dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 6:59 am

UA's workhorse in the pacific is the 744, i don't really see them going to a 773, the 773 does hold similar to the 744 but it seems like UA would like to get some more capacity out of their 747s especially to slot restricted NRT, so why doesn't UA buy the 748?
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:09 am

I'd bet that UA would look at the 773ER before the 748. It would simplify their fleet plan and captains could be crosstrained for the 772 and 773. Supposedly there's not that much difference in flying either of those beasts.

Then again, if things look up for UA, then they could possibly be a 748I candidate, as well as NW. Though I imagine that those 747-400's they have will have a few more years before UA starts replacing them with any.

I could also see UA going to an ALL 772ER to replace their 747's and up the frequency, a la CO and AA.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:18 am

UA most likely will buy either the 773ER or 748. I have an inclination that they will go for the 748, but that's not based on anything whatsoever. The 772ER is just too small for many of their routes and I don't see them operating A380s even though SFO-HKG, ORD-HKG, SFO-NRT, LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, LAX-SYD, SFO-SYD would all support the plane for UA.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:24 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
I could also see UA going to an ALL 772ER to replace their 747's and up the frequency, a la CO and AA.

Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency
 
CJAContinental
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 9:03 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:26 am

For ORD-NRT, LAX-NRT, I would have thought the 773ER more frequently would be more suitable, as the airport fees in japan tend to favour airlines using smaller aircraft more frequently; as far as I know, they base a lot of the fees on size and weight of the aircraft. Logically, larger aircraft are more likely to spend more time on the ground, so if the airports increase the fees for larger aircraft exclusively, then the airport can increase their revenue a lot more quickly.

Just a thought.

[Edited 2007-06-10 00:26:40]
Work Hard/Fly Right.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:32 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency

I think you have a good point there. That is very true. UA can't easily switch its asian operation to 772s.

By the way, welcome to A.net, but be careful about starting too many threads when you are new. Make sure you have researched and used the search feature to make sure the topics haven't been discussed recently before.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
remcor
Posts: 301
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:25 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 7:45 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency



Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 5):
I think you have a good point there. That is very true. UA can't easily switch its asian operation to 772s.

I thought that one of the reasons that UA won the recent bidding against NW, AA, etc. for the slot into Beijing was that they would provide a 744 for their IAD-Beijing flight.
 
c680
Posts: 428
Joined: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:03 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:17 am

Quoting Remcor (Reply 6):
I thought that one of the reasons that UA won the recent bidding against NW, AA, etc. for the slot into Beijing was that they would provide a 744 for their IAD-Beijing flight.

You are correct, sir.

However, that brings up an interesting question: Is there any requirement to maintain a 747-400 or larger aircraft on the route? Or can they change the regularly assigned equipment once they have acquired the route?  Confused
My happy place is FL470 - what's yours?
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:25 am

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
UA's workhorse in the pacific is the 744, i don't really see them going to a 773, the 773 does hold similar to the 744 but it seems like UA would like to get some more capacity out of their 747s especially to slot restricted NRT, so why doesn't UA buy the 748?

Because they just came out of bankruptcy, and don't have the money.  duck 

Although my source is the among the least reliable, but frequently encountered on Anet - an airline employee - the 748i is definitely in UA's plans, but far into the future.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 9:58 am

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):
Because they just came out of bankruptcy, and don't have the money.

not having enough money is such a lame excuse lol, wouldn't airlines be so much more fun if they had an endless amount of money!
 
UAL747
Posts: 6725
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 1999 5:42 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:00 am

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 9):
not having enough money is such a lame excuse lol, wouldn't airlines be so much more fun if they had an endless amount of money!

I'm all for it! Give me back my breakfast, lunch, and dinner on my 2 hour flights!!!!! Oh, and real glasses, china would be nice as well. Of course this is in economy.

UAL
"Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy. Bangkok Tower, United 890 Heavy.....Okay, fine, we'll just turn 190 and Visual Our Way
 
catdaddy63
Posts: 172
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 8:27 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:02 am

They are friendly with Airbus, why not 388's? I don't think either is likely for UA.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:03 am

One reason UA keeps the 744s around is that during bankruptcy they were able to get the flight crew pay rates equal to the 777s and also were able to re-negotiate the lease rates they were paying. So right now, a 744 is cheaper for UA to operate then it was prior to entering C11.

