User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:19 pm

This feels like a déjà vu. Perhaps Boeing can discount the 737 MAX 7 at UA to prevent a CSeries order, like they did with the 737-700 in 2017.

United Airlines is "very seriously" looking at small mainline narrowbody aircraft, chief financial officer Andrew Levy tells FlightGlobal.

The Chicago-based carrier is evaluating the Bombardier CSeries and Embraer E-Jet-E2 family, as well as the Airbus A319neo and Boeing 737 Max 7, for its future fleet needs, he said on the sidelines of an industry conference in San Diego this week.


Article
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... e2-446510/
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
flyguy84
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:35 pm

This is the only way that UA can add more 76-seat regional jets which it desperately wants to do. They aren't going to get wholesale scope changes from the pilots, so this is the only other way.
SFO
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13654
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:42 pm

flyguy84 wrote:
This is the only way that UA can add more 76-seat regional jets which it desperately wants to do. They aren't going to get wholesale scope changes from the pilots, so this is the only other way.


Exactly, they can add 1 new 76 seat regional jet (ERJ-175) for every 1.25 new 100 seat mainline aircraft (Cseries, ERJ195E2 etc..) up to a maximum of 70 new ERJ-175s with the addition of 88 new 100 seat mainline (ERJ-195ER, Cseries etc.).

I kind of think Embraer has the inside track for two reasons, they might be forming a partnership with UA's preferred manufacturer (Boeing) and perhaps they can bundle the ERJ195E2 order together with the ERJ-175s.

Does anyone know how the ERJ-195E2's short field performance is compared to the Cseries?
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:29 pm

Amiga500 wrote:
STT757 wrote:
I kind of think Embraer has the inside track for two reasons... ...perhaps they can bundle the ERJ195E2 order together with the ERJ-175s.
Agreed.
That would appear unbeatable indeed. (And, as mentioned, Boeing has been discussing a partnership with Embraer for a few years).

But hey!, despite all the above, the CSeries was still ahead of Embraer until Boeing came up with 737-700 at $22M.

With Delta deploying CSeries in a near future, this time UA might actually order a "New Small Narrowbody" (NSNB). ..

Important edit: In the UA labor agreement, the "new small narrowbody" is defined as a CS100, E190E1, or E195E1.
E190E2/E195E2 don't count as a NSNB.
 
Ufsatp
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 6:21 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:02 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
This feels like a déjà vu. Perhaps Boeing can discount the 737 MAX 7 at UA to prevent a CSeries order, like they did in 2017.

United Airlines is "very seriously" looking at small mainline narrowbody aircraft, chief financial officer Andrew Levy tells FlightGlobal.

The Chicago-based carrier is evaluating the Bombardier CSeries and Embraer E-Jet-E2 family, as well as the Airbus A319neo and Boeing 737 Max 7, for its future fleet needs, he said on the sidelines of an industry conference in San Diego this week.


Article
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... e2-446510/


Boeing didn’t discount the MAX for United, the discounts were for the NG.
 
ordbosewr
Posts: 521
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:04 pm

With the information that came out due to the Boeing/C-series trade issue was the specific clause at the heart of the agreement between DL & Bombardier is the range limits and hence the price limits. I mean if UA could get the same agreement then I that would be great for UA. I mean UA has the need for the same feed into ORD, EWR and IAD that could benefit from that style of an agreement.
I mean making some of the EWR x4 down to x3 and that would free up more slots for other destinations/frequency.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:05 pm

Ufsatp wrote:
Boeing didn’t discount the MAX for United, the discounts were for the NG.


Apologies if I wasn't clear enough, I was referring to the NG deal in 2017.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Thenoflyzone
Posts: 2706
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2001 4:42 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:10 pm

STT757 wrote:

Does anyone know how the ERJ-195E2's short field performance is compared to the Cseries?


Takeoff runs at MTOW

E195-E2 - 6,463ft
CS100 - 4,800ft

Landing distance at MLW

E195-E2 - 4,633 ft
CS100 - 4,550 ft

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... 195-E2.pdf
http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS100.pdf
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
 
Tkt96
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:16 pm

Important edit: In the UA labor agreement, the "new small narrowbody" is defined as a CS100, E190E1, or E195E1.
E190E2/E195E2 don't count as a NSNB.[/quote]

It says "CS100" "E190" and "E195". It doesnt not specify E1 or E2
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:16 pm

Tkt96 wrote:
It says "CS100" "E190" and "E195". It doesnt not specify E1 or E2

==> Believe me, the E190/195E2s are excluded from the NSNB definition.
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:21 pm, edited 5 times in total.
 
mxaxai
Posts: 648
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 7:29 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:17 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Important edit: In the UA labor agreement, the "new small narrowbody" is defined as a CS100, E190E1, or E195E1.
E190E2/E195E2 don't count as a NSNB.

