Interesting thought was brought up in another forum. With UA deciding to keep its legacy UA 757s past 2018, and investing money in them, what are the chances they bring some 752s out of storage and convert them to P.S. config? Flying LAX-EWR-LAX weekly, I can tell you that the business class availability sucks. 80% of the flights use legacy CO birds, with very few business class seats - 16. Especially with P.S. coming to BOS transcons, could we see some 752s being bought back and converted to P.S. (28 lie flat config) instead of United buying A321LRs and while it waits for the MoM? There would be a lot of extra old lie flats available as they begin converting 777/767 to new Polaris...

Looking for some good conversation on the ups and downs of bring back some 752s in service (10-15 frames).

No. Those birds are worn out, and barring some incredible Pratt service agreements (tied to mom), will never fly again. They could practically lease interim 739's cheaper for a few years.

With the reduction of Trans-Atlantic 757 flying, mostly replaced by 763s, they should have some slack in the RR powered sCO fleet. They need to update the interiors of the current P.S. and sCO Trans-Atlantic 757s. In conjunction with the refurbishment they should convert some of the RR powered aircraft to include the larger premium cabins of the PW powered P.S. aircraft.

texl1649 wrote:

No. Those birds are worn out, and barring some incredible Pratt service agreements (tied to mom), will never fly again. They could practically lease interim 739's cheaper for a few years.

As far as I understand, 739 can't be fitted with 2-2 configuration lie flats?

BG777300ER wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

No. Those birds are worn out, and barring some incredible Pratt service agreements (tied to mom), will never fly again. They could practically lease interim 739's cheaper for a few years.

As far as I understand, 739 can't be fitted with 2-2 configuration lie flats?

The 737 and 757 share the same cabin. If it fits in the 757 it fits in the 737.

texl1649 wrote:

No. Those birds are worn out, and barring some incredible Pratt service agreements (tied to mom), will never fly again. They could practically lease interim 739's cheaper for a few years.

UA does Pratt work in house so outside of it being slightly harder to get parts than it used to be engine maintenance should not be problem.

The bigger issue to me is simply are there even enough frames parked in the desert to make it worthwhile as UA sold the vast majority off to FedEx for conversion to freighters. Age should not be an issue as the current fleet of 757-222s range in age from 89-99.

I thought the UA 757's were getting up there in high time and as such it was best to retire them rather than put additional resources into them. But, if fuel were to drop further, anything is possible.

BG777300ER wrote:

Especially with P.S. coming to BOS transcons, could we see some 752s being bought back and converted to P.S. (28 lie flat config) instead of United buying A321LRs and while it waits for the MoM?

MoM is still years away, it hasn't been announced yet. So I think it makes sense to have the A321LR and retire the 752. Looking at the current offerings, the A321LR is the best aircraft around to replace the 757.

Polot wrote:

BG777300ER wrote:

As far as I understand, 739 can't be fitted with 2-2 configuration lie flats?

The 737 and 757 share the same cabin. If it fits in the 757 it fits in the 737.

There's a reason the desert is filling up with 757s, sad as it may be.

Why doesn't UA (or any other airline for that matter) just run premium configs of 737s on these transcons?

PDX88 wrote:

Polot wrote:

BG777300ER wrote:

As far as I understand, 739 can't be fitted with 2-2 configuration lie flats?

The 737 and 757 share the same cabin. If it fits in the 757 it fits in the 737.

There's a reason the desert is filling up with 757s, sad as it may be.

Very fair point. But I think UA is much more interested in the MoM rather than the A321. Other wise they would have already ordered it (A321).

In essence, is it worth for UA to invest some money in 757s, to keep them going until what they truly want, the MoM, comes around? It's one of those, do I want to get the IPhone 7 today, or hold on to my IPhone 5 and get the 8 next year.

rta wrote:

Why doesn't UA (or any other airline for that matter) just run premium configs of 737s on these transcons?

I have yet to figure that one out as well.

