keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sat Mar 30, 2002 6:56 pm

Looking at e.g. UAL and BA long haul fleets (made up of "new" B747´s and B777´s and lots of old 767´s) it would not surprice me if they would require a 250-300 seater to keep open/ open up routes were the 777 is just to big.

With it´s capasity and 10.000 km range the A330/200 could (apart from replacing the 767) give more flexibility on the longer routes.

Both already commited to large airbus narrow body fleets and the boeing 767-300/400ER just doesn´t offer the efficiency and range.

IMO these 767´s are more an older medium range aircraft type with extra fuel/range & updated interiors.

It would be in line with its competitors KLM and NWA ..

cheers
keesje
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
ual777contrail
Posts: 2914
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 11:33 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sat Mar 30, 2002 7:15 pm

no way would ual ever buy teh a330's



not gonna happen
 
ContinentalFan
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:47 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sat Mar 30, 2002 7:43 pm

Keesje,

Even though UAL has a large Airbus narrowbody fleet (and I see it going all Airbus in the long term), in the US airlines have all sorts of clauses in the contracts with the pilots that make cockpit commonality not very useful (e.g. if I was a UAL A320 pilot, I couldn't just hop into a hypothetical UAL A330 if they needed a pilot, because of seniority rules, etc.). Anyways, UAL seems committed to Boeing for its widebody fleet (and I don't think that Boeing would let UAL slip away).

Mike
 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sat Mar 30, 2002 7:44 pm

Unlikely.

UA is highly committed to the 777 and has a huge fleet of 777 and 763 aircraft that suits its needs. Both types are quite new......why do they need another type? The A332 is a great aircraft, but what would UA do with it?

Same for BA - their long-haul future is with also with the 777 and, with LHR being as cogested as it is, does not really need or want a smaller long-haul airliner. Look how they utilize their 763s - mostly on European services and many now leased out or on the ground, the 763 is not a type that requires replacement. BA did look at the A333 for high-density services serveral times but passed.

Dont forget how expensive it is for an airline to introduce a new type.
 
keesje
Posts: 8601
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sat Mar 30, 2002 8:07 pm

I think A330 is very different from 777 as well as 767 in terms of capasity & range.

However in a few years the 767 design is 30 years old without radical improvements. Buying more is perhaps not feasible. I think with the continued growth in the next ten years by-passing hubs for mid size destinations will grow for instance on the Atlantic.

Many of those new city pairs won´t be ready for a 777 from the start.

Many airlines have been publicly serious commited to a brand until they found out to have no choice & switched..
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
VirginFlyer
Posts: 3883
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

Sat Mar 30, 2002 8:40 pm

Keesje - and in those same few years time (actually, it is more than a few), the A330 design will be twenty years old...

V/F
"So powerful is the light of unity that it can illuminate the whole earth." - Bahá'u'lláh
 
The777Man
Posts: 5911
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 4:54 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sat Mar 30, 2002 11:25 pm

Agree with DutchJet, UA doesn't have a need for them and uneconomical to introduce a new fleet type. Probably, UA will replace 767s eventually with a 767NG but that's a long way off. First 762 was put into service 1982 or so, aobut 20 years old. Also seating capacity on UA's 777s is about 260 seats on the ones they fly transatlantic most (non-ER, three class). The777Man
Boeing 777s flown: UA, TG, KE, BA, CX, NH, JD, JL, CZ, SQ, EK, NG, CO, AF, SV, KU, DL, AA, MH, OZ, CA, MS, SU, LY, RG, PE, AZ, KL, VN, PK, EY, NZ, AM, BR, AC, DT, UU, OS, AI, 9W, KQ, QR, VA, JJ, ET, TK, PR, BG, T5, CI, MU and LX.. Further to fly.. LH 777
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sat Mar 30, 2002 11:29 pm

Keesje,

There is no way United would order the A330.