This seems incredibly stupid and short-sighted.

Obviously the pilots wouldn't care what kind of aircraft they fly as long as the salaries work out. I'd even dare say that they'd prefer the E2 over the E1. Management would obviously prefer the E2 or at least would like to keep the option open. Either the negotiators made an oversight - that could be easily fixed - or there is something going on behind the scenes here.
 
flyguy84
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:18 pm

ordbosewr wrote:
With the information that came out due to the Boeing/C-series trade issue was the specific clause at the heart of the agreement between DL & Bombardier is the range limits and hence the price limits. I mean if UA could get the same agreement then I that would be great for UA. I mean UA has the need for the same feed into ORD, EWR and IAD that could benefit from that style of an agreement.
I mean making some of the EWR x4 down to x3 and that would free up more slots for other destinations/frequency.

EWR is no longer slot restricted ....
SFO
 
heavymetal
Posts: 4542
Joined: Fri May 08, 2015 3:37 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:21 pm

KarelXWB wrote:
Ufsatp wrote:
Boeing didn’t discount the MAX for United, the discounts were for the NG.


Apologies if I wasn't clear enough, I was referring to the NG deal in 2017.


That NG deal was struck in 2016 before both Kirby and Levy showed up.

They were the ones that punted that deal, and are evidently interested revisiting the whole thing again with their teams behind it. I would bet the benefit of scope relief looks very different at 4-6% growth vs the old 2% growth, especially if most of that new growth is going to be domestic hub growth.
 
Tkt96
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:25 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Tkt96 wrote:
It says "CS100" "E190" and "E195". It doesnt not specify E1 or E2

==> Believe me, the E190/195E2s are excluded from the NSNB definition.


I'm looking at the most current contract dated Nov 2017. Page 21 doesn't specify E1 or E2. Where are you seeing this?
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:46 pm

Tkt96 wrote:
I'm looking at the most current contract in content locker dated Nov 2017. Page 21 doesn't specify E1 or E2. Where are you seeing this
"E190" and "E195" were exactly the terms used back then. And it's still on the contract today, unchanged.

It meant E1 back then. And it still mean E1 today, here and everywhere else on the planet.
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:01 pm, edited 6 times in total.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 3:54 pm

heavymetal wrote:
I would bet the benefit of scope relief looks very different at 4-6% growth vs the old 2% growth, especially if most of that new growth is going to be domestic hub growth.
Agreed.

FWIW: "Under United's pilot contract, for every five jets in this new "NSNB" class (to be flown by mainline pilots), it can add four 76-seat jets to its regional fleet -- up to a maximum of 70 additional regional jets."
 
Tkt96
Posts: 28
Joined: Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:08 pm

ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Tkt96 wrote:
I'm looking at the most current contract in content locker dated Nov 2017. Page 21 doesn't specify E1 or E2. Where are you seeing this
"E190" and "E195" were exactly the terms used back then. And it's still on the contract today, unchanged.

It meant E1 back then. And it still mean E1 today, here and everywhere else on the planet.


What about page 4 of Letter of Agreement 38 where the asterisk next to E190 and E195 states "* includes respective -E2 varient"
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1696
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:17 pm

flyguy84 wrote:
This is the only way that UA can add more 76-seat regional jets which it desperately wants to do. They aren't going to get wholesale scope changes from the pilots, so this is the only other way.


Exactly. And it should not escape anyone's attention that "Section 6" negotiations have now begun. IOW, how much is this just posturing for negotiating positions?
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
sdh9
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:13 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:22 pm

Tkt96 wrote:
ExMilitaryEng wrote:
Tkt96 wrote:
I'm looking at the most current contract in content locker dated Nov 2017. Page 21 doesn't specify E1 or E2. Where are you seeing this
"E190" and "E195" were exactly the terms used back then. And it's still on the contract today, unchanged.

It meant E1 back then. And it still mean E1 today, here and everywhere else on the planet.


What about page 4 of Letter of Agreement 38 where the asterisk next to E190 and E195 states "* includes respective -E2 varient"


That pertains to pay rates.

