codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:21 am

Discussion of United’s domestic capacity is incomplete if the 19 777-200s (77G) are not mentioned. That’s the same uplift as about 44 737-800s or 40 737-900s.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3235
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:05 pm

"United's Fleet team has sold one of the Boeing 747-400s United has kept in storage since United retired the fleet in late 2017, N119UA, and it departed VCV (Victorville, California) June 19 under the ownership of Atlas Air (5Y), which plans to use it for charter flights."

Live on, live on......
The gun is a precious Symbol of Freedom
Criminals are the deadly cancer on American society
Those who believe otherwise are consumed by an ideology
That is impervious to evidence of tyrants who disarm their citizens
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:24 pm

CALTECH wrote:
"United's Fleet team has sold one of the Boeing 747-400s United has kept in storage since United retired the fleet in late 2017, N119UA, and it departed VCV (Victorville, California) June 19 under the ownership of Atlas Air (5Y), which plans to use it for charter flights."

Live on, live on......


Has to be 100% written off free $ to the bottom line. Score.

Well, we're at the end of the Paris Airshow and we have not heard about UA adding 2x 359's as mentioned in this thread. Any news on this?
 
United1
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 12:38 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
United1 wrote:
You may be thinking a little too linearly...
There are still a number of routes in the UA system where they are using an Airbus or 73G/738 simply because they don't have a larger 73E/7M9 available. Until that issue is rectified there isn't much point in growing the smaller NB fleet significantly as the capacity is already in the fleet it's just being misused a bit.


That's a good comment, so let's look at the numbers. From 1 Jan to 2012 until September 27, 2017(5.74 years) United toook delivery the 11 B737-800s they ordered after the merger and also 103 B737-900ER which average out to ~ 18 per year. Starting on 23. Apr. 2018 they have been taking delivery of the MAX jets.

From the end of 2012 to the end of 2018 he number of domestic passengers increased by 18 million annually. So it seems to me that UA domestic is just keeping up with passenger growth, and can't do much to reposition aircraft.



UA also took delivery of:
4 737-700s
2 A320s
22 A319s

...and replaced 14 767-300ERs with 13 777-200s.

....and increased aircraft utilization.

....and added seats to every aircraft in the fleet.

....and added scores of larger E175s

Add all of that together and UA ended up being the fastest growing US legacy for the last couple of years. While allowing them to start shifting smaller mainline jets to smaller markets.

I’m not certain what your fixation on aircraft age is as it really isn’t the primary driving factor on when you retire an aircraft.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
audidudi
Posts: 2064
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:10 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
Delta is acquiring B737-900ERs at roughly 21 per year compared to United's 18 per year, but Delta is also acquiring A321s and has A321neos on order as well as the A220s. So the age gap is going to continue to accelerate in favor of Delta.

To be accurate, DL has only one more B739ER (of the 130 ordered) to be delivered later this month. Concerning the A321 future deliveries, this is the schedule going forward:
A321ceo
2019 14
2020 27
2021 3

A321neo
2020 16
2021 36
2022 & 2023: 48

So you are correct in saying that DL's average fleet age should stay lower than UA's, at least until more B737 MAX models start being delivered to UA! As more DL MD88/90s are retired, then it may stay in DL's favour! Apologies for being slightly off-topic!
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2843
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:08 pm

First off, I hate the United Fleet/Network threads were combined this year. Yes, there is some cross over conversation but for the most part the conversations are separate. Please Please Please separate these for Q3...

Secondly, I would think that with jet fuel becoming the majority of airlines costs these days, the pilot costs wouldn't matter so much and could be offset by the "right-sizing" of airplanes. What I am saying is, if the A220 is a better fit for a lot of markets/routes, does the premium UA would pay for mainline pilots really make that big of a difference if the UA bought the A220 for mainline use?
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 7:59 pm

United787 wrote:
First off, I hate the United Fleet/Network threads were combined this year. Yes, there is some cross over conversation but for the most part the conversations are separate. Please Please Please separate these for Q3...

Secondly, I would think that with jet fuel becoming the majority of airlines costs these days, the pilot costs wouldn't matter so much and could be offset by the "right-sizing" of airplanes. What I am saying is, if the A220 is a better fit for a lot of markets/routes, does the premium UA would pay for mainline pilots really make that big of a difference if the UA bought the A220 for mainline use?


Buying the A220 or 190/195E2 would also unlock more 76 seaters in accordance with their scope. So it could be a win win.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 7781
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 9:50 pm

United787 wrote:
First off, I hate the United Fleet/Network threads were combined this year. Yes, there is some cross over conversation but for the most part the conversations are separate. Please Please Please separate these for Q3...


I strongly agree. Please, please go back to keeping the threads separate in future.

Out of interest whose idea was it to combine them? Did the mods just do it unilaterally, or was there consultation with the membership base?
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 10:54 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
United787 wrote:
First off, I hate the United Fleet/Network threads were combined this year. Yes, there is some cross over conversation but for the most part the conversations are separate. Please Please Please separate these for Q3...


I strongly agree. Please, please go back to keeping the threads separate in future.

Out of interest whose idea was it to combine them? Did the mods just do it unilaterally, or was there consultation with the membership base?


If you go back and read those threads you will see people posting questions in the threads that were relevant to the other thread, or questions that were answered in the different thread, and in some cases users copying and pasting their posts so they would appear in both threads.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
unitedewr737
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:58 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 20, 2019 11:33 pm

 
ordramper98
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 10:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:02 am

The picture has a tail number of N605_X, N605UX is ExpressJets 5th E-175. So what is the complete number of the CRJ-550? Somethings not right
 
N649DL
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:07 am

United1 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
United1 wrote:
You may be thinking a little too linearly...
There are still a number of routes in the UA system where they are using an Airbus or 73G/738 simply because they don't have a larger 73E/7M9 available. Until that issue is rectified there isn't much point in growing the smaller NB fleet significantly as the capacity is already in the fleet it's just being misused a bit.


That's a good comment, so let's look at the numbers. From 1 Jan to 2012 until September 27, 2017(5.74 years) United toook delivery the 11 B737-800s they ordered after the merger and also 103 B737-900ER which average out to ~ 18 per year. Starting on 23. Apr. 2018 they have been taking delivery of the MAX jets.

From the end of 2012 to the end of 2018 he number of domestic passengers increased by 18 million annually. So it seems to me that UA domestic is just keeping up with passenger growth, and can't do much to reposition aircraft.



UA also took delivery of:
4 737-700s
2 A320s
22 A319s

...and replaced 14 767-300ERs with 13 777-200s.

....and increased aircraft utilization.

....and added seats to every aircraft in the fleet.

....and added scores of larger E175s

Add all of that together and UA ended up being the fastest growing US legacy for the last couple of years. While allowing them to start shifting smaller mainline jets to smaller markets.

I’m not certain what your fixation on aircraft age is as it really isn’t the primary driving factor on when you retire an aircraft.


I'm sorry, but where do you get that 14 763ERs are replaced by 13 772s? There are only 2 763s that left the fleet in 2005 for Sahara Air: https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines

Also to note (if it hasn't already) the ex-HA 763s UA acquired are still in storage.
 
Runway28L
Posts: 1748
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2017 7:35 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:16 am

ordramper98 wrote:
The picture has a tail number of N605_X, N605UX is ExpressJets 5th E-175. So what is the complete number of the CRJ-550? Somethings not right

N605QX is the registration. Former Horizon Air bird.
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... s/gdyacdrD

Last operated for AA via SkyWest June 2017-November 2018. Now being leased to GoJet.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:22 am

ordramper98 wrote:
The picture has a tail number of N605_X, N605UX is ExpressJets 5th E-175. So what is the complete number of the CRJ-550? Somethings not right


SkyWest picked up some CRJ-700's from QX, there is one that is N605QX. Didn't OO lease some jets to at some point? Maybe this is one of them.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:29 am

jetmatt777 wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
United787 wrote:
First off, I hate the United Fleet/Network threads were combined this year. Yes, there is some cross over conversation but for the most part the conversations are separate. Please Please Please separate these for Q3...