United1 wrote:

The bigger issue to me is simply are there even enough frames parked in the desert to make it worthwhile as UA...

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Unit ... d-b757.htm

30+

jetblastdubai wrote:

United1 wrote:

The bigger issue to me is simply are there even enough frames parked in the desert to make it worthwhile as UA...

http://www.airfleets.net/flottecie/Unit ... d-b757.htm

30+

Quite a number of those have been scrapped or parted out already....

http://www.b757.info/stored-aircraft/

This site shows 8...

Bring back the Parker EtOPS birds. I'm glad the current ones are going to stay now.

727200 wrote:

I thought the UA 757's were getting up there in high time and as such it was best to retire them rather than put additional resources into them. But, if fuel were to drop further, anything is possible.

It's not hours that count here, it's cycles.

UAL and the Pratt engined fleet have parted company as they are basically worn out from all that domestic flying. More cycles per day than the newer ex-CO fleet that might do two longhaul sectors or a transcon or two per day. Airframes which are getting up there in cycles have been worn out and metal fatigue starts becoming a serious issue, as does general wear and tear. There isn't any point in spending millions per frame on life extension when their value is low; it's just money thrown away.

The only legacy United (PW) powered 757s left are the ones configured for P.S. service. I am guessing the first several deliveries of the 737-9MAX will replace these.

My understanding is that bringing birds out of the desert and into an airworthy shape is cost prohibitive, especially for planes that have been out of service for 2+ years and would need all-new interiors, the fuel mod, and many other improvements just to get them back into the air. Those birds in the desert are all in either the old 3-class p.s. configuration or that awful domestic config with the tube TVs in the aisle. I'm not even sure if there are really that many UA 757s left in the desert — most of them went to Fedex, and I would imagine many of them have been scrapped too.

At least, that was part of the reason given for why UA couldn't have pulled more 747s out of the desert once their balance sheet got better. In the end, they only pulled one 747 out of the desert. It was a plane that had only spent about a month in storage, and it was mostly used for military charters given that it didn't even have lie flats.

STT757 wrote:

With the reduction of Trans-Atlantic 757 flying, mostly replaced by 763s, they should have some slack in the RR powered sCO fleet. They need to update the interiors of the current P.S. and sCO Trans-Atlantic 757s. In conjunction with the refurbishment they should convert some of the RR powered aircraft to include the larger premium cabins of the PW powered P.S. aircraft.

When UA finally updates the RR powered 752's hopefully they will put in slimline seats which should help increase seat count a bit. Could we figure about 2 extra rows in Y? That should bring the seat count to 181. I've always thought the UA 752s were pretty low density compared to AA and DL. Beyond that, the seats in Y feel like you're sitting on a wooden bench. Padding is very worn down on these planes.

77H

BG777300ER wrote:

PDX88 wrote:

Polot wrote:

The 737 and 757 share the same cabin. If it fits in the 757 it fits in the 737.

There's a reason the desert is filling up with 757s, sad as it may be.

Very fair point. But I think UA is much more interested in the MoM rather than the A321. Other wise they would have already ordered it (A321).

In essence, is it worth for UA to invest some money in 757s, to keep them going until what they truly want, the MoM, comes around? It's one of those, do I want to get the IPhone 7 today, or hold on to my IPhone 5 and get the 8 next year.

I wouldn't be so sure about UA and the 321NEO/LR. The 321NEOs are just starting to enter revenue service and MAX9 has just started flight testing. As long as the 57's are around UA has the luxury of waiting to see how both aircraft perform in test flights and in revenue service with OAs before pulling the trigger.

If you look at the pending orders for UA the 350 order seems up in the air at this point and I have heard from several sources UA may have the option to take other planes in its place. The 350 order could very well materialize into an order for the 321NEO/LR. On the Boeing side, the order book a colleague sent me shows firm orders for 165 MAX aircraft. The exact type isn't specified. We could very well see many of the MAX9's turn into 8's and the 350's turn into 321N/LR's. I imagine the only thing that might stand in the way of a 321 order at UA is if Boeing decides to move forward with the MadMAX. I think the MoM is a little too far out for UA at this point.