First off, the 767s are not old airplanes. The first one flew in 1982, making it 20 years old. Most of United's 767s haven't even reached their midlife yet. The 767 is a very modern and efficient aircraft, so quit with the "old" stuff.

I don't see a reason at all to order the A330 when you have a large fleet of 767s, 777s, and 747s.

Makes no sense.
Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
Guest

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sun Mar 31, 2002 12:34 am

I can see BA going for the A330-200 with RR Trent 772s to replace their 767-300s.
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sun Mar 31, 2002 12:38 am

I can see BA buying RR trent powered A330-200's aswell, but the only problem might be that the A330 might be a "too big airplane" for short haul euro routes. Then again, stranger things have happened in aviation.

Arsenal@LHR
In Arsene we trust!!
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

Sun Mar 31, 2002 6:36 am

United's newest 767 N677UA was delived in November. The -300s are not old by any means. They will be around for quite some time. The -200s have an uncertain future.

I L U V 7 6 7
 
Arsenal@LHR
Posts: 7510
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 2:55 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sun Mar 31, 2002 6:44 am

What will UA replace the 762's with? Maybe the new updated 762's?

Arsenal@LHR
In Arsene we trust!!
 
UPS763
Posts: 195
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 7:00 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sun Mar 31, 2002 6:49 am

The Boeing 767, though a bit slower than the A330, is a great airplane. It has to the ability to fly various routes from short-medium-long range and though some of the -200s are approaching their 20th birthday, the -300s are quite young and efficency is not a question. The 763 will continue to be the backdone of several major routes.

 
dutchjet
Posts: 7714
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2000 6:13 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sun Mar 31, 2002 6:51 am

Concerning the 762s, I would guess that they will not be directly replaced. It is more likely that as UA takes more 777s, the 777 will replace the 763 on some routes (especially transatlantic services) and the 763s, in turn, will take over the routes currently flown by the 762 (which are mainly US transcontinental). Then, the 762s will be retired.

UA wants and needs widebody service on its US transcon routes in order to offer 3 classes of service and to keep its full-fare, thus very important, business travellers happy; thus, the 752, 753 or A32X is really not an option, especially out of JFK.

UA is very happy with its 777s and its 763s are quite young.....I dont see UA introducing another type, be it the A332 or B764, in the forseeable future.



 
airworthy
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:05 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sun Mar 31, 2002 7:10 am

I flew on N601UA, UA's oldest aircraft (a 767-200) on Tuesday. Both the pilot's and flight crew promoted the aircraft on being in very good condition despite its age. In spite of the old "crappy" seats, I felt that the fact that this clean and well-kept plane was UAL's oldest was very comforting and impressive.


UNlogical?

ME fail english?! That's unpossible!!
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Sun Mar 31, 2002 11:40 pm

Why on Earth would UA want to buy the A330-200?  Insane

Anyway, the 767-200/300 fleet flying with UA is still in very good condition and the planes do meet today's ICAO Stage III noise standards and with a few changes meet even the Stage IV noise standards due in 2006.

I expect UA to look at a major interior upgrade program for their 767 fleet fairly soon and we might even see an engine upgrade program further down the road, which will allow UA to keep flying the 767 until at least 2016.
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

Mon Apr 01, 2002 4:07 am

RayChuang wrote:
I expect UA to look at a major interior upgrade program for their 767 fleet fairly soon and we might even see an engine upgrade program further down the road, which will allow UA to keep flying the 767 until at least 2016.

The 767-300 has already gone through an interior upgrade about 3 years ago. The 767-300ER was the first to feature the new seats in all cabins, as well as the standard PTV system for widebody international planes. The only thing left to do with that plane is to put the new carpets, bulkheads, and seat covers in. That is happening as the planes leave HMV.