I strongly agree. Please, please go back to keeping the threads separate in future.

Out of interest whose idea was it to combine them? Did the mods just do it unilaterally, or was there consultation with the membership base?


If you go back and read those threads you will see people posting questions in the threads that were relevant to the other thread, or questions that were answered in the different thread, and in some cases users copying and pasting their posts so they would appear in both threads.

Jetmatt777 is correct. As was discussed earlier in this thread, the decision was made to combine the threads because there was significant overlap between the discussions. Many users didn't understand the delineation between the two separate threads, so they either posted in the wrong thread, or they posted in both. Duplication or fragmentation of discussion is counterproductive, in my opinion. It would be one thing if they were clearly distinctive topics and were treated as such, but the amount of overlap made the discussion in the two threads remarkably similar.

I did actually consult several active users in this thread, so the decision wasn't just forced on people without asking first. And just to be clear — I am part of the membership base — I don't work for the site, I'm just a user granted with moderator privileges. I've been an active user in these United threads for several years, so the decision to combine the threads did have some thought put into it. I recognize that some users don't like the idea, but the intent was to make for a more free-flowing discussion, and I believe it has thus far been successful in achieving that.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:29 am

N649DL wrote:
United1 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:

That's a good comment, so let's look at the numbers. From 1 Jan to 2012 until September 27, 2017(5.74 years) United toook delivery the 11 B737-800s they ordered after the merger and also 103 B737-900ER which average out to ~ 18 per year. Starting on 23. Apr. 2018 they have been taking delivery of the MAX jets.

From the end of 2012 to the end of 2018 he number of domestic passengers increased by 18 million annually. So it seems to me that UA domestic is just keeping up with passenger growth, and can't do much to reposition aircraft.



UA also took delivery of:
4 737-700s
2 A320s
22 A319s

...and replaced 14 767-300ERs with 13 777-200s.

....and increased aircraft utilization.

....and added seats to every aircraft in the fleet.

....and added scores of larger E175s

Add all of that together and UA ended up being the fastest growing US legacy for the last couple of years. While allowing them to start shifting smaller mainline jets to smaller markets.

I’m not certain what your fixation on aircraft age is as it really isn’t the primary driving factor on when you retire an aircraft.


I'm sorry, but where do you get that 14 763ERs are replaced by 13 772s? There are only 2 763s that left the fleet in 2005 for Sahara Air: https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines

Also to note (if it hasn't already) the ex-HA 763s UA acquired are still in storage.


The discussion was about domestic capacity, 14 de-rated 763s in domestic service for UA were
Reconfigured to international service while 13 772s were reconfigured to domestic.

With regards to the ex Hawaiian 763s, the first one enters service with UA tomorrow after being reconfigured in Hong Kong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
BenflysDTW
Posts: 267
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:39 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:50 am

Now we will also have to see on what happens with the 773ER that BOM used.
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:03 am

BenflysDTW wrote:
Now we will also have to see on what happens with the 773ER that BOM used.


Opportunistic upgauges on EWR-SFO-OGG/HNL, I would imagine, until things with Iranian airspace get sorted out.
 
N649DL
Posts: 516
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:43 am

STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
United1 wrote:

UA also took delivery of:
4 737-700s
2 A320s
22 A319s

...and replaced 14 767-300ERs with 13 777-200s.

....and increased aircraft utilization.

....and added seats to every aircraft in the fleet.

....and added scores of larger E175s

Add all of that together and UA ended up being the fastest growing US legacy for the last couple of years. While allowing them to start shifting smaller mainline jets to smaller markets.

I’m not certain what your fixation on aircraft age is as it really isn’t the primary driving factor on when you retire an aircraft.


I'm sorry, but where do you get that 14 763ERs are replaced by 13 772s? There are only 2 763s that left the fleet in 2005 for Sahara Air: https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines

Also to note (if it hasn't already) the ex-HA 763s UA acquired are still in storage.


The discussion was about domestic capacity, 14 de-rated 763s in domestic service for UA were
Reconfigured to international service while 13 772s were reconfigured to domestic.

With regards to the ex Hawaiian 763s, the first one enters service with UA tomorrow after being reconfigured in Hong Kong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Oh got it, thanks. The sUA 763 conversions to 2-class International was years ago like back in 2012-2013. The Domestic 777s were around as 2-5-2 configuration but they also converted a few extra from IPTE to Domestic much later in like 2015-2016. Recall the Domestic 777s in F had recliners and then switched them out later to the IPTE 2-4-2 configuration. They also had that strange call button issue where people kept hitting it with their arms and there was a lot of accidental ringing to the F/A's.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:36 am

cosyr wrote:
...Ideally, I think a good outcome for the pilots, would be a hard cap on regional flying altogether, with more flexibility for planes seating up to 76 seats, including the E2-175, in exchange for a guaranteed order for 75-100 E2-195's or A220's. Management would get a lot of fleet flexibility, more 76 seaters, and fewer 50 seaters (that they don't want as many of anyway), and if they go with E2-195's, they would have some parts commonality with their company owned regional E-jets, or if they go with A220-100's, they would have future commonality with A220-300's, which might be a good replacement down the road for 319's or 73G's. Personally, I think they should go with the E2-195's, and then order Max7's, which could replace 319's, 73G's AND 320's. Boeing would give them a sweet deal, now that they are tied up with Embraer, especially if the deal included a sweetener to stay away from the 321XLR and wait for the 797.


The UAL ALPA contract already allows UA to get more 76 seat RJs for United Express IF they get new small narrow body aircraft for UAL (don't remember the exact numbers). The essence of what you're suggesting already exists.

In the meantime, it seems that DL will continue to pull ahead.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
United1
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:39 am

N649DL wrote:
STT757 wrote:
N649DL wrote:

I'm sorry, but where do you get that 14 763ERs are replaced by 13 772s? There are only 2 763s that left the fleet in 2005 for Sahara Air: https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines

Also to note (if it hasn't already) the ex-HA 763s UA acquired are still in storage.


The discussion was about domestic capacity, 14 de-rated 763s in domestic service for UA were
Reconfigured to international service while 13 772s were reconfigured to domestic.

With regards to the ex Hawaiian 763s, the first one enters service with UA tomorrow after being reconfigured in Hong Kong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Oh got it, thanks. The sUA 763 conversions to 2-class International was years ago like back in 2012-2013. The Domestic 777s were around as 2-5-2 configuration but they also converted a few extra from IPTE to Domestic much later in like 2015-2016. Recall the Domestic 777s in F had recliners and then switched them out later to the IPTE 2-4-2 configuration. They also had that strange call button issue where people kept hitting it with their arms and there was a lot of accidental ringing to the F/A's.


It was a few years ago but Paco wanted to discuss numbers all the way back to the merger.

There were 6 domestic 772s originally delivered to UA in 2000. The 2-3-2 recliners up front you remember were replacements for the standard domestic first seats they were delivered with. UA converted 13 additional 772s to domestic and modified the original 6 to match...3-4-3 in the back and IPTE up front.

The carol of the bells still happens once in a while but that problem seems to have been mostly resolved.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
United1
Posts: 3840
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:41 am

FlyHossD wrote:
cosyr wrote:
...Ideally, I think a good outcome for the pilots, would be a hard cap on regional flying altogether, with more flexibility for planes seating up to 76 seats, including the E2-175, in exchange for a guaranteed order for 75-100 E2-195's or A220's. Management would get a lot of fleet flexibility, more 76 seaters, and fewer 50 seaters (that they don't want as many of anyway), and if they go with E2-195's, they would have some parts commonality with their company owned regional E-jets, or if they go with A220-100's, they would have future commonality with A220-300's, which might be a good replacement down the road for 319's or 73G's. Personally, I think they should go with the E2-195's, and then order Max7's, which could replace 319's, 73G's AND 320's. Boeing would give them a sweet deal, now that they are tied up with Embraer, especially if the deal included a sweetener to stay away from the 321XLR and wait for the 797.