77H

I'm not sure about long term, but I think that UA's hubs and route structure lends itself to taking even more advantage of putting wide bodies on transcontinental routes as the new planes come onboard (787 etc..) Flights between SFO and EWR, BOS or LAX - EWR might be better served by more 772's than bringing back some 757's out of the desert.

Quick random question....but how many 75's did pre-merger UA have back in its day? Thanks!

77H wrote:

STT757 wrote:

With the reduction of Trans-Atlantic 757 flying, mostly replaced by 763s, they should have some slack in the RR powered sCO fleet. They need to update the interiors of the current P.S. and sCO Trans-Atlantic 757s. In conjunction with the refurbishment they should convert some of the RR powered aircraft to include the larger premium cabins of the PW powered P.S. aircraft.

When UA finally updates the RR powered 752's hopefully they will put in slimline seats which should help increase seat count a bit. Could we figure about 2 extra rows in Y? That should bring the seat count to 181. I've always thought the UA 752s were pretty low density compared to AA and DL. Beyond that, the seats in Y feel like you're sitting on a wooden bench. Padding is very worn down on these planes.

77H

No plans on putting slimline seats on the 75B fleet. They are however getting reupholstered with blue leather seat covers.

swaluvfa wrote:

Quick random question....but how many 75's did pre-merger UA have back in its day? Thanks!

I think it was 95-97 752s. I remember sitting in traffic on the Kennedy back in the mid 00's and seeing UA 57 after 57 on approach to ORD. How times have changed.

77H

@737 ps / lie flat.... if I recall there was something about the floor of the standard 737s not being able to support the weight with the type of density usually seen on the US 3, with the result that on out of the box 737s lie flats are limited to lower density and all J cabins. UA used to run 739s between EWR and LAX/SFO, but that was before the JFK ps cutover. They couldn't get a away with that in the current environment, though the BOS p%^&match with B6 and the continued mint expansion is prompting others to match flat beds ex-BOS and down the line other markets as well.

So they'll need a better response than the 77A reconfig (too much plane for some of these routes) or sending more 752s (the slack is there *temporarily* since there's much less sCO 752 TATL now) to places like BOS. Eventually UA will either need to go the AA way and do a 321T or get 737s with flat beds. Keeping 752s isn't the answer, and I hate to say that because the 752 is a capable high performance ride that I'd take over any 737 barely-gets-off-the-ground dog.

Not likely Fed Ex cherry picked the best frames. Some had under 25k cycles 50-60k hours. I scratched my head because Delta is dusting off some 75's with almost 35k cycles & 80k hours. UA made a mistake selling the PW frames. For example

N594UA- BOEING 757-222 Serial #28145 58764hrs 21444cycles

If you have viable aircraft that you can't purchase anymore. At least store them don't sell. Dont tell me a 737-900 with tail stand and all does 95% of what a 757 does. Has anyone ever been on a 737 you hold your breath because they take up so much runway.

77H wrote:

swaluvfa wrote:

Quick random question....but how many 75's did pre-merger UA have back in its day? Thanks!

I think it was 95-97 752s. I remember sitting in traffic on the Kennedy back in the mid 00's and seeing UA 57 after 57 on approach to ORD. How times have changed.

77H

98 757-222s....

United1 wrote:

77H wrote:

swaluvfa wrote:

Quick random question....but how many 75's did pre-merger UA have back in its day? Thanks!

I think it was 95-97 752s. I remember sitting in traffic on the Kennedy back in the mid 00's and seeing UA 57 after 57 on approach to ORD. How times have changed.

77H

98 757-222s....