When interpreting contracts, one has to look at intent (negotiation notes from both parties) as well as past practice. The intent of the agreement was to provide a way to grow RJ flying after a small narrow body was added to the United fleet. Was the E2 type discussed during the contract extension as meeting the requirement of the SNB add? Probably, since the pay rates apply to both, but I can’t say for sure.

If it doesn’t meet the requirement, well, anything is negotiable for the right price.
 
ExMilitaryEng
Posts: 348
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 7:12 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:34 pm

Tkt96 wrote:
What about page 4 of Letter of Agreement 38 where the asterisk next to E190 and E195 states "* includes respective -E2 varient"
Wow, I did not see that asterisk! Anyways, thanks for this relevant info. (But why the E2 was not considered back then?)

My understanding was from the union position back then. (I just found the following, dated around January 8th, 2016, and it does indeed mention this asterisk)

"It’s also likely that this agreement will be used by the company to claim that the E2 series jet meets the definition of a NSNA (New Small Narrowbody Aircraft) for scope relief in order to outsource more flying to United Express. The E2 arguably would not have been considered a NSNA since this aircraft type is not listed anywhere in the UPA. This would have provided the foundation for a good grievance fight to block expansion at United Express because the E2 is also not listed in the NSNA language. This TA essentially codifies an agreement between ALPA and the Company where we consider the old E Series Jet to be the same piece of equipment as the newer E2 Series Embraer jet (nothing but an asterisk note now).
Fraternally,
Andy Collins, Chairman Council 11"
Last edited by ExMilitaryEng on Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 601
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:35 pm

Could someone please explain the scope issue? And, how it relates to this UAL narrowbody issue?

I've seen the term mentioned in the past and have been vainly trying to understand what it means. Sorry if I'm dense.

Thank you.
 
toxtethogrady
Posts: 1855
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 12:33 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:38 pm

There would be no scope questions if UA paid all its pilots under one master contract.

But that would end the rationale for regional flying...
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:43 pm

Seems like they could negotiate a rider that says while 1 new 76 seater for every 1.25 CS100, add 1 new 76 seater for every 2 CS300's. I think being restricted to the CS100 for the scope clause is what is putting Embraer ahead in this race. If UA were to get the CS100, I think they would quickly want the CS300 for the added efficiency. Personally, I don't care, anything that gets more planes with fewer middle seats in the fleet is a win in my book.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 4152
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 4:56 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
Could someone please explain the scope issue? And, how it relates to this UAL narrowbody issue?

I've seen the term mentioned in the past and have been vainly trying to understand what it means. Sorry if I'm dense.

Thank you.


See post #3 in this thread. If UA wants to add 76-seat regional aircraft to replace CR2 and E145 flying, it needs to add a new type for more mainline flying. This echoes a deal Delta pilots negotiated a couple of contracts ago.
 
DaufuskieGuy
Posts: 406
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:35 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:04 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
STT757 wrote:

Does anyone know how the ERJ-195E2's short field performance is compared to the Cseries?


Takeoff runs at MTOW

E195-E2 - 6,463ft
CS100 - 4,800ft

Landing distance at MLW

E195-E2 - 4,633 ft
CS100 - 4,550 ft

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... 195-E2.pdf
http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS100.pdf


wow a 1600 ft difference. seems like the cs100 could operate off any commercial runway currently in use even hhh
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13654
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:24 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
wow a 1600 ft difference. seems like the cs100 could operate off any commercial runway currently in use even hhh


UA is operating Express ERJ-175s on EWR-EYW , the runway at Key West is 5,000ft. I was thinking they could replace the Express with Mainline.

Aptivaboy wrote:
Could someone please explain the scope issue? And, how it relates to this UAL narrowbody issue?

I've seen the term mentioned in the past and have been vainly trying to understand what it means. Sorry if I'm dense.

Thank you.


Perhaps this can shed light on the issue:

http://www.audriesaircraftanalysis.com/2012/12/03/united-airlines-pilot-scope/
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:39 pm

I really don't see the union fighting UA in regards ordering a more technically advanced airplane (E2 vs E1). It wouldn't surprise me if this is settled via a side letter that encompasses the CS100/CS300 & E190/E195 E2 ultimately eliminating any grey area the current language may have.
 
iceberg210
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:45 pm

Purely in an armchair CEO sense, if I were United if I could get it my preferred outcome to the negotiations and order would be

Pilots agree that E2's qualify under the NSNB, and that the 175E2 gets an exemption for scope clause weight to qualify for the same position the 175E1 did.
This is contingent on a United order for 88 E190/195 E2, and 70 E175E2's, and the agreement moving forward that any current 175E1 or CRJ900 can be replaced with an E2. That part would be hard so I think you'd want to do something like give folks who are on E2's a raise equal to half the fuel savings or something. You can't get something for nothing and I'm sure there will be some sort of pay raise or give and take on it.