The UAL ALPA contract already allows UA to get more 76 seat RJs for United Express IF they get new small narrow body aircraft for UAL (don't remember the exact numbers). The essence of what you're suggesting already exists.

In the meantime, it seems that DL will continue to pull ahead.


Depends on which metric you want to use...in terms of ASMs and RSMs UA passed DL a while ago and continues to gain on AA.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:54 am

United1 wrote:
N649DL wrote:
STT757 wrote:

The discussion was about domestic capacity, 14 de-rated 763s in domestic service for UA were
Reconfigured to international service while 13 772s were reconfigured to domestic.

With regards to the ex Hawaiian 763s, the first one enters service with UA tomorrow after being reconfigured in Hong Kong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Oh got it, thanks. The sUA 763 conversions to 2-class International was years ago like back in 2012-2013. The Domestic 777s were around as 2-5-2 configuration but they also converted a few extra from IPTE to Domestic much later in like 2015-2016. Recall the Domestic 777s in F had recliners and then switched them out later to the IPTE 2-4-2 configuration. They also had that strange call button issue where people kept hitting it with their arms and there was a lot of accidental ringing to the F/A's.


It was a few years ago but Paco wanted to discuss numbers all the way back to the merger.

There were 6 domestic 772s originally delivered to UA in 2000. The 2-3-2 recliners up front you remember were replacements for the standard domestic first seats they were delivered with. UA converted 13 additional 772s to domestic and modified the original 6 to match...3-4-3 in the back and IPTE up front.

The carol of the bells still happens once in a while but that problem seems to have been mostly resolved.


Correct, though one minor note: when they went from domestic F to recliners in F, they also went from six to nine frames. Three 772A international birds never received IPTE and were converted to that domestic configuration post-merger. They used seats from the IPTE conversions to make it happen. The conversion of all 772As to domestic and 10-abreast in Y started to happen in 2015.

Also, as far as the thread quarreling goes, it could go either way, but I actually think it makes a lot of sense to have them combined. There's definitely now a lot more conversation happening in one thread, but at least there aren't two versions of the same topic happening in two different threads, which was what happened 60% of the time before.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:04 am

FlyHossD wrote:
cosyr wrote:
...Ideally, I think a good outcome for the pilots, would be a hard cap on regional flying altogether, with more flexibility for planes seating up to 76 seats, including the E2-175, in exchange for a guaranteed order for 75-100 E2-195's or A220's. Management would get a lot of fleet flexibility, more 76 seaters, and fewer 50 seaters (that they don't want as many of anyway), and if they go with E2-195's, they would have some parts commonality with their company owned regional E-jets, or if they go with A220-100's, they would have future commonality with A220-300's, which might be a good replacement down the road for 319's or 73G's. Personally, I think they should go with the E2-195's, and then order Max7's, which could replace 319's, 73G's AND 320's. Boeing would give them a sweet deal, now that they are tied up with Embraer, especially if the deal included a sweetener to stay away from the 321XLR and wait for the 797.


The UAL ALPA contract already allows UA to get more 76 seat RJs for United Express IF they get new small narrow body aircraft for UAL (don't remember the exact numbers). The essence of what you're suggesting already exists.

In the meantime, it seems that DL will continue to pull ahead.


His suggestion is that the “compromise” for ALPA and mgmt is to allow 76 seat E2s in exchange for a SNB order...the current CBA only allows for current scope compliant 175s (E1s) unlocked with a SNB order. In other words, in his opinion, it’s a win-win. More mainline planes. More/better 76 seaters, with fewer 50/70 seaters. So no more regional frames, just bigger/better/more efficient ones. But with additional mainline airframes.

Problem is, not 1 inch, not 1 lb, not 1 seat...scope needs to go the other way and get rid of 76 seater regional jets. I see his point, but scope already got sold too far.

UAL should order some 175-E2s....and 195-E2s...and fly them all at mainline.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3309
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:30 am

Runway28L wrote:
ordramper98 wrote:
The picture has a tail number of N605_X, N605UX is ExpressJets 5th E-175. So what is the complete number of the CRJ-550? Somethings not right

N605QX is the registration. Former Horizon Air bird.
https://www.planespotters.net/airframe/ ... s/gdyacdrD

Last operated for AA via SkyWest June 2017-November 2018. Now being leased to GoJet.


Thanks. Looks it went from storage in TUS to spending just a week in AMA, so that would indicate it's still a CR7.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:21 am

audidudi wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Delta is acquiring B737-900ERs at roughly 21 per year compared to United's 18 per year, but Delta is also acquiring A321s and has A321neos on order as well as the A220s. So the age gap is going to continue to accelerate in favor of Delta.

So you are correct in saying that DL's average fleet age should stay lower than UA's, at least until more B737 MAX models start being delivered to UA! As more DL MD88/90s are retired, then it may stay in DL's favour!


The discussion of age of the jets is meant to highlight United's lack of effort in getting new jets of the smaller models. Since the merger UA has been happy procuring used jets in this category. In fact, of NEW jets only 11 B738s were ordered and are the only ones smaller than the B737-900ER. Many people have said it is just a question of priorities. The more large jets are procured, the more the small jets will be freed to fly appropriate routes.

The A319s and A320s are now an average of 19.7 years old, so this future purchase of replacement jets will be huge.

United is the dominant international carrier, but surprisingly according to the BTS statistics serves one more domestic market than Delta and amost twice as many as Southwest.

2017 2018 "Markets Served" from BTS data U.S. Airports
153 166 United
158 165 Delta
112 116 American
96 88 Southwest

Why is UAL serving so many markets which are not that important to it's core international business? Wouldn't they be better off serving something similar to Southwest (88 markets)? Will future executives pay billions of dollars to purchase hundreds of new smaller single aisle jets to chase the markets which must be of lower profitability.

Although you could ask the same question about Delta and American, I feel that they are fundamentally domestic airlines.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:41 am

PacoMartin wrote:
United is the dominant international carrier, but surprisingly according to the BTS statistics serves one more domestic market than Delta and amost twice as many as Southwest.

2017 2018 "Markets Served" from BTS data U.S. Airports
153 166 United
158 165 Delta
112 116 American
96 88 Southwest

Why is UAL serving so many markets which are not that important to it's core international business? Wouldn't they be better off serving something similar to Southwest (88 markets)? Will future executives pay billions of dollars to purchase hundreds of new smaller single aisle jets to chase the markets which must be of lower profitability.

Although you could ask the same question about Delta and American, I feel that they are fundamentally domestic airlines.


Okay I see where you are going with this particular post and I can tell you you are absolutely wrong in your interpretation of the data. Your numbers are correct but your way of think is pre Munoz and for sure pre Kirby. Smisek, Tilton those guys thought and stated publicly there was no money to be made in the domestic market, however both DL and WN proved them wrong.

United's core business isn't just its international business, both the domestic and international markets makeup UA core business. UA under Munoz and Kirby is done relinquishing domestic market share to AA, DL, WN or any other domestic carrier. Both the domestic and international markets go hand in hand and there is money to be made in the domestic market and UA along with every other US carrier is proving that fact.

I appreciate the amount of data your have brought to this conversation but I just think your way of interpreting it and your opinions on how UA should proceed in the future are deeply flawed and resemble a UA that no longer exists. If UA management were to follow the suggestions you posted on this thread UA would cease to exist. From this point forward I'm not sure whether to take you seriously or simply ignore your post because your joking. Some of your opinions that you have posted on this thread over the past few days the first thing that came to my mind is this person has to be joking trying to invoke a response. Perhaps if UA under Munoz and Kirby wasn't seeing positive results then I could take your opinions more seriously, but UA is profitable and UA is growing not just internationally but also in the domestic market which forces me to question whether or not you are serious or just trying to see how long you can keep this particular conversation going.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:08 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
audidudi wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
Delta is acquiring B737-900ERs at roughly 21 per year compared to United's 18 per year, but Delta is also acquiring A321s and has A321neos on order as well as the A220s. So the age gap is going to continue to accelerate in favor of Delta.