Thanks for clarifying....

intotheair wrote:

My understanding is that bringing birds out of the desert and into an airworthy shape is cost prohibitive, especially for planes that have been out of service for 2+ years and would need all-new interiors, the fuel mod, and many other improvements just to get them back into the air. Those birds in the desert are all in either the old 3-class p.s. configuration or that awful domestic config with the tube TVs in the aisle. I'm not even sure if there are really that many UA 757s left in the desert — most of them went to Fedex, and I would imagine many of them have been scrapped too.

At least, that was part of the reason given for why UA couldn't have pulled more 747s out of the desert once their balance sheet got better. In the end, they only pulled one 747 out of the desert. It was a plane that had only spent about a month in storage, and it was mostly used for military charters given that it didn't even have lie flats.

United 757's that were owned by the company were sold to FedEx. Only leased units went to the desert.

A.net is really maturing. +30 posts about the 757 and so far no one has suggested Boeing dig out the tooling and restart production.

We should be proud as a forum!

DL757NYC wrote:

If you have viable aircraft that you can't purchase anymore. At least store them don't sell. Dont tell me a 737-900 with tail stand and all does 95% of what a 757 does. Has anyone ever been on a 737 you hold your breath because they take up so much runway.

I've been on plenty of 737-900s, and I've never once held my breath on takeoff. Is that a game some kids play?

to the author: Your context appears to be driven by a preference for business class flight services/seating and a real/perceived current deficit. It is interesting to here others propose alternative solutions. Given the preference for frequency within the US the 757/767/321 are rational solutions. The domestic 772 may not solve the need.

addressing the question: for consideration of the board, the opposite may make more business sense. MOM is the solution, volume production in the back half of the next decade will require thought from fleet planners to meet your needs for the next 10 years. As United is less strong than 'TechOps', they might consider a 757 fleet retirement plan that occurs before MOM, accelerating retirement of your preferred power nap vehicle. An out-of-production model with material maintenance costs increasing with age, United may have to 'pick-its-battles'. United may consider dedicating its maintenance resources on extending the life of its (in-production) 767s.

Would adding the proposed retractable 737-10max landing gear to the 739max address many posters concern about take-off issues? If you primarily want more cross country lie-flat seats, you may be indifferent to take-off metrics or floor strength... on the condition that the plane flies and your lie-flat seat doesn't end up in the cargo hold.

I honestly have never noticed that the 737 takes longer to take off until I read it on this forum.

There should still be quite a few UA 757s in GYR. The ones that went to FX went to VCV.

amdiesen wrote:

addressing the question: for consideration of the board, the opposite may make more business sense. MOM is the solution, volume production in the back half of the next decade will require thought from fleet planners to meet your needs for the next 10 years. As United is less strong than 'TechOps', they might consider a 757 fleet retirement plan that occurs before MOM, accelerating retirement of your preferred power nap vehicle. An out-of-production model with material maintenance costs increasing with age, United may have to 'pick-its-battles'. United may consider dedicating its maintenance resources on extending the life of its (in-production) 767s.

Would adding the proposed retractable 737-10max landing gear to the 739max address many posters concern about take-off issues?

I'm sure the OP is looking at the near term, so pulling back in an existing frame is a worthy concept. Yes, the MOM is the probable solution down the road. Even the 737-10X isn't done on paper yet, so it doesn't meet a near term goal either.

As far as the availability of premium/lie flats, beyond wanting a cushy ride for myself, I do see UA/AA/DL needing to look into responding to B6's Mint product, which is expanding beyond the traditional JFK-SFO/LAX gold standard. I've been thinking that AA, for example, may need to reconfigure some of the 2-class 321S's into either additional 3-class 321T lift or into a new 2-class sub-type, but with lie-flats. The PHL, CLT and other JFK transcons (+ BOS/IAD?), plus some MIA probably do not justify the 3 class (nobody would be paying full freight for F) , but might do well with the middle product for the 321.

