Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
smflyer
Posts: 257
Joined: Tue May 01, 2018 4:44 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:53 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
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


Is your hometown airport ERI by any chance. that sounds a lot like ERI haha
 
george77300
Posts: 1131
Joined: Sat May 06, 2017 8:33 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:43 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
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.


United have 185 new MAX orders (less the 14 deliveries I guess). I see that as NEW single aisle jets! In fact more new single aisle orders than American and very close behind Delta.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:26 pm

smflyer wrote:
Is your hometown airport ERI by any chance. that sounds a lot like ERI haha


No, that's a good guess though. It is ABE on the other side of the state.

george77300 wrote:
United have 185 new MAX orders (less the 14 deliveries I guess). I see that as NEW single aisle jets! In fact more new single aisle orders than American and very close behind Delta.


I thought it was 137 orders
99 on 12. Jul. 2012 - United - Airlines MAX orders
38 on 27. Dec. 2016 - United - Airlines MAX orders

100 on 1. Feb. 2013 - American Airlines MAX orders
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:54 pm

UAL pilots should instead be frustrated at their friends at DL and AA (and their predecessors) for giving up scope so easily in the past. UA management has to look at the health of the company, and being at a disadvantage regarding scope isn't healthy for anyone--mainline or contract. I understand the reasoning behind not budging an inch, but pegging this as "us versus them" is only going to do more harm to both "us and them" in the long-run.

I think one way both parties can move together is to relax the language that says more small narrowbodies have to be a new type. Instead let the A319 and 73G qualify and place ratio minimums on the number of mainline planes. Both parties can come out better in that situation.

Fargo wrote:
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.


The challenge of small mainline narrowbodies can be seen in the big picture. If we look at meeting aggregate demand with a certain capacity, a small narrowbody takes more planes, more crews, more gates/slots, more airport staff, etc. versus larger planes for any specific capacity amount. Even if the per-seat costs are competitive, the fact that the small narrowbodies transport fewer people while using more resources is an issue on the cost side. And since larger narrowbodies are still as good or better in their per-seat costs, small narrowbody economics simply aren't attractive to most carriers.

george77300 wrote:
United have 185 new MAX orders (less the 14 deliveries I guess). I see that as NEW single aisle jets! In fact more new single aisle orders than American and very close behind Delta.


Yes, and it's not just the number of orders. UA has been and still is in an enviable position of having a modern fleet that is facing few near-term retirements. UA's orders can be used primarily for growth/fleet-wide upgauging. In contrast, DL still has hundreds of planes that will be retired in the next decade. They need their orders primarily to replace aircraft.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4327
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:39 pm

But why do the pilots have to give anything up? There is clear language in the contract, that the company agreed to, that allows more 76 seat airplanes. The company is asking them to accept a different deal than the one already agreed to. If the company didn’t like the numbers that allow more UAX flying they shouldn’t have agreed to them in the first place.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 676
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:51 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
But why do the pilots have to give anything up? There is clear language in the contract, that the company agreed to, that allows more 76 seat airplanes. The company is asking them to accept a different deal than the one already agreed to. If the company didn’t like the numbers that allow more UAX flying they shouldn’t have agreed to them in the first place.


Evolution of the market since it was drafted and ratified. Clearly, if adding a new NB type or other moves under the agreement made economical sense, efforts would already be underway.

Pilots (and employees in general) must remember that, while uncomfortable on a personal level at times, corporations exist not to line their pockets but to provide economic returns to the shareholders. The secondary effects of this process benefit employees. Holding a company’s progress or evolution in ever changing market hostage because it doesn’t “benefit me enough” will result in less opportunities long term.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:17 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Evolution of the market since it was drafted and ratified. Clearly, if adding a new NB type or other moves under the agreement made economical sense, efforts would already be underway.

Pilots (and employees in general) must remember that, while uncomfortable on a personal level at times, corporations exist not to line their pockets but to provide economic returns to the shareholders. The secondary effects of this process benefit employees. Holding a company’s progress or evolution in ever changing market hostage because it doesn’t “benefit me enough” will result in less opportunities long term.


:checkmark:

Holding UA management hostage for other groups' failures isn't going to end well for either party.
 
impilot
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 1:38 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:31 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Evolution of the market since it was drafted and ratified. Clearly, if adding a new NB type or other moves under the agreement made economical sense, efforts would already be underway.

Pilots (and employees in general) must remember that, while uncomfortable on a personal level at times, corporations exist not to line their pockets but to provide economic returns to the shareholders. The secondary effects of this process benefit employees. Holding a company’s progress or evolution in ever changing market hostage because it doesn’t “benefit me enough” will result in less opportunities long term.


