United Airlines Places Orders for 100 787s + 100 Options, Orders 56 737MAX + 44 Exercised Options

The 787 is a wonderful jet. It sips fuel, flies fast, goes really, really far. Guys who fly it love it.

As fuel costs increase, and they will, airplanes like the 787 and the 737 Max give operators a big fuel cost advantage.

For comparison, the 787-8 has roughly the cabin size of a 767-300.

But it flies at 0.85 vs. 0.82 of the 763. It burns about 60% of the fuel. It has much greater range.

On long flights, that speed and fuel burn are a huge advantage. The range offers new possibilities and new markets.

When going to smaller markets, a medium size airplane that can offer direct service (e.g. SFO to Chengdu) is a huge time savings for customers who would otherwise have to connect in a major hub (e.g. Tokyo, or HKG in my above example).
And the game changing cabin pressure helps folks arrive fresh … Big plus on long rides like MEL to LAX …
 
Will you move to evaluator on the 787, and if so what retaining is required for you?
We will have to see. I’m very happy where I am. I can hold the 787 but I would be on reserve (not a great lifestyle).

To be fully qualified as an evaluator on the airplane would require the full training course (6 weeks). IOE (initial flying, supervised by a check pilot). Three months of flying the airplane to get experience with it. Then six months of observing, and training, under supervision.

In all - close to a year before being a fully qualified evaluator.

I am interested, but as we are negotiating a contract, and the deliveries won’t start for a couple years, I’m not making any sudden moves.
 
By the time UAL receives the last of this initial 100 A/C order in 2032, their oldest 787-8s will be 20 years old.
I haven’t flown on a 787 yet - but it looks like UA will be my best bet to board one.

Why hasn’t United sprung for the 777X to replace the older 772s or the mission for those doesn’t exist there except for SFO/LAX/IAH to SYD/BNE/PVG?
 
In 2 days my wife and I are taking an El Al flight, direct LAX-Tel Aviv. 787-9, first time on this bird. I understand the seats are quite narrow, so we are taking upgraded seating. 14 hrs. going, 15+ return. Long time for me to sit in one place. Haven't been able to find out whether they have wifi working, so filling up my phone with entertainment.
Any hints regarding this long flight?
 
In 2 days my wife and I are taking an El Al flight, direct LAX-Tel Aviv. 787-9, first time on this bird. I understand the seats are quite narrow, so we are taking upgraded seating. 14 hrs. going, 15+ return. Long time for me to sit in one place. Haven't been able to find out whether they have wifi working, so filling up my phone with entertainment.
Any hints regarding this long flight?
Walk around often.
 
In 2 days my wife and I are taking an El Al flight, direct LAX-Tel Aviv. 787-9, first time on this bird. I understand the seats are quite narrow, so we are taking upgraded seating. 14 hrs. going, 15+ return. Long time for me to sit in one place. Haven't been able to find out whether they have wifi working, so filling up my phone with entertainment.
Any hints regarding this long flight?
Take books.
 
That flight over to Israel is killer. My airline doesn't fly non-stop so I usually go to Paris and spend a couple of days before heading over to TLV. It breaks the trip up and my old bones don't like sitting. Even in first class it's body and mind numbing.

As for entertainment... I'm old school and enjoy reading so I just take a book.
 
The latest 787 with the GE engines can achieve 104 passenger MPG on Long Haul flights (over 4650 nautical miles) . For those who don't know, that is absolutely remarkable and I don't believe any other aircraft exceeds this number on such trips.

By way of comparison, trains can achieve superb pax MPG if densely packed (such as a commuter train with no luggage), but on long haul runs (generally over 500 miles) , the norm is about 70 pax MPG. Also of note, a train must generally travel 10-25% more distance than an airplane.

Amtrak is said to be 34% more efficient than domestic air travel at the cost of being more than 10X slower (29 hours, vs 2.4 hours FL to NY). I believe that number is not just inaccurate, it's shrinking.
 
Last edited:
That flight over to Israel is killer. My airline doesn't fly non-stop so I usually go to Paris and spend a couple of days before heading over to TLV. It breaks the trip up and my old bones don't like sitting. Even in first class it's body and mind numbing.
I believe Qantas will soon have some really long flights like JFK-SYD over the polar circle instead of flying to London or somewhere in Europe/Middle East to refuel. The A350 is enabling their Project Sunrise.