Regarding the 767-200. United was planning on updating the interiors on them starting a year ago. Due to a finachial crisis, the project has been placed on hiatus. United is looking at other options with the 767-200 which include selling them off. United is not very fond of the JT9D engine, and the 767-200 is not scoring browine points with our clients. While they do have a low cycle life, they are the oldest planes in the fleet, and are on their way out.

Aresnal@LHR wrote:

What will UA replace the 762's with? Maybe the new updated 762's?

Probably 767-300s and 777s on the premium transcons. United has the 777s to spare. It doesnt make that much sence to have 777 turns 5 times a day from SFO to DEN. Those planes could be better utilized on the JFK-SFO/LAX runs. The 767-200 only flies on transcons, and the 767-300 and the 777 could replace it quite easily.

I L U V 7 6 7
 
Guest

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 4:51 am

People in forum are asking why would UA go for the A330? Look at US Airways, they have 767-200ERs and instead of going for some new larger capacity 767-300s or 400s, they went for the Airbus A330-300 because they already operate Airbus A319/A320/A321 aircraft. Why can't UA purchase the A330-200/300 if they want to if they also operate the A319 & A320.
 
Guest

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 4:58 am

Someone has stated that UA is not very fond of the P&W JT9D on their 767-200s. Why can't UA re-engine them with PW4000 series engines like their 767-300s & 747-400s have?
 
NWA742
Posts: 4505
Joined: Sat Feb 16, 2002 11:35 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:02 am

People in forum are asking why would UA go for the A330? Look at US Airways, they have 767-200ERs and instead of going for some new larger capacity 767-300s or 400s, they went for the Airbus A330-300 because they already operate Airbus A319/A320/A321 aircraft. Why can't UA purchase the A330-200/300 if they want to if they also operate the A319 & A320.

US Airways only had the Airbus narrow-aircraft, and a few 767s. United will not order the A330, because they have a large fleet of 767s, 777s, and 747s, US Airways didn't.

United's future fleet will probably be something like this:

737 (?)
A319
A320
744
757
767
777

When you have a large fleet of 767s, 777s, and 747s, you don't go ordering an A330, it makes no sense at all.



Some people are like slinkies - not good for anything, but they bring a smile to your face when pushed down the stairs
 
airworthy
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:05 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:05 am

The only problem with placing 767-300s and 777-200s flying on JFK-SFO/LAX runs is that the 767-200s are right-sized for this market. Whie the 763 has the same amount of premium seating as the 762, with much better cabin amenities, as it stands right now UA is achieving fairly low load factors on SFO/LAX-JFK.

The 2 morning flights from SFO-JFK on 767-300s consistently go out underutlized, with F not even being filled with space available non-revs!!!

UA may have 777s to spare. But you have to ask yourself whether it is better to fly the Denver turns full or fly the premium transcons even emptier. UA is showing less and less commitment to JFK anyway.

Finding a suitable (non-money losing) replacement for the 767-200s will be difficult because the smaller 762s are right-sized for the market. If indeed UA does replace them with larger gauge 763s and "mammoth for the route" 777s, you can bet frequencies would be reduced. But I just don't see that happening because that's why last minute premium travellers choose United--the frequencies.
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:11 am

"People in forum are asking why would UA go for the A330? Look at US Airways, they have 767-200ERs and instead of going for some new larger capacity 767-300s or 400s, they went for the Airbus A330-300 because they already operate Airbus A319/A320/A321 aircraft. Why can't UA purchase the A330-200/300 if they want to if they also operate the A319 & A320."

First of all, why would you even compare UA and US? They are two very different airlines. US had a small fleet of (Mostly) ex.Piedmont B762's, and after the US/Boeing relations breakup because of the canceled Boeing order, I don't think they would have gone for another Boeing product. UA on the otherhand operates a large fleet of Boeing products (B757/767/747/777). Obviously you have not understood a single post in this whole thread.

Your second question:

"Someone has stated that UA is not very fond of the P&W JT9D on their 767-200s. Why can't UA re-engine them with PW4000 series engines like their 767-300s & 747-400s have?"

