Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA And The 748i  
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10033 times:

UA's workhorse in the pacific is the 744, i don't really see them going to a 773, the 773 does hold similar to the 744 but it seems like UA would like to get some more capacity out of their 747s especially to slot restricted NRT, so why doesn't UA buy the 748?

60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 10012 times:

I'd bet that UA would look at the 773ER before the 748. It would simplify their fleet plan and captains could be crosstrained for the 772 and 773. Supposedly there's not that much difference in flying either of those beasts.

Then again, if things look up for UA, then they could possibly be a 748I candidate, as well as NW. Though I imagine that those 747-400's they have will have a few more years before UA starts replacing them with any.

I could also see UA going to an ALL 772ER to replace their 747's and up the frequency, a la CO and AA.

UAL


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 9967 times:

UA most likely will buy either the 773ER or 748. I have an inclination that they will go for the 748, but that's not based on anything whatsoever. The 772ER is just too small for many of their routes and I don't see them operating A380s even though SFO-HKG, ORD-HKG, SFO-NRT, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, LAX-SYD, SFO-SYD would all support the plane for UA.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9944 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
I could also see UA going to an ALL 772ER to replace their 747's and up the frequency, a la CO and AA.

Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency


User currently offlineCJAContinental From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 459 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9944 times:

For ORD-NRT, LAX-NRT, I would have thought the 773ER more frequently would be more suitable, as the airport fees in japan tend to favour airlines using smaller aircraft more frequently; as far as I know, they base a lot of the fees on size and weight of the aircraft. Logically, larger aircraft are more likely to spend more time on the ground, so if the airports increase the fees for larger aircraft exclusively, then the airport can increase their revenue a lot more quickly.

Just a thought.

[Edited 2007-06-10 00:26:40]


Work Hard/Fly Right.
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 5, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9886 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency

I think you have a good point there. That is very true. UA can't easily switch its asian operation to 772s.

By the way, welcome to A.net, but be careful about starting too many threads when you are new. Make sure you have researched and used the search feature to make sure the topics haven't been discussed recently before.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineRemcor From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 358 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9827 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
I think you have a good point there. That is very true. UA can't easily switch its asian operation to 772s.

I thought that one of the reasons that UA won the recent bidding against NW, AA, etc. for the slot into Beijing was that they would provide a 744 for their IAD-Beijing flight.


User currently offlineC680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 588 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 9735 times:

Quoting Remcor (Reply 6):
I thought that one of the reasons that UA won the recent bidding against NW, AA, etc. for the slot into Beijing was that they would provide a 744 for their IAD-Beijing flight.

You are correct, sir.

However, that brings up an interesting question: Is there any requirement to maintain a 747-400 or larger aircraft on the route? Or can they change the regularly assigned equipment once they have acquired the route?  Confused



My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
User currently offlineHalls120 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 9699 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
UA's workhorse in the pacific is the 744, i don't really see them going to a 773, the 773 does hold similar to the 744 but it seems like UA would like to get some more capacity out of their 747s especially to slot restricted NRT, so why doesn't UA buy the 748?

Because they just came out of bankruptcy, and don't have the money.  duck 

Although my source is the among the least reliable, but frequently encountered on Anet - an airline employee - the 748i is definitely in UA's plans, but far into the future.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9464 times:

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
Because they just came out of bankruptcy, and don't have the money.

not having enough money is such a lame excuse lol, wouldn't airlines be so much more fun if they had an endless amount of money!


User currently offlineUAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9451 times:

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
not having enough money is such a lame excuse lol, wouldn't airlines be so much more fun if they had an endless amount of money!

I'm all for it! Give me back my breakfast, lunch, and dinner on my 2 hour flights!!!!! Oh, and real glasses, china would be nice as well. Of course this is in economy.

UAL


User currently offlineCatdaddy63 From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 306 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They are friendly with Airbus, why not 388's? I don't think either is likely for UA.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 12, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One reason UA keeps the 744s around is that during bankruptcy they were able to get the flight crew pay rates equal to the 777s and also were able to re-negotiate the lease rates they were paying. So right now, a 744 is cheaper for UA to operate then it was prior to entering C11.