:checkmark:

Holding UA management hostage for other groups' failures isn't going to end well for either party.


Holding them hostage? Laughable. UA management can order all the E175s it wants, so long as there is a 190/195/A220 order to go along with it in accordance with their mutually agreed upon scope language. UA has no decent planes to cover the 90-140 seat market...so it’d be a win win for UA management. Furthermore, UA management can buy all the E175-E2s they want, and just give up outsourcing them to artificially cheap labor.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:47 am

MSPNWA wrote:
Holding UA management hostage for other groups' failures isn't going to end well for either party.


No one is holding UA hostage. There was a time when UA was seriously considering the A220 but Boeing swooped in with the 73G and UA went with the 73G but then change that order to the larger MAX9/10. I still believe UA wants the A220 and they are wasting time hopeing the pilots will agree to scope changes when we know that is not going to happen.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 1:31 am

MSPNWA wrote:

:checkmark:

Holding UA management hostage for other groups' failures isn't going to end well for either party.



Hostage? Whoever said mainline pilots can’t fly a 50 seater? If anything they have a gun to the work groups heads saying we won’t give you anything until you agree to give your own job away.

Scope isn’t cut and dry it’s messy for everyone involved.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1478
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:08 am

Fargo wrote:
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.

I agree with that. If mgmt doesn't get more 70 or 76 seaters allowed in the contract, I expect these to park and more E145's or CR2's bought 2nd hand or coming out of the desert, but I hope that they get 100 seaters mainline either way.
 
Fargo
Posts: 810
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2018 3:00 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:19 am

cosyr wrote:
Fargo wrote:
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.

I agree with that. If mgmt doesn't get more 70 or 76 seaters allowed in the contract, I expect these to park and more E145's or CR2's bought 2nd hand or coming out of the desert, but I hope that they get 100 seaters mainline either way.


I wonder if the larger A223 with 130ish seats could work?
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:33 am

Is there a number of 737s or A320 family aircraft that pilots would consider that would allow those aircraft to bring on more 76 seaters?
Wouldn't you rather be flying a 737/319 vs a smaller narrowbody?
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:08 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Is there a number of 737s or A320 family aircraft that pilots would consider that would allow those aircraft to bring on more 76 seaters?
Wouldn't you rather be flying a 737/319 vs a smaller narrowbody?


Pretty sure the pilots view is that there is no need to yield on scope in exchange for flying more of a plane they already fly.

In general I’m neutral on unions and wary on pilot unions, but I’m fully aligned with the union in this case. I don’t see them yielding anything new on scope. Maybe some kind of deal on 175 E2s, but nothing else. After the demise of the 737-300 and 500 at sUA and the shrinking of the domestic network and gauge the pilots have already given a lot. If UA is serious they better figure out how to make the 100 seater economics work.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:49 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Is there a number of 737s or A320 family aircraft that pilots would consider that would allow those aircraft to bring on more 76 seaters?
Wouldn't you rather be flying a 737/319 vs a smaller narrowbody?


NO.....management can have all the 76 seaters they want. Mainline pilots will have no problem flying them.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:50 am

Then UA should possibly cancel orders for at least some new MAXs or all the used 319s and order smaller narrowbodies to allow the upgrade from 50 seats to 76 seats. Net would be fewer mainline pilots at probably lower rates. Would the fewer mainline pilots be a win?

I'm just saying negotiations can make a win-win for both sides, but both sides have to be willing to give a bit. I don't hear giving an inch on this thread. If you're not willing to give an inch, you are not negotiating.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:54 am

impilot wrote:
Holding them hostage? Laughable. UA management can order all the E175s it wants, so long as there is a 190/195/A220 order to go along with it in accordance with their mutually agreed upon scope language. UA has no decent planes to cover the 90-140 seat market...so it’d be a win win for UA management. Furthermore, UA management can buy all the E175-E2s they want, and just give up outsourcing them to artificially cheap labor.


I think what's laughable here is saying it's win-win when that available scenario hasn't happened. So either it's not win-win, or you're implying you know more about their job than they do. I think it's also laughable to say that UA has no "decent" planes in the 90-140 seat market when they currently have over 110 planes in that range with more on the way. Hyperbole isn't a good bargaining tactic.

jayunited wrote:
No one is holding UA hostage. There was a time when UA was seriously considering the A220 but Boeing swooped in with the 73G and UA went with the 73G but then change that order to the larger MAX9/10. I still believe UA wants the A220 and they are wasting time hopeing the pilots will agree to scope changes when we know that is not going to happen.


impilot is certainly holding them hostage.