So you are correct in saying that DL's average fleet age should stay lower than UA's, at least until more B737 MAX models start being delivered to UA! As more DL MD88/90s are retired, then it may stay in DL's favour!


The discussion of age of the jets is meant to highlight United's lack of effort in getting new jets of the smaller models. Since the merger UA has been happy procuring used jets in this category. In fact, of NEW jets only 11 B738s were ordered and are the only ones smaller than the B737-900ER. Many people have said it is just a question of priorities. The more large jets are procured, the more the small jets will be freed to fly appropriate routes.

The A319s and A320s are now an average of 19.7 years old, so this future purchase of replacement jets will be huge.

United is the dominant international carrier, but surprisingly according to the BTS statistics serves one more domestic market than Delta and amost twice as many as Southwest.

2017 2018 "Markets Served" from BTS data U.S. Airports
153 166 United
158 165 Delta
112 116 American
96 88 Southwest

Why is UAL serving so many markets which are not that important to it's core international business? Wouldn't they be better off serving something similar to Southwest (88 markets)? Will future executives pay billions of dollars to purchase hundreds of new smaller single aisle jets to chase the markets which must be of lower profitability.

Although you could ask the same question about Delta and American, I feel that they are fundamentally domestic airlines.


Yield is one reason. WN does not serve JAC, ASE, etc., but UA does and gets a premium for those markets and I'm sure there are other examples. Why not serve CAK to ORD to get some additional feed if you can make it work profitably? Those markets also feed the international network. In fact, UA is betting the CRJ550 on the fact that someone in OMA wants first class from OMA>UAHUB>PEK.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 1:13 pm

impilot wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
cosyr wrote:
...Ideally, I think a good outcome for the pilots, would be a hard cap on regional flying altogether, with more flexibility for planes seating up to 76 seats, including the E2-175, in exchange for a guaranteed order for 75-100 E2-195's or A220's. Management would get a lot of fleet flexibility, more 76 seaters, and fewer 50 seaters (that they don't want as many of anyway), and if they go with E2-195's, they would have some parts commonality with their company owned regional E-jets, or if they go with A220-100's, they would have future commonality with A220-300's, which might be a good replacement down the road for 319's or 73G's. Personally, I think they should go with the E2-195's, and then order Max7's, which could replace 319's, 73G's AND 320's. Boeing would give them a sweet deal, now that they are tied up with Embraer, especially if the deal included a sweetener to stay away from the 321XLR and wait for the 797.


The UAL ALPA contract already allows UA to get more 76 seat RJs for United Express IF they get new small narrow body aircraft for UAL (don't remember the exact numbers). The essence of what you're suggesting already exists.

In the meantime, it seems that DL will continue to pull ahead.


His suggestion is that the “compromise” for ALPA and mgmt is to allow 76 seat E2s in exchange for a SNB order...the current CBA only allows for current scope compliant 175s (E1s) unlocked with a SNB order. In other words, in his opinion, it’s a win-win. More mainline planes. More/better 76 seaters, with fewer 50/70 seaters. So no more regional frames, just bigger/better/more efficient ones. But with additional mainline airframes.

Problem is, not 1 inch, not 1 lb, not 1 seat...scope needs to go the other way and get rid of 76 seater regional jets. I see his point, but scope already got sold too far.

UAL should order some 175-E2s....and 195-E2s...and fly them all at mainline.

I completely understand the position pilots feel, with has already gone too far, and it would be great if we could go back to the 90's and change it, but in today's reality, part of the conversation is peers. UA already has the most restrictive scope of the legacies, and I think there's an opportunity, that by giving up 1 lb, you could gain back 2. UA doesn't really want to be flying as many 50 seaters as they are, so if pilots were able to allow just the newest version of a plane that is already flying (E2-175), they would be in a position to demand that UA reduce overall express flying, and also demand the actual purchase of Small Narrowbodies. I would think that if you kept the same terms from the last contract for the ratio of A220's and E190/195 for more 76's, but require a reduction of 50 seats and/or total number of express, and require that United order at least half of the A220's/E-Jets allowed, all in exchange for E2-175's and allowing Express to be a greater % 70 seats rather than 50, there would be Mainline jobs gained, Express jobs lost (really promoted to mainline), and greater security for the future, through capping the total number of express planes. I am not a pilot, nor am I part of UA mgmt, but in any negotiation, there should always be room to consider movement...for the right price.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 2:23 pm

319:
N876UA, Ex B-6040 arrived XMN 2713/21Jun. Ex China Southern unit that did it's last revenue flight on 4/13/19. Was flown from NRT to XMN, which is going away from the USA - could this mean XMN will do mod work on approximately 3 Ex China Southern 319s?
B-6018 has been idle since 6/10/19 and B6039 since 4/4. Could they be next? Other 11 units on the list still flying revenue today.

763:
N684UA, former N588HA did exit HKG 2745/21Jun in High J Polaris/PE. Moving to IAD today. No additional flights shown
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 3:08 pm

cosyr wrote:
I think there's an opportunity, that by giving up 1 lb, you could gain back 2. UA doesn't really want to be flying as many 50 seaters as they are, so if pilots were able to allow just the newest version of a plane that is already flying (E2-175), they would be in a position to demand that UA reduce overall express flying, and also demand the actual purchase of Small Narrowbodies. I would think that if you kept the same terms from the last contract for the ratio of A220's and E190/195 for more 76's, but require a reduction of 50 seats and/or total number of express, and require that United order at least half of the A220's/E-Jets allowed, all in exchange for E2-175's and allowing Express to be a greater % 70 seats rather than 50, there would be Mainline jobs gained, Express jobs lost (really promoted to mainline), and greater security for the future, through capping the total number of express planes. I am not a pilot, nor am I part of UA mgmt, but in any negotiation, there should always be room to consider movement...for the right price.


The pilots aren't going to buy that for one second. Times are good, the company is profitable, and any ground ceded in good times will never, ever come back... history proves this to be true.

United's view is that scope is already too broad, and 76-seater jobs should be mainline, but they are willing to compromise if, and only if, the 76-seat category is restricted AND tied to new mainline jobs in a category that does not currently exist (110-seat).

The company wants more 76-seaters with more capability and higher gross weights, and recognizes that the 110-seat category isn't a great fit for United's network. That's why going with Delta scope in the first place probably was ill-advised, but the pilots and company had SO MANY items to negotiate in the JCBA that they'd still be at the bargaining table today if a scope clause had to be negotiated from scratch.

The pilots have some open grievances on the current contract, and the company slow played implementing many of the most recent contract's provisions, so while the relationship between pilots and management is far better than in past generations, the pilot group is probably not intending to extend unnecessary courtesies...
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:08 pm

fun2fly wrote:
Why not serve CAK to ORD to get some additional feed if you can make it work profitably? Those markets also feed the international network. In fact, UA is betting the CRJ550 on the fact that someone in OMA wants first class from OMA>UAHUB>PEK.


It's the if you can make it work profitably phrase that is bothering me. Delta and American are putting far more passengers into their largest hubs while United is far more spread out. There is less risk for Delta and American because more of those people from CAK are likely to get on more domestic transfers.

United has not purchased a new small jet since before the merger 9 years ago. The cost to catch up is getting higher and higher.

MAP domestic, hub - Airlines - % of airport operations, % of hub
66.5 Atlanta, GA Delta 53% 72.70%
39.2 Dallas/Fort Worth, TX American (#1) 33% 68.36%
24.9 Charlotte, NC American (#2) 21% 60.09%
21.1 Chicago, IL United 25% 24.28%
19.7 Chicago, IL Southwest 12% 22.71%
17.9 Seattle, WA Alaska 57% 41.88%
11.6 New York, NY JetBlue 34% 20.73%
8.3 Honolulu, HI Hawaiian 80% 57.56%
7.1 Denver, CO Frontier 38% 11.88%
5.7 Fort Lauderdale, FL Spirit 22% 21.13%
2.8 Sanford, FL Allegiant 20% 99.60%
1.9 Minneapolis, MN Sun Country 90% 5.59%
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:22 pm

cosyr wrote:
impilot wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:

The UAL ALPA contract already allows UA to get more 76 seat RJs for United Express IF they get new small narrow body aircraft for UAL (don't remember the exact numbers). The essence of what you're suggesting already exists.

