Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Do You See The A330 As An Oddball In UA's Fleet..  
User currently offlineJohn From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1374 posts, RR: 5
Posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4291 times:

Much like the L15s they inherited, and subsequently retired, in purchasing Pan Am's pacific routes? Will the US A330 fleet honestly serve no purpose in UA's predominitely Boeing Wide Body fleet, 747/777/763? Will the fact that the A330's share a common cockpit rating with the A321/320/319 fleet, make this type more feasible in the UA fleet, as compared to the L1011s? Even though the A330 would be somewhat the odd duck of the fleet, I think it would supplement the 777s and 767s well, since UA never considered the 767-400, or did they? Just curious. Would like to read some thoughts on the subject.

68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29795 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3893 times:

I don't think UA will keep them around. The L1011's are the only oddballs that I can think of that UA kept after a merger (Feel Free to correct me on that). Even those they where retired pretty quickly. If there is a capacity problem they may keep them around for a while but it that isn't an issue then look for any oddballs to be either sold or leased out. Probably sold so they could use the revenue on an aircraft type they allready use.


OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3855 times:

The most major difference between the L10s and the 330s is that the 330s are brand new, while the L10s were not. The L10s were retireable, the 330s are not. The only way to dispose of the 330 is to sell it. Selling something that you just bought however, is always a bad move as you are certain to sell it at a loss. Just like when you buy a car, if you sold the same car a week after buying it, you could only get 90% of what you paid for it. You have to drop the price to make it worthwhile to the buyer. I mean if you're going to pay full price for something, don't you want to be the first person to use it?

THe other issue is that L10s were truly oddball in the fleet. UA had no other Lockheeds, and no other RB211 engines. On the contrary, 330s can be simmed with the same 320 sim that UA has, US bought PW powered 330s with the same engines as on the boeing fleet, and 330s are already on the schedule to have 30 delivered in the next couple of years. There is no downside to this setup, so why ditch them for a loss?

No matter what ILUV767 will tell you   the 330s will probably stay for at least a good number of years. By that time, UA will have old 767s, and it is possible that they may go in favor of 330 series jets.



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3817 times:

I agree with you DLX, if US Airways ordered 30 A330-300s why should United get rid of them? United should keep them for a while to see how well they will operate on some of their routes to Europe and the Pacific. If they blend in well they can replace some of United's older 767-200s instead of ordering the new 767-400. And yes, they have the same P&W 4000 series engines as their 747-400s & 767s so they will be able to share the same spare engine components.

User currently offlineHamlet69 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 2744 posts, RR: 58
Reply 4, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3755 times:

DLX and TEDSKI,

It's possible they might keep them, but remember US has only ordered 10 A333s, with 20 options. Those options would be easily converted into A32X orders/options should UA decide not to keep the A333s. And I don't really see the A330-300s replacing the 767-200s UA currently has (of course I mean, the A330s would be used in place of -300ERs, while those would be used to replace -200s). There is a 60 seat difference between the A330-300 and the 767-300ER. A 767-400ER or A330-200 order would still make much more sense than keeping the A330-300 for this. Also, the 61-frame 777-200 fleet doesn't help the Airbus' chances for seeing UA service, either.
I don't think it would be that hard for UA to sell 10 almost-new A330-300s. I would see them approaching either Airbus ("Take these back and we'll buy more A32X") or ILFC to get rid of them.

Hamlet69



Honor the warriors, not the war.
User currently offlineCtbarnes From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3491 posts, RR: 50
Reply 5, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3742 times:

Not to throw cold water on a thread, but isn't this discussion just a bit premature?

Charles



The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
User currently offlineUAPilot7 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 338 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3726 times:

I dont think the deal is even going to happen. With the flight attendants picketing, mechanics threatening to strike, and load factors down a lot, I just don't think its the time. If you, a United passenger who had a flight cancelled because of the pilot "strike" during the summer, and then hear of mechanics of United threatening to strike, and you need to book flights, UA vs. AA with the same fare, who are you going to pick??? That is exactly why load factors are down. Its just not the time United! (The answer was AA =) )

BTW- Its not like United doesn't see these contracts comming up, why don't they deal with these issues months in advance??? COMMON SENCE PEOPLE!


