Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
What Would Be UA-CO Aircraft Fleet Be?  
User currently offlineNYC777 From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 5676 posts, RR: 48
Posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10166 times:

Ok now it seems that UA and CO are getting very close to announcing a stock swap merger I was wondering what would the combine fleet would for the merged etity keeping in mind that UA is mixed Boeing /Airbus while CO is Boeing. Interesting issue. Thoughts?


That which does not kill me makes me stronger.
53 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6388 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10153 times:

I am pretty sure that most of the fleet would remain, although there is a slight chance that the 735 might be eliminated in favor of UA's A319 fleet.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinewill777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10157 times:

The fleet should look something like this:

Boeing:

737-500 -> 34
737-700 -> 36
737-800 -> 117
737-900/900ER -> 42 (53 rolling options for 737NG)

747-400 -> 24

757-200 -> 137
757-300 -> 18 (3 orders?)

767-200 -> 10
767-300/300ER -> 35
767-400 -> 16

777-200 -> 53 (5 orders)

787-800 -> 36 (orders)
787-900 -> 14 (orders)

Airbus:

A319 -> 55

A230 -> 97

A350-900 -> 25 (orders)


I think these fleets match quite well.


User currently offlineDualQual From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 733 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10135 times:

Quoting will777 (Reply 2):
757-300 -> 18 (3 orders?)

I believe all the former ATA 753's are now in CO colors and flying the line. 21 total.


User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5826 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10138 times:

Quoting will777 (Reply 2):
777-200 -> 53 (5 orders)

53 777-200ER and 19 777-200s ...as well as 5 orders.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1531 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10075 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 4):
...as well as 5 orders.

CO cancelled 3 more a while back so now it is just the two that they receiving later this year.



717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5826 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10039 times:

Quoting FL787 (Reply 5):

So basically at this point just nextgen aircraft on order except of course for the 737s



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1531 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (4 years 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10014 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 6):
So basically at this point just nextgen aircraft on order except of course for the 737s

Yep. UA/CO would have a simple order sheet: A350, 787, and 737. Doubt they would ever order the A321 or 747-8i but I'd like to see those too.



717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlinescorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (4 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9977 times:

I would think that it would be pretty much the combined fleet, perhaps minus the 735s. Their retirement would allow the narrow bodies to be 737NG, 757 and A32S.

However, what I think its more interesting is how they could configure them. You have different philosophies for both carries:

- UA, 3 Class Intercontinetal fleet, 3 Class PS fleet, Domestic configured widebodies, Econ +
- CO, 2 class intercontinental fleet, no domestic configured widebodies

I think what makes sense is have some international fleets on 3 class and some on two class. There are many CO destinations in europe that could not support 3 class service, and at the same time, many that could support 3 class like LHR and TYO. I also think they should roll out E+ on all aircraft and choose the J seat that works the best. The new UA seat is excellent, I have not yet seen the CO seat, I hear its very good also. For example, the 3 class 772As would probably be great for EWR Western europe runs, with some 2 class CO ships moved to IAD to support routes that 3 class service isn't needed.

You also have the issue of scope and if 70 seaters will be allowed or not.

As it stands, the fleet would be:

EX-UA
- A319-100 55 (8F/40E+/72)
- A320-200 97 (12F/36E+/90) & (12F/42E+/90)
- B757-200 (Dom) 63 (24F/50E+/108)
- B757-200 ETOPS 16 (24F/50E+/108)
- B757-200 PS 13 (12F/26C/72E+)
- B767-300ER (Dom) 14 (34F/56E+/165)
- B767-300ER (intl) 21 (6F/26J/71E+/80) (all new config)
- B777-200A (Dom) 6 (36F/89E+/223)
- B777-200A (Intl) 13 (12F/49J/77E+/115)
- B777-200ER 33 (10F/45J/84E+/110) & (12F/49J/77E+/115) (old config except 1)
- B747-400 24 (12F/52J/70E+/240) (all new config)