If UA were to go with the 748I, they may be forced to renegotiate the crew pay rates. They also would likely pay higher lease rates. And they'd have additional maintenance costs because their current widebody fleet is PW powered and they'd have to take GE power for the 748I. And for the record, I do not believe Sioux City will have any bearing on UA moving to GE power in the future as they pretty much won't have a PW option for the next generation widebodies.
 
warreng24
Posts: 573
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 9:38 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:09 am

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
I could also see UA going to an ALL 772ER to replace their 747's and up the frequency, a la CO and AA.

Does UA have enough available slots at NRT to increase frequencies? I think they're using all their NRT slots at the moment. Didn't we just lose NRT-HKG in order to give the slot to another NRT-USA route?
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 10:30 am

Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 13):
Does UA have enough available slots at NRT to increase frequencies?

Slots wouldn't matter since UA's PW-powered 772ERs can't make many of the East Coast-Asia missions that CO's and AA's GE- and RR-powered birds can.
 
User avatar
1337Delta764
Posts: 4968
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 4:02 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:46 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
If UA were to go with the 748I, they may be forced to renegotiate the crew pay rates. They also would likely pay higher lease rates. And they'd have additional maintenance costs because their current widebody fleet is PW powered and they'd have to take GE power for the 748I. And for the record, I do not believe Sioux City will have any bearing on UA moving to GE power in the future as they pretty much won't have a PW option for the next generation widebodies.

The 777-300ER is also GE-only, so engine manufacturer doesn't make a difference with UA either choosing the 747-800i or the 777-300ER. If UA were to order either of those aircraft, I would also expect that if UA orders the 787, they will choose GE engines. Not counting the IAE-powered A320 series, UA has never been a major Rolls-Royce operator, however, NW suprisingly chose RR for their 787s, so only time will tell.

If United goes with the A350 though, RR will be the only option.

[Edited 2007-06-10 04:51:33]
The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:27 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
One reason UA keeps the 744s around is that during bankruptcy they were able to get the flight crew pay rates equal to the 777s and also were able to re-negotiate the lease rates they were paying. So right now, a 744 is cheaper for UA to operate then it was prior to entering C11.

..of note is during 2002, UA were selling 7-8 B744's for $60-$70 million each (this is according to fellow A.netter Behramjee and I'm certainly not going to doubt him on it)....

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
If UA were to go with the 748I, they may be forced to renegotiate the crew pay rates. They also would likely pay higher lease rates. And they'd have additional maintenance costs because their current widebody fleet is PW powered and they'd have to take GE power for the 748I. And for the record, I do not believe Sioux City will have any bearing on UA moving to GE power in the future as they pretty much won't have a PW option for the next generation widebodies.

I have an article somewhere with Tilton stating that UA was looking at the B787 and B748I....as you properly stated, no PW option means probably a visit with GE....so it could be possible. Also, as you know, a lot of work now is done on "Power-by-the-hour" basis...i.e.-contracted out..so it might be possible...
"Up the Irons!"
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 12:50 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Quoting Warreng24 (Reply 13):
Does UA have enough available slots at NRT to increase frequencies?

Slots wouldn't matter since UA's PW-powered 772ERs can't make many of the East Coast-Asia missions that CO's and AA's GE- and RR-powered birds can.

They can't? Are you sure? They fly IAD-NRT, that's east coast to Asia, and about 14 hours. UA has a couple other 14 hour-ish 777-200ER flights - SFO-TPE and SFO-HKG. I will concede that CO's GE90 powered 777-200ER's will go further than UA's PW powered 777-200ER's, which don't have the max avail MTOW, but they can still fly some awfully long routes.

To be perfectly honest, I'd bet that Boeing would be willing to give UA one hell of a good deal on the 747-8i, which isn't really selling. Being that they currently operate 744s, and would likely continue to operate them side by side with the new aircraft for some time, 748 would be easier. I don't think UA necessarily needs all of 748's size, but I think they'd get a sufficiently good deal to steer them that way over the 777-300ER, which Boeing is less willing to deal on - as it is selling healthily. I think A380 is simply way too big for UA.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
na
Posts: 9209
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 1999 3:52 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 8:50 pm

UA has many 744s which are newer than half of their 777 fleet, so a complete replacement of this successful type is far off. When UA needs to replace their first batch of 744s it´ll be around 2013-16. By that time the 748I and the A380 are in service, and the A350 just hits the market. All three types will be superior to, and more modern than the then aging 777-300ER. UAs 772 fleet, the oldest in the world, will be really old then and the first batch, especially the 772(A)s need to be replaced starting by about 2015 as well, so the replacement question for 744s is also a replacement question for 777s for UA. 787s and 748Is are the likely choice, or probably A380s, 748Is and A350s.
Overall, its more urgent for UA to answer the question what replaces the 767 anyway. They need to go before the 744s.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Sun Jun 10, 2007 11:49 pm

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
They can't? Are you sure? They fly IAD-NRT, that's east coast to Asia, and about 14 hours. UA has a couple other 14 hour-ish 777-200ER flights - SFO-TPE and SFO-HKG. I will concede that CO's GE90 powered 777-200ER's will go further than UA's PW powered 777-200ER's, which don't have the max avail MTOW, but they can still fly some awfully long routes.