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 7, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3712 times:

Hamlet, I have no doubt that UA could sell the 330s. If you drop the price enough, you can sell just about anything to anyone. But selling brand new planes when you're not the manufacturer of such planes can not be done without losing a lot of value on the plane. (Unless of course there is a shortage of that type, which is not relevant here.)

For UA to convince another airline that they are better off buying slightly used planes from them vs. brand new planes from Airbus will take significant price dropping. Meanwhile, UA is still paying the higher financing for the plane they just sold. Not a good situation.

As for trying to give them back to Airbus, I think they would get a better deal trying to sell them to Boeing actually. The same deal would apply selling back to the manufacturer. They won't be able to get the best deal even through Airbus, considering Airbus would just have to turn around and sell that plane also. In fact, it is likely that AIrbus would give them an even worse deal than going directly to the buying airline. (Besides that, one of the companies in the US Airways Group is an airplane leasing/selling outfit. Might as well use that expertise for free.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineFlyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

I actually think that if the merger went through, they would be perfect aircraft for most of the Hawaii ops. They could make Hawaii all A330/757. I could imagine them flying at least most of these routes: KOA-(SFO), OGG-(LAX, SFO), and HNL-(LAX, SFO, ORD, and NRT) and maybe some new routes like OGG-ORD or HNL-DEN.

User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3697 times:

Well, UAL has the 777 which seats 278, and the 763 which seats 205. If the merger goes through, UAL may retain onership of the A330s, and lease them out to other carriers. I don't think that the A330 will be use for a long time in UAL's colors. The 764 is a better bet, for UAL. Pilots that fly both the 767, and the 777 will be qualified to fly that plane. United is very loyal to boeing for its widebodies, and it dosn't make sense not to continue using boeing widebodies. They are still taking deliveries of the 763, and 777.
BTW, UAL only operates the 762s on Domestic trips. So the A330 is not a good replacement.

Flyf15,
Those trips to Hawaii, are already made by a 2 class 777, which seats 300+ pax.
The A330, would have less seats=less revenue=less the company makes.
It is simply not economical to fly the A330 to Hawaii.

But, all of us are going to have to wait and see.


User currently offlineTupolev154B2 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1332 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3689 times:

UAL also operates 2-class 777's between hubs, such as ORD-LAX and LAX-IAD alongside their 767's.

User currently offlineMagyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3673 times:


And what if UA used the 20 option US has for A332-s? This
way, they would get earlier deliveries, don't have to cancel orders
(probably easier to convert those orders to A332 than to A32X)
and they would get as good or better planes than the B764.

Janos


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3669 times:

ILUV767,
Why would United lease out A330s that they already own, and order new planes to operate the routes that the leased-out aircraft operated. That's a guaranteed way to lose money!

Pilots will not be able to fly the 767-400 and the 777. Pilots can fly the 752/753/762/763 along with the 764, but then A319/320/321 pilots can also fly the A330 - no advantage for either manufacturer there.

United used to be loyal to Boeing for shorthaul aircraft, now they have a large A319/320 fleet. United used to be loyal to Douglas for large aircraft, operating large DC-8 and DC-10 fleets, now their large fleet mainly consists of Boeings. Airlines choose the manufacturer that can best meet their needs at the best price, loyalty doesn't come into it.

The A330-300 actually has a higher seating capacity than the B777-200 (440 v 420) so there is no reason why an A330 couldn't be configured to seat at last as many as a 777. Also, unless every seat is filled, switching to a slightly smaller aircraft would generally increased profitability with the same number of passengers but lower costs.

I don't know how you decided that it isn't profitable to fly an A330 to Hawaii, since that is exactly the type of route it was designed for.

BTW, I don't think this merger will ever happen, I was just responding to some of the inaccurate points made (in my opinion)

Regards
JET SETTER


User currently offlineILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3651 times:

Jet Setter,
The A330 is US Airway's configuration seats less than UAL's 777s. Less Seats=less revenue.

If UAL dosn't sell them, they will hold on to it, and lease them out to other carriers. This way they can start making back money from the merger.