If UA were to go with the 748I, they may be forced to renegotiate the crew pay rates. They also would likely pay higher lease rates. And they'd have additional maintenance costs because their current widebody fleet is PW powered and they'd have to take GE power for the 748I. And for the record, I do not believe Sioux City will have any bearing on UA moving to GE power in the future as they pretty much won't have a PW option for the next generation widebodies.


User currently offlineWarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 708 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9406 times:

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
I could also see UA going to an ALL 772ER to replace their 747's and up the frequency, a la CO and AA.

Does UA have enough available slots at NRT to increase frequencies? I think they're using all their NRT slots at the moment. Didn't we just lose NRT-HKG in order to give the slot to another NRT-USA route?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 3 days ago) and read 9342 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 13):
Does UA have enough available slots at NRT to increase frequencies?

Slots wouldn't matter since UA's PW-powered 772ERs can't make many of the East Coast-Asia missions that CO's and AA's GE- and RR-powered birds can.


User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6573 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 9163 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
If UA were to go with the 748I, they may be forced to renegotiate the crew pay rates. They also would likely pay higher lease rates. And they'd have additional maintenance costs because their current widebody fleet is PW powered and they'd have to take GE power for the 748I. And for the record, I do not believe Sioux City will have any bearing on UA moving to GE power in the future as they pretty much won't have a PW option for the next generation widebodies.

The 777-300ER is also GE-only, so engine manufacturer doesn't make a difference with UA either choosing the 747-800i or the 777-300ER. If UA were to order either of those aircraft, I would also expect that if UA orders the 787, they will choose GE engines. Not counting the IAE-powered A320 series, UA has never been a major Rolls-Royce operator, however, NW suprisingly chose RR for their 787s, so only time will tell.

If United goes with the A350 though, RR will be the only option.

[Edited 2007-06-10 04:51:33]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 9047 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
One reason UA keeps the 744s around is that during bankruptcy they were able to get the flight crew pay rates equal to the 777s and also were able to re-negotiate the lease rates they were paying. So right now, a 744 is cheaper for UA to operate then it was prior to entering C11.

..of note is during 2002, UA were selling 7-8 B744's for $60-$70 million each (this is according to fellow A.netter Behramjee and I'm certainly not going to doubt him on it)....

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
If UA were to go with the 748I, they may be forced to renegotiate the crew pay rates. They also would likely pay higher lease rates. And they'd have additional maintenance costs because their current widebody fleet is PW powered and they'd have to take GE power for the 748I. And for the record, I do not believe Sioux City will have any bearing on UA moving to GE power in the future as they pretty much won't have a PW option for the next generation widebodies.

I have an article somewhere with Tilton stating that UA was looking at the B787 and B748I....as you properly stated, no PW option means probably a visit with GE....so it could be possible. Also, as you know, a lot of work now is done on "Power-by-the-hour" basis...i.e.-contracted out..so it might be possible...



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 8988 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 13):
Does UA have enough available slots at NRT to increase frequencies?

Slots wouldn't matter since UA's PW-powered 772ERs can't make many of the East Coast-Asia missions that CO's and AA's GE- and RR-powered birds can.

They can't? Are you sure? They fly IAD-NRT, that's east coast to Asia, and about 14 hours. UA has a couple other 14 hour-ish 777-200ER flights - SFO-TPE and SFO-HKG. I will concede that CO's GE90 powered 777-200ER's will go further than UA's PW powered 777-200ER's, which don't have the max avail MTOW, but they can still fly some awfully long routes.

To be perfectly honest, I'd bet that Boeing would be willing to give UA one hell of a good deal on the 747-8i, which isn't really selling. Being that they currently operate 744s, and would likely continue to operate them side by side with the new aircraft for some time, 748 would be easier. I don't think UA necessarily needs all of 748's size, but I think they'd get a sufficiently good deal to steer them that way over the 777-300ER, which Boeing is less willing to deal on - as it is selling healthily. I think A380 is simply way too big for UA.