In the meantime, it seems that DL will continue to pull ahead.


His suggestion is that the “compromise” for ALPA and mgmt is to allow 76 seat E2s in exchange for a SNB order...the current CBA only allows for current scope compliant 175s (E1s) unlocked with a SNB order. In other words, in his opinion, it’s a win-win. More mainline planes. More/better 76 seaters, with fewer 50/70 seaters. So no more regional frames, just bigger/better/more efficient ones. But with additional mainline airframes.

Problem is, not 1 inch, not 1 lb, not 1 seat...scope needs to go the other way and get rid of 76 seater regional jets. I see his point, but scope already got sold too far.

UAL should order some 175-E2s....and 195-E2s...and fly them all at mainline.

I completely understand the position pilots feel, with has already gone too far, and it would be great if we could go back to the 90's and change it, but in today's reality, part of the conversation is peers. UA already has the most restrictive scope of the legacies, and I think there's an opportunity, that by giving up 1 lb, you could gain back 2. UA doesn't really want to be flying as many 50 seaters as they are, so if pilots were able to allow just the newest version of a plane that is already flying (E2-175), they would be in a position to demand that UA reduce overall express flying, and also demand the actual purchase of Small Narrowbodies. I would think that if you kept the same terms from the last contract for the ratio of A220's and E190/195 for more 76's, but require a reduction of 50 seats and/or total number of express, and require that United order at least half of the A220's/E-Jets allowed, all in exchange for E2-175's and allowing Express to be a greater % 70 seats rather than 50, there would be Mainline jobs gained, Express jobs lost (really promoted to mainline), and greater security for the future, through capping the total number of express planes. I am not a pilot, nor am I part of UA mgmt, but in any negotiation, there should always be room to consider movement...for the right price.


If E175-E2s are 15% cheaper to operate than E1s, and can hold 80 seats comfortably in a 3 class config, they can be flown at mainline for the same economics as an E1 at a regional with some quick napkin math. And a 190/195-E2? Even less CASM at a major than a 175-E1 at a regional. There is no reason to give away flying that should be done by a United pilot just because some young, inexperienced 23 year old kid is willing to fly it cheaper, even if the difference in E1 and E2 is simply a weight one.

One big reason they like outsourcing is that the more regional pilots they have, the more people (and theoretically for a longer period of their life) will have a seniority/longevity reset and will take longer to hit the payrolls/pay scales of UAL proper, which increase annually up to 12 years of longevity. If 100 E175-E2s landed on UAL's property and were flown by mainline, that's roughly 1500 UAL pilots needed whose longevity begins accruing, and so every year of pay for them is cumulatively higher than if they were express pilots. If those 1500 guys were outsourced, assuming they all go to mainline United one day, as they hit UAL property they are on 1st year pay despite having flown United pax for the last 5 (or whatever) years. The initial 1 year pay difference isn't great, but for the average duration at a regional of 5 years, that 5 years of cumulative longevity increases costs UAL a lot...that's where this line in the sand scope thing really affects people in a job where seniority/longevity get reset every time you leave an airline and start over. My rub with this whole outsourcing thing is Kirby wants customers to buy a ticket on United, fly in a plane that says United and that is owned by United, but he is too much of a cheap a*hole to pay/hire his own employee to fly that plane. "Good enough to fly our pax, but not good enough to be a United employee." All because he wants an artificial longevity reset for pilots, and wants a whipsaw ability between regionals (when supply and demand allow it). Even if UAL had regional equivalent pay rates on a E175-E2, he still wouldn't go for it.

The reason your idea is a non-starter (to many) is that all historical scope sales were pitched as having a positive to the pilot group in some way, or were part of a bankruptcy. "You will get X if you let us get Y." Then the pilots agree to it...then it bites them. If the economics don't work for 50 seaters and management wants them gone then good...park them. If there is no viable replacement for 70/76 seaters that fits in scope...oh well. But they won't be getting additional 70 or 76 seaters to compensate unless they don't say express on the side (outside of the allowed growth with a SNB order).

I'll say it again (think I said it a few weeks ago): Scope/ALPA does not prevent UAL/DL/AA from buying/operating E175-E2s in the US. Management chooses not to buy and operate E175-E2s at mainline (as well as E190/195-E2s), as outsourcing it to regionals is so ingrained in their greedy DNA, which is the whole reason they want more of them to be allowed. They are addicted to outsourcing instead of making the economics work at their own airline. If Kirby wants E175-E2s so badly, he can get them. At mainline. And clearly the economics of a 100-110 seater work for Delta and JetBlue. You can't tell me UAL can't fly a 190/195-E2 or A220 and not make money...and that would give them more of their coveted outsourced 76 seat E1s. Not 1 pound, not 1 seat.
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:26 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
It's the if you can make it work profitably phrase that is bothering me. Delta and American are putting far more passengers into their largest hubs while United is far more spread out. There is less risk for Delta and American because more of those people from CAK are likely to get on more domestic transfers.


That's exactly why United has been pumping capacity back into the domestic network after weakening it for years. United is in the enviable position of having the most local international demand from its hub markets, but about 18 months ago started acting on its realization that it was leaving so much on the table by having a comparatively small domestic network versus AA/DL.

It's true that markets like CAK may be more exposed to ULCCs and have a higher ratio of leisure travel, but business traffic, especially the smaller, higher-yielding segment, tends to be more price inelastic due to convenience. UA misses out on that traffic by either not having a presence in the market at all, or offering a substandard combination of product/schedule compared to AA/DL.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:55 pm

Paco Martin:
Not quite sure how to view those last set of stats.
Does your MAP just for the airline you referenced?
Where is SFO, IAH, EWR and IAD in your analysis? How about PHX, DTW, LAX, MIA, PHL. It would seem all would have sole carriers with more more traffic than MSP.
Where is UA at DEN? UA has over 500 departures, not sure how may Frontier has, but they have way fewer gates than UA. WN would be larger in DEN than Frontier.
 
audidudi
Posts: 2064
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 5:59 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
763:
N684UA, former N588HA did exit HKG 2745/21Jun in High J Polaris/PE. Moving to IAD today. No additional flights shown


It looks like N684UA is returning to HNL:

https://www.flightradar24.com/UAL2746/20fbde24
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:26 pm

impilot.
It sounds like your solution is to have UA move to all mainline pilots. This would obviously abandon 50 seat aircraft and put the company at a huge economic advantage vs the competition with the 70-76 seat aircraft range. Unless you get DL and AA to do the same, the result would be those "greedy" management people driving the airline into a loss and retraction situation, which doesn't help anyone in the airline, pilots included. Do I read you right - "not 1 inch"?

I'm just wondering if those "inexperienced 23 year old pilots" would be just fine if they are union members?

Look, I have a slight company to union bent since I hate conflict in a company, but can't we work together? UA has turned it around adding scores of mainline aircraft since the merger including lots of international destinations with state of the art aircraft, yet the scope clause says added narrowbodies can't be 319s or 737s. This issue is hurting the airline and pilots. Why should the pilot union care if UA brings on a similarly sized aircraft for expansion? If this agreement was adjusted, I'm sure UA would expand efforts to increase narrowbodies with the commonality it has now. Why not ask if buying new or used 320 series or 737 series aircraft can be tied to a percentage increase in 76 seat aircraft? You might find more mainline pilot jobs, higher pay scales for those aircraft ending up with even more aircraft purchase (with mainline pilot jobs)?