United and Airbusses:
UAL wanted to replcae the 727, with the A320 because, a) they got a good deal with United
b) they had more range than the 734
c) the 737NG's ere not avaible at the time
d) cheap to operate.

UNITED and Douglas:
They operated alarge number of DC-10s, and didinot get teh MD-11 because:
a) still had DC-10s
b) no need for them at the time
c) operated 747s
d) began planning the 777 with boeing.

UNITED and Boeing:
UAL is one of the largest operators of boeing planes in the world.
They are still taking delivery of 767-322 ETOPS, 777-222 ETOPS, and 747-422.
A few years ago, they stopped getting there 101 757s.
Reciently they got all of their 737-522s.
All of their orders are up for standard bodied planes.
They have what they need.
With the airbus, they are finishing up an order placed years ago.


User currently offlineUal747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

ZZZZZZZ

IF, repeat IF, the merger goes through, the merged entity will not exercise any additional A330 options (USAir only ordered approximately 12 firm I believe) UA will place additional widebody (767,777) orders with Boeing who will also remarket the A330's ala SQ's A340's. Why is this so hard to believe????

The A330 makes no sense in an airline with large 757, 767 and 777 fleets.

UAL747-600


User currently offlineJet Setter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3645 times:

The A330 is US Airway's configuration seats less than UAL's 777s. Less Seats=less revenue

Re-read my post;
-----
There is no reason why an A330 couldn't be configured to seat at last as many as a 777. Also, unless every seat is filled, switching to a slightly smaller aircraft would generally increased profitability with the same number of passengers but lower costs.
-----

You're other points about the United/Airbus and United/Boeing also work against your argument;

United is very loyal to boeing for its widebodies, and it dosn't make sense not to continue using boeing widebodies.
United had an all-Boeing narrowbody fleet until the A320 arrived. United ordered the A320 because they got a good price, cheap to operate, good range and Boeing didn't have an aircraft available at the time.
Where was the loyalty there? Delta, American, Alaska and Continental all waited for the 737NG. IF United was so loyal to Boeing thay would have waited too...
-----
Airlines choose the manufacturer that can best meet their needs at the best price, loyalty doesn't come into it
-----
I'm sure United would find a role for the brand-new A330s if the merger does go ahead, and wouldn't lose any sleep over whether their "loyalty" to Boeing was intact.

UAL is one of the largest operators of boeing planes in the world

UAL is one of the largest operators of Airbus planes in the world, if they do combine US Airways' fleet with theirs they will probably be the largest Airbus operator.

With the Airbus, they are finishing up an order placed years ago
-----
UNITED BOOSTS FLEET WITH MORE A320 FAMILY AIRCRAFT
17 August 2000

United Airlines has once again turned to Airbus to grow its single-aisle fleet. The Chicago-based airline has placed a firm order for six A319 and six A320 aircraft, exercising options from its 1998 purchase agreement. This deal comes on top of two other firm orders placed in 2000, including one placed in January for nine A320 Family aircraft and 10 A320 Family aircraft ordered in May. Deliveries of all 31 aircraft ordered this year are slated for 2002.

Including the order announced today, United had ordered a total of 164 A320 Family aircraft, and currently operates a fleet of more than 90 A319s and A320s, the third largest fleet of Airbus aircraft worldwide, and the number one operator of Airbus aircraft in North America.

“We continue to have very strong reliability with the A320 Family, and our customers respond very positively to the unique comfort of the cabin,” said James Goodwin, United Airlines Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. “As United expands its routes and frequency throughout the world, we are confident in having Airbus help power our growth. At this time of rising fuel costs, we are particularly appreciative of the A320 Family’s fuel economy.”

“Airbus aircraft have been an integral part of United’s growth since the first A320 was delivered to the airline in 1993 and we are particularly proud that United has decided to continue its charge into the future with Airbus aircraft.”

