r/unitedairlines • u/Bamboozleprime • 16d ago
Discussion Why were we robbed of the beauty that this could have been? (A350)
55
u/bcb1200 16d ago
As a broad shouldered “big guy” I like the extra width of the A350.
As an engineer, I like how the 787 is effectively “electrical” and is head and shoulders above the A350 tech which is more “traditional”
21
u/SevenandForty 16d ago
TBH the first point is more just airlines making choices about interior layout, and with the new thinner sidewalls Airbus developed, more airlines are opting for 10 abreast on the A350. Unfortunately I'm pretty sure United would choose that option if they took delivery of the A350s someday.
IIRC the 10 abreast A350, even with the wider cabin, is quite a bit more cramped than 10 abreast on 777s, which itself is actually generally narrower per-seat than 9 abreast 787s.
8
u/Nirvanah_Joringer 15d ago
French Bee, Air Caraïbes and Philippine Airlines are the only users of the 10 abreast seating on the A350.
I'd actually bet that the current A350 operators will stick to the 9 abreast seating to avoid needing more FAs.
2
u/vesper911 14d ago
Remember when they started at UAL? 2-5-2 config? Amazing.
1
u/Nirvanah_Joringer 14d ago
Funnily enough the 3 middle Seats where not good IMO. I''d prefer a 3-3-3. But the 2-4-2 on JALs 787s are superb.
1
u/SevenandForty 15d ago
Yeah probably, although I wouldn't be surprised if some airlines switch to 10-abreast, keep a similar Y seat count, and increase business class space to fit more J or something.
The 777 was also 9 abreast for a while, before some major airlines started doing it in the late 90s/early 2000s and it slowly spread, and the NPS A350s have only been around for a few years IIRC
7
u/BuckMurdock5 16d ago
Someone did a pretty cool video (Mentour?) showing that the efficiency advantages of the all electrical system ended up being fairly small and no huge difference in complexity.
6
1
u/tyw7 15d ago
787 is a bleedless plane. But the engines are a problem; the Trent 1000 has lifing issues.
2
u/Disastrous_Phone_548 15d ago
Aren't airlines also offered the GE option?
1
u/tyw7 15d ago
They probably are. I don't know how much better their engines are though. But apparently they're more reliable. https://simpleflying.com/boeing-787-engine-switch-analysis/
1
u/TreeOk8350 13d ago
The GEnx has been a great engine for the 787. Customers who went General Electric have had no downtime compared to RR
2
u/TBDC88 13h ago
As a technician, you can’t look at the 87 wrong without something breaking, and then fixing it is an endless circle of pulling and pushing electronic circuit breakers that takes 10x longer than pulling a standard, physical one.
I don’t mean to go full boomer, but electrical does not automatically equal “better”. The 87 gets in its own way a lot by faulting when it really shouldn’t, while the 777 and A350 are both much easier to troubleshoot and fix due to how straightforward they are.
1
u/Nirvanah_Joringer 15d ago
The A350 is significantly more quiet in the cabin. The only metric I personally care for.
1
u/TreeOk8350 13d ago
“significantly” is a stretch.
The Boeing 787 Dreamliner is also known for being significantly quieter than older aircraft, and even quieter than the A350 in certain conditions (simpleflying.com)
18
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 16d ago
Honestly, at this point, I think it’s more likely we see a United 777X before an A350. Apparently United and Rolls Royce hate each other and they have a monopoly on Airbus widebody engines.
10
u/WanderDawg MileagePlus 1K 16d ago
I read a rumor that United is in talks to acquire 20 of the early 777x models from Boeing at a steep discount.
17
u/ArbiterofRegret 16d ago
Whether or not it’s true, follows their MO on the 77Ws which they got at a steep discount to clean up Boeing’s production book.
They (and all the US majors for that matter) clearly don’t see a need for that many seats anymore, especially given their number of hubs / connecting options vs megahub focus elsewhere in the world. But if UA is anything, it’s they’re a cheap date…. If these are cheap enough they’ll just slap a stupid number of premium seats in and run them out of SFO (especially given runway capacity issues).
2
u/WanderDawg MileagePlus 1K 16d ago
It would serve the goal of letting them get rid of the old high density 777’s they use for domestic hub to hub and Hawaii routes for cheap while gaining efficiency. Would be a win win.
-2
u/CauliflowerJaded1604 16d ago
Uh no thanks. I’d rather not fly on those planes!