EX-CO
- B737-500 32 (8/106)
- B737-700 36 (12/112)
- B737-800 117 (20/132) & (16/144) & (16/141)
- B737-900 ? (20/153)
- B737-900ER ? 43 tot (20/153)
- B757-200 41 (16J/159)
- B757-300 21 (24/192)
- B767-200ER 10 (25J/149)
- B767-400ER 16 (35J/200) & (20J/236)
- B777-200ER 20 (50J/235)

Regionals
- E145
- CRJ200
- CRJ700
- E-170
- E120
- ???


User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9896 times:

IMHO, they should keep both the A320 and 737 till a replacement is available. This should not be an issue as ( if they ever merge ), they are likely to keep two seperate brands. First to go out would be 757s. Then 747s should be replaced by 77Ws.
In the end the fleet should be something like
Next Gen narrowbody + 787/A350 + 77W .



The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently onlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5826 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (4 years 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9788 times:

Quoting FL787 (Reply 7):
Quoting United1 (Reply 6):
So basically at this point just nextgen aircraft on order except of course for the 737s

Yep. UA/CO would have a simple order sheet: A350, 787, and 737. Doubt they would ever order the A321 or 747-8i but I'd like to see those too.

I think your probalby right about the 321 with the 739ER already in the fleet theres no point adding another type.

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 9):
they are likely to keep two seperate brands.

Thats doubtful more then likely the brands will be integrated.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9589 times:

@United1 United and Continental are two very recognized brands. Far more recognized than Northwest or America West. Plus, both of them are equally large too. So I believe the best prospects would come in a AF-KL type of deal.


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 3945 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (4 years 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
You also have the issue of scope and if 70 seaters will be allowed or not.

Yes. And this needs to be changed as it's not longer realistic. They need an aircraft in the 85-110 seat configuration. E90/95s.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
-CO
- B737-500 32 (8/106)
- B737-700 36 (12/112)
- B737-800 117 (20/132) & (16/144) & (16/141)
- B737-900 ? (20/153)
- B737-900ER ? 43 tot (20/153)
- B757-200 41 (16J/159)
- B757-300 21 (24/192)
- B767-200ER 10 (25J/149)
- B767-400ER 16 (35J/200) & (20J/236)
- B777-200ER 20 (50J/235)

Does anyone have the new configurations of the CO a/c with the E+ added ?


User currently offlineBOACCunard From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 851 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9377 times:

Much like DL/NW, I don't see a lot of immediate fleet changes going on - especially as neither airline has any really old airplanes, so there is nothing even like the DC-9-30/40-series aircraft that DL is retiring. This is a quite modern fleet. Moreover the only potential hub closure is regional-heavy CLE; I don't see the merged airline doing a lot less mainline flying than the two airlines did separately. The new airline will be more or less the size of both airlines put together.

There are a lot of "middle aged" aircraft that will be coming up for replacement in the medium term as next-generation airplanes come online, but in the near future, it will pretty much literally be a combination of the CO and UA fleets ... all wearing UA livery, of course.

Perhaps a somewhat stickier point is what their configurations will be like. CO is putting a lot of money into new J seats in its 772s, but that's a configuration that has only two classes and a considerably lower-density configuration (despite similar seat design) to UA's J product. For a strictly two-class airline like CO this configuration made sense, but I'm not sure on what international routes the new airline would send two-class 777s. It would seem to me that most routes that merit this airplane also merit F service from an airline that offers it. On the other hand, there will obviously not be an across-the-board "three classes for longhaul" strategy as we see now at UA, since F makes no sense physically on the 752 nor on many of the routes CO uses it for (F is pointless on, say, EWR-OSL). This opens the door for the 762 and 764 to possibly stay two-class (though the 762 is an oddball that some have suggested would be ideal for p.s. if that survives in something like its present form) and even maybe for the international 763 to become a two-class airplane. I think we may see a mix of two and three-class international widebodies (through some or all 767s being such) as not every route where CO uses a 767 (or even where UA uses one, maybe) is really suitable for F. For instance, I do not see this being necessary on EWR-FCO or such.

