A350 choice, then someone must have a damn good crystal ball in UA. The A350 will be a good product I am sure but it is way into the future and there are no guarantees on the pace of development and deliveries, just look at the B787 saga.
on November 11, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply
Just wondering what effect UA's issues with GE engines after the Sioux City DC-10 incident will have on the fleet decision. As I recall they haven't bought a single GE engine since-
on November 11, 2009 11:14 PM | Reply
My question is where do they get the monies to pay for these orders.
I suspect they will have to do some creative financing to accomplish a fleet modernization snd that is not so easily done in these times
on November 11, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply
I am for what ever supports the American Manfacturing base.
We are loosing aerospace jobs at an alarming rate.
I for one will not fly on an American based Airline that dosen't support the American worker.
on November 12, 2009 2:53 AM | Reply
My opinion is that they will go with the A321, A330-300, A350-900, A350-1000 and the B787-8.
The A321 is an excellent aircraft and has the additional benefit United having an existing A320 infrastructure. This is a no brainer.
The 767-300ER and the 777-200 will be replaced by the A330-300 and the B787-8. Even when the 787 and the 350 come out, the A330-300 will still be a competitive plane for short to medium range routes. The B787-8 will cover those routes that the A330-300 cannot reach or is too big.
Which leaves us as to what could the replacement be for 747-400 and the 777-200ER.
Since Boeing does not have a new generation plane for these ranges and capacity, I feel that this will go the way of the A350-900 and the A350-1000.
on November 12, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply
What are the timelines for receiving A350s and 787s? That might have an impact on their choice. I assume that United does not have one of these special deals with Boeing, where they can jump in ahead of existing customers?
on November 12, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply
I wish they would start buying planes on merit rather than on political reasons.
That would be in the best interest of everyone.
The single isle Airbus family is a no brainer for them. Widebodies are more of an issue.
I think they should buy a few 380 and become a leading US airline again in comfort and service. Use these were airport slots are in short supply: Tokyo (Haneda and Narita), London, Chicago, Dulles and maybe a few more One 380 for two 777's. I think it would be fantastic.
on November 12, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply
Yaz - You're right, the 757 cabin was showing up duplicated. It should be fixed now.
Miyuru - I think this is a tough decision for United, but cockpit commonality and crew training is likely factoring into the decision as well. I see the A321 as a likely choice on the narrowbody side because of the commonality with the existing A320 and A319s.
That being said, I don't see United buying two generations of airplanes simultaneously (see Emirates, Qatar and Etihad for examples). I just don't think they have the financial wherewithal to pull that one off. They could probably get 777-300ERs relatively soon as interim lift before the A350-1000 is available in 2015 (at the earliest), but United has always shown themselves to be interested in a unified long-term fleet buy rather than incremental generations of aircraft.
The 777-300ER makes a lot of sense from a transition side of things with the existing 777s in the fleet and the comparatively short transition to 787 might be attractive.
New cabins on all their existing long-haul aircraft suggests to me that we wouldn't see a new delivery for another five years at least, making the need for interim lift small.
The 757s and 767s are the oldest in the fleet and probably the first to be retired. Airbus pits the A330-200 v. 787 in terms of early availability of aircraft and 787 would win on fuel burn alone even with a weight penalty.
One thing that sticks in my mind is what it would take to transition the entire stock of Boeing qualified pilots to A350s. There might be an attractive option with the narrowbody Airbus fleet, but I don't think that it makes a whole lot of sense on the widebody side.
Though the A350 is also attractive because United would immediate go from four different type ratings to just two. (A320/747/777/757-767 --> A320/A350)
I'm not inclined either way to think one side has an "on-paper" edge over the other, but I can absolutely see each side's argument for what's best for United.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this one plays out.
Great question.
-Jon
on November 12, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply
What is United's cockpit crew age structure like?
Just going by media bites it seems to be rather
high. beyond 50 as an average?
i.e. would it be possible to let "phasing out" of
Boeing aircraft go in parallel with pensioning
off crews?
on November 12, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply
I think th comparison of UA 747-400, the 747-8i and A380 are based on irrelevant parameters. "typical" "brochure" seatcounts are the marketing departments favourite toolboxes.
I think the A380 has about 30-35% more seat capasity then the 747-8i.
520 vs 400 seats seems more realistic.
on November 12, 2009 8:15 PM | Reply
I think th comparison of UA 747-400, the 747-8i and A380 are based on irrelevant parameters. "typical" "brochure" seatcounts are the marketing departments favourite toolboxes.
I think the A380 has about 30-35% more seat capasity then the 747-8i.
520 vs 400 seats seems more realistic.
on November 13, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply
What's fascinating me is there really isn't a good alternative replacement aircraft for the 757. The A321? Come on - that's a stretch at best. The 739? It's a little better than the 321, but not much. The airline will be giving up a heck of a lot of capability by downgrading to one of these. Granted, they appear to have not much of a choice, but if I'm not mistaken the wingletted 757 is still the most efficient twin in the air, is it not?
on November 13, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply
Tony,
While I am certain the 757 has many positive qualities, we can't constantly look to the past for answers of the future.