If UA genuinely wants the A220, there's no stopping them. There's even a massive incentive behind acquiring it. But clearly their actions say it isn't a good fit. The contract language is hurting both parties.

CriticalPoint wrote:
Hostage? Whoever said mainline pilots can’t fly a 50 seater? If anything they have a gun to the work groups heads saying we won’t give you anything until you agree to give your own job away.

Scope isn’t cut and dry it’s messy for everyone involved.


The market says they can't fly a 50-seater.
 
UA444
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:13 am

[twoid][/twoid]
calpsafltskeds wrote:
Then UA should possibly cancel orders for at least some new MAXs or all the used 319s and order smaller narrowbodies to allow the upgrade from 50 seats to 76 seats. Net would be fewer mainline pilots at probably lower rates. Would the fewer mainline pilots be a win?

I'm just saying negotiations can make a win-win for both sides, but both sides have to be willing to give a bit. I don't hear giving an inch on this thread. If you're not willing to give an inch, you are not negotiating.

They gave them the 76 seaters. Previously the limit was 70 seaters. In return, UA said they would order a new small narrow body in order to get more 76 seaters. They negotiated and agreed to that.
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 529
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:58 am

Kirby is holding out as long as he can to see if the pilots will cave. They won't... In the end they will end up with a 100-seater. It's the only way to get more 76-seaters. I would put money on the 195 E2. They have a lot of parts commonality with the 175 and United already owns a bunch of those. The economies of scales there should make that a winner over the A220.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:33 am

772:
N218UA sked to exit XMN 2749/25Jun, fully expect Polaris/PE, would be 45 days in mod,tied for quickest.
Inbound unit, normally a GE772ER is sked with a PW772that already has Polaris/PE, so we'll have to wait on next one in. One would expect if sole mod line was to be halted through the Summer than N218UA would ferry out of XMN unless N792UA is due for maint.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:46 pm

The fleet changes and fleet status posts at the start of this thread have been updated.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 9:45 pm

E175:
N87303 - Hit by Delta baggage cart in ATL on 19-May.  Currently sitting in ATL with the #1 engine and pylon missing.  TBD if the aircraft will return to service or be written off.  Damage is more extensive than originally believed.  
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:28 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Then UA should possibly cancel orders for at least some new MAXs or all the used 319s and order smaller narrowbodies to allow the upgrade from 50 seats to 76 seats. Net would be fewer mainline pilots at probably lower rates. Would the fewer mainline pilots be a win?

I'm just saying negotiations can make a win-win for both sides, but both sides have to be willing to give a bit. I don't hear giving an inch on this thread. If you're not willing to give an inch, you are not negotiating.


Does the badge in that seat say United? Or does it say some other airline? If it says another airline then yes I’m not giving an inch, I shouldn’t have to negotiate to allow other people to do my job.

If the company wants to negotiate then they can negotiate a pay rate that would allow United pilots to fly ALL aircraft under the United banner. We have seen with the furlough of 2172 pilots in 2003 and the furlough of 1437 pilots in 2008 what happens when other pilots fly United aircraft, we are not going to allow that to happen again, how ridiculous is it that regionals grow as mainline pilots lose their jobs?
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1216
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:46 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Then UA should possibly cancel orders for at least some new MAXs or all the used 319s and order smaller narrowbodies to allow the upgrade from 50 seats to 76 seats. Net would be fewer mainline pilots at probably lower rates. Would the fewer mainline pilots be a win?

I'm just saying negotiations can make a win-win for both sides, but both sides have to be willing to give a bit. I don't hear giving an inch on this thread. If you're not willing to give an inch, you are not negotiating.


They pretty much did that with the 737 classics. Parked them all and got highly reliant on 50 seaters. It maybe helped them survive, but it didn’t help with long term profitability which is why they are adding mainline capacity.

Many of the arguments in the thread have been about UA management going hard at the union on scope which won’t work. I get your point on win-win, but I don’t think adding to the 737MAX order is really a win for the pilots. Maybe if the offer was financial, minimum mainline fleet size, reducing 50 seaters 2 for 1 on 76 seaters and a guarantee on the 100 seaters it might be worth it. Even then I’m not sure it’s compelling.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:05 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
Does the badge in that seat say United? Or does it say some other airline? If it says another airline then yes I’m not giving an inch, I shouldn’t have to negotiate to allow other people to do my job.