This could be possible, but I highly doubt UA has the greens to spend on a B762 re-engine program. Also, many airlines (mabye UA too?) have outgrown the B762, and find the B763 as a better fit. Today the B762 has become more of a "niche" aircraft.

-Tom

 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

Mon Apr 01, 2002 6:15 am

Hass (Airworthy/SFOintern),

While the 767-200s may be the right size for the market, so are the -300s. The 767-200 has the same number of premium seats as the -300. The -300 has more economy seats, but has a lower operating cost.

The New York market is getting saturated with lower yields brought on by jetBlue. jetBlue is taking passenger away from United, American, and Delta on this market. As a result, the business travelers still will stay with the majors but the majors can not compete...or can they?

Lets say United dropped the 767-200 on the JFK market. Now lets say that the 777 came in during the peak hours of atleast one early morning flight, one mid morning flight, and one redeye. You can not deny that those fill up in the premium cabin. I've seen the loads. Especially the 11am flight, which is carrying Asia connections. The other flights, in the afternoon at weird hours could actually be downgraded to an Airbus aircraft, where the Y class is what is filling the plane, not First/Business. It would allow for an interesting mix of aircraft on the route, allow for the same number of people to be moved between the cities, reduce your costs by operating cheaper costs, and it would also allow you to gain back some of the customers that United has been loosing to jetBlue on the New York flight.

American is already planning something very similiar, except with the use of 757s and 738s out of JFK to jetBlue cities. American is still running their widebodies into premium markets, and I think that they should keep this up. However, they are going after jetBlue. United, at the moment is not. The way to go after them is to put airbusses on the new york flighs to capture the lower yielding traffic. The high yielding traffic would remain on widebodies.

Before you jump over me for the idea, remember that this is something that has yet to be attempted by UA or any major really. Examine the possiblilties first, and ponder what I've said.

Flame Away
I L U V 7 6 7
 
ual777contrail
Posts: 2914
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 11:33 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 6:23 am

no way would united ever order the a330's

it makes no sense, it would also cost united more money they cant spend right now.when you operate the most 777's in the world you dont need an a330, what a step down.





ual 777 contrail
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 6:49 am

Well, I just flew SFO - JFK on UA #4 on tail 609 and it was an uneventful, but PACKED red eye. This was on a Friday, mind you.

Two of the flight attendants recognized me and we talked in the rear galley for most of the trip (there was a screaming kid sitting in front of me, so forget sleep). They said the loads have been very high lately, at least on all of their trips, with F being mainly all revenue passengers and business packed w/ revenue and upgrades from coach.

Someone stated earlier the 767 is an "OLD" design... and it's been "out grown". Did you know the 737 airframe is almost 40? Why change something if it works. The 767 has one of the best wings around (carried down to the 757 w/ mods made) and is a solid performer. So the engines aren't the best... it's still a better choice than bringing in useless Airbi A330s. I've flown tons and tons and tons of miles on United, and you really couldn't tell that #609 was about 18 years old... the seats were the standard pre Deco 5.5 seats, didn't have individual air vents, and had the basic video screen @ the front of the cabin. The only way you knew it was old was by looking at the Business Class seats... that's bout it.

United is presently looking at getting more 757s, 767-300s, and 777-300s for those of you wondering. United will probably place the order this summer as a way to keep ALPA permitting the scope clause violation to continue.
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:00 am

ILUV767,

I think with new interiors and replacing the original JT9D's with newer PW4000's, UA's 767-200 fleet could just keep chugging along for another 15 years. Maybe after that occurs the updated 762's should be assigned to longer north-south routes such as ORD-MIA?

I do eventually see UA possibly modifying some 777-200 models into a transcon configuration with more premium seating specifically aimed for the LAX-JFK-LAX and SFO-JFK-SFO runs.
 
