当ウェブサイトはクッキーを使用します。当ウェブサイトを使用し、サイト内を移動することで、あなたはこれに同意したこととみなされます。
閉じる
FlightAwareのフライト追跡は広告によりサポートされていることをご存知ですか?
広告表示を許可してくださることでFlightAware.comを無料で提供することができます。表示される広告は関連性の高い控えめなものを選んでいます。FlightAwareをホワイトリストに追加する方法はかんたんに設定していただくことができます。または、プレミアムアカウントのご利用をご検討ください.
閉じる
Back to Squawk list
  • 57

United Places $7 Billion Order for Longest-Range Airbus A321 Jet

送信時刻:
 
United Airlines Holdings Inc. placed an order for 50 Airbus A321neo XLR-variant. United is the third U.S. carrier to order the A321XLR after American and JetBlue, and they intend to replace their aging Boeing 757s and use them on certain existing trans-Atlantic routes, and explore using it to serve additional European destinations from hubs in Washington D.C. and Newark. (www.bloomberg.com) さらに...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


artminburi
How about this about by May 2020 United will get new CEO :) And If ex United CEO would be new Boeing CEO Do not be surprise if B737 max still be grounding and not certify to taken flight ....Both UNITED an BOEING used to be one company and today they are located in the same Building in Chicago downtown :)
s2cmpugh
Cris Pugh 11
Saw this one coming eventually. The 57 is a great airplane, but at some point they need to be replaced.
jmadunleavy
John D 4
I always thought it had a great ride and didn't seem to need much runway to get airborne
almacdonald18
Alan Macdonald 2
Just a shame it wasn't by new 757's
BIGDJB
BIGDJB 7
Boeing problems have created quite a mess and this is what we are seeing more of. Airbus is out selling Boeing at least 2 to 1.
mcollyer
Mike Collyer 6
Is this the Boeing that relocated HQ's to Chicago to be closer to UAL?
artminburi
art kochaphum 1
Yes Mike :) Who know Oscar might move over to take CEO at Boeing ? Why United will take only 50 no option ?on AB321-xlr delivery 2024 it stop gap for sure ... The key to me is defer AB350-900 to 2027? Some thing is cooking in the burner for sure it more then what they tell us public:)
organfreak
My understanding at the time was that the move was intended to avoid Washington State sales taxes on airplanes. This was a huge deal for them.
almacdonald18
Alan Macdonald 2
Is it just me and memory playing tricks on me or did Boeings problems begin with this move ?
jrollf
jrollf 4
Suposidly the transition to Chicago (and the drop in quality) occured once they purged the last of the engineers from corporate positions and replaced them with MBA types.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/11/how-boeing-lost-its-bearings/602188/
usrepeaters
Rob Palmer 3
Someone send a memo on this to GM management and stockholders. One good experienced engineer is equal to 100 MBAs, in my opinion, for a serious technical product.
mutrock
I would not assume cause and effect but the decision to move and Boeing's problems were created by the same executives who have been so detrimental to Boeing.
organfreak
Yes, the very same executives who ran McDonnell-Douglas into the ground! That's where the trouble began. (I've read a few books.)
jhakunti
Boeing and United used to be one company.
usrepeaters
Rob Palmer 1
Think federal anti-trust broke it up as it was too much monopoly with so many affiliates in the game, including an airline using the product.
corsair2
United Aircraft and Transport Corporation consisted of Boeing, United, Pratt & Whitney, Hamilton Standard, and Sikorsky, among others.
williambaker08
Didnt Boeing create United?
pilot62
Scott Campbell 3
Long wait, but it was guaranteed without a 57 replacement, the thought of 100 max 10's at United is horrifying. the 9's take long enough to board already, but with the max problems they can demand discounts for years.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

racerxx
racerxx 3
Personal opinions don’t make planes any better
ehlerts01
David Ehlert -2
Especially with all of the fumes related incidents with Airbus jets. Reading all of the Fume incidents on AVHearld makes me want to avoid A32x-xxx planes but alas, I can't.
nicestewardess
Lily Meyer 2
Are you aware of H.R. 2208

Cabin Air Safety Act to tackle the issue.

The legislation, introduced in the Senate by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Garamendi, D-Calif., would require commercial aircrafts to install, operate and constantly monitor carbon monoxide detectors during flights. It would also require flight attendants, pilots, aircraft technicians and first responders to undergo training at least once a year on how to identify and respond to incidents involving toxic fumes on aircrafts involving smoke or fumes.

