washingtonian From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (3 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2595 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!!
neutronstar73 From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 507 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2469 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.
seabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5518 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2407 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.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3263 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2382 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.
kgaiflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 4287 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2151 times:
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.