Isn't it a win-win scenario vs. a hard line reduced growth scenario?
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 6:38 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Paco Martin:
Not quite sure how to view those last set of stats.
Does your MAP just for the airline you referenced?
Where is SFO, IAH, EWR and IAD in your analysis? How about PHX, DTW, LAX, MIA, PHL. It would seem all would have sole carriers with more more traffic than MSP.
Where is UA at DEN? UA has over 500 departures, not sure how may Frontier has, but they have way fewer gates than UA. WN would be larger in DEN than Frontier.


The MAP is only for the airline I referenced. I looked at the biggest airport for each airline, except the case of American Airlines because the top two airports were both so important to AA.

Delta is running a domestic operation of 66.5 million passengers at ATL (arrivals and departures) which is over half their total domestic passengers at all their airports. With so many operations the investment in an A319 from TINYTOWN has a good chance that he is going to get on a second domestic leg and fly somewhere else, or he might get on an expensive international flight.

The American passengers are primarily congregating in the two biggest hubs.

The United passenger that is flying on a A319 from TINYTOWN is headed to five roughly equal size hubs (and two smaller ones) that have a domestic operation that is about equivalent to one of the busier Southwest cities. United may actually need hub connections from TINYTOWN to more than one hub. In any case there is less probability of him boarding a domestic transfer.

United has the largest international market of the three legacy carriers, precisely because the flights are nearly uniformly spread across the 5 major hubs and IAD and LAX. But the same network that makes for a very efficient international network, makes it less efficient as a domestic one.

Not only does United have a much smaller domestic service, but I think fundamentally it can't catch up. The question is how long can United keep flying to TINYTOWN on the hope of a long range international transfer.

domestic + intern. = total
159.04 + 4.56 = 163.6 Southwest
119.47 + 28.71 = 148.2 American
85.90 + 27.26 = 113.2 United
126.47 + 25.22 = 151.7 Delta
66.50 + 9.68 = 76.18 Delta (flights into and out of Atlanta)
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:04 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
impilot.
It sounds like your solution is to have UA move to all mainline pilots. This would obviously abandon 50 seat aircraft and put the company at a huge economic advantage vs the competition with the 70-76 seat aircraft range. Unless you get DL and AA to do the same, the result would be those "greedy" management people driving the airline into a loss and retraction situation, which doesn't help anyone in the airline, pilots included. Do I read you right - "not 1 inch"?

I'm just wondering if those "inexperienced 23 year old pilots" would be just fine if they are union members?

Look, I have a slight company to union bent since I hate conflict in a company, but can't we work together? UA has turned it around adding scores of mainline aircraft since the merger including lots of international destinations with state of the art aircraft, yet the scope clause says added narrowbodies can't be 319s or 737s. This issue is hurting the airline and pilots. Why should the pilot union care if UA brings on a similarly sized aircraft for expansion? If this agreement was adjusted, I'm sure UA would expand efforts to increase narrowbodies with the commonality it has now. Why not ask if buying new or used 320 series or 737 series aircraft can be tied to a percentage increase in 76 seat aircraft? You might find more mainline pilot jobs, higher pay scales for those aircraft ending up with even more aircraft purchase (with mainline pilot jobs)?

Isn't it a win-win scenario vs. a hard line reduced growth scenario?

I don't think you get it.

To your economic disadvantage point...how do Southwest, Hawaiian, and JetBlue all fly short hops with "mainline" pilots and planes? How does DAL do a lot of that "regional" flying in 717s/A220s, pay industry leading pay and profit sharing, and still make money on those flights? It can be done. But if US3+ALK can't fly without cheap outsourced labor subsidizing them, sucks to be them...they deserve to go under. Maybe they need to cut costs or be better at what they do?

Regional flying should be just that...regional flying. Turboprops from small towns to larger cities to connect on mainline metal. I once flew on a Mesa E175 from IAD-IAH. Hub to Hub. Big city to big city. What region is that? And why is an outsourced regional pilot flying that? That is a flight that should be flown by mainline. Regional flying used to be regional flying. Then RJs grew like a weed and took over for what used to be mainline flying. I advocate all "large RJs" ie those with 70/76 seats should be flown by mainline, at all 4 US carriers that have regionals. And I can argue those with 50 seats should be at mainline as well, but I also can argue that if they connect small towns with large cities and do "regional" flying, then they are ok where they are at.

Regarding the "union members" comment, all regional pilots, with the exception of SkyWest pilots, ARE union members, most of which are represented by ALPA. No, that doesn't make it right. ALPA was largely responsible for the proliferation of RJs, which contributed to the lost decade, which contributed to the modern day pilot shortage because being an airline pilot was such an unpalatable "career" for so long and people didn't become pilots, or left the industry altogether. So I hold ALPA responsible for that. They've admitted they made mistakes allowing scope to be sold in the first place.

To your last paragraph, there is already a clause in the CBA to allow UAL to add more 76 seaters (scope compliant ones within weight restrictions) if a new small narrow body is added. This doesn't include 737s/A320s, because it has to be a "new type." The problem with what you are suggesting goes back to my second paragraph. There should be none of this large RJ flying anyway. Even if you also grow mainline by 10,000 planes and 100,000 pilots, it still doesn't matter. Much of today's "regional" flying isn't "regional" flying. It's just outsourced major airline flying. ALPA drew the line in the sand where they did because they couldn't take it all back, but they had to put a stop to it somehow. But allowing any more than what is already allowed is taking pilot jobs away from mainline in a hugely pro-company longevity reset scheme. And separately, but related, working under the RLA (which hugely favors the company) in a seniority/longevity based environment (which again hugely favors the company), airline labor is at a HUGE disadvantage against the company. The playing field isn't level, which is why it's such a heavily unionized industry.

So yeah, you read me right. Not one damn inch, and not one damn pound.

Edit: Forgot to add...they can all afford it.
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 7:26 pm

impilot wrote:
My rub with this whole outsourcing thing is Kirby wants customers to buy a ticket on United, fly in a plane that says United and that is owned by United, but he is too much of a cheap a*hole to pay/hire his own employee to fly that plane. "Good enough to fly our pax, but not good enough to be a United employee." All because he wants an artificial longevity reset for pilots, and wants a whipsaw ability between regionals (when supply and demand allow it). Even if UAL had regional equivalent pay rates on a E175-E2, he still wouldn't go for it.


I get the notion of labor decrying management, whoever it is, but at the very least, Kirby has been responsible for the biggest resurgence in mainline flying at United in a few generations of leadership, and is finally undoing the network damage inflicted by Tilton and the mass retirement of the 737s with no substantial capacity replacement. Kirby is arguably the best thing to happen to United Airlines in 30 years, unless you count the resignation of Jeff Smisek... any previous management team would probably have the company 20% smaller than it is right now.

The rest of the point is well-taken.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:52 pm

codc10 wrote:
impilot wrote:
My rub with this whole outsourcing thing is Kirby wants customers to buy a ticket on United, fly in a plane that says United and that is owned by United, but he is too much of a cheap a*hole to pay/hire his own employee to fly that plane. "Good enough to fly our pax, but not good enough to be a United employee." All because he wants an artificial longevity reset for pilots, and wants a whipsaw ability between regionals (when supply and demand allow it). Even if UAL had regional equivalent pay rates on a E175-E2, he still wouldn't go for it.


I get the notion of labor decrying management, whoever it is, but at the very least, Kirby has been responsible for the biggest resurgence in mainline flying at United in a few generations of leadership, and is finally undoing the network damage inflicted by Tilton and the mass retirement of the 737s with no substantial capacity replacement. Kirby is arguably the best thing to happen to United Airlines in 30 years, unless you count the resignation of Jeff Smisek... any previous management team would probably have the company 20% smaller than it is right now.

The rest of the point is well-taken.