If, however, the parked UA 757s are not salvageable or even available, then the original idea made by the OP isn't workable. Maybe the 739 is? Are the early 777's really unsuitable to send to Europe, S. America and Hawai'i, or should they be sent there and the still-flying 767's retained and upgraded for the domestic trans-cons and premium half cons? Not too many more seats than the 757, and their Cargo department could be charged with filling up the belly to offset the CASM hit. I don't see the 777 working domestically unless they do have a high demand, premium market for a few.

DL757NYC wrote:

Has anyone ever been on a 737 you hold your breath because they take up so much runway.

I have. Last summer, I was departing on a 900ER from IAH, and it took around 8500' to get airborne. It's the only time I can actually remember rotating while on the bars for the opposite side of the runway.

the ua 757's were in bad shape, they got the same bad united maintenance for years. the wings needed so much sheet metal work from neglect, they had to junk them. they fixed a few in houston even after boeing told them not to.

[photoid][/photoid]Let's see. United Airlines alone has nearly 150 737-900s. Delta has over 75, and Alaska nearly that many as well.

That's close to 300 739s in the US alone. Figure 3-4 flights per plane, and you're at around 1000+ flights, per day, in the US on that plane. If every takeoff was truly a butt-clencher like some around here would have us believe, you'd be seeing incidents left and right on that plane (and pilots would probably refuse to fly them).

Yet that isn't happening. That must tell you something.

KLMatSJC wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

Has anyone ever been on a 737 you hold your breath because they take up so much runway.

I have. Last summer, I was departing on a 900ER from IAH, and it took around 8500' to get airborne. It's the only time I can actually remember rotating while on the bars for the opposite side of the runway.

UA flies the 739 between LAX/SFO to HNL/KOA and I've had some pretty long take off rolls with cruising altitudes that never got above FL300 which can put you in the middle of some pretty turbulent weather. I think where the 739 really excels at taking ones breath away is on landing. One 739 with high landing speed + Stiff Hawaiian Trades = One Hell of a Greaser. On the plus side its pretty neat hearing those CFM56's roar on reverse. I can also report the 739 has really good brakes. They have no problem sending your head towards the seat back in front of you.

77H

dennis2380 wrote:

the ua 757's were in bad shape, they got the same bad united maintenance for years. the wings needed so much sheet metal work from neglect, they had to junk them. they fixed a few in houston even after boeing told them not to.

I have to challenge you on this, there has never been a time that United aircraft were "neglected". Considering that FedEx inspected and took delivery on more than 30 757's, I call BS on you comment.

BG777300ER wrote:

I honestly have never noticed that the 737 takes longer to take off until I read it on this forum.

Relative to the 757? Are you serious? You must have never taken off on a 757, or been on a.net very long.
Having said that, the 739 has the worse take-off performance of any narrowbody out there but that doesn't necessarily meant that it's noticeable by most passengers or on most take-offs.

DL757NYC wrote:

. At least store them don't sell. Dont tell me a 737-900 with tail stand and all does 95% of what a 757 does. Has anyone ever been on a 737 you hold your breath because they take up so much runway.

While we're on this subject, do UA's 'Tiny Wings' 737-900s have any restrictions out of DEN? Does UA route them away from high altitude airports? My only ride on a -900 was DL out of ATL to FLL, not exactly pushing fuel load or altitude.

77H wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

Has anyone ever been on a 737 you hold your breath because they take up so much runway.

I have. Last summer, I was departing on a 900ER from IAH, and it took around 8500' to get airborne. It's the only time I can actually remember rotating while on the bars for the opposite side of the runway.

UA flies the 739 between LAX/SFO to HNL/KOA and I've had some pretty long take off rolls with cruising altitudes that never got above FL300 which can put you in the middle of some pretty turbulent weather. I think where the 739 really excels at taking ones breath away is on landing. One 739 with high landing speed + Stiff Hawaiian Trades = One Hell of a Greaser. On the plus side its pretty neat hearing those CFM56's roar on reverse. I can also report the 739 has really good brakes. They have no problem sending your head towards the seat back in front of you.

