Alaska737 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1056 posts, RR: 6 Posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4055 times:
a few years back i heard that UA had placed an order for a rather large number of 737-700's to replace the 500's and 300's. in fact some model company even came out with a model of the plane. is this true, did UA have orders for the plane or were they considering it or whats the deal?
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26676 posts, RR: 83 Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3969 times:
With the 737NG not yet on the drawing board, UA chose the A319 and A320 as their next generation narrowbody. So the 737NG is not going to be in UA's fleet. They will continue to add A319s and A320s as they retire the 733s and 735s, and will then either choose the 737RS or A320RS in the mid-2010s as their next narrowbody.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 3934 times:
Prior to exiting Ch11 recently, United reaffirmed its 40-odd A319/A320 options. The airline has until near the end of the decade to act on them.
As mentioned in the previous post, when United chose the Airbus narrow body Boeing had yet to come out with the B737NG. Only Boeing choices were 737-300/400/500, none of which provided the economics nor range capabilities of the Airbus babies.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Socal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3897 times:
It would make sense to get 700 series, good range and a great looking plane..........
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
UA has never ordered the B737NG. They have 42 A319/A320s on deferred order, with no scheduled delivery dates. It is expected that UA will take delivery of the 42 Airbii and then not place any additional single-aisle orders until the B737RS and NSR are available.
Ramprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1455 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 3815 times:
Quoting Socal (Reply 3): It would make sense to get 700 series, good range and a great looking plane..........
UAPremierGuy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3741 times:
Quoting Ramprat74 (Reply 5): Why? The A319/A320 does the job just fine.
Because United is an American company, and Airbus is, well...not.
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3716 times:
I guess we should not expect British Airways, Lufthansa or for that matter any foreign company to purchase Boeing or US materials then.
The world economies are very interlinked, and as such business and you as the consumer have the choice to purchase a wide variety of things made in many different countries. And choice is a wonderful thing, it promotes competition in quality and price.
Not to start an A vs B war here, however the Airbus product suits United needs just fine. An anyways, a good percentage of parts on those A319/A320s are actually made in the USA. From avionics, to a significant portion of the engine!
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Kiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, RR: 15 Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 3690 times:
Quoting UAPremierGuy (Reply 6): Because United is an American company, and Airbus is, well...not.
I assume you are joking . Does that mean that other countries should not buy American products either ? If so say goodbye to millions of American jobs in export industries .
Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
Carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3564 times:
Quoting Stitch (Reply 1): UA chose the A319 and A320
A little correction, if I may.
UA intially chose the A320 as a smaller counterpart to the 757 for transcons. Something the 733/734/735 couldn't do with an adequate payload. The A319 came natural when it became available and hence ordered a few years later.
This was one of major factors in why the 737NG was launched.
ASAFA From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 167 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3532 times:
Quoting UAPremierGuy (Reply 6): Because United is an American company, and Airbus is, well...not.
Way to toss even more fuel on the "American's are idiots" fire. Since when has a company considered anything other than the bottom line? United ordered Airbus because economically it made sense at the time.
Now... back to the topic.
Quoting Alaska737 (Thread starter): in fact some model company even came out with a model of the plane
Where did you see this? If so that'd be pretty cool, especially with winglets.
Regardless, I don't think United has ordered anything from Boeing since the introduction of the 777.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2878 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 3461 times:
Quoting UAPremierGuy (Reply 6): Because United is an American company, and Airbus is, well...not.
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2): Only Boeing choices were 737-300/400/500, none of which provided the economics nor range capabilities of the Airbus babies.
Well that isn't entirely true. The A320 is more versatile, but not necessarily more efficient. The 737-300s are more efficient than the A319s (roughly same capacity) on the many short trips that United flies in the midwest. The 733 is lighter and better for the short flights. United's 737s are getting old, but they still are efficient planes on the busy routes that United flies in the Midwest and to the east coast with flight times usually under 2 hours. The 737s are not only being replaced with A319s, but also with EMB170s and CR7s. Many of those flights in the Midwest have gone to the 70 seat regional jets where United has wildly expanded in the last two years. United is cutting capacity but maintaining frequency with Explus.
United purchased the A320s initially in the early 90s to supplement the 737s and 757s. United was operating some 737s at the edge of their limits on ORD-west coast and DEN-east coast flights. The 757s just had too much capacity. Also in order for IAD to work and have any frequency to smaller west coast markets, something smaller than the 757 was needed. Airbus produced such a plane with the perfect amount of range. It was great for some of these longer flights and still efficient for shorter flights.
