2cn From United States of America, joined Aug 2001, 648 posts, RR: 0 Posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5113 times:
Before I get blasted by United fans, I want to state this is an uncomfirmed rumor that I've heard and am just posting to see if anyone knows any more info, or to see if this is totaly false.
Now.. a friend of my parents who works at United (she is a F/A on the Sydney route) said the inside rumor/news/scoop/whatever going around was that part of the reoganization of the airline was they were planning to get rid of their entire 747 fleet due to the pilots having negotiated such an exorbinate rate to fly them. She said that if/when they do get rid of the 747, they plan to replace them with the 777 since they pay the pilots less to fly the plane, and it still has the range needed. Any truth to this rumor? Anyone else hear this?
I sure hope they dont get rid of them since there are sure a small ammount of US carriers flying the 747, would hate to see United get rid of them
Teahan From Ireland, joined Nov 1999, 5377 posts, RR: 59
Reply 1, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5016 times:
There were exactly the same rumours pre-11/09. However many things have changed since then and I honestly don't think UA have the $ or € to replace any aircraft. Anyway, the value of 2nd hand B744s are currently extremely low, wrong time to get rid of them.
Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4939 times:
Wow...I've been gone too long from this forum obviously, since United's 747 fleet has apparantly been scaled down to what...20 planes now!?! At last count it was 5 in storage, but now they've sent at least an additional 15 to the yard? Ya' sure, BA...?
Oh, and as per Apollo, Donder10, all of United's 747 loads are amazing...absolutely amazing. If only you worked for the company and could actually see the loads which they're carrying...
As to why the would retire the 747 due to pilot costs, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So they retire the 747's to quit paying for the "exorbinant" 747 pilot salaries, yet they continue to pay the exorbinant 777 pilot salaries...yeah...real bright move.
Flight152 From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 3488 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4904 times:
Paying millons on top of millions to swich to a 777 fleet to get out of a few hunderd thousand dollars a year (the difference in pay from a 747 to 777 pilot) seems to be vastly disproportionate and a huge waste of money.
SFOintern From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 770 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4899 times:
These rumours were swirling around long before recently. The only way United would replace 747-400s is by Boeing or Airbus offering them sweet deals for either the 777NGs or A340NGs, at almost give-away prices.
While these big mamas cost a fortune to operate, the prices paid for them were pretty sweet under the deals Wolf & Greenwald negotiated, and they are mostly paid off.
Parking them seems the best solution until traffic picks up. Simply put, if it costs ANYTHING (even a dime) for United to replace the 747-400s, it will NOT do it. United is cutting back ALL potential expenses, even new pilot bunks in the 777, and redirected all funds to AVOLAR
SegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4859 times:
cause Avolar is instant income
United hasn't grounded 1/2 of their 747s. There are no immediate plans to ground the fleet as they don't have a sizeable operation to cover the route decreases. They have, however, put a few in maintenance and have a few sitting around airports longer than normal. Their average flying time per day has dropped, but not to the point they are grounding the birds, which most are owned!!!
Serge From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1989 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4804 times:
I don't believe this will ever happen, or maybe its that I don't want to believe it could happen.
This would really be awful considering the routes they fly as well, SFO-DEN and ORD - DEN and vice versa of course.... My brother is flying home tomorrow and he'll be on the following UA aircraft in order: 747-400, EMB-120 Brasilia, Dornier 328, 777 And I will be lucky enough to fly same routes in February to see him
Big777jet From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (14 years 2 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4782 times:
What if 744 are gone. How do fly non stop ORD-HKG, SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD and JFK-NRT? United's B777 can't fly non stop SFO-SYD and ORD-HKG. If United buy B777-200 "LR" would be fine using long range non stop. I don't know about ORD-Delhi soon.
PS - I hate to see go away 744. I wish UAL should keep some of 744 fleet.