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 9):
IMHO, they should keep both the A320 and 737 till a replacement is available. This should not be an issue as ( if they ever merge ), they are likely to keep two seperate brands.

Two brands is out of the question. We're not talking about an AF/KL or BA/IB situation here where we are dealing with airlines in different countries with different markets, different primary languages, etc., or a situation where one airline is full service and another is an LCC or regional airline (like AS/QX), or pretty much any other situation where a merged airline might retain two brands. These are two large, full-service mainline carriers operating worldwide networks from the USA. Two brands makes no more sense than it would have with DL/NW or US/HP or AA/TW or any of the many, many other "consolidations" we've seen in the US airline industry in its history.

The "new" airline will be called United. Or maybe as a long shot Continental. But one brand will undoubtedly disappear.

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 11):
United and Continental are two very recognized brands. Far more recognized than Northwest or America West. Plus, both of them are equally large too.

Where on earth do you get the idea that Continental is "far more recognized" than Northwest was? Or for that matter that UA and CO are equally large airlines? UA is a third larger than CO (by revenue). And NW was a larger airline than CO and by no means is CO far more recognized than DL.

I doubt the CO brand is being seriously considered as the surviving one, and as for both surviving ... no way.



Getting There is Half the Fun!
User currently offlinerobo65 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 169 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (4 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9381 times:

EX-CO
- B737-500 32 (8/106)
- B737-700 36 (12/112)
- B737-800 117 (20/132) & (16/144) & (16/141)
- B737-900 ? (20/153)
- B737-900ER ? 43 tot (20/153)
- B757-200 41 (16J/159)
- B757-300 21 (24/192)
- B767-200ER 10 (25J/149)
- B767-400ER 16 (35J/200) & (20J/236)
- B777-200ER 20 (50J/235)

Some minor changes to CO fleet.

-B737-900 12 A/C 401-412 {20-153}
-B737-900ER 30 A/C 413-442 {20-153}
-B757-200 41 {16J-159} until lie flat seats installed then will become {16-156}
-B777-200er 20 {50-235} until lie flat seats installed then will become {50-226} Two more to belivered in 2010.


User currently offlinenyc2theworld From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 662 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9335 times:

Quoting KFlyer (Reply 11):
United and Continental are two very recognized brands. Far more recognized than Northwest or America West. Plus, both of them are equally large too. So I believe the best prospects would come in a AF-KL type of deal.

Except that AF-KL if not for branding/cultural reasons has to stay legaly seperated due to the fact a lot of KL's traffic rights are tied to the fact it is the flag carrier of the Netherlands. Thus the airline has to stay a seperate legal entity in order for KL's traffic rights to remain valild (untill the EU renegogiates air treaties with all the countries KL flies to).

There is no reason for a UA-CO tieup to remain seperate brands...I wouldn't be suprised if the new company was called CO since Chicago apparently would get the headquarters.



Always wonderers if this "last and final boarding call" is in fact THE last and final boarding call.
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 9242 times:

Well, then I agree. But if one brand goes away, then I think there is more chance United will be retained ?


The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlinesurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2797 posts, RR: 30
Reply 17, posted (4 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9176 times:

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
I would think that it would be pretty much the combined fleet, perhaps minus the 735s. Their retirement would allow the narrow bodies to be 737NG, 757 and A32S.

