Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Why Did Pmua Go With The A359 Over The 77W?  
User currently offlinewashingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2539 times:

I don't recall the reasons they gave at the time (other than price of course), but why did PMUA order the A-350-900 as 1-for-1 replacements for the 747 fleet? Why did they not order the A-350-1000 if they were trying to order the latest-generation aircraft? And would the 77W not have been a better replacement since almost every other airline has replaced their 747s with 77Ws?

Regardless, pretty cool that the new United has 50 787s and 25 A-350s on order!!

6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineneutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 497 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

I would think that they were pretty happy with what the A359 brought to the table and felt that it would bring enough savings and capability that the 77W would not be needed or is too much. And the fact that, conversely, the A358 was just not compelling enough to order it over the 787, which they probably felt the 2 aircraft (787 and A359) probably complemented each other fairly well within their network and plans.

Just my guess.


User currently offlineBlueSky1976 From Poland, joined Jul 2004, 1869 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2370 times:

At the time RFP was issued, UA specifically said it was for "next generation" aircraft, meaning only 787 and A350XWB were in the running.


STOP TERRORRUSSIA!!!
User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5309 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2351 times:

The idea was to dramatically improve yields by keeping the premium sections roughly the same as they were in the 744 and chopping off a bunch of Economy. Not sure if, post-merger, that will still be UA's favored approach. I tend to think they will eventually order a few larger aircraft (although not as many as they have 744s) and use some of the A359s to replace the earliest 772s.

User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3196 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2326 times:

It would be helpful to many people if you could call it something better than "PMUA". I know my IATA, ICAO and my ATC acronyms but airliners.net speak means that often you speak to the same core group without many people who might want to contribute left baffled.

User currently offlinekgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4229 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
It would be helpful to many people if you could call it something better than "PMUA". I know my IATA, ICAO and my ATC acronyms but airliners.net speak means that often you speak to the same core group without many people who might want to contribute left baffled.

There's not a lot that can be done to describe airframes ordered by UA (pre merger) and CO (pre merger) which must now be rationalized into the new merged CO-UA. The earlier orders were made years ago without thought of how these purchases would work into a merged airline.

In the merged airline -- making points of which parts of the present fleet and of future orders will be rationalized in what way confounds the most organized minds. No attempt is being made to be trendy and cool; to keep discussions private among a select group of readers, or to deliberately confuse new readers.


User currently offlinebonusonus From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 2067 times:

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 4):
It would be helpful to many people if you could call it something better than "PMUA". I know my

PMUA always confuses me too, because in my mind it could easily stand for Pre-Merger UA or Post-Merger UA...


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...
Why Did AA Go With Oneworld? posted Sat Aug 18 2007 19:59:00 by DL767captain
Why Did US Go For The A321? posted Thu Aug 16 2001 06:59:05 by Tupolev154B2
Why Did US Add Supplemental Tvs On The 332? posted Sat Jul 11 2009 19:02:56 by USAirALB
CI 744 Touch And Go With Wheel Touches The Ground posted Thu Mar 1 2007 01:31:55 by Jimyvr
Why Did Twa Sell To Aa? And The Twa Story? posted Sat Feb 7 2004 22:57:23 by Bmi330
Why Did Olymic Airlines Get Rid Of The B-717? posted Mon Jan 12 2004 14:06:33 by Delta777Jet
Why Did Airtran Choose ACY And ABE Over TTN? posted Wed Apr 29 2009 21:15:23 by Lrgt
Dornier 328, Why Did It Go Out So Fast? posted Mon Jul 3 2006 19:07:02 by SBNair3022
Why Did AA Go For Fokker? posted Sat Mar 4 2006 10:55:29 by BHXDTW
Why Did Fokker Go Under? posted Mon Oct 15 2001 09:53:22 by YKA