UA's 772ERs have the raw legs, but only at the sacrifice of payload due to both lower thrust and lower MTOW. A CO or AA 772ER will carry more payload flying from EWR/JFK to PEK then a UA 772ER would flying IAD-PEK. So if a mission is ~7000nm, UA tends to put a 744 on it so they can maximize the payload.
 
dl767captain
Posts: 1206
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 8:51 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:21 am

Quoting NA (Reply 18):
787s and 748Is are the likely choice, or probably A380s, 748Is and A350s.
Overall, its more urgent for UA to answer the question what replaces the 767 anyway

I think the A380 is just way too big for what United needs, i think a plane the size of the 748 is all they would need. The only way i see UA ordering the A380 is if they merged with another carrier like US and needed the seats to serve the US passengers.

The 767 is where it gets tricky, I don't know how old the oldest one in the fleet is but if they need some soon the 787 won't be available for a while, unless boeing will give them some early slots, so what choices are left the A330?

The A350 could be an option but that will be down the line when all the 777's need to be replaced because by then they will be much more efficient and in service, but i think they will replace the 777a with a 772er or maybe even a 772lr if they can get it cheap enough, but more likely a 772er to replace the oldest ones and then when it is time to replace the rest, who knows what boeing will have by then
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:29 am

I think a combination of A380, 747-400 and 777-200ER could work very well for UA the next 10-15 yrs.

Their 747-400s seem not up for replacement anytime soon.

UA A380s would provide an aggresive sales tool tool towards the Japan and Asia markets.

B747-8i´s would require additional frequencies to keep market share in many Asian markets.

Many Asian A380´s will start heading east in the next 5 yrs.

"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:39 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
I think a combination of A380, 747-400 and 777-200ER could work very well for UA the next 10-15 yrs...UA A380s would provide an aggresive sales tool tool towards the Japan and Asia markets...B747-8i´s would require additional frequencies to keep market share in many Asian markets.

The problem for UA now is that they can only generally fill 744s reliably during the "high season" to many markets. So during part of the year a city pair will be served with a 747 and the rest of the time with a 777. To go to an A388 would just mean that during the "off-peak" times, UA would have to lower fares (with the subsequent depression in yields) or they would have to operate a laughably small A388 fleet of like 5-7 planes to serve two to three city-pairs so the planes are always on the two to three routes that can use them at that time.

Unless the current "Big Six" become the "Big Three", I cannot see enough consistent traffic to warrant an A388 operation by any US domestic carrier at this time. As good as the A388's CASM and trip costs are, they're not good enough with such a fragmented domestic travel base.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
Many Asian A380´s will start heading east in the next 5 yrs.

Yes they will. And that's going to depress yields on trans-Pacific sectors. And I believe that will drive UA to move to more "point-to-point" services instead of trying to fight "The Nationals" at SFO, LAX, NRT and HKG.

Rather then go toe-to-toe with CX on LAX/SFO-HKG with A388s, UA will launch SEA-HKG and DEN-HKG and SAN-HKG and cater just to the direct UA O&D traffic who now has to fly to LAX or SFO and hook-up with UA's LAX and SFO flights.

Or UA will just codeshare more with SQ and funnel the bulk of low-yield traffic to SQ's A388s and let them and CX battle it out for supremacy while themselves flying much smaller planes with higher-revenue flyers wedded to UA Mileage Plus or tied via corporate contract.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2164
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:50 am

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
To be perfectly honest, I'd bet that Boeing would be willing to give UA one hell of a good deal on the 747-8i

My thoughts exactly, what better way than to give the 747-8i a boost than to bag UA, an airline based in the same city as Boeing. Lesser extent for the 787 with orders coming in from all quarters.
I personally dont see the 380 ever joining UA's fleet, but they say, never say never!
 
Buddys747
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jan 11, 2007 6:33 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 1:33 am

I hope they do order the 748i. We can discuss payloads, CASM, etc., but we are down to only two US carriers operating the 747. It would be nice to see them for years to come. As has been said before, maybe not a one for one replacement of the 744, but there are routes that would justify it. All of this would be down the road though, I don't see any orders for a while since the 767's need addressed first. Just my  twocents 
 
DC8FanJet
Posts: 170
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2006 9:25 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:46 am

UA has the $$ to do what they need to with regards to aircraft, some $5b at last count. But the 744's are relatively new,
and the 777ER's are, too. The 767-300ER's though are getting up there, some are 20+ years old. The 787 would seem
the next logical aircraft to fly for United.