The bill would direct the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to develop a standardized system for flight attendants and other airline crew to report incidents of smoke or fumes on board a commercial aircraft. Investigators would have to take place no more than seven days after an incident is reported to identify "any replaced, worn, missing, failed or improperly serviced components," according to a draft of the legislation. The agency would also be required to publish the data collected every three months on a public website.
"This legislation can protect the flying public and airline crews by ensuring the cabin air they breathe during flights is safe — free from any hidden and toxic fumes," said Blumenthal, who is a member of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

jjtys
Jim Tyson 1
What a shame United can't support a fine U.S company known as Boeing.
TorstenHoff
Torsten Hoff 1
If Boeing had a comparable aircraft to sell, they might have.

The A321XLR is a pretty unique and flexible aircraft, able to serve lower-volume transatlantic routes as well as short and medium-haul. While a 787 is arguably better for the former, it wouldn’t be for the latter.
hackrr
Bob Hackney 1
Certainly not the Airline in favor by Bill Boeing, Ed Carlson, & Bill Allen.
jerrythornton125
Jerry Thornton, Sr. 1
The ugly scepter of Stonecipher rears his devious head!
> "Bought Boeing w/ Boeing's $$$$"
> Military snafus
> Move out of Seattle


Figure it out!
blitzebill
So looking down the airstrip in 10 years, will the Fed have to bail out Boeing as it flounders, or should I say, falls from the sky in orders and sales? The future is not looking very sunny and clear for Boeing.
s2v8377
s2v8377 1
No one has mentioned the fact that with this deal United has differed their A350 deliveries until at least 2027. I have included the link in this post to the official United press release.

United Airlines Sets a Course for the Future With Order of 50 Airbus A321XLR Aircraft
https://hub.united.com/2019-12-03-united-airlines-sets-a-course-for-the-future-with-order-of-50-airbus-a321xlr-aircraft-2641509684.html
mbrews
mbrews -3
- OH great. Article says that United will use the A321s on European routes from IAD to Europe and EWR to Europe. Now MORE chances to spend 6 + hours in a single-aisle jet to Europe. I've tried those routes on a single aisle 757 and found it horrible. Sayonara United ; I'll just book on ANYONES twin-aisle jet for my future trans-Atlantic trips.
dee9bee
dee9bee 6
I've always wondered why some folks are so opinionated about wanting to fly TATL on the widebody vs the narrow body. The widebody seats are the same size, same seat pitch and at mealtime, BOTH aisles are blocked by beverage carts anyway. My only gripe would be having to make the occasional enroute fuel stop in the winter.
mbrews
mbrews 4
Well then, choose all the narrowbodies you can find. How often have you done it? I've done MANY TATL on B757s ; I can tell you the single aisle DOES slow down the meal service significantly, leading to longer times until cabin lights go out. The twin aisle provides quite a few more AISLE seats (in absolute terms and in percentage terms) so that folks can walk around and avoid DVT. Why risk an unscheduled fuel stop that simply results in missed connections for plenty folks on-board?
wopri
You are of course right about the advantages of a twin aisle, (number of aisle seats, meal service etc) but keep in mind that the A320 family has 6 inches more cabin width, so at least in the seat width category it still has an advantage, even over the 10 abreast B777 or the nine abreast B787.
wopri
Sorry, should have clarified that the six inches wider cabin is compared to the B757.
dee9bee
dee9bee 3
If you prefer a ten abreast 777 to a six abreast narrowbody, fine. Making an assumption here at this point, but I expect the 321 XLR will eliminate the fuel issue or UA wouldn't have ordered the aircraft. I see your points, though.
azuresc
Lanny Word 3
Most of EWR and IAD flights to Europe are 757's and 767's on US carriers now. So odds are you won't be on a 777, much less the dreaded 10 abreast, at all, especially on United. I personally love the 767 on those flights with the 2-3-2 configuration and those won't be around too many more years either.
Spoid112
Brad Adams -2
To those calling a 757 a "57" stop being so damn lazy. It is only one more digit to type...
eaglegor1
WAIT....WHAT????? Ok but rats I was going to say 37 and then MAX Is that ok in your little world? Cause it's got not only two numbers but HEY It's also got a whole three letters... I try not to disappoint,... for your sake...lol
YQB
Great plane ✈️ not made in America
1MOB
1MOB 6
Hmmmm, I guess where I work in Mobile, AL doesn't exist.
Billpippine
William Pippine -1
I'd fly in a Boeing any day before an Airbus. Boeing makes great products, but has to compete against the British, French and German governments. To bad some foreign airlines don't teach their pilots had how to fly.

ログイン

アカウントをお持ちではありませんか? 今すぐ登録(無料)!機能やフライトアラート、その他様々な設定をカスタマイズできます!