A388
Posts: 7159
Joined: Mon May 21, 2001 3:48 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:27 am

Keesje,

I agree with you that the 777 cannot be compared with the A330 but I can't agree with you that the 767 is not in the same category as the A330. The 767 and A330 are indeed in the same category as Boeing and Airbus themselves compare these aircraft with each other and promoting them as direct competitors (see all articles about aircraft acquisitions for 767 replacements from a variety of airlines). The 767 and A330 are very close to each other in terms of capacity AND range with the A330 having a higher range than the 767. EVA Air ordered the A330 for their 767 replacements, Asiana ordered the A330 for their 767 replacement programme, US Airways ordered the A330 for their 767 replacement, Air France ordered the A330 for their 767/A310 replacement, just to give you some examples. Airlines compare the 767 with the A330 to determine which aircraft will replace their 767 fleets.

Boeing is falling behind by not coming up with a "Next Generation" 767 which surprises me. Instead Boeing is focuses on its Sonic Cruiser programme. Boeing will loose a lot of 767 customers if they don't come up with an improved version of their 767 and there are a lot of 767 operators out there. Knowing Bowing, they will come with a new 767 soon, they just haven't announced it yet
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 7:56 am

"EVA Air ordered the A330 for their 767 replacements, Asiana ordered the A330 for their 767 replacement programme, US Airways ordered the A330 for their 767 replacement, Air France ordered the A330 for their 767/A310 replacement, just to give you some examples. Airlines compare the 767 with the A330 to determine which aircraft will replace their 767 fleets."

EVA, and Asiana are both Asian carriers. The Asian market requires an aircraft with a very large cargo capacity (Freight is very important to airlines in that region.) and it's only expected that those airlines will go for the aircraft with the larger hold. I would not have expected US to order any more aircraft from Boeing after the whole ordeal over the canceled Boeing order.
Im still split on the AF order. I guess they saw the advantages of operating both A330 and A340, along with their large A32X fleet, but B764ER's would have shared commonality with the B777's. And again, the B767 and A330 do not compete directly. The A330 competes with both the B767 and B777, it just depends in what market you are operating in.

-Tom

 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 8:08 am

The US 333's are used for growth of the 762 routes, not for replacement.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

Mon Apr 01, 2002 8:57 am

Ray,

I do not think that putting PW4000s in on the 762 is worth it if the airframe is 18 years old. True, while they have a very low cycle life, mechanically, they are headaches in most areas. Also, by putting PW4000s in on the 762, it would be "overkill" on that type of plane. It could actually shorten your life on the plane.

Regarding the north and south routes: It is a waiste to operate 762s on a route like that. MIA is one of those destinations where you need frequency into it.

With the 777s, you mentioned putting a larger premium cabin in on them. In theory that is a good idea, but then you run the risk of more upgrades which could kill your yields. The 23XX 777s would work best for this route with 12 Suites in first, 49 Enhanced Biz class seats, and 197 seats in the main cabin (including Y+). That plane it self has a large premium cabin, and the gift is extended to the main cabin as well.

I L U V 7 6 7
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

Mon Apr 01, 2002 9:35 am

"Also, by putting PW4000s in on the 762, it would be "overkill" on that type of plane. It could actually shorten your life on the plane."

Actually, B767-200(ER)'s have already been produced with the P+W4000 engine.



 
sfointern
Posts: 1104
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2001 1:19 am

RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:01 am

  • The 767-300 has lower costs per seat mile (CASMs), however *overall* operating costs cannot be lower than the 767-200. The -300 is heavier and larger, and while it may guzzle less gas and undergo less maintenance than the -200, is more expensive to operate with higher landing fees, more F/As, more pax, etc.

  • The redeye to JFK is always full. The full flights on the SFO-JFK-SFO runs are the late departure SFO-JFK and early departure JFK-SFO... otherwise the loads aren't so well. The latter are full for the precise reasons as ILUV767 said.

  • JetBlue is stealing traffic from the east bay, but it is not stealing much premium, mileage junkie traffic from United.