UA and CO have already stretched their domestic narrowbody fleets very thin as it is (just look at how much flying they have had to outsource to regionals vs. AA, DL/NW, and even US) with the aggressive retirements of 727s (UA), 733s (both), 735s (UA) and MD-80s (CO) in the past decade alone. The 735s are in great shape (by UA standards) and would fill an important role by flying short hauls like EWR-BOS, ORD-CMH and IAH-AUS where mainline capacity is justified but the IFE (LCDs, Wi-Fi, PTVs, etc.) is not necessary.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
However, what I think its more interesting is how they could configure them. You have different philosophies for both carries:

- UA, 3 Class Intercontinetal fleet, 3 Class PS fleet, Domestic configured widebodies, Econ +
- CO, 2 class intercontinental fleet, no domestic configured widebodies

This is my biggest question as well. UA's Economy Plus seems to be very popular (and a nice revenue booster too!) and its quite easy to move a few coach seats around, so I could certainly see that being quickly added to the entire CO fleet. Domestically, both airlines offer a simple F and Y, except for P.S., but I could see that being eliminated in favor of flying three class widebodies between SFO and LAX to EWR. As for (long haul) international ops, I think you hit the nail on the head...

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
I think what makes sense is have some international fleets on 3 class and some on two class. There are many CO destinations in europe that could not support 3 class service, and at the same time, many that could support 3 class like LHR and TYO. I also think they should roll out E+ on all aircraft and choose the J seat that works the best. The new UA seat is excellent, I have not yet seen the CO seat, I hear its very good also. For example, the 3 class 772As would probably be great for EWR Western europe runs, with some 2 class CO ships moved to IAD to support routes that 3 class service isn't needed.

UA's three class planes would be a perfect fit for routes like EWR-GRU/LHR/CDG/FRA/BRU/TLV/BOM/DEL/NRT/HKG, and CO's two class planes would allow UA to better serve lower-yielding, higher density destinations like DUB, MNL, TPE, ATH, etc. Having both fleet types available (as AA does) will be very advantageous, since only a few routes/markets can really support a high-quality long-haul F offering (in addition to J).

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- A319-100 55 (8F/40E+/72)
- A320-200 97 (12F/36E+/90) & (12F/42E+/90)

UA's Airbuses are inferior to CO's 737NGs, so I could see them relegated mostly to second-tier medium range routes domestically (much like AA's MD-80s).

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B757-200 (Dom) 63 (24F/50E+/108)
- B757-200 ETOPS 16 (24F/50E+/108)

UA's 757s are in poor shape relative to CO's. Either they would be upgraded to CO standards (hopefully), put on less-important routes (i.e. ORD-MCO instead of LAX-BOS), or retired.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B757-200 PS 13 (12F/26C/72E+)

As I said, I could see P.S. going away in favor of putting 3 class 767s or even 777s on the LAX-EWR and SFO-EWR routes. No need to compete against AA, DL, and B6 on the JFK-California routes when they could dominate EWR-California, right? These planes could then be put on transatlantic missions or reconfigured back to the standard domestic F/Y+/Y offering.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B767-300ER (Dom) 14 (34F/56E+/165)

Might want to upgrade most of these to international standards, or retire them. The 753s should be able to handle most of the hub-hub flights and West Coast-Hawaii.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B767-300ER (intl) 21 (6F/26J/71E+/80) (all new config)

Perfect for high-yielding niche routes that can support F but don't need the capacity or range of 777s or 747s.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B777-200A (Dom) 6 (36F/89E+/223)

Reconfigure these or retire them. No need to waste 777s on the domestic market anymore.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B777-200A (Intl) 13 (12F/49J/77E+/115)
- B777-200ER 33 (10F/45J/84E+/110) & (12F/49J/77E+/115) (old config except 1)

A perfect replacement for CO's 2-class 777s on many important routes like EWR/IAH-NRT, EWR/IAH-LHR, EWR-TLV, etc.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B747-400 24 (12F/52J/70E+/240) (all new config)

The flagship of the new fleet?