The 380 will never fit in UA's plans, it is not a "high yield market aircraft".
 
ekskycargo370
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Mar 07, 2006 4:46 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 2:46 am

UA at the moment cannot afford any new aircraft,they are in a sorry state!
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:07 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Yes they will. And that's going to depress yields on trans-Pacific sectors. And I believe that will drive UA to move to more "point-to-point" services instead of trying to fight "The Nationals" at SFO, LAX, NRT and HKG.

Rather then go toe-to-toe with CX on LAX/SFO-HKG with A388s, UA will launch SEA-HKG and DEN-HKG and SAN-HKG and cater just to the direct UA O&D traffic who now has to fly to LAX or SFO and hook-up with UA's LAX and SFO flights.

Or UA will just codeshare more with SQ and funnel the bulk of low-yield traffic to SQ's A388s and let them and CX battle it out for supremacy while themselves flying much smaller planes with higher-revenue flyers wedded to UA Mileage Plus or tied via corporate contract.

 checkmark  Before UA started its IAD-NRT flight, I always went IAD-SEA-NRT. If I can't get a direct flight, I'm always going to look next to a connection that is easier than going through a large hub such as SFO or LAX. And I always select my overseas flights in the following manner - smallest widebody available over the next largest, etc. For example, going to FRA from IAD, I often have the 767, 777, and 747 to choose from. And that is the order I follow. I'll always select a 763 or 332 over a larger aircraft on the same routing.

Maybe I'm odd in this regard, but I just don't see the allure of flying long distances with 400 plus other people crammed into a metal (or composite) tube.....
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 3:16 am

Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 26):
UA at the moment cannot afford any new aircraft,they are in a sorry state!

UA could secure outside financing for new aircraft at will, so that's a non-issue. Instead, they prefer to see how things shakeout the next few years since no next-generation aircraft will be available for them for some time.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:19 am

Quoting DC8FanJet (Reply 25):
The 380 will never fit in UA's plans, it is not a "high yield market aircraft".

AF, LH, SQ, QF, EK with their ~480-550 seat configurations might see this differently. If BA orders it probably won´t have more then 420 seats..

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Stitch

Your view is UA won´t go head to head with the Asian carriers but focus on specific markets makes sense.

I think however high yield traffic is most situated around HUBs (SFO, LAX, NRT, HKG, ORD) and most traffic between those cities is partly connection traffic part point to point.

Focussing on the existing clientbase might be killing on the Pacific, ignoring the Asian markets will provide others the opportunity to build up markets / customer bases that will provide them the means to face the future. I think UAL is trying to get a hold of this market and the A380s would be filled not in the least thanks to its strong feeder networks in the US.

The same can be concluded for NWA, they still manage to fill up 12 744 city pairs on a daily basis.


(thank you Centrair !)

Now take into account the Asian market is growing at 7-8% per year and it starts to look like NWA will be easily able to fill up new aircraft containing 35% more seats in the 2011-2036 period we are talking about..

I think assuming the aviation world will soon turn upside down & we´ll see a sudden shift to point to point served by smaller aircraft is highly unlikely. It will happen if a P to P market is there, but they probably won´t become the dominant trans pacific passenger streams.

- business markets will remain to be located around the big cities / hubs,
- size lowers per seat costs for any new technology,
- slots remain expensive/ restrained,
- hubs always offer better frequencies / alternatives,
- hubs offer a better basis for effective revenue mngt.

I predict UAL as well as NWA to take A380´s sooner or later.. It is a logical continuation of their long haul hub strategy, matching a growing Asian market..


Joe Perez, http://www.cardatabase.net/modifieda...earch/photo_search.php?id=00008630
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23475
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:00 am

I do agree with you Keesje that their large trans-Pacific operations do help make the 747 viable for UA and NW where the (relative) lack of such ops have compelled AA, CO, and DL to discard their 747s. And, of course, the savings on operating a 747 both gained through BK didn't hurt. And I agree that traffic growth in that area does, on the surface, support larger aircraft. Especially since the long stage lengths and turn times makes the actual revenue percentage increases in this sector the weakest of all.

I believe the critical question for UA and NW is how much of the profitable end of that traffic they can grab. I'm a former 20-year UA flyer and it has degraded so much over the past five years - oddly, more so since exiting BK then during it - that I now find myself choosing them far, far less. Frankly, I can't wait for Virgin America to start up and hope they serve SEA.