Least to me seems like a win win for everyone. Not to mention Embraer who I'm sure couldn't ask for a better situation for them lol

Again just some armchair Ceo'ing but an interesting mix none the less. It's the fact that the NSNB and 76 seater are tied together that makes me think there will be some sort of order like this.
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
United1
Posts: 3596
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:50 pm

iceberg210 wrote:
, and the agreement moving forward that any current 175E1 or CRJ900 can be replaced with an E2. That part would be hard so I think you'd want to do something like give folks who are on E2's a raise equal to half the fuel savings or something. You can't get something for nothing and I'm sure there will be some sort of pay raise or give and take on it.


UA doesn't have any CRJ900s so that part is easy :)...all of UAs E175E1s are 2014 or newer so there probably isn't a need to open that box at this point.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
iceberg210
Posts: 278
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 12:11 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:57 pm

United1 wrote:
iceberg210 wrote:
, and the agreement moving forward that any current 175E1 or CRJ900 can be replaced with an E2. That part would be hard so I think you'd want to do something like give folks who are on E2's a raise equal to half the fuel savings or something. You can't get something for nothing and I'm sure there will be some sort of pay raise or give and take on it.


UA doesn't have any CRJ900s so that part is easy :)...all of UAs E175E1s are 2014 or newer so there probably isn't a need to open that box at this point.

You're right I completely forgot in all the regional shuffle that UA doesn't have any 76 seater CRJ's. And good point on the E1's, so I guess just say "If you'll accept that the 175E2 gets an exemption under scope and that the 190/195E2 meets the NSNB we'll put an order in for 70 175E2 and 88 190/195E2."
Erik Berg
Defying Gravity
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:00 pm

Thenoflyzone wrote:
STT757 wrote:

Does anyone know how the ERJ-195E2's short field performance is compared to the Cseries?


Takeoff runs at MTOW

E195-E2 - 6,463ft
CS100 - 4,800ft

Landing distance at MLW

E195-E2 - 4,633 ft
CS100 - 4,550 ft

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... 195-E2.pdf
http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS100.pdf


I’m surprised the takeoff distance is that much worse than the CSeries with the big wing the E2 has.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8131
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:03 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:
STT757 wrote:

Does anyone know how the ERJ-195E2's short field performance is compared to the Cseries?


Takeoff runs at MTOW

E195-E2 - 6,463ft
CS100 - 4,800ft

Landing distance at MLW

E195-E2 - 4,633 ft
CS100 - 4,550 ft

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... 195-E2.pdf
http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS100.pdf


I’m surprised the takeoff distance is that much worse than the CSeries with the big wing the E2 has.


The issue is the length of the aircraft. Gotta rotate slowly, meaning you end up using more runway.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2269
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:09 pm

PPVRA wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Thenoflyzone wrote:

Takeoff runs at MTOW

E195-E2 - 6,463ft
CS100 - 4,800ft

Landing distance at MLW

E195-E2 - 4,633 ft
CS100 - 4,550 ft

https://www.embraercommercialaviation.c ... 195-E2.pdf
http://news.commercialaircraft.bombardi ... _CS100.pdf


I’m surprised the takeoff distance is that much worse than the CSeries with the big wing the E2 has.



The issue is the length of the aircraft. Gotta rotate slowly, meaning you end up using more runway.


I thought the E2 sat higher off the ground versus the E1 by much more but that isn't the case, length will always get your take off performance.
Last edited by ikolkyo on Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2296
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:13 pm

iceberg210 wrote:
Purely in an armchair CEO sense, if I were United if I could get it my preferred outcome to the negotiations and order would be

Pilots agree that E2's qualify under the NSNB, and that the 175E2 gets an exemption for scope clause weight to qualify for the same position the 175E1 did.
This is contingent on a United order for 88 E190/195 E2, and 70 E175E2's, and the agreement moving forward that any current 175E1 or CRJ900 can be replaced with an E2. That part would be hard so I think you'd want to do something like give folks who are on E2's a raise equal to half the fuel savings or something. You can't get something for nothing and I'm sure there will be some sort of pay raise or give and take on it.