Singapore Airlines used to fly EWR-SIN the long way using an A340-500.
 
The latest 787 with the GE engines can achieve 104 passenger MPG on Long Haul flights (over 4650 nautical miles) . For those who don't know, that is absolutely remarkable and I don't believe any other aircraft exceeds this number on such trips.

By way of comparison, trains can achieve superb pax MPG if densely packed (such as a commuter train with no luggage), but on long haul runs (generally over 500 miles) , the norm is about 70 pax MPG. Also of note, a train must generally travel 10-25% more distance than an airplane.

Amtrak is said to be 34% more efficient than domestic air travel at the cost of being more than 10X slower (29 hours, vs 2.4 hours FL to NY). I believe that number is not just inaccurate, it's shrinking.
I would rather fly over taking a train . I like aircraft especially airliners for some strange reason.
 
I would rather fly over taking a train . I like aircraft especially airliners for some strange reason.
I’d rather fly or take the train than go on a road trip. A friend asked me why and I saw unless it’s a Mercedes S-Class or a BMW 7er, I can’t spend more than 4-5 hours in a car at a time.
 
I’d rather fly or take the train than go on a road trip. A friend asked me why and I saw unless it’s a Mercedes S-Class or a BMW 7er, I can’t spend more than 4-5 hours in a car at a time.

I will agree with the road trip thing. After about 4 hours the movement of the vehicle becomes painful. I can not exactly describe exactly why but the movement hurts my body and my mind.
 
I will agree with the road trip thing. After about 4 hours the movement of the vehicle becomes painful. I can not exactly describe exactly why but the movement hurts my body and my mind.

Road trips don't make much sense driving all the way though. I have to make pit stops along the way since the human body has needs. But 12 hours in an airline coach seat is pretty bad too. Amtrak is actually pretty good since there's room to move and there's encouragement to do it on long train rides. And even "coach" seats are huge and have a ton of legroom.
 
But UA ordered 60 A321NEO’s bcs Boeing can’t figure out it’s time to move on from the 37 and be able to run the Pratts on a composite single aisle …
 
But UA ordered 60 A321NEO’s bcs Boeing can’t figure out it’s time to move on from the 37 and be able to run the Pratts on a composite single aisle …
Not exactly. Those 321 NEO XLR are 757 replacements, they are not filling a hole left by the Max. We are buying hundreds of 737 Max.

The new 787 orders are 767 replacements.
 
Not exactly. Those 321 NEO XLR are 757 replacements, they are not filling a hole left by the Max. We are buying hundreds of 737 Max.

The new 787 orders are 767 replacements.
My comment is not specifically about the stretch … It’s about the ability to get the nacelles they need for PP - and even the 319 has more room than 37‘s … Bothers me to see Boeing let this happen

Edit: would also seem a new plane could bring the efficiency and comfort that the 87 brought to the entire sector …

 
Last edited:
My comment is not specifically about the stretch … It’s about the ability to get the nacelles they need for PP - and even the 319 has more room than 37‘s … Bothers me to see Boeing let this happen

Edit: would also seem a new plane could bring the efficiency and comfort that the 87 brought to the entire sector …

And on that we agree, the max was a strategic mistake.

Boeing took a 1967 design, a design it’s been flying for over 50 years, and tried to turn it into a modern airliner.

The bottom line is that the landing gear doesn’t allow enough room for modern engines. So, despite the new wing, and the new engines, it’s still like getting a 1967 Chevy nova, and saying hey, I can put a turbo four-cylinder in this and some new Bluetooth and leather seats and it’s every bit as good as a modern car.

We all know that’s not true.

Boeing was caught in a difficult spot. Airbus was able to spend about $1 billion on R&D to re-engine the 320 series aircraft, and the NEO is a good airliner.
O
To compete economically, Boeing tried to do an update to the 737. What they really needed was a clean sheet aircraft, but the cost of R&D would’ve been around $10 billion.

The critical problem with the 737 is that it was designed as the regional jet of its day. The stubby landing gear, both saved money, and allowed the aircraft to be serviced from the ground without equipment like belt loaders, so baggage handlers, at small airports that the airplane was designed to service, could throw the bags directly into the cargo compartment. Every other aircraft of that size requires ground support equipment, you can’t just go chucking bags into the back of the 320 without having a belt loader.