With the possible exception of CO, the major US flag carriers are living off the frequent fliers and corporate contracts they have shackled to them. Their only really effective response is to reduce the number of seats they offer in a market just to push the lowest-yield passengers to other carriers. They're trading capacity for revenue because they're hard and soft product - even in international First and Business - is so poor that they just can't get people to choose them in an "open market" where only the product itself is the determiner.

On the surface, an A388 flies in the face of that. As does a 748I and even a 77W. By adding seats, they only dilute yields because they have to discount more to fill those seats. Even in the "high season", they're fighting the charter carriers and carriers with strong premium cabin yields who can use that to "low-ball" Economy fares more.

The 787-10(ER) and A350-900 are probably significantly more appealing to the US majors - even serving hubs like LHR, FRA, JFK, SFO, LAX, HKG and NRT - because it would lower their operating costs and better match only the most profitable section of their demand curve and leave the rest to "The Nationals" with better overall revenue patterns or airlines like EK and their 650 seat two-class A388s with CASM so low they can make money off poor RASM.

Unless the US carriers improve their standing and their product in the international realm, I fear that more and more they're going to become just a domestic feeder and distribution service to their international alliance partners.
 
flydreamliner
Posts: 1928
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:05 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:01 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
They can't? Are you sure? They fly IAD-NRT, that's east coast to Asia, and about 14 hours. UA has a couple other 14 hour-ish 777-200ER flights - SFO-TPE and SFO-HKG. I will concede that CO's GE90 powered 777-200ER's will go further than UA's PW powered 777-200ER's, which don't have the max avail MTOW, but they can still fly some awfully long routes.

UA's 772ERs have the raw legs, but only at the sacrifice of payload due to both lower thrust and lower MTOW. A CO or AA 772ER will carry more payload flying from EWR/JFK to PEK then a UA 772ER would flying IAD-PEK. So if a mission is ~7000nm, UA tends to put a 744 on it so they can maximize the payload.

Fair enough, on the 7000 mile routes, their 772 are reaching their bounds. They can do it though, and they can go out full, even if not with a full belly of cargo.

Quoting EKSkycargo370 (Reply 26):
UA at the moment cannot afford any new aircraft,they are in a sorry state!

Is that right? They were what, the second most profitable company on the Fortune 500 this year? That is a darn sorry state, isn't it? They have billions in liquid funds available. Given that a lot of their profit came from restructuring, they aren't broke by any stretch of the imagination, and they can certainly get financing. They are conservative with their money. They have to be, the US market is a hard one.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 29):
I predict UAL as well as NWA to take A380´s sooner or later.. It is a logical continuation of their long haul hub strategy, matching a growing Asian market..

I don't think you ride on either of these airlines 744s often then. Just because they fly to Asia doesn't mean they need A380s. During the busy season, they fill their 744s on most markets to Asia, during the less busy season, not even close. NW has had to give up a number of flights because their 744s were too big, for instance. They have some routes that the 744s are put to good use on, but it's not all of them. UA has a good number of routes where the 744s capacity is useful, but in the down season, you watch them switch in 772s all over the place. They have a handfull of routes A380 would be useful on but the vast majority of their 744 routes, A380 would be too big. Moreover, they are filling their jets right now with low fares, not exactly a high yield strategy.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:50 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
..of note is during 2002, UA were selling 7-8 B744's for $60-$70 million each (this is according to fellow A.netter Behramjee and I'm certainly not going to doubt him on it)....

Something that they are now regretting... I believe those 744s went to either AC or CI.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Yes they will. And that's going to depress yields on trans-Pacific sectors. And I believe that will drive UA to move to more "point-to-point" services instead of trying to fight "The Nationals" at SFO, LAX, NRT and HKG.

I don't know, Stitch. Over the past 20 years, UA has built a relatively huge (for a foreign carrier) customer base at NRT. And since many Japanese and Asian customers are paying full fare for premium cabins, I don't think NRT will be downsized. They are the biggest American airline at NRT, with full staffing to support it: Customer service, F/A base, ramp/cargo, maintenence, etc.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
The problem for UA now is that they can only generally fill 744s reliably during the "high season" to many markets. So during part of the year a city pair will be served with a 747 and the rest of the time with a 777.

For transpacific routes (at least in the last year), the high season was pretty close to year round. Fall, was the only season that had consistant lower yields. SYD, of course, is the opposite, and will have lower yields during the summer.
 
trex8
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:36 am

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 32):
Something that they are now regretting... I believe those 744s went to either AC or CI.