Least to me seems like a win win for everyone. Not to mention Embraer who I'm sure couldn't ask for a better situation for them lol

Again just some armchair Ceo'ing but an interesting mix none the less. It's the fact that the NSNB and 76 seater are tied together that makes me think there will be some sort of order like this.


Getting 190/95 E2 to qualify under NSNB very plausible. Relaxing the scope weight limit would need a lot more than shiny new airplanes to convince the union to relax it.
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:21 pm

Would love to see the CS100 or E2 on MEM/SFO.
 
flyguy84
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:26 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:44 pm

iceberg210 wrote:
United1 wrote:
iceberg210 wrote:
, and the agreement moving forward that any current 175E1 or CRJ900 can be replaced with an E2. That part would be hard so I think you'd want to do something like give folks who are on E2's a raise equal to half the fuel savings or something. You can't get something for nothing and I'm sure there will be some sort of pay raise or give and take on it.


UA doesn't have any CRJ900s so that part is easy :)...all of UAs E175E1s are 2014 or newer so there probably isn't a need to open that box at this point.

You're right I completely forgot in all the regional shuffle that UA doesn't have any 76 seater CRJ's. And good point on the E1's, so I guess just say "If you'll accept that the 175E2 gets an exemption under scope and that the 190/195E2 meets the NSNB we'll put an order in for 70 175E2 and 88 190/195E2."

Never going to happen.
SFO
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:36 pm

I remember a BBD exec stating that they were willing to shorten the C Series to win the order. Wonder if that could still be on the table.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... ited-talks
Last edited by WaywardMemphian on Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
dbo861
Posts: 984
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 2:20 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:37 pm

WaywardMemphian wrote:
I remember a BBD exec stating that they were willing to shorten the C Series to win the order. Wonder if that could still be on the table.

What do you mean shorten?
 
WaywardMemphian
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2014 9:05 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:45 pm

dbo861 wrote:
WaywardMemphian wrote:
I remember a BBD exec stating that they were willing to shorten the C Series to win the order. Wonde8r if that could still be on the table.

What do you mean shorten?


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomb ... ited-talks

A CS 100 Lite, shorter than a standard CS 100.

We all need to keep that in mind for the CS line going forward. Other than that article, little is known on just how much shorter it would be and what the economics for it would be. Maybe an 80 to 100 seater depending on layout? Maybe another reason Boeing wants a piece of the E2 pie. A line that could go smaller than the 100 and 300 with a possible 500 on the top end.
 
User avatar
LockheedBBD
Posts: 542
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 6:59 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Thu Mar 08, 2018 8:07 am

KarelXWB wrote:
This feels like a déjà vu. Perhaps Boeing can discount the 737 MAX 7 at UA to prevent a CSeries order, like they did with the 737-700 in 2017.

United Airlines is "very seriously" looking at small mainline narrowbody aircraft, chief financial officer Andrew Levy tells FlightGlobal.

The Chicago-based carrier is evaluating the Bombardier CSeries and Embraer E-Jet-E2 family, as well as the Airbus A319neo and Boeing 737 Max 7, for its future fleet needs, he said on the sidelines of an industry conference in San Diego this week.


Article
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... e2-446510/



It's hard to take United seriously when they said they weren't interested in a ~100 seater aircraft only a few months ago, saying that the economics wouldn't work for them. Having said that, I'm sure Boeing/Embraer can offer them some E2 jets at a great price, perhaps in a bundle.
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Thu Mar 08, 2018 10:18 pm

Guys...
The Embraer, the A319neo and the Cseries all use the same Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engine... Which is the same for the A320s... So the matter shall be seating wise, correct?
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
SPREE34
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 6:09 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:05 pm

acreinholz wrote:
Guys...
The Embraer, the A319neo and the Cseries all use the same Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engine... Which is the same for the A320s... So the matter shall be seating wise, correct?



Nope.

https://www.pw.utc.com/Content/PurePowe ... sChart.pdf
I don't understand everything I don't know about this.
 
brian415
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2

Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:18 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
Could someone please explain the scope issue? And, how it relates to this UAL narrowbody issue?

I've seen the term mentioned in the past and have been vainly trying to understand what it means. Sorry if I'm dense.

Thank you.