Unless Boeing does to the 757 what they did to the 747 and starts making this this aircraft again, it is dead. It will serve airlines and passengers marvelously till it reaches a certain age and then KAPUT.
I know there are countless fans of the 757 out there and with very good reason. However, a dead horse is a dead horse no matter how beautiful/capable and nothing except what I wrote in the paragraph above will revive this dead horse.
on November 13, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply
Airbus is keen to increase its footprint into the former Boeing company. A look at its current fleet shows that they only have narrowbodies there, and they'd likely want to get into the lucrative widebody segment. And I'm pretty sure they would be willing to let the European taxpayer foot the bill for a steeply discounted price, something Boeing doesn't have the luxury of doing.
The 787-9 though will completely destroy any Airbus model - A350 or not - in terms of fuel burn. There are still questions though about the long-term reliability of the plane. I am still worried about the monocoque fuselage and where they join with the vertical stab and wings.
This is a must-win for Boeing, in any case. If Airbus pulls off a coup and UAL goes all-Airbus, you will see other airlines follow suit.
on November 15, 2009 8:16 AM | Reply
The decision on replacing the 86 767s and 777s will likely turn on the sizes of the planes UA wants to replace the 767s and 747s. If UA wants a 200-250 seater for the 767s then the 787-8 is the one because the 350-800 will be too large at 280 seats; and UA will likely go with the -9 to replace the 777s for commonality reasons.
If UA wants a 250-300 seater, then they will likely go with the A350-800 and use the -900 to replace the 777s.
There is now a gap of 100-130 seats between UA's 777s and 747s. They have been clear that they do not want to replace the latter with 747/380s. So the question is, what is the plane size UA wants to fill this gap? If it is 350 seats, they go with the A350-1000, and that locks in the their order for the -800 and-900 for commonality reasons. If the number is 350 to 400 seats, then Boeing gets the order because Airbus has no competitor in that segment and likely will not until the late 2020s, if ever. This does not mean however that Boeing will get the 767/777 order. That will depend on the size of the 767 replacement, I think.
My guess is that UA will go no higher than 350 seats, and the A350 will win the entire order or 767/777 replacement. Why? Because to my knowledge no US airline has operated or ordered the -300ER, even in good times, and these are not good times. The 777-200 is the largest passenger plane they operate (except for the 747s with UA and Delta) because that is what the foreign travel market re the US will support.
on November 15, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply
Following up, there are numerous wild cards that make prediction of UA's order difficult, including in so particular order:
1. Will UA be around in 7-10 years to start taking delivery (and paying for) these planes? Their management and labor relations have been historically awful.
2. Where will UA get the $? UA's credit is bad now, and in the future will likely get worse because the economic crisis will reduce its domestic cash flow.
3. Will the order depend on which airframer offers the best credit terms? This will inevitabley involve government guarentees because the order is so large and UA is so uncredit worthy. Once governments are involved, the selection process could turn into a stand off over jobs, much like the one over the tanker replacement. My bet is that if this deal happens, it will involve a split order resulting from political calculations here and in Europe.
4. Boeing has not finalized the specs for the improved 777, the 777 replacement due in the early 2020s, and 787-9. Ditto for Airbus' A350-900 and -1000. What effect will this have on UA's selection process? Perhaps a lot if it means they can get either company to build one or more of the planes to their specs.
5. What are the delivery times available for the 787, A350, improved 777 and its replacement? Which mfr can offer the best interim lift deal? The 767 and 777 and improved 777 would be the least costly to integrate into UA's current fleet; and if UA wants a plane with 360-80 seats, they can get the -300ER. But would lowest interim lift costs drive the ultimate selection decision as to the 767 replacement. If UA likes the 350-800, it will be long term, so interim lift costs may not matter. Also, Airbus will bend over backwards to offer terrific deals on the 332/333, much as they did in leasing 330s to SIA as interim lift until the A380s arrived.
6. Should UA wait until May/June 2010 to see if Boeing gets the 787 in the air by the end of this year and its test program well under way? This may give UA real data (as opposed to mfrs' puffing) about what the 787-8 can do. If its good, they can go with the -8. If its not, they can take thir chances with 350-800.
7. Will UA accept a single supplier for its wide bodies? (I am assuming Airbus will be UA's ole narrow body supplier for years to come.) This has worked for AA and Delta, but not for the likes of Emirates and SIA.
8. Lastly, Boeing's credibility is just terrible now because of how misleading they have been about the 787 program. Just yesterday, shareholders filed a class action law suit in Chicago accusing the company and employees of misleading shareholders at last summer's Paris air show because they witheld info that the 787's wing test had failed and the wing needed to be strenghtened. There is no reason why UA should believe anything Boeing says or promises. This is on top of any lingering distrust arising from Boeing's arrogant failure 10 years ago to improve the 737-400 to UA's spects, which resulted in Airbus' getting a massive 320 order. Airbus' predictions about the A350's performance and delivery times may prove wrong, but at least for now UA can say that Airbus has not overtly lied to them.
8.