The777Man From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 6813 posts, RR: 54
Reply 18, posted (14 years 2 months 22 hours ago) and read 4683 times:
UA currently has FOUR 747-400s parked, N173UA, N183UA, N184UA and N186UA, according to Skynet, United's internal intranet. UA will possibly park more 744s as a few more 777s are delivered but I think that the 744s will be back in service by summer when traffic might pick up and routes are restarted. The777Man
Need a Boeing 777 Firing Order....Further to fly....LX and LH 777s
IAHERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 677 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (14 years 2 months 14 hours ago) and read 4597 times:
Any airline that would retire an expensive fleet type due to labor costs on the aircraft should never have operated that type in the first place. United Airlines management has not made the best decisions over the last few years but I've got to believe this is completely a unfounded rumor. Anyone who believes the salaries of the pilots flying a 747 are percentage wise a major factor in operating the aircraft needs some lessons in airline economics. It would cost 10 times more to train the 747 pilots (The most senior on average) on the 777 (which is where most would go), and retire the fleet. Then you train the mechanics and try to get rid of the spare parts inventory etc. etc. I just doesn't make sense. Retiring a fleet type is something done to save real money in the long run. Pilot salaries just don't add up enough to warrant a decision like this.
ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3142 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (14 years 2 months 13 hours ago) and read 4601 times:
Big777Jet wrote: What if 744 are gone. How do fly non stop ORD-HKG, SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD and JFK-NRT? United's B777 can't fly non stop SFO-SYD and ORD-HKG. If United buy B777-200 "LR" would be fine using long range non stop. I don't know about ORD-Delhi soon.
May I remind you that the 777-200ER actually has more range than the 747, so all of those routes which you stated can be flown with a 777. JFK-NRT already went to a 777 earlier this year, as well as several other Pacific routes. One of the longest 777 Pacific route is ORD-PEK.
In responce to ETOPS, a 777 can fly from the west coast to SYD/AKL. It would fly on the same path as a 747 with out ETOPS restrictions. I've put a link to a map for the great circle mapper, showing the routing on SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD, LAX-AKL with ETOPS 180, and with out.
The only route that would remotly be a problem on the south pacific runs would be LAX-AKL, and that is hardly a problem.
United Airline wrote: With the current Economic Situation, their second hand B 744s worth nothing...... And if they sell all 44 B 747-400s, the most number of B 777-300ERs they can get is about 10.........
UAL will not sell any of their B 747-400s. They simply need them. They are cashcows for UAL and some of them will be PARKED for the time being until the Economy Picks up.
They may consider the B 747-400ER in the future..... Only time will tell. However, United has been a B 747 operator for a very long time.
Just because United has been a long time operator of the 747 doesnt mean that they will always be an operator of them. If you call United Services and request it, you could actually lease a 747, or a 747 engine. I guess now they are bringing in some money for United, being spare parts for others.
RayChuang Wrote: Why on Earth will UA sell off their 747-400 fleet? The planes are mostly paid for anyway and UA will just temporarily lower their utilization until the economy picks up.
Besides, the UA 744's will probably by 2005 get 777-style interiors and probably next-generation jet engines to extend their life to at least 2015-2016.
By 2005, the 747s will not have the new 777 interior. Why should they put it in? There is no logic behind your statement at all. United has other things to spend their money on then your beloved 777 interiors.
With the engines, the 747s have the same engines as the 763. Those engines are just a smaller version of the engines on the 777. So, if you think that getting new engines on the 747s makes sence, with your logic we should re-engine the entire widebody fleet.
FLY777UAL wrote: As to why the would retire the 747 due to pilot costs, that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. So they retire the 747's to quit paying for the "exorbinant" 747 pilot salaries, yet they continue to pay the exorbinant 777 pilot salaries...yeah...real bright move.
SegmentKing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (14 years 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 4553 times:
your brother flying via Sioux Falls, SD??? an Embraer Brasilia connecting to a DoDo prop?? only city that I can think of that gets Skywest EM2s and AWAC DoDos is Lincoln Nebraska or Sioux Falls..
The 777 can't track properly along the route to Australia from LAX. You'd burn too much fuel trying to get to a 180 min radial for ETOPs... it would be like flying a path similar to Pee Wee Herman's Connect-The-Dots thing from PeeWee's Play House (you have to remember that show!)