United is already max'd out on how many large-ish (76-passenger) regional jets can be operated as United Express-branded aircraft (by UA's regional codeshare affiliates). The maximum number of these regional aircraft is spelled out in the labor agreement with UA's mainline pilots. As another poster pointed out, the maximum involves a mathematical formula of the ratio of mainline vs regional jets.

The labor agreement helps avoid situations like UA's post-bankruptcy reorganization that saw all 737s (then affectionately known to UA staff as "Guppies") sent to the desert--over 100 frames in total. Mainline jets were reduced from over 460 to 360. The void was filled by contract carriers at the expense of UA mainline pilots.
 
wrongwayup
Posts: 231
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:23 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Thu Mar 08, 2018 11:45 pm

acreinholz wrote:
Guys...
The Embraer, the A319neo and the Cseries all use the same Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engine... Which is the same for the A320s... So the matter shall be seating wise, correct?


Negative. E175E2 uses a similar engine to the MRJ, while the E190/195E2 use similar engines to the CS100/300, and the A319/320/321 use a separate engine. Similar but different.
 
Alias1024
Posts: 2462
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 11:13 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:21 am

LockheedBBD wrote:
It's hard to take United seriously when they said they weren't interested in a ~100 seater aircraft only a few months ago, saying that the economics wouldn't work for them.


That's what I'd expect UA management to say to the press if they are trying to drive a hard bargain. If they can convince Embraer and BBD that the only way the economics work is with a crazy cheap acquisition cost, then maybe one will give them exactly that.
It is a mistake to think you can solve any major problems with just potatoes.
 
User avatar
acreinholz
Posts: 46
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 5:28 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Fri Mar 09, 2018 1:19 am

wrongwayup wrote:
acreinholz wrote:
Guys...
The Embraer, the A319neo and the Cseries all use the same Pratt & Whitney PW1100G engine... Which is the same for the A320s... So the matter shall be seating wise, correct?


Negative. E175E2 uses a similar engine to the MRJ, while the E190/195E2 use similar engines to the CS100/300, and the A319/320/321 use a separate engine. Similar but different.


I got three info on Wikipedia... maybe it was wrong...
[threeid][/threeid]A319, A320 A321 A330 A340 B727 B737 B747 B757 B767 B777 DC9 DC10 MD88 MD11 ATR42 ATR72 EMB E175 E190 E195 F100 CRJ700
RG VP KK JJ UA DL AA NW TR AR MJ LH BA AF AL AU AD T4 AZ SC CM G3 FF TW EK O6 TK

"Verba Volant, Scripta Manent"
 
brian415
Posts: 204
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:05 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Fri Mar 09, 2018 2:21 am

acreinholz wrote:
I got three info on Wikipedia... maybe it was wrong...

== Pratt & Whitney PW1000G family ==
PW1100G A320neo family: 24,000–35,000 lbf
PW1200G MRJ70/90: 15,000 lbf
PW1400G Irkut MC-21: 28,000–31,000 lbf
PW1500G CSeries: 19,000–23,300 lbf
PW1700G E-Jets E2 175: 15,000–17,000 lbf
PW1900G E-Jets E2 190/195: 17,000–23,000 lbf
 
freakyrat
Posts: 1486
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Thu Mar 15, 2018 1:54 am

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... io-446780/

Pilots will not give on scope so United could add more 76 seater RJ's. They say the airline should add small mainline jets.
 
juliuswong
Posts: 1052
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 3:22 am

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:37 am

brian415 wrote:
acreinholz wrote:
I got three info on Wikipedia... maybe it was wrong...

== Pratt & Whitney PW1000G family ==
PW1100G A320neo family: 24,000–35,000 lbf
PW1200G MRJ70/90: 15,000 lbf
PW1400G Irkut MC-21: 28,000–31,000 lbf
PW1500G CSeries: 19,000–23,300 lbf
PW1700G E-Jets E2 175: 15,000–17,000 lbf
PW1900G E-Jets E2 190/195: 17,000–23,000 lbf

That's a lot of different variant for PW1000 engine family. Hope PW doesn't screw up other like what they did for A320neo family.
- Life is a journey, travel it well -
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 16050
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

Re: UA 'very seriously' looking at CSeries and E2, as well as MAX 7 and A319neo

Thu Mar 15, 2018 8:43 am

freakyrat wrote:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/united-pilots-union-opposes-more-large-jets-at-regio-446780/

Pilots will not give on scope so United could add more 76 seater RJ's. They say the airline should add small mainline jets.


Tail wags dog.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos