United Considers Replacing Boeing 747s with Airbus A350-1000s
Airbus A350 Fuselage (photo courtesy of Airbus)
United Airlines is in talks with Airbus to place an order for Airbus A350-1000 jets that will replace the carriers fleet of Boeing 747s, according to a report by Bloomberg.
United already has agreed to buy 25 of the mid-sized A350-900 variant under a 2009 deal that included 25 of Boeing’s 787 Dreamliners. The 1000 model is larger with more capacity that would handle United’s long-haul routes.
‘A United order would help Toulouse, France-based Airbus in its effort to loosen Boeing’s grip on the market for large twin- aisle aircraft. Airbus had suffered cancellations and a four- year A350-1000 order drought until July. United has said it’s also looking at what Boeing will offer as a successor to its 777, the Chicago-based planemaker’s biggest two-engine model.
“This will be a big wake-up call for Boeing,” said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of Fairfax, Virginia-based consultant Teal Group. “There’s a big market emerging for the next-generation of the 777-300ER, and so far, Airbus is the only manufacturer with a firmly-launched new product.”’
Airbus says they will start delivering the A350 by 2017. By contrast, Boeing hasn’t committed to a firm date on its newest 777 variant, only saying they would start deliveries by the end of the decade.
‘A competition with Boeing would depend partly on how soon Airbus can free up delivery slots for the A350-1000 and how fast Boeing can develop the jet dubbed the 777-X, said two of the people. The A350-1000’s list price is $320.6 million, while a 777-X probably would command more than the 777-300ER’s $315 million. Jet buyers usually get discounts.’
Airbus has not commented on the report.
Category: Airnation
Be as it will, if it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going!!
747′s will need to be replaced eventually, but not with Airbuses please!!!
Maybe the 747-8I or 777…
Jesus Christ , don’t do that! 8i is the way forward! A350 is like aviations Skynet!
Jesus Christ , don’t do that! 8i or 777-X is the way forward! A350 is like aviations Skynet!
Very unpatroitic of United to be going for A bus!!!Should have preferred the 748.Sad
It’s not a done deal yet but you can appreciate that the vast majority of airlines are losing money and thus seek out those products that are the most cost effective and offer early availability. Quads are now relegated to niche markets and the 777 is so successful that waiting lists are long and Boeing can afford to charge a premium for that aircraft. The 747-8I should be the next logical choice but despite the makeover, it would fair poorly against the A350-1000 (as well as the 777ER of course) in terms of flight economics and profitability. In the same way the 787 beats the A330 over long haul flights, the A350 would do similar to the 777 and 748I. Economics, pure and simple.
Would it be crazy thinking if the govt created a “Buy America” provision for airlines in the US? They currently utilize this program from the rail & tranist industry in the states. It is essentialy a stimulus package that that keeps jobs in the states. So long as the the aircraft comprises of 60% US origin material it would qualify. Many fear that other counties would impose higher tarriffs on US imports due to this but the WTO which the WTO would not allow. Just a thought.
Mike, the difficulty with that stance (I hear where you’re coming from BTW) is that would be in breach of anti trust legislation which is in place to promote competition between manufacturers and prevent monopolistic practices. As you point out, to adopt such protectionist policies would only result in a “tit for tat” response from other countries in defence of their jobs. I can recall the US being highly critical of Japanese import tariffs decades ago that openly discriminated against foreign competition. Aviation is now a global enterprise with even the likes of Boeing seeking out foreign partners (e.g. Japan, Italy) to share in the development and construction of airplanes. Ironically 70% of the 787 by weight is sourced and built outside the US.
The downside is that in choosing products from within your borders solely can lead to inferior, yet more costly goods. Using your rail industry as an example, it lags behind both Asian and European systems which are far more advanced technologically and faster point to point. Competition has always been key and the driver behind companies innovating and providing better and better products.
As a Brit, I am saddened that the B747-400 is being retired at ever increasing rates in favour of an unproven project.
I kind of like the look of the B747-8 series as opposed to the B787 which to my eye is as ugly as sin! I believe that Airbus are misguided in creating the A350 since they already have a huge success with the A330 and they should be developing that model by way of stretches and shrinks and engines upgrades etc. much in the same way that Boeing have been doing with the B737 family over many decades.