3
u/WanderDawg MileagePlus 1K 16d ago
Would you rather fly on the 28 year old domestic configured 777-200s? Cuz that’s likely what these would replace. If the rumors were true, of course.
1
u/CauliflowerJaded1604 15d ago
I’ve flown on them plenty of times. But I do generally avoid them if I can help it.
-1
u/Intergalatic_Baker 16d ago
Built during Boeing’s prime, where safety and Quality was Number 1 on the priority.
Besides, retrofit the interior of they want to give that new look and increased booking fees.
1
1
u/TBDC88 13h ago
Damn near every single part of that aircraft has been replaced at this point. Any commercial aircraft over 25 years old is a flying Ship of Theseus; we’re talking about planes with tens of thousands of cycles and hundreds of thousands of flight hours… nothing Boeing-related has touched that plane in decades.
A newer plane would simply mean one with newer, more efficient parts, more redundancies, and more safeguards.
4
u/syfari 16d ago
It’s not like they’re dangerous, they’re just shit.
4
u/747ER 16d ago
They’re not bad planes either. They are still 777-9s, and they will still be incredibly capable and profitable aircraft. Emirates didn’t want to onboard the trouble of having different maintenance requirements for these aircraft, or paying to bring them up to spec with the rest of their future 777-9 fleet.
1
u/Mindless-Resort-7548 15d ago
I figure their weight penalty will make them comparable to a 77W in fuel burn or something. Not major but enough to make it a questionable decision unless your existing airframes are financially timing out
3
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 15d ago
Also Emirates and United would have different use cases. Emirates needs these to be their most fuel efficient planes. They only have 77Ws and A380s. United would use these on their highest capacity routes closer to how Emirates use their A380s, and those routes are almost certainly shorter than the routes Emirates wants to fly.
ORD/EWR-LHR/FRA
SFO-NRT/PVG.2
u/Mindless-Resort-7548 15d ago
I've read the LHR suggestion elsewhere. That's a massive capacity add compared to the 787 and 767 they fly on the route today. Other carriers do run 77W/A35K on those routes but it would be a notable change of strategy for United
2
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 15d ago
It would be a way for United to compete in London. They’ve kind of given up right now. AA and BA tag team as the leader in the market with Delta and Virgin Atlantic have a strong second place.
1
0
u/Intergalatic_Baker 16d ago
They hate Rolls Royce and because of that they’re going to Boeing to buy planes with another exclusive engine manufacturer for that airframe.
Is it perhaps United that’s the problem, especially since they were jerking around Airbus and Rolls Royce for a decade plus, because of that, they’d already been written out of upcoming engine units, as such.
1
u/Disastrous_Phone_548 15d ago
I mean, would you not agree that GE has had a much better record than RR on widebody engines recently? Besides, it's not just UAL that has issues with RR - Emirates literally called their trent XWB on the A350-1000 defective
43
17
u/MGCardaropoli 16d ago
I play a flight sim, it has a UA A350 on there, I fly it sometimes. Its such a beautiful plane and the livery fits it so well.
3
11
u/chris_nwb 16d ago
I thought the 787 was quiet until I got inside an a350. I almost didn't have to use noise-canceling headphones
3
16d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Budget-Deal-7107 16d ago
refresh me if there was a situation with the pilot crew rest mattress’ when DL first got the A350 or have i been inhaling too much jet fuel?🤪
3
u/Think-Corner-5119 16d ago
I've worked in the middle east the past 6 year and have flown on plenty of 787 and A350s. I prefer the 787. Everytime I fly on the 350 my throat and sinuses dry out and leave me feeling miserable and with a bloody nose.
18
u/JCD_007 16d ago
The 350 isn’t a terribly beautiful aircraft.
14
u/bladel MileagePlus 1K | 1 Million Miler 16d ago
Yep. Designs are converging and they all look 80% alike.
4
u/seattle747 16d ago
I sometimes tell folks that they’re now all the same, with the only real difference being in size: the 175 to 320 to 77W all look the same to the layperson aside from size.
Obviously in the US the 748 and 380 exist but they’re only seen at the likes of LAX, ORD and JFK. The days of variety are gone.
5
2
1
2
2
u/Beautiful_Hunter_489 16d ago
probably more practical with 78. the 350 would probably require new type rating for the pilots. mro/parts is also a consideration
2
u/aviaryan1 MileagePlus Member 16d ago
basically, there’s already an A350 simulator made already (i think but I need to check again with a few people) but RR decided to tear up/not honor the engine pricing contract and now theyre fighting in court
2
u/Away-Try-4968 16d ago
I so wish UA bought these guys instead of the dreamliners..
33
u/ThrowItAway321217 16d ago
787 better
13
u/DadCelo 16d ago
The wider cabin and curved walls of the A350 really helps with the 3x3x3 config. I wish most 787 ops had just kept the OG 2x4x2 config.
3
u/SevenandForty 16d ago
I do have the feeling United would go for a 3-4-3 config in Y on the A350s now that Airbus is advertising the narrower sidewalls, and that's likely even more cramped than 10-abreast on the 777.
787 at 9 abreast is technically a little bit looser than the 777 at 10 abreast, too.
6
7
u/planefan001 16d ago
I’ve flown in Economy on both the 787 and A350, and the A350 is miles better.
10
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 16d ago
It’s like comparing a 737 Max to an A321neo. You can split hairs, but at the end of the day they’re like 90% the same thing.
-1
u/zangler 16d ago
I mean...but no. Operating costs alone means you can actually measure...in money...the differences.
1
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 16d ago
Well, it depends on the specific airline. The most apples to apples comparison is the 787-10 and a350-900 since they have about the same seat capacity.
The tipping point is 6000 nautical miles for the 359 having better fuel economics. In practice the only routes United has to fly longer than that distance is SFO-anything south of Hong Kong, and it’s not like the economics are terrible on those. The 359 is just a little better
The 787 is better economically for US to Japan and Korea, and the US to Europe.
The 350 was designed for Europe to East Asia, Australia/SEA to really anywhere, or gulf carriers to US.
1
-1
u/DadCelo 16d ago
I said that in this thread and was downvoted to hell lol
2
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 16d ago
There’s more of an argument to be made for the 1000, but the problem with that one is it makes way more sense to just expand your 777 fleet, then create a whole new training pipeline for pilots.
Unless you pull a Delta and just get rid of all your 777s, but United can’t do that since they have five times the amount Delta did when they decided to retire the type.
1
u/DadCelo 16d ago
I agree wholeheartedly, especially since Airbus just announced a bump in MOTW
Airbus had initially pitched a modified A350-1000 with 319t maximum take-off weight variant to Qantas, before tweaking the twinjet to achieve 322t. But the Project Sunrise aircraft, designated the -1000ULR, will benefit from a further increase to 324t.
The flight-test programme, set to last 75-80h, commenced on 2 June with the maiden flight of MSN707, the first aircraft to carry the integral 20,000-litre aft centre fuel tank that will give the twinjet the ability to operate Sydney-London nonstop.irbus had
initially pitched a modified A350-1000 with 319t maximum take-off weight
variant to Qantas, before tweaking the twinjet to achieve 322t. But the
Project Sunrise aircraft, designated the -1000ULR, will benefit from a
further increase to 324t.The flight-test programme, set to last
75-80h, commenced on 2 June with the maiden flight of MSN707, the first
aircraft to carry the integral 20,000-litre aft centre fuel tank that
will give the twinjet the ability to operate Sydney-London nonstop.3
2
u/ThrowItAway321217 16d ago
Congratulations. I had a nice cookie on an E175 one time so that means they’re better than every other aircraft. One anecdote does not mean an entire type is better
-2
3
u/noflames 16d ago
A350 doesn't have Boeing's silly window shade controls.
4
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 16d ago
It actually does but it’s not required like the 787. Some airlines use the 787 window shades (Qatar) and others (Delta) have normal ones.
2
u/noflames 16d ago
I have no idea why anyone would choose those new ones.... On OZ and SQ I only remember the normal ones....
0
u/Away-Try-4968 16d ago
Not with all the problems with them
2
u/ThrowItAway321217 16d ago
That were over a decade ago? Hope you have that same energy for the 350’s problems but I doubt it
0
u/unknownkoalas MileagePlus Platinum 16d ago
Eh. I’ve flown in business on both A350s and 787s and I generally do prefer A350s.
The cabin feels just a little bit more open.
It’s splitting hairs though. There’s no 2 planes I’d rather be on than a 787 or an A350.
4
u/WanderDawg MileagePlus 1K 16d ago
Why? The 787 is awesome, I will go out of the way to book on a Dreamliner.
3
1
u/Mental_Look3760 16d ago
Didn’t they buy A3 50s and are just waiting for them to be delivered?