The United A320 order was a huge blow for Boeing since United has a history dating back to the 30s of being a loyal Boeing customer (except for some differences when United choose the DC-8). By losing such an important customer, Boeing jumpstarted the 737NG project. The 737NGs gave the range and long distance operating characteristics of the A320s.
It is an interesting battle between two companies going head to head. Boeing used to only worry about McDonnell Douglas. The MD80 and 733 were about the same, but the entry of Airbus made Boeing produce a more capable plane. Unfortunately it didn't work out for MD as they failed with the MD90. It isn't a war between countries, just simple competition in a competitive market with only 2-3 players over the past 70 years. The two most important things for airlines are efficiency and versatility. Airbus beat out Boeing in the narrowbody race by a number of years, but it has gone the other way as well.
[Edited 2006-03-30 15:35:58]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Congaboy From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 352 posts, RR: 3 Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3122 times:
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 7):
The world economies are very interlinked, and as such business and you as the consumer have the choice to purchase a wide variety of things made in many different countries. And choice is a wonderful thing, it promotes competition in quality and price.
.......
a good percentage of parts on those A319/A320s are actually made in the USA. From avionics, to a significant portion of the engine!
Well stated, Lax. For the benefit of all future posts regarding any hint of A vs. B, this should be a sub-heading for all to see before nationalistic commentaries are made. Boeing is not totally American, and Airbus is not totally European....again! Say it!!!
767-332ER From United States of America, joined Mar 2001, 2030 posts, RR: 12 Reply 16, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3114 times:
Quoting UAPremierGuy (Reply 6): Because United is an American company, and Airbus is, well...not.
Holy crap mate. Now we wonder by everyone looks at us Americans as idiots. So answer this for us please....
Why should the following companies operate Boeing?
-Iberia
-British Airways
-KLM
-Alitalia
-SkyEurope
-Lufthansa
-Air France
-CSA
-SAS
-Air Europa
-Air Berlin
-Austrian
-LOT
-Easyjet
-Ryanair
-Aer Lingus
-BMI
-Britannia
so on....They are all European, so based on your logic, they should operate Airbus.
Twinjets...if one fails, work the other one twice as hard!!!
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 17, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3077 times:
Excellent analysis RoseFlyer.....thanks.
There were rumors that UA was considering placing an order for the 737NG a few years back: this was during the United mailine/Shuttle by United period....the idea was that UA would operate the A32X while Shuttle would operate 737NGs replacing the 733/735s that operated on the Shuttle network (and 732s that were still in service with UA mainline). UA had such a large requirement for 125-150 seat airliners that flying two types side by side was not an operational issue.
Now that Shuttle is out and Ted is in, who knows if UA will ever consider ordering the 737NG......UA still has a good number of 733s and 735s, but the numbers of such types have been reduced, regional jets and small jets (like the CRJ900/E175 family) have made their impact, and UA is a very different airline than it was previously. For the time being, UA is not in a rush to replace the 733/735 fleet, but when they do address this issue, it will be interesting to see what choices they make.
Zvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 66 Reply 18, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 13): The two most important things for airlines are efficiency and versatility.
This is fundamental. It nicely illustrates, for example, the WhaleJet's problem. The WhaleJet is the very opposite of versatile. To be successful, it had to offer a dramatic improvement in efficiency. To be beaten in CASM by both the B747-8 and the B787-10 so soon could not have been in Airbus' plan. The B787-10 can be expected to do very well because it beats both the JumboJet and the WhaleJet in both efficiency and versatility.
UAPremierGuy From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 206 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3021 times:
To all:
Forgive me for love and support of American countries! Am I proud of America? Yes. Will I support an American-OWNED company over a European-OWNED company? Yes, anyday. I'm not trying to turn this into an A vs B debate, so hopefully this will be the last post on that subject. My point was simply that as an American company, it would be nice if UA actually hired American res. agents, instead of outsourcing them to India, and instead of outsourcing heavy maintenance on the 747 to China, kept it in the US. Is it going to happen? No, and I recognize that. We, for better or worse, live in a global economy. All I was saying is that, as an American, I have pride in those who manufacture planes on US soil. I recognize that all Boeing's parts and planes aren't American, but the majority are.
But please, let's drop this subject and go back to the topic at hand! Thanks for letting me clarify. No hard feelings at all.
N1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 25852 posts, RR: 80 Reply 20, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2969 times:
Quoting Alaska737 (Thread starter): a few years back i heard that UA had placed an order for a rather large number of 737-700's to replace the 500's and 300's. in fact some model company even came out with a model of the plane. is this true, did UA have orders for the plane or were they considering it or whats the deal?