If the company wants to negotiate then they can negotiate a pay rate that would allow United pilots to fly ALL aircraft under the United banner. We have seen with the furlough of 2172 pilots in 2003 and the furlough of 1437 pilots in 2008 what happens when other pilots fly United aircraft, we are not going to allow that to happen again, how ridiculous is it that regionals grow as mainline pilots lose their jobs?


I think a lot of people outside of sUA or who were not working for sUA at the time have forgotten the total number of sUA pilots who lost their jobs because they trusted sUA management and sUA retired the entire 737-300/500 fleet right out from underneath them replaced by 50 seaters. Some of the pilots who were furloughed went back to the regional's, others went to cargo airlines and some ended up working for international carrier. And before someone say working for a international carrier is great many if not all of these pilots were not based here in the U.S. and couldn't work flights to the U.S. because they had no seniority. Which means they spent a lot of time away from their families here in the U.S. I'm not a pilot but even I know it was no picnic for the pilots who lost their jobs. I believe UA has recalled all the pilots who were furloughed but the problem is they all remember and the truth of the matter is most of these pilots are not fighting for themselves because they now have enough seniority that reduction in the ranks shouldn't effect them but it would effect a lot of new hires and future generations of pilots. Even though that trust was broken under different leadership I have to agree with the pilots on the issue of scope. We all hope the economy continues to do well, and the airline industry and UA in particular remains profitable and growing but it would be foolish for UA pilots not to think about the future and the what if.
I firmly believe UA still wants the A220 but management is of course going to see if the pilots will give in on scope. I don't blame Scott Kirby for trying but at the end of the day you are correct UA needs to negotiate a pay rate with the pilots that makes the 100 seat aircraft work while being flown by UA pilots not UAX pilots.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:36 am

jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Does the badge in that seat say United? Or does it say some other airline? If it says another airline then yes I’m not giving an inch, I shouldn’t have to negotiate to allow other people to do my job.

If the company wants to negotiate then they can negotiate a pay rate that would allow United pilots to fly ALL aircraft under the United banner. We have seen with the furlough of 2172 pilots in 2003 and the furlough of 1437 pilots in 2008 what happens when other pilots fly United aircraft, we are not going to allow that to happen again, how ridiculous is it that regionals grow as mainline pilots lose their jobs?


I think a lot of people outside of sUA or who were not working for sUA at the time have forgotten the total number of sUA pilots who lost their jobs because they trusted sUA management and sUA retired the entire 737-300/500 fleet right out from underneath them replaced by 50 seaters. Some of the pilots who were furloughed went back to the regional's, others went to cargo airlines and some ended up working for international carrier. And before someone say working for a international carrier is great many if not all of these pilots were not based here in the U.S. and couldn't work flights to the U.S. because they had no seniority. Which means they spent a lot of time away from their families here in the U.S. I'm not a pilot but even I know it was no picnic for the pilots who lost their jobs. I believe UA has recalled all the pilots who were furloughed but the problem is they all remember and the truth of the matter is most of these pilots are not fighting for themselves because they now have enough seniority that reduction in the ranks shouldn't effect them but it would effect a lot of new hires and future generations of pilots. Even though that trust was broken under different leadership I have to agree with the pilots on the issue of scope. We all hope the economy continues to do well, and the airline industry and UA in particular remains profitable and growing but it would be foolish for UA pilots not to think about the future and the what if.
I firmly believe UA still wants the A220 but management is of course going to see if the pilots will give in on scope. I don't blame Scott Kirby for trying but at the end of the day you are correct UA needs to negotiate a pay rate with the pilots that makes the 100 seat aircraft work while being flown by UA pilots not UAX pilots.


Well said thank you!

The last of the United furloughed pilots have to come back by November.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:31 am

I thought this look at data might be interesting. Using the latest available month in BTS (November 2018) I organized UAL mainline flights by number of available domestic seats of flights by origin airport and kept a running percentage. United had 12.5% domestic seats leaving from ORD, and 52% who had origin in the big 5 hubs. We reach 90% by 33 airports. Total available seats for the month were 8,514,327 (domestic flights only).