It's not the notion of labor decrying management. In my previous life before flying for the airlines, I was management...I can very easily argue both sides. Kirby's job is to save/make money. And he does a good job of it. He especially likes to do this with outsourcing, and when supply/demand allowed it at regionals, he capitalized on that. I worked for a regional that flew under the US air express/american eagle brand. My family suffered while I made food stamp wages. Why did I make food stamp wages? Long story, so bear with me. And yes, I volunteered for that job after leaving a well paying job prior to that. But I had no other means to become an airline pilot than to take that food stamp paying job. I was flying 76 passengers around in jets, after hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of training, making food stamps...seems crazy. Where does Kirby come in to all this? Kirby was the mastermind of proliferating RJs and whipsawing pilot groups. Notice how there are 14 regionals who all do the flying of 3 majors? Seems inefficient in a normal business, no? Wonder why there are 3 wholly owned AA airlines that all do the same thing? More inefficiencies right? Well there's a reason for it, and Kirby is a master at exploiting it and largely the architect of the RJ schemes. He would take flying from one group and promise it to another if they took concessionary contracts. In a seniority/longevity based profession, this causes furloughs, base closures, downgrades, etc., while another pilot group takes a lower paying contract to grow faster (hey, I got mine, right?). So guys in the industry shuffled around and worked at 3 or more regionals chasing the next growing one, avoiding negative seniority movement (worse schedules, reserve, displacements, downgrades, etc), and starting back over. At the time I entered the industry, the choices were all pretty bad, as major airlines weren't hiring, so there was a lot of regional stagnation.

One of the first things Kirby said/did when he went to UAL was publicly say he's going after scope. That's his forte. And that's why I have beef with him. Having grown up an anti-union, conservative guy who didn't really want to be an airline pilot growing up but who ended up doing it after leaving my previous career, and having lived the poor regional life (albeit for a much shorter time than most of my peers who suffered in the regionals on poverty wages for far too long), I now have an appreciation for why unions exist..it's to protect people from guys like Kirby. And don't get me wrong, mainline pilots and ALPA who allowed scope sales are just as guilty. As are the pilots who take a concessionary contract to secure more flying. As are mainline pilots who allow 100 more RJs for a $10/hr raise, or a few more mainline jets. "Pilots are our own worst enemy." People are inherently greedy. Management, pilots, etc.

And to speak of Kirby's success at UAL in this environment is another debate, but not one that's relevant to the scope issue. In this economy, even the worst airline management in the US can make money and grow. Don't get me wrong, UAL is a lot better than it was 2 years ago. And Kirby and Munoz are responsible for their turnaround. But an incredible economy certainly helps. I'd also argue DL/AA/SWA/B6/NK have also been growing and adding mainline airplanes just as fast and making things better (well AA is debatable, Parker and Isom are a joke). That said, I do think Kirby is a fairly good COO (now that he's away from Parker). I just don't like him because of his contributions to ruining the airline pilot profession for so long (mostly on the regional side, but with effects at mainline)...for that he won't be forgiven. Especially since his first order of business at UAL was going after scope again.
Last edited by impilot on Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Cactusjuba
Posts: 176
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:06 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 8:53 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
impilot.
It sounds like your solution is to have UA move to all mainline pilots. This would obviously abandon 50 seat aircraft and put the company at a huge economic advantage vs the competition with the 70-76 seat aircraft range. Unless you get DL and AA to do the same, the result would be those "greedy" management people driving the airline into a loss and retraction situation, which doesn't help anyone in the airline, pilots included. Do I read you right - "not 1 inch"?

I'm just wondering if those "inexperienced 23 year old pilots" would be just fine if they are union members?

Look, I have a slight company to union bent since I hate conflict in a company, but can't we work together? UA has turned it around adding scores of mainline aircraft since the merger including lots of international destinations with state of the art aircraft, yet the scope clause says added narrowbodies can't be 319s or 737s. This issue is hurting the airline and pilots. Why should the pilot union care if UA brings on a similarly sized aircraft for expansion? If this agreement was adjusted, I'm sure UA would expand efforts to increase narrowbodies with the commonality it has now. Why not ask if buying new or used 320 series or 737 series aircraft can be tied to a percentage increase in 76 seat aircraft? You might find more mainline pilot jobs, higher pay scales for those aircraft ending up with even more aircraft purchase (with mainline pilot jobs)?

Isn't it a win-win scenario vs. a hard line reduced growth scenario?


Don't place the blame on pilots for not bending on a contract that was fully agreed upon by all parties. EMBRAER and Mitsubishi knew full well the scope clauses. We all know they consulted with the US3 on their design plans. They intentionally designed aircraft that would violate scope weight limits. Why would they assume that high level of risk? Clearly they were assured by someone that these pilot contracts would easily change. Now UA leadership is kicking and screaming when their pilots are saying we'd rather not modify the language? Gimmie a break. Design a scope compliant jet. And it's unfair to trade more 76 seats for less CRJ2s, everybody knows they are heading for the trash heap anyway.

Maybe, just maybe, a large score of UA pilots were directly impacted by the surge of regional jets. Maybe they were furloughed for years as they watched flying they previously did shift to burgeoning regional pilot rosters. Maybe they were at the regionals in hopes of using it as a stepping stone to a mainline career, but instead stagnated there for decades as UA and others simply were not hiring pilots due to outsourcing. Scope giveaways could be in the millions of dollars lost for many pilot's career earnings. Let alone the insecurity with jobs, having to commute or move a family, and asking those you love/depend on you to continue to make sacrifices in hopes of future career improvements. Under that context, they don't see your argument the same. They see it as reopening the wound of the "lost decade".

I'm just wondering if those "inexperienced 23 year old pilots" would be just fine if they are union members?
100% incorrect. With exception of Skywest, all those 23 year olds ARE union members, most ALPA just like UA pilots.
 
FSDan
Posts: 2498
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:01 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
I’ve noticed UA has a one off flight August 29 from IAH to MSN. What’s up with that? A repositioning?


Epic UGM (Users' Group Meeting) in Verona, WI. DL and UA add flights every year to support the 8000-9000 visitors who flock to the Madison area for the conference. I've seen DL send 753s from MSP and DTW, and UA add one-off mainline flights to IAH, IAD, EWR, etc.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 9:43 pm

Because Delta's domestic operation in Atlanta is almost as big as United's entire domestic operation there is a much higher chance of turning a passenger on a small jet from TINYTOWN into a connecting domestic flight or an interntional flight.

domestic + intern. = total (millions of air passengers by indicated airlines
21.08 + 3.63 = 24.72 United Chicago
66.50 + 9.68 = 76.18 Delta Atlanta
85.90 + 27.26 = 113.15 United total network

Because five of United's hubs are roughly the same size, more small jets from TINYTOWN are needed.

The smaller Airbus jets of all three legacy airlines are roughly the same age
# - model --average years --- airline
72 A319-100 17.9 United
99 A320-200 21.0
57 A319-100 17.4 Delta
62 A320-200 23.8
129 A319-100 15.3 American
48 A320-200 18.2

But it seems that American and Delta are investing a lot more money in NEW single aisle jets of several sizes.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:36 pm

It depends on how you count things - DL and UA are different airlines. For what its worth, UA operates almost all its flights into it main hubs, DL tends to operate more point to point operations.

You might be surprised that UA has an average stage length of almost 50% higher than DL (2017 data shows UA almost 1200 and DL a bit over 850). Maybe that's why DL can utilize those smaller narrowbodied aircraft better than UA and if I were a crew member rather fly an average of almost 50% more miles per flight.

You are counting passengers instead of RPM's which is the usual standard for airline size. I understand that since UA has more international flights than DL's overall stage length would be lower, but I can't find information by domestic or international.

Being a two edged sword, UA is in the largest cities, thus can't control upwards of 90% of the traffic as does DL in cities like MSP, DTW and SLC. DL's had limited success in trying to break out at the top of LAX, SEA and NYC. UA has more competition and delays at its hubs, while there's also more business at those hubs. I would say overall UA's hubs are better located in the US then AA's or DL's. For what its worth UA has survived and flourished at competitive hubs, I'd say DL mostly avoids competitive hubs

While DL has overall a slightly newer jet fleet, they are flying a boatload of 757s, 767s, MD80s and almost orphan aircraft like the MD90 and B717. Maybe the A220 will be a great aircraft - time will tell. UA(CO) dumped the MD80 years ago and AA is operating well under 10% of its historic MD80 fleet of 350 units.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 21, 2019 11:43 pm

impilot.
Thanks for your comments.
So what should ALPA do? Did all ALPA pilots have a hand in allowing your "23 year old with no experience" to become a APLA member at such low rates?