  • AA is going after jetBlue potentially through LGB. Otherwise the only head-on attack is the twice daily 757s on OAK-JFK. AA is operating these services mainly because it is feeling competitive pressure on its SJC-JFK runs, the original route for a "convenient Bay Area airport". The rest of AA and jB competition stems from jB starting service from NYC-Florida & SJU.

  • UA is also countering jB, albeit only on IAD-OAK only because it is the first time its monopoly on one of its most profitable routes has been infringed. S.O.P.

  • Your concept about the combo 777/A32X is very interesting, and I do believe this is the smartest thing to do. There had already been rumors swirling about of 757s coming on to the JFK-West Coast path.

    I think that the best option would be to have a 777 and 763 on two early JFK-SFO flights for the Asia connections, followed by several 757 flights mid-day, and 763 flights going back to SFO. (A320s just won't do, espeically coming back from JFK fully loaded, the winds will kill them on the nearly 6 hour flight -- that's why you barely see A32X on EWR-SFO/LAX).

    From SFO, you could have the 757s early on in the day when the loads are low, then have 763s for the afternoon and evening arrivals, then finally the 777 for the packed redeye.

    The only reason why there are two 763s going in the morning from SFO-JFK right now is to position them for the EZE and LHR services. By throwing more 763s on the route, more 763s can rotate onto the LAX returns. The augmentation of 757s can serve to make the SJU service daily, as well as rotate the 757 onto LAX runs. And the 777 can be rotated to add in the 3rd daily LHR flight as the market demands.

    A mix of 757/763/777 is the most logical thing to do.
  •  
    airworthy
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:05 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Mon Apr 01, 2002 10:21 am

    Yuck. I dunno why it switched to that screen name, I have to use my new one because that's where I have my first class membership.

    Also, I have to note that the "P" class transcontinental premium "international style" service is almost non-existent now, at least in First Class.

    First Class meals on the JFK transcons are no longer multi-course meals, and in fact are actually identical to the 3-class transcon service from Dulles now. So, change is already in the wind.
     
    ILUV767
    Posts: 3035
    Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

    Mon Apr 01, 2002 12:48 pm

    Hass,

    Regarding the crewing issues on between the types: United currently staffs all 767s in a 3 class config with 7 flight attendants. Some may be added due to route demand. All flights must be staffed with atleast 4 or 5 depending on the varient.

    With jetBlue, they are going after the bay area as a whole, but are just flying into the Oakland market. With A320s/757s flying on the transcons to supplement the larger types you can off set your costs. The lower costing narrow bodies make up for the higher costing 763s and 777s. Landing Fees are really not an issue, as there would be a mix between the types.

    The 757 would be well suited for the transcons for the reasons that you mentioned. Also, in addition to that, the 757 could be flown with the same set of pilots as the 763. The flight attendant bid package would have to be altered for widebody and narrowbody crews.

    Hass, if you would route the 767 that flys flights 28 and 7, you'd notice that it is doing turns. Not all of those 767 flighs are for positioning. Now, the 777 however could be doing turns, as well as being positioned for the London flights. Tokyo as well as Latin America on the 777 would be flown with 28XX series begining their journey in NRT, and bypassing SFO all together.

    I L U V 7 6 7
     
    airworthy
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:05 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Mon Apr 01, 2002 3:14 pm

    There is no United Flt 28 between SFO and JFK. Maybe you mean Flt 22?

    No 777s fly JFK-Latin America, which is now, sadly, down to sole JFK-EZE service. That flight is projected to do so poorly in the future anyways, that any 777 service on the route would be an extreme money loser.

    jetBlue isn't attracting pax from the peninsula or south bay... OAK as an airport never really has. It serves the East Bay and SF -- so some "discretionary biz travellers" (not mileage addicted) maybe choose jB over AA/UA, but so far jB hasn't really diluted the premium yields on the JFK transcons.

