Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United P.s. & The 739- I Don't Understand  
User currently offlineVC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2866 posts, RR: 10
Posted (3 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 12778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

A long time ago, around the time of the merger with CO I recall some discussions about the future of p.s. but don't recall a logical solution. I just flew United p.s. round trip to LAX. I love that ride, also if i am in C or F from SFO/LAX to Asia, you must have a similar transcon experience to NYC in F or C or E+.. So knowing 757's have just a few years left in them (right or wrong?) why can't a 739 do the job? Is it range? Size? Can the new sky cieling be installed to the exCO 739's? How many do CO have now? I believe they would need 13 or 14 in p.s. configuration. Again, primary question is: Can the 737-900 do the job for p.s.?


The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!
22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2585 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12406 times:

According to the websites that track equipment, CO has about 30 739Rs. The aircraft is a bit shorter inside than the 752, but does not have a mid cabin passenger door, so that distance can be reduced from the interior length difference.

I don't know how many years those UA 752s have left on them, but the 739ER can do the ps service equally except potentially with strong headwinds. Also, the 739ER may not be able to add much fuel for any holding time due to weather. Note that a ps aircraft should be lighter than a full domestic configured aircraft, meaning that would allow the 739ER more range. Note that CO didn't buy the aux tanks, (1 or 2 available) which could have added range, but probably are not necessary on the vast percentage of transcon operations.

In past threads, people said the 752 was a much better aircraft as it climbs faster and cruises higher and may fly a few miles per hour faster - but is that perceptible to the passenger?

So, when the 752 gets old and have enough mechanical problems, the 739ER would be a good replacement and save a lot on fuel.


User currently offlinescorpy From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 400 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12348 times:

Another thing to consider is that the P.S. aircraft only do a few flights per day so while they might be old, they are less 'worn out' than many newer 757's in the UA fleet. AA have even older 762s on the same route and have no immediate retirement plans.

I would imagine that the older domestic 757's that are doing short hops all the time like ORD-DTW are higher up the order to be replaced/retired.


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16820 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12348 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1):
don't know how many years those UA 752s have left on them, but the 739ER can do the ps service equally except potentially with strong headwinds.

The 737-900ER will have absolutely no problem operating PS service, CO is already flying 739s on trans-cons from EWR with 180 passengers. In PS configuration they would be operating with about 108 seats, that's a huge savings in weight which means even in strong headwinds the fuel savings from lower capacity should offset.

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
Can the new sky cieling be installed to the exCO 739's

Only new builds will have the Sky interiors, they cannot be retrofitted due to costs. CO/UA have over 50 737s on firm order which can be delivered as any type. They can easily set up a dedicated fleet of PS 739s with the new Skyinteriors as they are delivered.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineeraugrad02 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 1227 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 12225 times:

One Question I have had. Did CO add a fuel tank to their -ER's? The aircraft with Sky Interior will be perfect for trans-con travel. Such a nice aircraft. Even though the A320Neo took the life out of the Sky Interior until more carriers fly on it.

Desmond in ILM,



Desmond MacRae in ILM
User currently offlineflyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 1016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 12031 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):
The 737-900ER will have absolutely no problem operating PS service, CO is already flying 739s on trans-cons from EWR with 180 passengers. In PS configuration they would be operating with about 108 seats, that's a huge savings in weight which means even in strong headwinds the fuel savings from lower capacity should offset.

I agree that a p.s. aircraft should be lighter overall, but I don't think it will be as significant a weight reduction as you think. The F and C seats on those birds are pretty massive, and I would imagine that they are quite heavy. Not as heavy as 70+ pax of course, but significantly heavier than a bunch of Y seats.

One aspect which no one has mentioned yet - the 757 and the 737 have the same cabin width, so the same configuration should be possible on both types.



Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9504 posts, RR: 52
Reply 6, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 11707 times:

I actually think PS would be the last route 757s would fly domestically. JFK - west coast flying is very low cycle. The fleet only averages 2 flights per day with some only doing a single flight. That isn't very hard on a fleet compared to 8 short hops ORD-East Coast. Also, they are the best maintained planes in the fleet. The JFK maintenance base has a reputation for taking very good care of the planes since they essentially own the subfleet. They also have plenty of time to work on them since the schedule has some planes on the ground for 14 hours in JFK at a time. You won't find a burnt out smoking sign or miscolored sidewall panel on those planes. Just like AA is keeping 762s around because it is a niche market, I think 757s will last a long time. It would cost a lot of money to refit 739s and those planes burn less fuel than 757s, so they are better used on high cycle routes.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8285 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7583 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Another option for United could be the A321, since UA has lots of A320's.

User currently offlineManchesterMAN From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 1219 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7440 times:

I'm pretty sure the 762 will be the P.S. aircraft of choice going forward. Why else would CO abandon the refurbishment of the aircraft? That would suggest they won't be flying them internationally and I don't believe they will be getting rid of them either.


Flown: A300,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340.A380,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,F100,F50,ERJ,E190,CRJ,BAe146,Da
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 6572 times:

Quoting VC10er (Thread starter):
So knowing 757s have just a few years left in them (right or wrong?)

The p.s. birds are some of the newest in the PMUA fleet. They can continue doing what they are doing for at least a decade more, probably more than that, if that's what UA decides is best.

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1):
In past threads, people said the 752 was a much better aircraft as it climbs faster and cruises higher and may fly a few miles per hour faster - but is that perceptible to the passenger?

Only to a.nuts. Your average p.s. passenger would be more likely to notice a new-looking Sky Interior.

Quoting scorpy (Reply 2):
I would imagine that the older domestic 757's that are doing short hops all the time like ORD-DTW are higher up the order to be replaced/retired.

   And all those new 738s and 739ERs will be doing exactly that.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 7):
Another option for United could be the A321, since UA has lots of A320's.

This could be the twin to the two huge DL A320 NEO vs. 737RS threads we had awhile back... I don't think UA will buy any more A32x OEO with all the 737NG on order.

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 8):
I'm pretty sure the 762 will be the P.S. aircraft of choice going forward.

That would be a novel way to waste money! The 752 has nearly the capacity of the 762 at MUCH lower operating cost. The 762's only real advantage is range, which is unnecessary on p.s.

If traffic continues increasing, the 762 will be the on-demand widebody capacity for the new company. If it doesn't, the 762 fleet will be sold and converted to cargo. Of all the widebodies in the new company, the 762 is the hardest to make a profit with.


User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9289 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6354 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1):

In past threads, people said the 752 was a much better aircraft as it climbs faster and cruises higher and may fly a few miles per hour faster - but is that perceptible to the passenger?
Quoting STT757 (Reply 3):

Only new builds will have the Sky interiors, they cannot be retrofitted due to costs. CO/UA have over 50 737s on firm order which can be delivered as any type. They can easily set up a dedicated fleet of PS 739s with the new Skyinteriors as they are delivered.

i expect someone will come up with some kind of mod to make it cheaper.....alot like what has been done with the 777 style interiors

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 8):
Why else would CO abandon the refurbishment of the aircraft?

to park them.

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):

That would be a novel way to waste money! The 752 has nearly the capacity of the 762 at MUCH lower operating cost. The 762's only real advantage is range, which is unnecessary on p.s.

errr so then why didn't AA go to 757 T-con fleet vs the 762s?



yep.
User currently offlinen9801f From Samoa, joined Apr 2004, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 6106 times:

Good thread.

Question:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1):
Note that a ps aircraft should be lighter than a full domestic configured aircraft

This surprises me.

In a past life, I was stunned to learn how much weight the complicated premium seats add. I saw cases where they made a huge difference in payload-range capability for an airline. I.E. the planes with 12 "fancy" F seats + 120 Y couldn't fly as far as the same airframe/engine combinations with 12 "basic" F seats ( + 120 Y ).

I realize that the P.S. 757's have fewer total pax than UA's standard 757's, but I would have guessed the P.S.' would still be heavier just because of all the premium seats...