And maybe now the airlines could "afford it", but there will be lean times at some point and we have history of what happened to airlines during those times. It wasn't pretty and crew members suffered probably worse than others. Would you negotiate lower rates in an economic downturn to retain flying and jobs?
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:49 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
impilot.
Thanks for your comments.
So what should ALPA do? Did all ALPA pilots have a hand in allowing your "23 year old with no experience" to become a APLA member at such low rates?

And maybe now the airlines could "afford it", but there will be lean times at some point and we have history of what happened to airlines during those times. It wasn't pretty and crew members suffered probably worse than others. Would you negotiate lower rates in an economic downturn to retain flying and jobs?

ALPA and its pilots obviously don't hire (or prevent hiring) pilots for airlines. Airlines hire pilots. But ALPA (local to each pilot group, not national) negotiates contracts. ALPA enabled the regional industry to proliferate and allowed pilot groups to get whipsawed, resulting in slave wages for over a decade. Why? Couple reasons. One, ALPA isn't a singular entity. ALPA is the members of each airline local chapter. National won't tell one pilot group to not take a contract. It's up to the individual MECs/LECs/members. And when it comes to the laws under which airline labor is bound (RLA), it's really difficult to make gains if supply/demand isn't on your side. Too many people needed a flying job, and not enough good flying jobs were available. Couple that with the RLA constraints, whipsaws, etc., and there you go...slave wages and a career decimating result. Also, at a higher level, ALPA's dues are roughly 2% across the board. The majority of their income comes from their major airlines. 2% of combined major airline pay is significantly higher than 2% of combined regional pilot pay. They have a vested interest in devoting more resources to further the major airlines and keep those jobs appealing and available. In a sense, it's a conflict of interest. During the real bad times, some major airline pilots were told they'd keep their jobs and avoid furlough if they took a concessionary contract and allowed more scope to be relaxed. So major airline pilots agreed to scope sales, which hurt the industry. Regional pilots have taken concessionary contracts to secure more flying, hurting fellow regional pilots. So various levels of pilot groups, represented by ALPA, APA, teamsters, or no one, (doesn't matter who the union is in this case), have all had a hand in allowing the industry to get to where it got. 9/11, downturn, bankruptcies, age 65, and management pushing RJs and whipsawing pilot groups against each other all were contributing factors to the 10-15 darkest years in commercial aviation. Pilots, management, the economy, all played a part.

So what should ALPA do? Well, they should make a concerted effort (with APA for AA) to bring 70/76 seaters to mainline.

In economic downturns, historically planes have been parked, pilots furloughed, and pay cuts doled out via concessionary contracts that were basically forced on the pilot groups "to help the company survive." Bankruptcies have also been used to wipe pension obligations, cut pay rates, and relax scope. In the last round of negotiations, pilots just started to catch up to their old wages when adjusted for inflation, after 15ish years of pay cuts, and that doesn't account for the mainline jobs lost to slave wage regional jet jobs. In some instances, at some airlines, credit hour minimum guarantees have been lowered so everyone across the board gets a cut in pay/credit to prevent furloughs.

So there are a number of ways to deal with it, but keeping planes outsourced in good times (which was largely a result of bad economic times and then stuck as the new norm) is a perfect example of why scope doesn't get any relief now. There are/were even "jets for jobs" programs where furloughed mainline guys get jobs at the regionals flying their feed that should have been (and used to be) their flying...they got to do it while furloughed for a huge pay cut. Neat.

So airlines will most definitely use pay cuts, furloughs, and parking planes during the bad times. As of now, the US3 have so many retirements on the horizon, they will most likely be able to get by with parking planes and letting attrition occur with no backfill hiring instead of furloughing, unless things get really bad, which is a key difference to the bad times of the 2000s. I also believe profit sharing is a good piece of compensation that 1) incentivizes employees to make cost saving decisions (single engine taxi, limit APU use, etc.) and 2) ties compensation to the health of the company. All companies have done the opposite and gone after PS. Delta's TA in 2015 failed largely due to the proposed PS cuts. JetBlue slashed profit sharing 2 years ago to pay for the pilot's CBA. But IMO it's a method of compensation that pays when times are good, and doesn't pay when times are bad. Pay rates are a little more durable, but will most definitely get chopped in a sham bankruptcy or using parked planes/furloughs as leverage if a concessionary contract isn't agreed to. Major airline management would still have their levers to pull if/when times get bad if they had all 70/76 seaters on property flying with mainline pilots.
 
1989worstyear
Posts: 592
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:58 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
It depends on how you count things - DL and UA are different airlines. For what its worth, UA operates almost all its flights into it main hubs, DL tends to operate more point to point operations.

You might be surprised that UA has an average stage length of almost 50% higher than DL (2017 data shows UA almost 1200 and DL a bit over 850). Maybe that's why DL can utilize those smaller narrowbodied aircraft better than UA and if I were a crew member rather fly an average of almost 50% more miles per flight.

You are counting passengers instead of RPM's which is the usual standard for airline size. I understand that since UA has more international flights than DL's overall stage length would be lower, but I can't find information by domestic or international.

Being a two edged sword, UA is in the largest cities, thus can't control upwards of 90% of the traffic as does DL in cities like MSP, DTW and SLC. DL's had limited success in trying to break out at the top of LAX, SEA and NYC. UA has more competition and delays at its hubs, while there's also more business at those hubs. I would say overall UA's hubs are better located in the US then AA's or DL's. For what its worth UA has survived and flourished at competitive hubs, I'd say DL mostly avoids competitive hubs

While DL has overall a slightly newer jet fleet, they are flying a boatload of 757s, 767s, MD80s and almost orphan aircraft like the MD90 and B717. Maybe the A220 will be a great aircraft - time will tell. UA(CO) dumped the MD80 years ago and AA is operating well under 10% of its historic MD80 fleet of 350 units.


757's and 767's are considered orphans?
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:11 am

jayunited wrote:
Perhaps if UA under Munoz and Kirby wasn't seeing positive results then I could take your opinions more seriously, but UA is profitable and UA is growing not just internationally but also in the domestic market which forces me to question whether or not you are serious or just trying to see how long you can keep this particular conversation going.


I did not mean to imply that UA could not be very profitable domestically, or that it was not growing domestically, just that the core domestic business of hub to hub and the network feed of three dozen critical airports: BOS LAS MCO SAN SEA HNL LGA PHX TPA AUS FLL PDX MSY CLE SNA RDU DCA PHL SAT SMF DFW ATL BWI BNA MIA RSW MSP PIT MCI BDL OGG OMA KOA SJC PBI SLC JAX DSM is what matters.

The Tiny Town airports are better served by the mega hubs of ATL, DFW, and CLT (and by UAX).

How do you know that is not the ultimate policy of Munoz and Kirby after they are done buying used smaller size jets and it is time to invest in a hundred new ones? Perhaps they see the future in a limited network?

My home town airport which serves an urban area of 650,000 and the first scheduled airline flights began on September 16, 1935, with United Airlines Boeing 247s. United reduce service until it is down to two daily 50 seat flights to Chicago. American has just launched competing service to ORD and I wonder if United will simply abandon the airport after decades of service.



Average domestic stage length in miles for 2018
WN 808
DL 962
AA 1,075
UA 1,262

G4 897
NK 1,034
HA 1,094
F9 1,108
B6 1,155
AS 1,355
SY 1,423
 
Fargo
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:00 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:57 am

codc10 wrote:
The company wants more 76-seaters with more capability and higher gross weights, and recognizes that the 110-seat category isn't a great fit for United's network.


I fail to see why it isn't a great fit. Can someone please explain? It can't be worse than the high CASM CRJ550's they'll be flying shortly.

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