Regards
JET SETTER


User currently offlineRyeFly From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3629 times:

I think if the merger went through, United would keep those A330's. There is enough commonality between it and its current A320's. Even if they did decided to replace them, it wouldn't be any time soon, and would more then likely sell them to an alliance partner that has or will have A330's in their fleet (Air Canada, SAS). United will have a lot more important factors of the merger to deal with then to run out and replace brand new aircraft. Besides they will need all the planes they can get. United doesn't have enough aircraft to quickly replace all of US Airways routes with the planes they have now. They will be spending most of their time replacing or adding smaller aircraft before they move on to the larger planes.

User currently offlineRyeFly From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1396 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3628 times:

I think if the merger went through, United would keep those A330's. There is enough commonality between it and its current A320's. Even if they did decided to replace them, it wouldn't be any time soon, and would more then likely sell them to an alliance partner that has or will have A330's in their fleet (Air Canada, SAS). United will have a lot more important factors of the merger to deal with then to run out and replace brand new aircraft. Besides they will need all the planes they can get. United doesn't have enough aircraft to quickly replace all of US Airways routes with the planes they have now. They will be spending most of their time replacing or adding smaller aircraft before they move on to the larger planes.

User currently offlineSammyk From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1690 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3623 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It may not be that AA, CO, Alaska, and Delta waited...

Continental didn't have much money at the time, and, they did order some 737 Classics. (-300s and -500s?)

American, well, they had just invested in nearly 300 MD-80s.

Alaska, they have been slowly adding 737 Classics as well, and had a fairly new MD-80 fleet, and only recently placed an NG AND classic order.

Delta was on the MD-90 bandwagon.

Perhaps United couldn't wait, or just didn't want to.

Sammy



User currently offlineFanoftristars From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1608 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3613 times:

I believe Jet Setter said that 762-3 and 777 pilots could not both fly the 764. Acutually, the flight deck on the 764 can be configured to act like the 777 or the 763 so training for both pilots of the 763s and 777s would be easy. Well that is the only thing that I had to say.


"FLY DELTA JETS"
User currently offlineDesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7776 posts, RR: 16
Reply 20, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

IF the merger goes through here is a likely scenario.

The A333's will be there from 12-24 months before any final decision will be made. Being only 10 of a type in a combined fleet of nearly 1000 would indeed make it an oddball. For that time being former USAir pilots would be able to fly it and exisiting spares and parts contracts would be able to keep it flying. At some point when a decision is made it would likely be that there would be a sell-back deal in favor for other jetliners.

However as I see it the A333's are the least of UA's concern after the merger. They could just continue flying from PHL and CLT to Europe as they do now. The bigger issue is rationalizing the USAir route system into a new combined system, plus figuring out what to do with all of the owned and non-owned express parteners. Remember when UA took over Pan Am's pacific division the L-1011's continued to fly the same routes till 1988 when they were sold off. Aircraft like the Fokkers and the Douglas narrowbodies are the true oddities in the combined fleet anyways.



Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3591 times:

I would point out there is no good reason to get rid of a 30 plane fleet. (That's how large the fleet would be before any decisions will be made.) 30 widebodies is a significant fleet. (Look at AA's "oddball" A300s. Only 30 or so of them. Heck, US currently only has 34 757s.) UA is buying not just the jets, but the pilots, the spares, the engines (some of which they already own), the simulators (again, which complement their own sims), etc. You "rationalize" a fleet when it is clear that operational expenses will decrease as a result. It is in no way clear that the removal of the 333 fleet would lower costs. In fact, many arguments can be made that the cost would rise simply because of selling cost of the 333, and purchasing cost of replacement craft.

Again, I (amicably) challenge someone to find a good reason for the fleet to be released. (You can throw the F100s in that argument too.)



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11275 posts, RR: 52
Reply 22, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 3591 times:

I would also add real quick that less seats (sometimes) means less revenue, but it does not equate to less profit. If a slightly smaller plane costs much less to operate, profits will grow. ALso, if a smaller plane has significantly higher fares (Concorde, Legend, etc) obviously, revenue can be greatly increased.


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineUal747-600 From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 580 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3565 times:

The Airbus website shows 10 confirmed on order of which 5 have been delivered and 5 options. You can bet that no A330 options will be confirmed while merger discussions are on going with UA. A fleet of 10 aircraft in an airline the size of a combined UA/US is insignificant and not economically viable.

