Here Come the Widebodies
12-16-2022, 07:48 AM
#243
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2015
Posts: 291
https://aviationweek.com/air-transpo...ibextid=Zxz2cZ
Excerpts.
During a conference call to discuss United’s future widebody fleet, the airline’s CFO Gerry Laderman said the company has entered into an agreement with Airbus to modify the delivery schedule of the aircraft.
It is not the first time deliveries of those widebodies have been pushed back. Laderman stated the A350 deliveries are not scheduled to start until 2030 and added the Airbus widebody was a “really great option” as a 777 replacement.
“But given the age of a good chunk of our 777s, the ultimate decision on what to replace the 777s with in their entirety is something we don’t have to decide right now,” United’s CFO said.
During the time period of the scheduled 787 deliveries, United will have roughly 120 aircraft—its 767s and some 777s—that will reach 30 years of age, Laderman said. The 100 new 787s will replace the 767s and some of the 777s, he confirmed. United has declared all of its 767 should exit its fleet by 2030.
Kirby also concluded the 787 was a better replacement for the 767s because the 787 is smaller, “and the right time for the [A]350 versus the 787s conversation is when we’re replacing the bulk of the 777s, which really doesn’t begin until the end of the decade.”
The airline has 48 777-200ERs and 20 777-300ERs in service. United also operates 17 777-200s. Five of its 777s are parked/in reserve and six are parked.
Excerpts.
During a conference call to discuss United’s future widebody fleet, the airline’s CFO Gerry Laderman said the company has entered into an agreement with Airbus to modify the delivery schedule of the aircraft.
It is not the first time deliveries of those widebodies have been pushed back. Laderman stated the A350 deliveries are not scheduled to start until 2030 and added the Airbus widebody was a “really great option” as a 777 replacement.
“But given the age of a good chunk of our 777s, the ultimate decision on what to replace the 777s with in their entirety is something we don’t have to decide right now,” United’s CFO said.
During the time period of the scheduled 787 deliveries, United will have roughly 120 aircraft—its 767s and some 777s—that will reach 30 years of age, Laderman said. The 100 new 787s will replace the 767s and some of the 777s, he confirmed. United has declared all of its 767 should exit its fleet by 2030.
Kirby also concluded the 787 was a better replacement for the 767s because the 787 is smaller, “and the right time for the [A]350 versus the 787s conversation is when we’re replacing the bulk of the 777s, which really doesn’t begin until the end of the decade.”
The airline has 48 777-200ERs and 20 777-300ERs in service. United also operates 17 777-200s. Five of its 777s are parked/in reserve and six are parked.
Keep the Airbus options open for later, the A350-1000 is the most direct (and most modern) 777-300ER replacement.
764 replaced by 788:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/767-400ER/787-8/
772 replaced by 78X:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/777-200/787-10/
(maybe we'll see, down the road 7-10 years)
777-300ER replaced by A350-1000:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compar...0ER/A350-1000/
Also, keep in mind the 787-10 and 777-300ER are not even close:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/787-10/777-300ER/
12-16-2022, 07:52 AM
#244
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2022
Posts: 240
Only hull loss in North America of an A320 series was the Hudson River at the time, which probably wouldn’t have been as survivable in a guppy… lands too fast and in every accident that plane breaks into 3 parts. Every landing in a guppy feels like an emergency to the pax.
Bus is wider, quieter, more comfortable from front to back, and most importantly the toilet seat stays up.
Bus is wider, quieter, more comfortable from front to back, and most importantly the toilet seat stays up.
Page 24, “Every 737 landing feels like an emergency”
This place is glorious
12-16-2022, 08:06 AM
#245
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 726
I’m not insinuating anything. I’m asking what this insinuates re:North America:
Gross generalization trigger alert:
Very experienced pilots seem better able (on average) to hand fly their way out of unexpected situations. North American (major) carriers’ talent pools tend to have much more experienced candidates in them; thus fewer fatal instances of buffoonery and both 737 and 320 are very safe aircraft. Difference is Boeing (used to) implicitly trust pilots and Airbus implicitly doesn’t — and built specific protections to limit what pilots could do. So sure, that’s “safer” for ab initio autopilot panic pushers.
Gross generalization trigger alert:
Very experienced pilots seem better able (on average) to hand fly their way out of unexpected situations. North American (major) carriers’ talent pools tend to have much more experienced candidates in them; thus fewer fatal instances of buffoonery and both 737 and 320 are very safe aircraft. Difference is Boeing (used to) implicitly trust pilots and Airbus implicitly doesn’t — and built specific protections to limit what pilots could do. So sure, that’s “safer” for ab initio autopilot panic pushers.
12-16-2022, 01:38 PM
#249
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2013
Position: 756 left...
Posts: 472
Getting back on topic, these guys are smart. Replace three ageing subfleets (763, 764, 772) with a type we already fly (787). At a lower CASM. And petter PAX experience. (sidebar: Nicer for the pilots too!)
Keep the Airbus options open for later, the A350-1000 is the most direct (and most modern) 777-300ER replacement.
764 replaced by 788:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/767-400ER/787-8/
772 replaced by 78X:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/777-200/787-10/
(maybe we'll see, down the road 7-10 years)
777-300ER replaced by A350-1000:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compar...0ER/A350-1000/
Also, keep in mind the 787-10 and 777-300ER are not even close:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/787-10/777-300ER/
Keep the Airbus options open for later, the A350-1000 is the most direct (and most modern) 777-300ER replacement.
764 replaced by 788:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/767-400ER/787-8/
772 replaced by 78X:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/777-200/787-10/
(maybe we'll see, down the road 7-10 years)
777-300ER replaced by A350-1000:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compar...0ER/A350-1000/
Also, keep in mind the 787-10 and 777-300ER are not even close:
https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/787-10/777-300ER/
us. I also agree that a few of the older 777A/B models will be replaced by the 787-10s much sooner than later. Maybe even the 777C? They aren’t as tired as the 767s but they are getting old.
The next mystery will be whether we replace the remaining bigger 777s with larger 787s of the A350 or nothing. Many factors will go into this including possible carbon emission schemes…fuel costs…and engine manufacturers.
12-16-2022, 01:52 PM
#250
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2013
Posts: 545
What are you defining as “descending below”?
50’, 100’?
I’ve never had it dip more than 25’ or so and that’s like .2-.1 miles out without telling me. I’ve seen one miscoded arrival and the box showed that it was going to cross low and I just manually intervened. Not a surprise since it www projecting a crossing 400’ below the restriction well ahead of time.
50’, 100’?
I’ve never had it dip more than 25’ or so and that’s like .2-.1 miles out without telling me. I’ve seen one miscoded arrival and the box showed that it was going to cross low and I just manually intervened. Not a surprise since it www projecting a crossing 400’ below the restriction well ahead of time.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