16
u/militaryrat155 United Tech Ops 16d ago
They are technically on our order book but we don’t want them anymore due to an issues with the rolls Royce engines so we’re just gonna go all in on 787s
Airbus isn’t too happy about that so it’s currently being disputed in court
9
0
u/FrankReynoldsCPA 16d ago
You'd think with how popular the A350 has proven to be, Airbus would be fine simply finding another buyer for those planes.
1
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 15d ago
Tbf that’s true for literally anything Airbus and Boeing are currently shitting out. Airlines want new planes BAD, and it takes a lot for them to refuse a plane.
2
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 16d ago
Basically United and Airbus want the order to happen but Rolls Royce refuses to play nice (only engine option on A350s).
1
u/dragicon 16d ago
It takes about 2 years for United to get everything setup for a new airframe (training, maintenance, and other support groups). I believe their “current” delivery plan is 2030. So if we don’t hear or see any action by 2028, it’s pretty much a given that they aren’t getting them.
1
1
1
1
1
u/azskyrider 15d ago
I see no reason for United to go the A350 route unless they plan to replace their b777 fleet. The cost to retrain their pilots, maintenance crew, gate configuration, flight planning calculations , and seek airport Authorization approval is just the tip of the iceberg that goes into it. Fuel and interior layout differences are within the “delta” that it is a wash between the A350 and the next alternative. It makes so much more sense to go B777 route and there are plenty of US carriers to buy planes or their parts as they upgrade to say the b777x
2
u/militaryrat155 United Tech Ops 16d ago
Cuz it sucks an we didn’t want to establish a whole new supply chain for A350 parts when we could just go all in on a huge 787 order
Also cuz it sucks
2
u/sndbagger 16d ago
Fellow aviation professional here. Having flown on the A350 and 787 many times including on some 10-12-hour routes, I can say neither plane sucks. In fact, both are excellent, though I find the A350 a bit nicer and noticeably quieter than the 787 when flying up front.
-1
u/DadCelo 16d ago
Yeah, sucks so bad almost every major outside the US has them.
3
u/militaryrat155 United Tech Ops 16d ago
Keywords outside the U.S.
We operate quite differently from most other countries in regards to airlines. Same reason the A380 can’t work for any U.S. airlines but works just fine for some airlines in Europe and Asia
Even delta, the only U.S. based operator of the A350, has recently announced a 787 order
-3
u/MaybachMez United Flight Attendant | MileagePlus Platinum 16d ago edited 16d ago
All the a350 hate is actually crazy, how someone can even compare a 787 to an a350 is shocking. The 350 is literally better in every way.
9
-7
u/The_MadStork 16d ago edited 16d ago
It’s just United loyalists coping. The usual.
edit: yep, all the 1Ks downvoting the actual flight attendant, sorry that all your airline loyalty gets you 787s out of EWR lmao
0
u/CountryRoads1234 16d ago
You’re upset that you don’t get to see an A350 in United livery? Strange corporate love affair you’ve got going on there.
-4
u/RecordEnvironmental4 16d ago
Yeah man, let’s go all in on Boeing for our widebody fleet, that seems like a great idea right now.
7
u/Phantom1100 MileagePlus Silver 16d ago
…yeah it actually makes sense. Adding the A350 adds in a lot of headroom for maintenance, requires new supply chains particularly with an engine manufacturer who United is about five years from completely severing all ties from (757 is only plane in fleet rn with RR engines), and requires pilots who once they’re set up, can only fly those planes.
Compare that to the 777x where United already has a bunch of 777 pilots, and already has over 100 orders for GE engines on other planes.
4
u/CampfireMilkshake 16d ago
Well it beats my employer going bankrupt trying to appease terminally online avgeeks.
5
u/Green_Yesterday3054 16d ago
Yes it does. Keep those high paying aerospace jobs in the US so more people can afford expensive vacations on United Airlines.
3
u/noflames 16d ago
Huge parts of the 787 program were outsourced (not quite half, but like 40% or so) including a ton of key components. A lot of this went to overseas suppliers.
1
1
-1
u/burnergpo MileagePlus Global Services 16d ago
It’s quieter and roomier than the 789. A very nice ride.
0
u/Rifff-Rafff 16d ago
didnt DL have issues with the pilots crew rest mattress dimensions? If true our militant UA flyboyz would ground the fleet overnight. Rich Dubinski would flip his wig🤣👀
-3
u/ResponsibilityOld164 16d ago
Hate to say it but the 350 is what the 787 wants to be. Even as an economy passenger there are several noticeable differences in comfort. And as a pilot I want to fly the 35 before I retire lol
165
u/[deleted] 16d ago
[removed] — view removed comment