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B737-500 32 (8/106)

Help backfill capacity UA lost to places like ATL, CVG, DSM, GRR, etc.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B737-700 36 (12/112)
- B737-800 117 (20/132) & (16/144) & (16/141)
- B737-900 ? (20/153)
- B737-900ER ? 43 tot (20/153)

LiveTV and Wi-Fi make these very competitive. Throw on important routes like SFO-LAX and ORD-LGA
right away!

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B757-200 41 (16J/159)

Arguably the world's nicest 757 fleet, what with AVOD and all. Would be great to see a few of the UA 752s brought up to this standard, so as to offer high quality transcon and West Coast-Hawaii service!

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B757-300 21 (24/192)

Perfect for the hub-hub routes like ORD-DEN and LAX-IAH, as well as ever popular routes like EWR-MCO and ORD-LAS.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B767-200ER 10 (25J/149)
- B767-400ER 16 (35J/200) & (20J/236)

Gives UA the perfect tools to fly IAD-DUB/MAD/ATH, etc.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 8):
- B777-200ER 20 (50J/235)

Perhaps upgrade some to UA 3 class standards, and keep a few others in 2 class configs to serve high density Asian markets (MNL, TPE, etc.)



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlinerjpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (4 years 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9128 times:

I am most curious about Channel 9, liveTV, and E+. They will have to make a decision fairly quickly as to what they want their domestic fleet to look like. They can't have half the fleet with PTVs, and the other half with just Channel 9, etc.

User currently offlineMEA-707 From Netherlands, joined Nov 1999, 4266 posts, RR: 34
Reply 19, posted (4 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8951 times:

I agree with most above fleet plan predections.
I think they will let the 10 762s go sooner then later; now in Continentals fleet it fills the Long Haul gap between 752 (when it has too little cargo capacity) and 764, but combined with United they'll suddenly have 763s already for that segment. It's a bit an oddball and expensive to operate.
If we throw in US Airways in the merger, they will have a single aisle fleet of more then 400 A-320 family aircraft, it will be hard to replace these. In that case, they might even choose to buy the two main successors as the fleets are so big there are few economies of scale, it will probably be easier to more or less replace the A-320s with Airbus next offer and the 737ng/757 with Boeings future narrowbody. THY and Air Berlin seem to do well with buying both families (and not replacing one for the other like easyJet).



nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
User currently offlineKFlyer From Sri Lanka, joined Mar 2007, 1226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 8918 times:

@MEA-707 I doubt if this would be a 3-way merger. Quite unlikely.

Quote:
Air Berlin seem to do well

Well, easyJet and FR with single fleet types does better you know.  



The opinions above are solely my own and do not express those of my employers or clients.
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5111 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (4 years 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8775 times:

There will be less intermingling than many of you think at first. Of the types UA and CO have in common, *every one* has a differing engine type.

Domestic narrowbodies: UA = IAE; CO = CFM
757: UA = Pratt; CO = RR
767: UA = Pratt; CO = GE
777: UA = Pratt; CO = GE

The product models are also radically different, enough so that total reconfiguration of someone's aircraft would be necessary before integration could really happen.

I think in the short term many of the fleets will stay exactly where they are. UA has developed a "major destination" international model where 4-class makes sense. CO has kept things very simple, which works well for the secondary international destinations it serves so well. The only big changes I can see in the short term are putting UA birds on EWR-LHR, possibly reconfiguring some domestic 77As for TATL use, and sending more UA narrowbodies to Florida.

In the long term, they have to decide if they want E+ and AVOD on the domestic fleets; I think they'll choose to have both going forward, but probably wouldn't bother to retrofit UA's existing Airbus fleet.

If any aircraft are going to be retired, I doubt it would be 735s; I expect it would be some of UA's older 752s.

[Edited 2010-04-23 04:38:02]


Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlinewarreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 705 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (4 years 2 days ago) and read 8412 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 17):
Might want to upgrade most of these to international standards, or retire them. The 753s should be able to handle most of the hub-hub flights and West Coast-Hawaii.
Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 17):
Reconfigure these or retire them. No need to waste 777s on the domestic market anymore.