Can you illuminate?


User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4486 times:

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 8):
Why else would CO abandon the refurbishment of the aircraft?

When was this announced?


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2585 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4369 times:

Quoting n9801f (Reply 11):
I realize that the P.S. 757's have fewer total pax than UA's standard 757's, but I would have guessed the P.S.' would still be heavier just because of all the premium seats...
Can you illuminate?

Maybe, OK, some rough calculations

ps has 86 fewer Y seats (according to Wikipedia seats run from 20-33 lbs. each. 86 seats should be 1700-2800lbs)

ps has 26 Business seats that are probably close to the weight of the 24 F seats on the domestic aircraft.

ps has 12 lie flat F seats.

Do you think the 12 lie flats and 2 Business seats weigh more than 86 Y seats (1700-2800 lbs.)??

To be equal to the lightest Y seats (1700lbs.), each lie flat seat would have to be about 125 lbs. (4 to 5 times heavier than Y seats)

On top of that, the 72 fewer passengers should be approximately 15,000 lbs. with luggage. However, UA may have some added galley space I haven't counted.

I haven't done load planning for years, but maybe a UA load planner can list the EOW or the 752 and ps 752.


User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 156 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting n9801f (Reply 11):
This surprises me.

In a past life, I was stunned to learn how much weight the complicated premium seats add. I saw cases where they made a huge difference in payload-range capability for an airline. I.E. the planes with 12 "fancy" F seats + 120 Y couldn't fly as far as the same airframe/engine combinations with 12 "basic" F seats ( + 120 Y ).

I realize that the P.S. 757's have fewer total pax than UA's standard 757's, but I would have guessed the P.S.' would still be heavier just because of all the premium seats...

I wouldn't be surprised if they're much heavier as UA has decided to winglet only their ETOPS and p.s. sub fleets.



Next flight: UA 726/84 SFO-EWR-TLV
User currently offlinedeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9289 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4309 times:

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 12):

When was this announced?

It wasn't really announced but the lie-flat fleet up dates use to have the 762s on it, then post merger they are gone.


I wouldn't be shocked to see them put into a domestic config and sent to GUM or do some hawaii runs and those 763s moved to F/C/Y config



yep.
User currently offlineflyhossd From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 849 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

Quoting eraugrad02 (Reply 4):
One Question I have had. Did CO add a fuel tank to their -ER's?

No, the CO 737-900ERs have only the standard tanks. If there was a need, future deliveries could have additional or "aux" tanks.



My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4002 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 3416 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):

That would be a novel way to waste money! The 752 has nearly the capacity of the 762 at MUCH lower operating cost. The 762's only real advantage is range, which is unnecessary on p.s.

There has been so much talk about the 739ER being a perfect replacement for the 757, but as well know and have repeatedly said, it's not. The 757 is a much heavier a/c. I don't think the 739ERs can make it westbound when they have those headwinds with those heavy P & C seats. Eventually, they are going to have to be updated. Maybe they could make it if UA chooses to place the extra fuel tanks on board???

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 14):

I wouldn't be surprised if they're much heavier as UA has decided to winglet only their ETOPS and p.s. sub fleets.

This was pre-merger. I believe this has changed and now the UA 757s will be getting winglets.


User currently offlinecaljn From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 207 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2732 times:

I don't wish to fly in a world without 757's.   

User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5314 posts, RR: 4
Reply 19, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 2363 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 17):
I don't think the 739ERs can make it westbound when they have those headwinds with those heavy P & C seats.

They would make it fine. They can make transcons just fine with a full load of 180-200 pax, and a full bird in p.s. configuration -- even with heavy seats -- will still be lighter than a full all-Y bird.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2071 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1986 times:

I think the UA p.s. 757s will be around for quite some time. Considering the relatively low number of hours they are currently operated, They could be D checked and sent back out until they are 35 years old, perhaps even more. What will end them is their relatively high fuel burn.

When they need to be replaced, it is quite possible that it could be done with an even smaller aircraft as most passengers will by flying to EWR instead of JFK in the future. The SFO/LAX-JFK route will remain a niche premium product while EWR will handle all types of traffic. p.s. service could even continue on A320s after the 757s are done. Yes they are considerably smaller than 757s but they could further reduce the number of coach seats or even eliminate them since there will be plenty of coach seats to EWR. The A320 also has a wider cabin.

UA's plan of outfitting older, narrow body aircraft worked out surprisingly well. There was a fear that premium passengers would prefer AA's 3 class (if aging) 762s. UA had an almost identical service with 762s but decided to cut capacity in New York rather than try to hang in as a marginal player. They could have refurbished the 762s as AA has and continued to operate them.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9504 posts, RR: 52
Reply 21, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1861 times:

Quoting seabosdca (Reply 9):
Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1):
In past threads, people said the 752 was a much better aircraft as it climbs faster and cruises higher and may fly a few miles per hour faster - but is that perceptible to the passenger?

Only to a.nuts. Your average p.s. passenger would be more likely to notice a new-looking Sky Interior.

Among the loyal elite flyers, I can't image much of a difference between a 739 and a 757 if they have the same seats. However in regular operations, I'll promise that they notice the difference. 16 lie flats with lower chance of upgrade or 20 regular first, but higher probability of an upgrade. At UA it is even more prominent. Elite flyers will intentionally avoid the A319 in favor of a 757 since the upgrade chances are so different.

Quoting laca773 (Reply 17):
I don't think the 739ERs can make it westbound when they have those headwinds with those heavy P & C seats. Eventually, they are going to have to be updated. Maybe they could make it if UA chooses to place the extra fuel tanks on board???

CO already operates 3 daily EWR-SFO flights on 739ERs. A pair of standard recliner business class seats weigh about the same as three non-slim line economy seats. Underneath the cushions, business and economy are about the same except they are bigger, so an economy seat is about 35lbs whereas business is about 50. They are just a simple aluminum frame that can easily be picked up with one hand. I don't know how much the electrically controled first class seats weigh, but I would guess that without the IFE system, they weigh less than a passenger.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinedartland From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 643 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (3 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 1690 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 20):
UA's plan of outfitting older, narrow body aircraft worked out surprisingly well.

Indeed. I've been flying p.s. service back and forth each week for the past couple of months and am quite happy with it. AA's 762s, DL's 752s, VXs 319s or B6s 320s can't compare in terms of comfort, even in economy.

The lack of free upgrades sucks (and my success rate even with certificates or miles is bad -- last time I counted, ~2/3 of the plane boarded on the red carpet!) but just being on a 757 with half the number of pax as capacity (even in the back) makes the whole experience so much better!

I think even after UA/CO is combined at EWR, the JFK p.s. service still has a real niche. And like people have said above, given the low number of turns per day, I can imagine the 752s staying in service as p.s. flights for years to come.


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...
The Rules Don't Apply To Me posted Sun Jun 29 2008 10:57:20 by Jhooper
Some Hubs I Just Don't Understand posted Sat Jan 12 2008 17:05:23 by AFKLMLHLX
AS And The 739! posted Tue May 8 2007 19:48:12 by AlexInWa
Is United The Only Airline Offering Audio On..? posted Sat Feb 10 2007 00:56:43 by AirCanada014
Europe Business Class: Just Don't Understand This! posted Mon Feb 13 2006 19:11:27 by RootsAir
United: The Vision And The Plan Pt III posted Fri Sep 9 2005 03:03:25 by Baw716
United The Vision: To Restore The Dream Of Flight posted Thu Sep 8 2005 20:04:47 by Baw716
AS Now Flying The 739 To PVR? posted Sun Nov 14 2004 03:28:16 by AAplatnumflier
Airport Codes I Don't Understand posted Mon Aug 16 2004 18:55:53 by SW733
Airline Route You Don't Understand Why They Do? posted Sun Feb 22 2004 01:02:06 by UniTED