CI never operated a -422. the only 747s they ever operated they did not order from Boeing were their first two, -132s.
 
FLYGUY767
Posts: 1441
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 11:26 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:05 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
Or UA will just codeshare more with SQ and funnel the bulk of low-yield traffic to SQ's A388s

Do you honestly think that United Airlines is going to be putting its code on SQ just to funnel its low-yield traffic away from themselves? The low yield will stay with United Airlines, or whomever the lowest bidder is it has for a good many years. You are of course forgetting the night and day difference between the service, reputation, and quality of both airlines!

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):
UA will launch SEA-HKG and DEN-HKG and SAN-HKG and cater just to the direct UA O&D traffic who now has to fly to LAX or SFO and hook-up with UA's LAX and SFO flights.

SEA-HKG? > If anyone this will go to NWA
DEN-HKG? > DEN will be seeing Narita before Hong Kong is connected, if it is ever connected
SAN-HKG? > Not a chance in this lifetime

With what equipment? In what decade?

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 32):
They are the biggest American airline at NRT, with full staffing to support it: Customer service, F/A base, ramp/cargo, maintenence, etc

Where are you getting that information from? That title goes to NWA.

Northwest Airlines Tokyo-Narita
945a ~ Guam
1035a ~ Saipan
300p ~ Detroit
325p ~ Portland
340p ~ Minneapolis
345p ~ Seattle
355p ~ Detroit
355p ~ Los Angeles
415p ~ San Francisco
430p ~ Minneapolis
615p ~ Busan
620p ~ Nagoya
625p ~ Peking
630p ~ Hong Kong
640p ~ Shanghai
645p ~ Singapore
650p ~ Canton
650p ~ Seoul
700p ~ Bangkok
715p ~ Manila
830p ~ Guam
835p ~ Honolulu
855p ~ Honolulu

-JD
Summer Trip 2007: DEN HAAG>DUBAI>LONDON>VERONA>COSTA SMERALDA>CAPRI
 
trex8
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:31 am

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 33):
CI never operated a -422. the only 747s they ever operated they did not order from Boeing were their first two, -132s.

correction
they did lease a SQ 412 for several years in the 90s. I suppose you could also count those Atlas freighters they have leased at various times too.
 
FA4UA
Posts: 777
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2003 6:26 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:45 pm

the problem with the 744, 748 or A380 is that they're all wonderful during boom times, but what about the next recession? US Aviation is so rediculously cyclical that by operating an A380 is quite a liability during the down times!

Anyway, check out this presentation from UA to Bear Stearns... you will likely enjoy slide 18 and 19!
The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
 
AADC10
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:55 pm

I think that UA would be hesitant to purchase the 748i because of its uncomfortable Y seating and higher fuel burn per seat over the 777. They have almost enough 744s to cover slot restricted long haul so their short term need is actually more P&W powered 772s. The last thing they need is a GE powered subfleet.
 
bringiton
Posts: 763
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 10:24 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 4:58 pm

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 37):
748i because of its uncomfortable Y seating and higher fuel burn per seat over the 777.

Evidence ? Please provide proof of that . Most estimate the 777's Fuel burn to be slightly lower then the 744 , The 748 with better Per seat fuel burn should be better then the 744 by some distance !!
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 5:52 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Thread starter):
the 773 does hold similar to the 744

No it doesn't, not even close. In a true configuration, it holds about 80 fewer

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
I'd bet that UA would look at the 773ER before the 748.

Probably not

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):
It would simplify their fleet plan and captains could be crosstrained for the 772 and 773. Supposedly there's not that much difference in flying either of those beasts.

That would mean a significant cut in capacity and loss of revenue opportunity, not to mention the significant CASM advantage for the 748I

Quoting UAL747 (Reply 1):

I could also see UA going to an ALL 772ER to replace their 747's and up the frequency, a la CO and AA.

The markets United serves demand larger aircraft. CO and AA can get away with their smaller gauge because they serve markets without the raw passenger demand that United and Northwest fly to, and when they do, they are head to head with far more established carriers.

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):

Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency

Not to mention time constraints and cost issues

Quoting Halls120 (Reply 8):

Although my source is the among the least reliable, but frequently encountered on Anet - an airline employee

Funny

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
One reason UA keeps the 744s around is that during bankruptcy they were able to get the flight crew pay rates equal to the 777s

Actually, that happened pre-bankruptcy

Quoting Stitch (Reply 12):
and also were able to re-negotiate the lease rates they were paying.