If you don't run widebodies to the islands, how are you expected to run cargo? I hear that the cargo revenue from UA's widebody flights (to Hawaii) is quite strong.


User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 22320 posts, RR: 20
Reply 23, posted (4 years 2 days ago) and read 8371 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 17):
UA's 757s are in poor shape relative to CO's. Either they would be upgraded to CO standards (hopefully), put on less-important routes (i.e. ORD-MCO instead of LAX-BOS), or retired.

I expect we'll see 739ERs replace much of the flying currently done by UA 757s (DEN-SEA, ORD-DCA, etc.). I do think there is a place for domestically-configured 757s (mainly to Hawaii, but maybe also some Latin America flying) and also think that it makes a lot of sense to keep P.S. on 752s if they keep it because it's a pretty low-cycle operation. One thing that UA has historically done well and CO hasn't done as much of is have multiple configurations of the same airplane flying different routes. UA/CO will be large enough to keep doing that successfully.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlinescorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (4 years 2 days ago) and read 8348 times:

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 17):
As I said, I could see P.S. going away in favor of putting 3 class 767s or even 777s on the LAX-EWR and SFO-EWR routes. No need to compete against AA, DL, and B6 on the JFK-California routes when they could dominate EWR-California, right? These planes could then be put on transatlantic missions or reconfigured back to the standard domestic F/Y+/Y offering.

P.S. makes a lot of money according to UA... so why waste the widebodies to JFK? the 13 strong P.S. Fleet needs no upgrades and can go for years with the comparitivley low cycle work that theya re doing. the widebodies could fly from EWR. Its not like its p-2-p as you have hubs at LAX and SFO now. The 762s are great for long thin routes with high premium demand like CO uses them for now. For example, perhaps it could allow the IAD-GIG route to run year round?

Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 17):
Might want to upgrade most of these to international standards, or retire them. The 753s should be able to handle most of the hub-hub flights and West Coast-Hawaii.

These are UA's newest 767s so they wouldn't be retired. I could see them being put into international runs, especially if they could bring in some more 737-900ERs or even A321s. The 753 fleet would not be big enough for interhub traffic from all hubs and do Hawaii at the same time. The domestic 777 are also quite new, so same story there.