"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineNA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10763 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 7484 times:

UA has many 744s which are newer than half of their 777 fleet, so a complete replacement of this successful type is far off. When UA needs to replace their first batch of 744s it´ll be around 2013-16. By that time the 748I and the A380 are in service, and the A350 just hits the market. All three types will be superior to, and more modern than the then aging 777-300ER. UAs 772 fleet, the oldest in the world, will be really old then and the first batch, especially the 772(A)s need to be replaced starting by about 2015 as well, so the replacement question for 744s is also a replacement question for 777s for UA. 787s and 748Is are the likely choice, or probably A380s, 748Is and A350s.
Overall, its more urgent for UA to answer the question what replaces the 767 anyway. They need to go before the 744s.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 19, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6629 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
They can't? Are you sure? They fly IAD-NRT, that's east coast to Asia, and about 14 hours. UA has a couple other 14 hour-ish 777-200ER flights - SFO-TPE and SFO-HKG. I will concede that CO's GE90 powered 777-200ER's will go further than UA's PW powered 777-200ER's, which don't have the max avail MTOW, but they can still fly some awfully long routes.

UA's 772ERs have the raw legs, but only at the sacrifice of payload due to both lower thrust and lower MTOW. A CO or AA 772ER will carry more payload flying from EWR/JFK to PEK then a UA 772ER would flying IAD-PEK. So if a mission is ~7000nm, UA tends to put a 744 on it so they can maximize the payload.


User currently offlineDL767captain From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2539 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 6416 times:

Quoting NA (Reply 18):
787s and 748Is are the likely choice, or probably A380s, 748Is and A350s.
Overall, its more urgent for UA to answer the question what replaces the 767 anyway

I think the A380 is just way too big for what United needs, i think a plane the size of the 748 is all they would need. The only way i see UA ordering the A380 is if they merged with another carrier like US and needed the seats to serve the US passengers.

The 767 is where it gets tricky, I don't know how old the oldest one in the fleet is but if they need some soon the 787 won't be available for a while, unless boeing will give them some early slots, so what choices are left the A330?

The A350 could be an option but that will be down the line when all the 777's need to be replaced because by then they will be much more efficient and in service, but i think they will replace the 777a with a 772er or maybe even a 772lr if they can get it cheap enough, but more likely a 772er to replace the oldest ones and then when it is time to replace the rest, who knows what boeing will have by then


User currently offlineKeesje From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6356 times:

I think a combination of A380, 747-400 and 777-200ER could work very well for UA the next 10-15 yrs.

Their 747-400s seem not up for replacement anytime soon.

UA A380s would provide an aggresive sales tool tool towards the Japan and Asia markets.

B747-8i´s would require additional frequencies to keep market share in many Asian markets.

Many Asian A380´s will start heading east in the next 5 yrs.



User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31110 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6282 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
I think a combination of A380, 747-400 and 777-200ER could work very well for UA the next 10-15 yrs...UA A380s would provide an aggresive sales tool tool towards the Japan and Asia markets...B747-8i´s would require additional frequencies to keep market share in many Asian markets.

The problem for UA now is that they can only generally fill 744s reliably during the "high season" to many markets. So during part of the year a city pair will be served with a 747 and the rest of the time with a 777. To go to an A388 would just mean that during the "off-peak" times, UA would have to lower fares (with the subsequent depression in yields) or they would have to operate a laughably small A388 fleet of like 5-7 planes to serve two to three city-pairs so the planes are always on the two to three routes that can use them at that time.

Unless the current "Big Six" become the "Big Three", I cannot see enough consistent traffic to warrant an A388 operation by any US domestic carrier at this time. As good as the A388's CASM and trip costs are, they're not good enough with such a fragmented domestic travel base.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
Many Asian A380´s will start heading east in the next 5 yrs.