But that 1967 design goal has severely hampered the airplane since.

Short landing gear means that long fuselages will impact the tail at very modest angles, requiring ridiculously high approach speeds and ridiculously high takeoff speeds. That short landing gear caused all the handling problems when they tried to stick bigger, more modern, more fuel, efficient engines on the wing of the Max.

20 years ago, Boeing was committed to designing what was known as NMA, the new midsize airplane. A fuel efficient 757 replacement, instead, they committed to turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse. Boeing was under tremendous pressure from one particular airline that operated only 737. That airline needed the 737 in order to continue its business model - which included minimizing the cost of pilot training and minimizing the cost of other training by keeping that one aircraft type in production so they could buy a new airplanes, while not having to pay for a new fleet type.

I get why Boeing made the decision, they saved a lot of money on R&D, but they developed an inferior product. A deadly product in the case of Lion air and Ethiopian. The problems with the MCAS system have been fixed, but you will never fix the problem in that airplane’s basic design, and short landing gear.
 
Last edited:
And on that we agree, the max was a strategic mistake.

Boeing took a 1967 design, a design it’s been flying for over 50 years, and tried to turn it into a modern airliner.

The bottom line is that the landing gear doesn’t allow enough room for modern engines. So, despite the new wing, and the new engines, it’s still like getting a 1967 Chevy nova, and saying hey, I can put a turbo four-cylinder in this and some new Bluetooth and leather seats and it’s every bit as good as a modern car.

We all know that’s not true.

Boeing was caught in a difficult spot. Airbus was able to spend about $1 billion on R&D to re-engine the 320 series aircraft, and the NEO is a good airliner.

To compete economically, Boeing tried to do an update to the 737. What they really needed was a clean sheet aircraft, but the cost of R&D would’ve been around $10 billion.

The critical problem with the 737 is that what it was designed as the regional Jervis day. The stubby landing gear, both saved money, and allowed the aircraft to be serviced from the ground without equipment like belt, loaders, baggage handlers, and small airports at the airplane was designed a service could throw the bags directly into the cargo compartment. Every other aircraft of that size requires ground support equipment, you can’t just go chucking bags into the back of the 320 without having a belt loader.

But that 1967 design goal has severely hampered the airplane since.

Short landing gear means that long fuselages will impact the tail at very modest angles, requiring ridiculously high approach speeds and ridiculously high takeoff speeds. That short landing gear caused all the handling problems when they tried to stick bigger, more modern, more fuel, efficient engines on the wing of the Max.

20 years ago, Boeing was committed to designing what was known as NMA, the new midsize airplane. A fuel efficient 757 replacement, instead, they committed to turning a sow’s ear into a silk purse. Boeing was under tremendous pressure from one particular airline that operated only 737. That airline needed the 737 in order to continue its business model - which included minimizing the cost of pilot training and minimizing the cost of other training by keeping that one aircraft type in production so they could buy a new airplanes, while not having to pay for a new fleet type.

I get why Boeing made the decision, they saved a lot of money on R&D, but they developed an inferior product. A deadly product in the case of Lion air and Ethiopian. The problems with the MCAS system have been fixed, but you will never fix the problem in that airplane’s basic design, and short landing gear.
Sadly an airline with two directions in their name pushed boeing in the wrong direction …

IMG_1586.jpeg
 
Last edited:
We are. I work part time in the Training Center as an Evaluator.

A large part of the reason we went with 787 vs. A350 is that the incorporation of a new fleet type, which requires new training devices, new instructors, etc. would slow down our pilot training pipeline.

Our pilot training pipeline is our limiting factor on growth. We’ve got the airplanes. We’ve got the cities and passenger demand, but we cannot train enough new pilots each year. Our new hire throughput is about 2,500/year.

In addition, we’re training upgrades, seat transitions, etc. for existing pilots.

We just took delivery of our 40th full flight simulator, and we broke ground this past summer on a new building to house 12 more full flight simulators.
Late to the party in replying to this post; however, I'm an AMC warrior and United is very favorably considered among those about to depart active duty. Their mil to civ hiring process seems to be one of the better options out there.
 
Back
Top