Actually, you are thinking of Frontier's order to replace their 732s and 733s. Boeing actually took out a full page ad in their inflight magazine of a 73G in F9 colors. It was the abject arrogance of Boeing's sales team that lost them the Frontier and jetBlue orders.
Quoting Laxintl (Reply 2): Only Boeing choices were 737-300/400/500, none of which provided the economics nor range capabilities of the Airbus babies.
Like Roseflyer said, the 737Classic actually has better economics than the A320 Family and the 737NGs on flights within their range band. The significantly lighter weight combined with only marginally lower SFC make that a reality. The higher DR of the 737Classic as compares to the A32S adds to that
Quoting UAPremierGuy (Reply 6): Because United is an American company, and Airbus is, well...not.
That is absolutely ridiculous
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Laxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22021 posts, RR: 51 Reply 21, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2910 times:
Quoting N1120A (Reply 20): 737Classic actually has better economics than the A320 Family
I respectfully disagree.
The hourly operating cost of United's A319/A320 is lower then UA's hourly cost on the 735/733, even with the higher ownership cost of the Airbus. Same holds true for Frontier, America West and US Air whom have all operated both the Airbus baby and 737 Classics side by side. (I can happily supply the numbers) The baby Airbus beats the classic 737-300/400/500 these days.
Then add in additional the payload/range capability of the Airbus, it becomes far superior and tips the economic scale even further.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Phllax From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 396 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2857 times:
I thought the 320 was ordered because the 737-400 had 12 fewer seats in UA's configuration and could not make IAD-West Coast non-stop without added center fuel tanks and a cargo penalty.
Socal From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 473 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2729 times:
Airbus can't match the performance of the new 737's thats why............
RoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8737 posts, RR: 52 Reply 24, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2692 times:
Quoting Socal (Reply 23): Airbus can't match the performance of the new 737's thats why............
That is uncalled for. Airbus produced a great plane in the A320, but the design is over 18 years old. The fact that it is still selling is quite impressive. The 737NGs are about half that age.
Airbus undoubtedly will produce a plane that is better than the current 737. It will take time however. Airbus currently has its resources tied up with the A380 and A350. With time though you can expect Airbus to produce a new plane and Boeing to as well that will replace both the 737 and A320. I expect it to be a huge battle with both turning out very successful planes that will be competing head to head for years and years.
The A320 really is what made Airbus a competitive company in the aerospace market. They developed a plane in a previously unexploited area (the 100-150 seat twin with US transcontinental range). It won some huge orders like the United order that this thread is about. Boeing retaliated and produced a plane that filled the same niche. It isn't a case of one company being better than the other, but rather strong competition.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
25 AADC10: UA has no need to buy the 737NG. With 42 A319/320s coming they will probably retire more 737s. United should have been a loyal customer since the main
26 FlyDreamliner: When United went to buy new aircraft, Airbus A320s were the best available. That simple. Given their history of Boeing loyalty, i'm sure they would ha
27 N1120A: Actually, I would really like those, because I have seen the complete opposite.
28 RoseFlyer: The whole reason for antitrust pressure is so that the new company can work with competitors. The government made Boeing eliminate its air division s
29 Azstagecoach: Wow. When, and more importantly, why?
30 RoseFlyer: The United Aircraft and Transport Corporation was formed in 1929 when William Boeing and the founder of Pratt & Whitney's airplane powerplant divisio
31 Laxintl: Here we go.. For comparison purposes, I'll dig back a couple years to 2003 and also show the 2005 numbers. 2003 is probably more realistic especially
32 MalpensaSFO: AVE MARIA.... And people wonder why I think the way I do... If you can get the cost of employment and commerce down in America we can talk, until the
34 N1120A: That is really quite interesting, because I have seen quite the opposite at times. Very odd. Did you catch my LAX thread?
35 Laxintl: Now if we were going to discuss the A32x versus B737NG data then we would have some real fine hairs to split. But as far as the B737 classics, two th
36 RoseFlyer: The second one is certainly true today, but when you compared them when they were both new, I believe that the 737 classics did have better operating
37 EGNR: I have heard several times that United's decision to go with the A320 family rather than the 737 classic models spurred Boeing on to develop the 737NG
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 1056 posts, 
From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8435 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2878 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Jan 2006, 415 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, 
This is fundamental. It nicely illustrates, for example, the WhaleJet's problem. The WhaleJet is the very opposite of versatile. To be successful, it had to offer a dramatic improvement in efficiency. To be beaten in CASM by both the B747-8 and the B787-10 so soon could not have been in Airbus' plan. The B787-10 can be expected to do very well because it beats both the JumboJet and the WhaleJet in both efficiency and versatility.
Printer friendly format 