Yes they will. And that's going to depress yields on trans-Pacific sectors. And I believe that will drive UA to move to more "point-to-point" services instead of trying to fight "The Nationals" at SFO, LAX, NRT and HKG.

Rather then go toe-to-toe with CX on LAX/SFO-HKG with A388s, UA will launch SEA-HKG and DEN-HKG and SAN-HKG and cater just to the direct UA O&D traffic who now has to fly to LAX or SFO and hook-up with UA's LAX and SFO flights.

Or UA will just codeshare more with SQ and funnel the bulk of low-yield traffic to SQ's A388s and let them and CX battle it out for supremacy while themselves flying much smaller planes with higher-revenue flyers wedded to UA Mileage Plus or tied via corporate contract.


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 6204 times:

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
To be perfectly honest, I'd bet that Boeing would be willing to give UA one hell of a good deal on the 747-8i

My thoughts exactly, what better way than to give the 747-8i a boost than to bag UA, an airline based in the same city as Boeing. Lesser extent for the 787 with orders coming in from all quarters.
I personally dont see the 380 ever joining UA's fleet, but they say, never say never!


User currently offlineBuddys747 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 528 posts, RR: 4
Reply 24, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5984 times:

I hope they do order the 748i. We can discuss payloads, CASM, etc., but we are down to only two US carriers operating the 747. It would be nice to see them for years to come. As has been said before, maybe not a one for one replacement of the 744, but there are routes that would justify it. All of this would be down the road though, I don't see any orders for a while since the 767's need addressed first. Just my  twocents 