The leased 744s are the ones that went away. Meanwhile, the current United 744 fleet is owned by the carrier and fully depreciated, which means they are very attractive to run.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Slots wouldn't matter since UA's PW-powered 772ERs can't make many of the East Coast-Asia missions that CO's and AA's GE- and RR-powered birds can.

NRT isn't an issue, but HKG was and always will be. Nevertheless, the New York competition is moot considering the way United has treated that market of late

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
Also, as you know, a lot of work now is done on "Power-by-the-hour" basis.

I doubt it would work that way at a carrier the size of United

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
UA has a couple other 14 hour-ish 777-200ER flights - SFO-TPE and SFO-HK

SFO-HKG is handled by a 744 while SFO-TPE is nearly a full hour shorter at 13h23m on the eastbound.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 17):
They fly IAD-NRT, that's east coast to Asia, and about 14 hours.

That is their longest 772ER flight as far as I can tell and is at the very edge of what they can do profitably.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):

UA's 772ERs have the raw legs,

Not really as "raw legs" has to take into account a profitable payload

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
So if a mission is ~7000nm, UA tends to put a 744 on it so they can maximize the payload.

United's longest non-stop is 6507nm. In reality, any route over 6000nm for United is going to have to be a 744

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):

UA A380s would provide an aggresive sales tool tool towards the Japan and Asia markets.

No it wouldn't. If anything, it would hurt them because of the cultural significance of the 747 in Japan.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):

B747-8i´s would require additional frequencies to keep market share in many Asian markets.

In what Asian markets? In most, particularly NRT, it would increase market share

Quoting Stitch (Reply 22):

The problem for UA now is that they can only generally fill 744s reliably during the "high season" to many markets.

The markets that take 744s from United fill 744s for United. The only real shifts that happen are the shift from select European routes during the summer to increased Australian frequencies for the Winter/Australian summer and the typical scheduling of a LAX-IAD-LAX rotation during the summer to move around aircraft for the European flights.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 32):
I believe those 744s went to either AC or CI.

Um, no, they went to neither.

Quoting FLYGUY767 (Reply 34):
Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 32):
They are the biggest American airline at NRT, with full staffing to support it: Customer service, F/A base, ramp/cargo, maintenence, etc

Where are you getting that information from? That title goes to NWA.

Actually, from the US, United is bigger. NW pulls ahead on their intra-Asia service

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 37):
I think that UA would be hesitant to purchase the 748i because of its uncomfortable Y seating and higher fuel burn per seat over the 777.

Uncomfortable seating? There isn't a real difference, as the seating width is similar and pitch will be up to United. further, the fuel burn per seat, and much more importantly, the CASM, are much lower on the 748I
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
mrcomet
Posts: 575
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 5:53 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:03 pm

It seems to me that a dozen 748i or A380s for those big trunk routes and then a hell of a lot of 787s would actually do the trick. They can do 787 flights from anywhere in America to most Asian capitals. Point to point, dude. It's the way to go. Five 777s are more expensive than three 748i but you can buy eight 787s. It's the way to go for NW and UA.
The dude abides
 
PavlovsDog
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:28 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:14 pm

Quoting FA4UA (Reply 36):
the problem with the 744, 748 or A380 is that they're all wonderful during boom times, but what about the next recession? US Aviation is so rediculously cyclical that by operating an A380 is quite a liability during the down times!

Anyway, check out this presentation from UA to Bear Stearns... you will likely enjoy slide 18 and 19!

Excellent contribution.

United doesn't need to do anything fleetwise for a few years. Given the manufacturers full order books they are wise to wait for the next downturn to make an order.

The Global economic trend has been generally positive the past 15 years with a couple small blips here and there. Much of this growth in the developed countries has been leveraged consumption based on loaning against increasingly inflating asset values. These bubbles always burst. It looks like it's already started with housing price corrections in many areas of Europe and the US.

Another factor I'm sure UAL is looking at the the massvie expasion in capacity in Western Asia. At some point this will probably become overcapacity and the fleets of a bankrupt carrier or two could be available for lease at very attractive rates.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 6:19 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):

UA A380s would provide an aggresive sales tool tool towards the Japan and Asia markets.

No it wouldn't. If anything, it would hurt them because of the cultural significance of the 747 in Japan.

? Can you pls explain the cultural significance of the 747 in Japan ?

The 747's will go anyhow, the japanese carriers have had able

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):

B747-8i´s would require additional frequencies to keep market share in many Asian markets.