I live in an area that helps produce the wings for all Airbus airframes as well as parts for Boeing aerospace and space projects so I seem to sit in the middle of the economic debate about benefits and losses depending upon whom orders what and when etc.
I agree with my American friends that United should buy Boeing for the benefit of US workers and families as should British Airways buy Airbus products but we live in a global marketplace and my liking for the B747 and A340/380 gives me a problem. Simply put, I like 4 engines on a plane that goes over an ocean and thus would think twice about going on any aircraft that only has 2 engines, even if that is the B777 series.
I’ve often wondered, if a 777 0r A330 lost an engine halfway over the Atlantic and one hydraulic system, would the plane still make it across on one engine? In testing, have they actually flown a plane all the way across on only one engine?
Shawn and Tahir, I read what you say and understand but my mind is drawn to AF447 the A330 that dropped into the ocean for reasons I am yet to fully understand. My mind is also drawn to if AF447 could have been an A340 and that ‘perhaps’ the flight may have survived whatever ailed it and managed to find a landing strip in West Africa with ‘damage’ acceptable with lives saved!!
Could an Air France B777 have survived that ‘alleged’ storm that downed that flight, yes, two huge engines with impeccable reliability, and made land? To my ‘uneducated’ mind 4 engines over vast water is always better than 2 and this was a selling point for Virgin Atlantic using their B747′s and A340′s over British Airways using B777′s……though I now note that Virgin have taken to the A330!!
For me, ETOPS and 90 minutes from a landing point was enough, any more then I will insist on 4 engines or not fly at all.
Yes Shawn B777 has recently been certified to be 3 hours away from an airport at any given point in its flight plan.B-777 has just had one engine failure in its history,an Etihad b777-300 on take off.Take off was aborted without any probs.
Yes Shawn B777 has recently been certified to be 3 hours away from an airport at any given point in its flight plan.B-777 has just had one engine failure in its history,an Etihad b777-300 on take off.Take off was aborted without any probs.
As an A330 pilot, and previously a B737 pilot, I have to say that I have grown to love the A330. It’s a very friendly aircraft and lovely to fly. If the rest of the Airbus products are as nice to fly, I would not be sending them back.
The Air France crash is again another example of Boeings superiority over A/Bus.That 330 crashed cos of control probs after a lightening strike and pilot error,wherein the copilot kept pulling the nose up till the a/c eventually stalled.I say Boeing superiority cos Boeing does not rely on Hydraulics alone for control surface activation.
Tahir. Just read your last comment (Nov 7th) and have to say that much of the content is simply wrong. Firstly, there was no lightning strike on AF447 and even if there had been, airliners are designed to route the static charge around the fuselage and be discharged from the tail end. No airliner has been lost to a lightning strike for over 40 years.
The principal reason it fell out of the skies (literally) was due to the icing over of the pitot probes and lack of corrective action by the PIC. Despite powerful heating elements, the pitots froze over when the airplane flew through storm clouds containing “super cooled water” (see YouTube video on investigation). As pitots are essential to provide the flight control system with the most basic of parameters, that of its speed, the auto pilot (and auto thrust) automatically disengaged. With alarms going off in the cockpit warning of the imminent stall, the pilots failed to regain control (a comparatively simple process), instead pulling back on the controls and putting the airplane into a stall. He should, of course, have put the nose down to regain positive lift and airflow over the wings. It is acknowledged that the airplane met a “once in a lifetime” series of events, which combined led to the loss of all aboard. Sadly, by the time the airplane hit the water, the iced pitots had melted and the airplane was in the process of recovering.
This is not a question of superiority here. Had the pilots reacted correctly, the airplane and all souls would have been saved. This tragedy apart, the airplane has an impeccable safety record and is much loved by pilots. It’s difficult to determine whether a Boeing airplane would have fared any better and hydraulics has nothing to do with this incident.
Regards
I hope Airbus takes their time in building the first A350 900 and 800 first test them and learn from the mistakes that boeing had on the 787. it took boeing along time to get the jet done and i hope United does buy the A 350-1000. i hope they buy 30-50 of them and please united keep first class on the a 350-1000. lets hope united buys a 350-1000