Keep your day job as we forum members wouldn't want to worry about you earning a living in fleet planning for an airline!!! Just kidding of course.

UAL747-600


User currently offlineTEDSKI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (13 years 11 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

I agree with DLX on this issue of United keeping the A330s after the merger. These high tech fly-by-wire aircraft with P&W 4000 series engines like the ones United has on it's 747-400s & 767s will be easy to fly by pilots who fly the current A319/A320 aircraft. The cockpit setup in the A330 is the same as the A320 family.

25 Mlsrar : I heard it 3x, and someone may have already initiated the correct response, but ALPA regs. prohibit 32x pilots from operating 33x/34x aircraft--advant
26 Post contains links and images EyeSky : L-188, Waaay back at the beginning of this thread you asked if UA had kept any "oddballs" in their fleet after a merger. Capital had made a rather sub
27 Hypermike : WHOA! I can't believe that DLX and TEDSKI actually agree on something. As DLX has pointed out in the past, fleet commonality isn't such a big deal for
28 TEDSKI : I believe that the A330s will serve United very well on many of their routes to Europe and the Pacific regardless of where they came from.
29 D L X : UAL747, your info is incorrect. US has outright purchased 10 333s. They have reconfirmations on 4 more, and "preferable" options on 16 additional for
30 ILUV767 : "The 333 fleet can be expanded right now, while the 777 and 767 fleets will have to wait until Boeing has the time." -D L X NO United is currently ge
31 DesertJets : United seems to like to have a lot of cross-compatibility in their fleet in terms of the routes their widebodies can fly. Both the 777 and 747-400 are
32 MAC_Veteran : I see UAL keeping the A333's. I believe many have been far too quick to believe UAL will phase out the A333 in the yearn to standardize on fleet types
33 D L X : ILUV767, you're exactly the person I'm talking about when I say some of you don't get it. UAL isn't deciding which of US's fleet to add to its own. It
34 D L X : The asterisk is important enough to get its own post. (Actually, I forgot to include it.) *The merger won't happen. It is dead. One more thought just
35 MAC_Veteran : I had a smile reading the assumption that UAL can just cede their PW pwered A333's upon Air Canada, posted by some who arent getting one shred of what
36 D L X : Hehe, you know, I thought that too, but I wasn't absolutely sure that AC didn't have PWs. But, you know, it's not fair to pick on ILUV767s late on a s
37 MAC_Veteran : DLX AC has been flying their RR Trent powered A330-300s from Montreal to Paris and London Heathrow for a little while now, and nonstops from Toronto a
38 TEDSKI : AC has P&W powered 767s which have the same P&W 4000 series engines like the US Airways A330s so they can share spare engines components.
39 Udo : But AC will replace the B767s in the near future, along with the B744s which means the end for PW with AC...
40 Post contains images F4N : To all: An interesting topic which was brought up by Russell Short at the Orders Group was a fleet rationalisation plan undertaken by a private firm(
41 Hamlet69 : DLX, Ahhhhh! Now I see your point. Although I'm not ready to agree with you yet, you do bring up some very valid points. Udo, Despite what is being re
42 EyeSky : D L X states that the UA/US merger is dead. Has this been reported in the open press or is it speculation?
43 JumboClassic : Do you guys think UA might use the 333s for transcons replacing the 762s which are 17-18 years old?
44 TEDSKI : Yes I do, they will be a perfect replacement for United's aging 767-200 fleet. If US Airways is currently using A330-300s on European routes to Paris
45 TEDSKI : After the merger, the US Airways P&W powered A330-300s could also replace the aging US Airways GE powered 767-200s, so United will have an all P&W pow
46 Post contains images D L X : EyeSky, I state that the deal is dead because there is an awful lot of opposition to it, especially where it counts: Washington, DC. For one thing, a
47 Ual747-600 : I think it's great that you love the A330 so much but your logic here is weak. Why would a carrier with lots of 757/767/777's want A330's around. Espe
