OK, perhaps my headline is a tad over the top, but still…. The biggest news I’ve heard in a while is United’s announcement this week that they have ordered 50 new widebody aircraft. The order is evenly divided between the Airbus A350 and the Boeing 787. As I understand it, the A350 is targeted to replace United’s fleet of larger 747s while the 787 will replace the smaller 767 fleet. Don’t pack your bags just yet as the first of these new aircraft aren’t set to arrive until 2016.
That said, I applaud United for taking a step towards remaining in the airline business by ordering new aircraft. I know the A350 and 787 serve different market segments, but I would have expected the airline to focus on one aircraft type with an eye towards reducing fleet complexity and costs. However, I suppose if you look at these 2 aircraft types replacing the 747s and 767s AND even the 777 down the road, United will be reducing from 3 fleets to 2. I still don’t think it’s ideal, but I wasn’t consulted on the purchase decision by United either. 🙂
We’ll see if these orders stick, or one of the fleet types gets cut as part of a potential merger transaction that United seems keen to execute…..someday.
But the 777 is “old technology” (quote from United).
And would a 777 be significantly more “compatible” with the 787 than an A350 (as far as maintenance training and spare parts is concerned)?
A lot of (international, mostly) airlines have a mixed fleet and seem to be doing reasonably well in comparison to our US legacy carriers.
As a UA flyer, I am glad to see some amount of planning for the future in my airline of choice. I think both major aircraft manufacturers turn out good products, and I am looking forward to flying them all (can’t wait for LH to get the A380… and me then hopefully a C/F award on it).
Frankly, I think airlines can screw up easily with much greater consequences than picking one vs. two manufacturers. How much did UA lose in their fuel hedges, for example? How much are they losing thanks to poor labor relations and thus crappy service?
Hey now, “old” is a state of mind. 🙂 I hear you, but I still believe that better choices could have been made. Of course, I have no idea what United’s books look like, and this may have been the best they could muster. Low prices at the bottom of a cycle are a good thing, and I’m guessing they got them. But I do wonder if they could afford to do more? And my guess is that the answer to that is no.
Like you though, I’ll look forward to riding on some new metal at UA!
Which 787 that’s “reality” would be a reasonable replacement for the 747?
And which A350 would be a reasonable replacement for the 767?
Ultimately most of us are just armchair airline CEOs and don’t know what they are talking about (I certainly include myself in that category, and out of politeness excude you 😉 ), but it *seems* to me that using the right aircraft for a given mission might be just as important as saving on parts/maintenance. In other words, if you use an aircraft that’s too small, you leave money on the table. If you use an aircraft that’s too large, your costs go up.
Your comment regarding which 787 in “reality” would be a reasonable replacement for the 747 is fair. As is which A350 could replace the 767? And my answer to both would be none that I’m aware of. But I reserve the right to pontificate at will as an armchair CEO. 🙂 It seems to me that the 777-300, however, would be a reasonable 747 replacement for most routes. I didn’t get into it because it opens a larger discussion, that being, is this order a blow to the 777 program? I think so. But I’m not quite smart enough to talk about why I feel that way just yet.
I see your point on leaving money on the table with an aircraft that’s too small and increasing costs if your aircraft’s too big. But I have to wonder if airlines should no longer aspire to be all things to all people with an aicraft for every conceivable mission and the costs that go along with it? I really don’t know the answer to that, but I’m just thinkin’ aloud about it.