25 United1 : Supposedly UA is in negotiations with its pilots to bring that size aircraft on board as mainline aircraft. I also just realized that if a UA/CO merg
26 tommy767 : Not to mention that the CO 735s are a bit younger than UA's. They were delivered during the early to mid 1990s. Compared to CO's, yes. Compared to AA
27 UAL747DEN : Where did you get this odd information from!?!? That is not a possibility at all. They are not equally large? You seem to be a bit confused about thi
28 mogandoCI : is it just me or the 753 carries more people in domestic config than a 762 ? maybe UA+CO combined can up the p.s. product to a 753 and let's just call
29 seabosdca : Yes. The 753 is intended to be configured at higher density and flown on shorter routes. No point. The 752 is exactly the right size. p.s. is about y
30 deltal1011man : 767-200ERs UA(or CO) doesn't have any 767-300, just 300ERs. Only carriers in the US that dont have ER 767s is DL and HA. Both have 300As. (and whats
31 United1 : Why do you think that?
32 sancho99504 : I don't understand how adding the A321 to the A320/A319 fleet is adding another type, it's just an A320 with a few additional fuselage plugs lengthen
33 einsteinboricua : I was thinking this too. There's no reason that this type of deal could be the stepping stone to an eventual complete merger. Another thing: where ar
34 United1 : While your absolutely correct that the 321 is simply a stretched 320 there is no point adding another aircraft that has its own operating characteris
35 ATA L1011 : DL has 767ER's with registrations ending in DN starting at N171DN and the few that it recieved from Gulf Air, also Hawaiin has some new build 763 ER'
36 deltal1011man : read below. If they don't think they can replace the 744 with 789s then they could order a small number of 77Ws that fit in with COs 77E fleet(someth
37 sancho99504 : What about all the airlines that have both A350 and 787 on order? It seems like the A350 only gets the short end of the stick because its not a Boein
38 ml86 : Well put. Manufacturer loyalty can be dangerous to an airline the size of a combined UA/CO. It's imprudent to write off half of the airliner market d
39 laca773 : It's not likely when UA management has stressed they are not interested in buying/leasing 748s or 380s. Hasn't the 783 been shelved?
40 ml86 : Realistically it has been athough officially I'm not sure. IIRC Boeing had stated that the 788 will outperform the 783 on all but very short hops. Us
41 VictorKilo : I think the bigger mixing opportunity will be the placement of ExPlus 70 seat aircraft in EWR and the placement of the larger range E145's of XE on th
42 scorpy : Has anyone experienced both the new CO Biz seat and the new UA biz seat? How do they compare?
43 Cubsrule : Given that UA's CR7s don't seat that many more than the XRJs, I don't know how many opportunities the XRJs present; they make a lot more sense at a c
44 kgaiflyer : Not a stretch for IAD since XE already has one of the UAX contracts there.
45 rjpieces : Here is a question. Could United's 777s operate all of the routes that Continental sends their 777s on, such as EWR-HKG? What routes would face decrea
46 scorpy : As I recall their ER's are rated to 640,000 MTOW, and I think CO has 656,000 so there would be some penalty I'm sure. Obviously the A models could no
47 seabosdca : EWR-BOM and EWR-HKG. All the others should be fine. CO's 656K 777s would also be better performers on ORD-HKG than anything in the UA fleet.
48 Post contains images rj777 : Just some examples of what we'll see (from Aviation Design-Modified Airliner Photos):
49 UALWN : Inferior in which sense? p.s. is not going anywhere. It's a cash cow. It makes no sense to move it to EWR. Why not? UA thinks they need them. CO has
50 jfk777 : Sure Continetal could have added a First Class cabin to its 777 to India, China, Tokyo and Hong Kong, so what if they didn't. The need for First Clas
51 kgaiflyer : Keep dreaming. UA and CO both have OW equipped frames. I would expect both A and B to find uses to the Caribbean, to Central America, and to Alaska.
52 Cubsrule : Maybe more to the point, UA's 319s are at a capacity hole in CO's network; CO doesn't have many 73Gs, which isn't surprising since the trip costs are
53 Post contains links ManuCH : There is now an official thread to discuss this. Please continue discussion there: Possible UA/CO Merger: Impact On Fleets & Routes (by Moderators
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...
What Would The Next 737 Models Be Called? posted Fri Jan 4 2002 04:20:30 by Planelover
What Could A Merged UA-CO Look Like? posted Mon Mar 8 2010 12:39:00 by LHCVG
What Would Happen To A Diverted Aircraft To CA? posted Mon Nov 10 2008 19:50:55 by Rgreenftm
What Would Happen If An Aircraft Attempted To.... posted Thu Nov 23 2006 21:30:43 by VirginA346
What Comes Of UA's Airbus Fleet If Merged W/ CO? posted Sun Apr 11 2010 19:59:47 by craigpc01
What Would Happen To CM If CO And UA Merge posted Fri Jan 25 2008 17:58:45 by Luisca
What Would The Restrictions Be On An A330? posted Thu Apr 26 2007 23:10:03 by A380US
What Would Be The Next New Airline From AMS? posted Tue Apr 24 2007 11:03:33 by KL911
What Would Be The Economics Of Transatlantic 737s posted Fri Feb 16 2007 06:31:55 by Baron95
What Would Be A Good SF3, EM2 And BE1 Replacement? posted Wed Dec 6 2006 00:44:46 by EFHK