48 RayChuang : In my opinion, if UA does successfully merge with US, I think they're going to have a problem figuring out what to do with the A330-300 fleet. UA may
49 Saluki777 : The 777 would be a better DC10 replacement for the ORD-HNL run because that flight is always jam-packed (I know from experience), & the 777 XC carries
50 Post contains images ILUV767 : As UAL 747-600 said, that its not economical. Thats correct. There are only four or five A330s in US Airways current fleet. UAL WILL NEVER OPERATE 4 P
51 Hypermike : ILUV767 states that "There are only four or five A330s in US Airways current fleet. UAL WILL NEVER OPERATE 4 PLANES OF ANY FLEET TYPE, UNLESS THAT FLE
52 D L X : UAL747-600, some questions for you. Where did I say I even like the 330? Where did I even suggest that UAL likes 330s? Of course UAL would rather add
53 Post contains images ILUV767 : I never siad that the 777s are hard to get rid of. Don't put words in my mouth! Did you all know that United buys planes and sells them to a company i
54 D L X : I put no words in your mouth. I just pointed out your myopic argument. Why would you have to train pilots? UA is buying 333 pilots from US. Why do you
55 ILUV767 : You and i both know that if the merger goes through, the order for 400 narrow bodied airbusses is cancled. UAL does not need 400 A319/A320/A321s. Agai
56 RyeFly : How in the heck did you come up with the cancelation of the 400 airbus order? I could see them taking the heavy loss on the A330's but to cancel a 400
57 RyeFly : Here are some clippings of some articles I have read... "UAL also agreed to assume US Airways debt and aircraft lease obligations, raising the value o
58 ILUV767 : You don't need to use 400 new planes for those routes.Yes, United will take delivery of some, but not all. Most likly about 100 planes, and cancle the
59 JumboClassic : ILUV767, you probably realize that these 400 planes are not all firm orders (only about 134 are), but mostly options. Options means that the productio
60 Post contains images Hamlet69 : Well, we've been seeing the same arguments get repeated over and over again, with no avail. The truth is, IF the merger goes through, this is a decisi
61 AirCanadaSFO : ILUV767 wrote: "You don't need to use 400 new planes for those routes.Yes, United will take delivery of some, but not all. Most likly about 100 planes
62 AC183 : AC wants more 330's but it will order new aircraft because it doesn't want PW engines, it wants standardized RR power. They have enough irritation wit
63 D L X : Thank for the response, Hamlet. I actually think the 333s will last longer than that. Thai's a pretty small airline. Even if they had use for them, 10
64 Udo : I hope the deal fails...if it does, I'll give a party and members on this forum are invited! US must survive!!! Regards Udo
65 CstarU : Is 777LR invited?
66 ILUV767 : UAL will also get US Airways's 737s. What Us Airways is doing is a total fleet replacement. United may get the 134 planes that are firm orders, but ca
67 Capt.Picard : I am now going to butt-in to a conversation I know nothing about. One thing I noticed, while reading the posts, was the fact that someone said ALPA di
68 Hypermike : Capt.Picard has a brilliant point. Let me use US as an example. When a 767 comes in to PHL from Europe and continues onto CLT, there is a crew change
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Do You Prefer The A330 Or MD-11. The Final! posted Thu May 6 2004 15:33:22 by Roberta
Do You Prefer The A330 Or The A340 posted Mon May 3 2004 20:54:59 by Roberta
How Do You See The New Pics? posted Mon Jan 29 2001 20:12:03 by B777UA
Airlines In The Future: What Do You See? posted Fri Jul 16 2004 03:30:10 by SIunitsrule
What Do You See Song In The Future? posted Sun Mar 14 2004 20:10:23 by AirplanePeanut
What Do You See As The Future Of The 747? posted Mon Feb 18 2002 00:07:20 by FlyVS007
Do You Remember The 767 Accident In Canada? posted Sat Feb 22 2003 18:28:42 by Danielbk
Could The A330 Be Extended Further In Length? posted Sun Sep 24 2006 13:13:42 by Gilesdavies
Airports scheduled to see the A 380 as of now posted Thu Sep 14 2006 22:57:04 by Af773atmsp
Qantas Feeling The Heat As Rivals Crowd In posted Mon Jan 2 2006 22:09:46 by 777ER