In what Asian markets? In most, particularly NRT, it would increase market share

No, the market grows faster then the additional capasity of the 747-8i. So without increasing frequencies you lose market share.
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
EI321
Posts: 4788
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 4:43 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 8:58 pm

Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):

UA A380s would provide an aggresive sales tool tool towards the Japan and Asia markets.

No it wouldn't. If anything, it would hurt them because of the cultural significance of the 747 in Japan.

? Can you pls explain the cultural significance of the 747 in Japan ?

Cultural significance of the 747 Vs A380?

Is there such a thing, and could it really 'hurt' UA?

Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):
Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):
Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):

B747-8i?s would require additional frequencies to keep market share in many Asian markets.

In what Asian markets? In most, particularly NRT, it would increase market share

No, the market grows faster then the additional capasity of the 747-8i. So without increasing frequencies you lose market share.

What is japans yearly growth?
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 9:03 pm

Quoting DL767captain (Reply 3):
Ya but there is such thing as too much frequency, which would happen if they used 5 777 instead of 3 747, it seems like there are some routes (like slot restricted china) where they need a larger plane instead of frequency

I agree. As a result there will be 747-8 in the fleet, but who knows how long it will be before we hear of an official firm order.
One Nation Under God
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Mon Jun 11, 2007 11:26 pm

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 32):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
..of note is during 2002, UA were selling 7-8 B744's for $60-$70 million each (this is according to fellow A.netter Behramjee and I'm certainly not going to doubt him on it)....

Something that they are now regretting... I believe those 744s went to either AC or CI.

..I have no clue myself.... confused 

Quoting N1120A (Reply 39):

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
Also, as you know, a lot of work now is done on "Power-by-the-hour" basis.

I doubt it would work that way at a carrier the size of United

...probably correct, but "never say never" or "probably won't happen" when it comes to air carriers.. Wink

Quoting Keesje (Reply 42):

No, the market grows faster then the additional capasity of the 747-8i. So without increasing frequencies you lose market share.

....so why are the two home-carriers downguaging their fleet?
"Up the Irons!"
 
Beeski
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 10:03 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:23 am

With all those slot-restricted airports that UA flies into, the 380 makes a heck of a lot of sense.

I could see a mix of 10-12 380's and a bunch of 787's in UA's future.
 
User avatar
keesje
Posts: 9071
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2001 2:08 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:54 am

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 45):
Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 32):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
..of note is during 2002, UA were selling 7-8 B744's for $60-$70 million each (this is according to fellow A.netter Behramjee and I'm certainly not going to doubt him on it)....

Something that they are now regretting... I believe those 744s went to either AC or CI.


..I have no clue myself....

I was on them. Some of them were reconfigured by KLM E&M for Corsair a few years ago, also by SAA Technics. Well maintained Aircraft. UA Technics did a good job.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Tomas Cubero Maingot - SJO Spotter



Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 45):
....so why are the two home-carriers downguaging their fleet?

Completely worn out 747 classics + no alternative efficient Boeing aircraft?
"Never mistake motion for action." Ernest Hemingway
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11022
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: UA And The 748i

Tue Jun 12, 2007 6:19 am

Quoting Catdaddy63 (Reply 11):
They are friendly with Airbus, why not 388's? I don't think either is likely for UA.

I doubt UA will want to buy the gate/terminal infastructure the A-380 needs. That is close to $2.5M per airport the A-380 will use. These are seperate from the A-380 improvements the airports need to make.

Quoting Keesje (Reply 21):
I think a combination of A380, 747-400 and 777-200ER could work very well for UA the next 10-15 yrs.

If UA flyies either the B-747-400 or B-747-800I, why would they ever need the A-380?

My guess is UA will go for the B-777-300ER, as much as I would like to see them get the B-747-800I, I just don't see them getting it (unless they can get more range).
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: UA And The 748i

Tue Jun 12, 2007 7:23 am

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 45):
Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 32):
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 16):
..of note is during 2002, UA were selling 7-8 B744's for $60-$70 million each (this is according to fellow A.netter Behramjee and I'm certainly not going to doubt him on it)....

Something that they are now regretting... I believe those 744s went to either AC or CI.


..I have no clue myself....

I was on them. Some of them were reconfigured by KLM E&M for Corsair a few years ago, also by SAA Technics. Well maintained Aircraft. UA Technics did a good job.

..thanks for the information Keesje.. thumbsup ....but you were on a B747? ..that's almost blasphemous... silly .  expressionless 

Quoting Keesje (Reply 47):

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 45):
....so why are the two home-carriers downguaging their fleet?

Completely worn out 747 classics + no alternative efficient Boeing aircraft?

...and what do you call the B747-8? Are you going to argue that its not more efficient than their current 747's?
"Up the Irons!"

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