    The only threat jB is currently posing to UA is encroaching on UA's monopoly-priced Washington-Bay Area sector.
     
    ILUV767
    Posts: 3035
    Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical

    Mon Apr 01, 2002 4:50 pm

    Hass,

    UA28 departs SFO at 7:00am arrives JFK at 3:19pm 767-322
    UA07 departs JFK at 4:30pm arrives SFO at 7:47pm 767-322

    Regarding jB...my point is that they are starting to dive into the yeilds of the majors, and in order for the majors to compete, they will have to lower costs in that route. The way to lower costs while keeping up frequencies to please the high yield traveler is to place small economical aircraft to supplement the other flights.

    Im not talking necessarily about premium yeilds, but in order for United to compete with them they have to lower their ticket costs for Y restricted fares. This, reduces the amount you bring in per flight. If the 767-200 has 126 Y class seats (which it does) and the A320 has 126 Y class seats, if you were going to dump the $99 per ticket traveler on a plane...which one would you do it on? The A320 has supperior economics in terms of fuel consumption, landing fees, crew wages and support staff. Now, im not talking about getting rid of widebody service on the New York flights, im just saying suplement 6 of your widebody flights with 2 to 3 narrow bodies to make up for your yields. Simply, you can lower your costs and increase your revenue at the same time. If you are going to have to charge $99 per pax to get them on the plane, you might as well send a cheaper plane to operate. If you are going to charge $1500 per biz class seat, you might as well send a plane that can accomodate those passengers (763/777)

    With your argument about steeling passengers from the peninsula, I think that if you asked around, you'd find that several passengers from the peninsula have or are going to take jetBlue out of OAK to New York as it is cheaper. If you dont belive me, call me, I can name names.

    I L U V 7 6 7
     
    airworthy
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:05 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:00 pm

    David,

    I never argued with your narrow/widebody mix idea! I dunno why you're putting in a counterpoint when I agreed that that was the most logical thing to do already!  Nuts

    And about jB... they are not stealing UAL's target market in the Bay Area. Of course I don't doubt people from all over the Bay taking jetBlue, just not those elite level flyers who are addicted to mileage.

    The people that are taking jetBlue are, yes, business travellers, but these travelers have no mileage loyalty anyways (which is basically UA's biggest marketing tool now and only way to keep customers in the new client pricing structure environment), and in actuality, the ones going to OAK are the same folks who go to priceline, expedia, orbitz, and hotwire. Go fig.

    P.S. mea culpa about Flt 22... it doesnt run on sundays which explains why I didn't see it this morning
     
    airworthy
    Posts: 752
    Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 7:05 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Mon Apr 01, 2002 5:37 pm

    After furhter analysis of your detailed post...

    Oh and not to nitpick, but the 8 767-200ETs have 125 coach seats.

    More about jetBlue travelers. With the exception of their morning flight (And to some extent, their redeye), their schedule out of OAK isn't really convenient for most biz travel purposes.

    I know quite a few people who've taken jetBlue recently, and loved them. Most of them are college students, and what type of flyers are these? Basically ones with no mileage loyalty, so other than price, they will not have loyalty to a particular airline.

    Yes, coach yields are being eroded by jetBlue, but the solution is not to *add* service to capture more low yield traffic, even on relatively low cost planes like A320s. You're lowering AC (average costs), but because all these fares are pretty much at or below cost, you're absolutely not increasing TR (total revenue) enough to offset an increase in TC (total costs). If I could easily computerize a graph for you, I would. It's really quite simple.

    SFO-JFK is scheduled for 9 daily (still tentative) this summer. 8 762, 1 763. The purpose of this is schedule flexibility. Travelers on this route want consistent service levels at any given time. If UA did some more advanced analysis, perhaps they could tailor those 9 daily flights to have 6 be a mix of large gauge 763 and 777, and have 3 at off-peak times be 757 aircraft. But to do this so that those travelers who want consistent 3-class service get that, so basically the 757 flights would have to be at times proven to contain little of that target customer, with premium travelers who are satisfied with 2-class first.