77H

A lot of crossing traffic on the routes it is not the fault of the type but many flights are stuck on the lower end of the FL300's unless you are on a bigger jet. For example, DAL2116 cruised at FL330 the entire flight.

airbazar wrote:

BG777300ER wrote:

I honestly have never noticed that the 737 takes longer to take off until I read it on this forum.

Relative to the 757? Are you serious? You must have never taken off on a 757, or been on a.net very long.
Having said that, the 739 has the worse take-off performance of any narrowbody out there but that doesn't necessarily meant that it's noticeable by most passengers or on most take-offs.

In the world of derated takeoffs, his observation doesn't surprise me. Back in the 1990s when fuel and engine maintenance were not as big of a big concern, high performance takeoffs on 757s were common. Nowadays, almost every takeoff is derated with the 757s unless at high performance fields in hot, high or short runway operations.

The acceleration on the 737-900ER and 737-800 is very similar. A passenger will feel similar forces. The difference is that the 737-900 has a higher rotation speed. Most people aren't going to notice the difference between 145 rotation speed or 165 rotation speed. It does not take long to get from 145 knots to 165 knots. Most people can't tell the difference looking out the window. A.net makes a big deal about it since when traveling at those high speeds, even a few extra seconds does consume a lot of runway. 737-900ERs operate from 7,000ft runways.

DC8FanJet wrote:

dennis2380 wrote:

the ua 757's were in bad shape, they got the same bad united maintenance for years. the wings needed so much sheet metal work from neglect, they had to junk them. they fixed a few in houston even after boeing told them not to.

I have to challenge you on this, there has never been a time that United aircraft were "neglected". Considering that FedEx inspected and took delivery on more than 30 757's, I call BS on you comment.

I challenge the word neglected. If when he says neglected, he could be referring to deferring optional service bulletins. There are many reliability improvement service bulletins that airlines have the choice of incorporating. In the US, the FAA is lenient regarding optional bulletins. UA went through years when they were tight on capital and didn't do many reliability and component improvement bulletins.

UA did not neglect the structure of the airplanes. United follows the established maintenance program and repairs are done in accordance with the structural repair manual and where deviating UA used either he manufacturer or a third party DER to issue FAA approved 8100-9 forms. United even led some of the industry steering committees and fleet teams. UA is a worldwide leader in scheduled maintenance program development since they hepled invent MSG analysis with Boeing and NASA decades ago. If Boeing disagreed with a repair, United still needs to go to an FAA approval. I would be shocked if Boeing suggested "junking" a wing. Boeing simply doesn't do that outside of a crash or an airplane corroded due to improper storage.

Now the UA ETOPS 757s spend two decades flying in and out of Hawaii. That is a corrosive environment since all the runways are right next to the ocean. I could imagine those airplanes being in rough shape.

CF-CPI wrote:

While we're on this subject, do UA's 'Tiny Wings' 737-900s have any restrictions out of DEN?

Speaking of "tiny wings," It frustrates me when people compare the 737NG to a 707. A 707 is like a 737NG with a 767-sized wing.

airbazar wrote:

BG777300ER wrote:

I honestly have never noticed that the 737 takes longer to take off until I read it on this forum.

Relative to the 757? Are you serious? You must have never taken off on a 757, or been on a.net very long.
Having said that, the 739 has the worse take-off performance of any narrowbody out there but that doesn't necessarily meant that it's noticeable by most passengers or on most take-offs.

Haha, actually I just got off of one Monday and will be back on another one Thursday. And I joined here 12 years ago.

That being said, I'm 95% sure all of my LAX/EWR takeoffs are derated.

With 12 to 16 flights a day between Newark and San Francisco and L.A., I do not believe there is a shortage of premium seats in these markets, even if the majority of flights are flown with 16 seats in the premium cabin. I tried to make bookings for the coming Sunday and Monday and pretty much every flight seemed to have plenty of seats in the premium cabin.

There may be a shortage of seats for upgrades, but that's another story and United will not overhaul aircraft in the desert to hand out upgrades.