25 DC8FanJet : UA has the $$ to do what they need to with regards to aircraft, some $5b at last count. But the 744's are relatively new, and the 777ER's are, too. Th
26 EKSkycargo370 : UA at the moment cannot afford any new aircraft,they are in a sorry state!
27 Post contains images Halls120 : Before UA started its IAD-NRT flight, I always went IAD-SEA-NRT. If I can't get a direct flight, I'm always going to look next to a connection that i
28 Stitch : UA could secure outside financing for new aircraft at will, so that's a non-issue. Instead, they prefer to see how things shakeout the next few years
29 Post contains links and images Keesje : AF, LH, SQ, QF, EK with their ~480-550 seat configurations might see this differently. If BA orders it probably won´t have more then 420 seats.. You
30 Stitch : I do agree with you Keesje that their large trans-Pacific operations do help make the 747 viable for UA and NW where the (relative) lack of such ops h
31 FlyDreamliner : Fair enough, on the 7000 mile routes, their 772 are reaching their bounds. They can do it though, and they can go out full, even if not with a full b
32 UA772IAD : Something that they are now regretting... I believe those 744s went to either AC or CI. I don't know, Stitch. Over the past 20 years, UA has built a
33 Trex8 : CI never operated a -422. the only 747s they ever operated they did not order from Boeing were their first two, -132s.
34 FLYGUY767 : Do you honestly think that United Airlines is going to be putting its code on SQ just to funnel its low-yield traffic away from themselves? The low y
35 Trex8 : correction they did lease a SQ 412 for several years in the 90s. I suppose you could also count those Atlas freighters they have leased at various ti
36 Post contains links FA4UA : the problem with the 744, 748 or A380 is that they're all wonderful during boom times, but what about the next recession? US Aviation is so rediculous
37 AADC10 : I think that UA would be hesitant to purchase the 748i because of its uncomfortable Y seating and higher fuel burn per seat over the 777. They have al
38 Bringiton : Evidence ? Please provide proof of that . Most estimate the 777's Fuel burn to be slightly lower then the 744 , The 748 with better Per seat fuel bur
39 N1120A : No it doesn't, not even close. In a true configuration, it holds about 80 fewer Probably not That would mean a significant cut in capacity and loss o
40 Mrcomet : It seems to me that a dozen 748i or A380s for those big trunk routes and then a hell of a lot of 787s would actually do the trick. They can do 787 fli
41 PavlovsDog : Excellent contribution. United doesn't need to do anything fleetwise for a few years. Given the manufacturers full order books they are wise to wait
42 Keesje : ? Can you pls explain the cultural significance of the 747 in Japan ? The 747's will go anyhow, the japanese carriers have had able No, the market gr
43 EI321 : Cultural significance of the 747 Vs A380? Is there such a thing, and could it really 'hurt' UA? What is japans yearly growth?
44 DAYflyer : I agree. As a result there will be 747-8 in the fleet, but who knows how long it will be before we hear of an official firm order.
45 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..I have no clue myself.... ...probably correct, but "never say never" or "probably won't happen" when it comes to air carriers.. ....so why are the
46 Beeski : With all those slot-restricted airports that UA flies into, the 380 makes a heck of a lot of sense. I could see a mix of 10-12 380's and a bunch of 78
47 Post contains links and images Keesje : I was on them. Some of them were reconfigured by KLM E&M for Corsair a few years ago, also by SAA Technics. Well maintained Aircraft. UA Technics did
48 KC135TopBoom : I doubt UA will want to buy the gate/terminal infastructure the A-380 needs. That is close to $2.5M per airport the A-380 will use. These are seperat
49 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ..thanks for the information Keesje.. ....but you were on a B747? ..that's almost blasphemous... . ...and what do you call the B747-8? Are you going
50 Post contains images Stitch : Completely worn out 747 classics + no alternative efficient Boeing aircraft? The worn out 747 classics (747SR and 742) have been replaced with altern
51 Keesje : Yes, why didn´t they replace the classics with 747-8i´s in recent years?
52 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...that's the whole point, they don't want bigger planes , even if it is more efficient on a "cash cost per seat"...which both the B748I and/or the A
53 XT6Wagon : The A380 is PERFECT FOR UA AND NWA... Seems to ignore the fact that they have no routes that can support a A380 year round which is what you need sinc
54 N1120A : Um, recent years? The 748I isn't even flying yet. Oh, and when was the A380 supposed to be delivered again? A large part of that is the restrictions
55 UA772IAD : Damn! I got me codes mixed up. I meant Air China, not Air Canada. Of course, the 744s in question- were they UA owned or leased?
56 FLYGUY767 : What? There are a number of Long-Haul International routes that NW and UA could use the A380 on, if they had both the money and the drive to bring th
57 UAL777UK : A valid point but do you do away with frequency and ditch say one morning flight and an afternoon flight on a 777/330 and go with one 380. IMHO you n
58 FLYGUY767 : UAL777UK, Your point is understandable. However, on the flipside of that the argument could be that at slot controlled airports such as Narita, Heath
59 Bmacleod : Right now UA has more pressing issues like fuel costs and switching over to their summer schedule. My bet is that they will follow STAR partner AC and
60 N1120A : Huh? If you are insinuating that the Japanese carriers couldn't afford the aircraft, you know that isn't true. Well, first, it is nicknamed after a J
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...
F9, UA And The DEN Shutdown posted Fri Dec 22 2006 06:09:26 by Flyibaby
AA/UA And The WTC 9/11 Memorial posted Fri Oct 6 2006 20:50:07 by Nycfly75
UA And The 757s posted Sat Sep 16 2006 19:50:07 by FL370
UA And The New Seats posted Mon Aug 28 2006 18:43:31 by FL370
UA And The Leased 763s - What Happened? posted Sun Jul 24 2005 19:54:10 by Dutchjet
UA And The 737-700 posted Fri Nov 19 2004 22:00:08 by United4EverDEN
UA And The L1011 posted Sat Jun 12 2004 06:31:47 by B6FA4ever
UA And The MD-80 posted Sun Mar 28 2004 09:53:53 by AirframeAS
UA And The 747-400 posted Wed Feb 26 2003 06:50:30 by CX747
And The New UA Int'l Routes Are... posted Fri Oct 8 2004 04:38:52 by Nomorerjs