    (This could be accomplished through detailed customer surveys, a 1-year market data study accounting all cultural and socioeconomic factors of the transcon pax traffic during each day).

    The way you're proposing to lower costs, to actually SUPPLEMENT flights (and having the larger widebodies) with narrowbodies, actually, is ill-conceived. That's dumping capacity that will lower your OVERALL costs per seat, but make your total costs skyrocket with hardly any increased revenue to match that. You'll please everyone but bleed all day long.

    You can't just lower your costs and increase your revenue at the same time, like you said, this way. If you want to lower your total costs, you *replace* (not supplement) service. Simple economics.

    You're still paying for the widebody expense, but you're saying you'd rather have those cheapies in a cheaper A320, right? So what happens with the seats those cheapies would have occupied on the widebodies?

    They certainly won't be filled up with high-yield traffic, that's for sure. Why? Because, as you said, Coach yields have eroded due to jB. It's not like there are lots of high-yield travelers locked out of coach on those 767-200s due to cheapy travelers having all the seats.

    And filling up an A320 with those cheapies, while having a lower cost airplane, will be a lost cause, as jB has superior economics doign the same thing.

    It seems like you're robbing peter to pay paul.
     
    User avatar
    RayChuang
    Posts: 7982
    Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Mon Apr 01, 2002 11:17 pm

    I think there is also another factor into this no one is talking about: US Post Service traffic--I think.

    I mean, flying SFO-JFK on an A320 ain't going to leave much room for carrying First Class mail between these two cities. Given the size of the cargo holds on a 767-200, UA probably has the cargo space that can be leased out to the likes of the US Post Service.

    Personally, I think there are just too many flights between LAX and JFK using smaller planes. Why doesn't UA fly fewer flights per day, but use bigger planes such as 777-200A's or even the 747-400? Convenience is one thing but overcrowding New York City airspace is quite something else.
     
    matt777
    Posts: 476
    Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2001 8:55 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Tue Apr 02, 2002 1:20 am

    Hi everyone,

    When traffic returns, wouldnt a 757-300 fit in this transcon route? What does CO do with their 757-300 fleet?

    Regards from Argentina
    Matt Vivaldi.
     
    G-CIVP
    Posts: 1406
    Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 6:38 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Tue Apr 02, 2002 4:46 am

    Given that BA are reducing/consolidating their present fleet, the purchase of A330 is remote.

    PS I think we've been here a thousand times before!!
     
    SegmentKing
    Posts: 3224
    Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

    RE: A330-200´s For BA, UAL Would Not Be Unlogical IMO

    Tue Apr 02, 2002 7:56 am

    JetBlue is a bottom feeder airline, attracting most of its passengers from SOUTHWEST, not United. Granted they have a following of business travelers, they aren't that smart. Just go to Flyertalk.com and read on. The airlines have a very strong addiction for travelers, and even i'm guilty, called FREQUENT FLYER programs. So as long as Mileage Plus and disAAdvantage are ranking among the top frequent flyer programs, you won't see people flocking to Jetblue. People who travel transcon enjoy Business and First Class too much to fly JetBlue...

    JetBlue's fares are, amazingly, priced AT the same as the majors. IAD-OAK is $149 each way on Jetblue. Roundtrip on United is $298. So how is B6 undercutting United???

    JetBlue's aggressive pricing seems to only be in Intra-New York flights and NYC - Florida.
    ~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~

    Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: admanager, Alexa [Bot], Atlwarrior, DOHspotter, FlyPeoria, frleahy, Google Adsense [Bot], hOMSaR, hoons90, jfk777, mozart, MrHMSH, reasonable, rgrassick, SEPilot, styles9002, SurfandSnow, thekorean, Viscount724 and 344 guests