12.5% ORD 1,074,439
23.3% DEN 904,761
33.2% IAH 835,157
42.5% SFO 797,447
52.0% EWR 797,099
57.2% LAX 435,599
61.5% IAD 363,689
63.8% BOS 198,156 - first airport that is not a hub
66.2% LAS 193,229
68.4% MCO 177,069
70.1% SAN 142,311
71.6% SEA 125,173
72.9% HNL 115,073
74.3% LGA 111,242
75.6% PHX 110,819
76.8% TPA 100,926
77.9% AUS 95,451
79.1% FLL 94,709
80.2% PDX 93,629
81.3% MSY 88,889
82.3% CLE 86,984
83.2% SNA 77,802
84.0% RDU 70,348
84.8% DCA 69,099
85.4% PHL 58,780
86.1% SAT 56,067
86.7% SMF 55,902
87.4% DFW 54,519
88.0% ATL 52,001
88.6% BWI 49,808
89.1% BNA 48,441
89.6% MIA 47,375
90.2% RSW 45,389

Even with only 33 airports we are starting to get some airports that are large on the list, but just that are mega hubs for other airports.

It gives you an idea just how long the tail of the distribution really is. If UAL mainline serves 117 cities in the USA, everything above 33 airports adds up to less than 10% of the passengers.
Last edited by PacoMartin on Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
FlightLevel360
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:26 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:42 am

I believe that there is the place for a Bombardier CSeries CS300 or Embraer ERJ-195E2 sized aircraft in United's fleet; except if they get them they would have to order at least 90 of them (like Delta with the CS100/CS300), and they are being really careful in dealing with the complexities of a new fleet type at the moment.
To me, it will always be:
- Bombardier CSeries
- Airbus A321neoLR and A321neoXLR
- EMBRACER ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, and ERJ-195
- MITSUBUSHI MRJ

Anti narrowbody-long range-twinjet gang. Long live the A380 and 747!
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:07 am

FlightLevel360 wrote:
I believe that there is the place for a Bombardier CSeries CS300 or Embraer ERJ-195E2 sized aircraft in United's fleet


It's been a long time since they ordered some new smaller jets.
B737-700
25: 25. Jul. 1996
11: 10. Oct. 1996
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 3:18 am

PacoMartin wrote:
FlightLevel360 wrote:
I believe that there is the place for a Bombardier CSeries CS300 or Embraer ERJ-195E2 sized aircraft in United's fleet


It's been a long time since they ordered some new smaller jets.
B737-700
25: 25. Jul. 1996
11: 10. Oct. 1996


So you aren’t counting Airbus? Almost all the A319 showed up from 98-02. And there is close to 30 319s that United has laid claim to in the last couple years on the used market. Also took some COPA 737-700 a couple years ago.

What is your fixation on “new”?
 
jadedchameleon
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:53 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:08 am

PacoMartin wrote:
I thought this look at data might be interesting. Using the latest available month in BTS (November 2018) I organized UAL mainline flights by number of available domestic seats of flights by origin airport and kept a running percentage. United had 12.5% domestic seats leaving from ORD, and 52% who had origin in the big 5 hubs. We reach 90% by 33 airports. Total available seats for the month were 8,514,327 (domestic flights only).



Don't think your distribution proves that much. United still flies way too many regional jets on routes that should be mostly mainline--and more heavily so outside the top 50 airports. Of course we all know hubs and the most major cities make up a lot of mainline, that's pretty much a given....
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:47 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
FlightLevel360 wrote:
I believe that there is the place for a Bombardier CSeries CS300 or Embraer ERJ-195E2 sized aircraft in United's fleet


It's been a long time since they ordered some new smaller jets.
B737-700
25: 25. Jul. 1996
11: 10. Oct. 1996


So you aren’t counting Airbus? Almost all the A319 showed up from 98-02. And there is close to 30 319s that United has laid claim to in the last couple years on the used market. Also took some COPA 737-700 a couple years ago.

What is your fixation on “new”?


There is at least one more Copa 73G still to come too!
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:55 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Then UA should possibly cancel orders for at least some new MAXs or all the used 319s and order smaller narrowbodies to allow the upgrade from 50 seats to 76 seats. Net would be fewer mainline pilots at probably lower rates. Would the fewer mainline pilots be a win?

I'm just saying negotiations can make a win-win for both sides, but both sides have to be willing to give a bit. I don't hear giving an inch on this thread. If you're not willing to give an inch, you are not negotiating.


IMO it’s in everyone’s best interests to focus on expansion of existing fleet types where there are economies of scale vs ordering a smaller number of a new type to address scope.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:29 am

jadedchameleon wrote:
Don't think your distribution proves that much. Of course we all know hubs and the most major cities make up a lot of mainline, that's pretty much a given....

Yes, that is a given. The distribution was to show you how quickly the total adds up outside of the hubs. The following airports add up to 50% of the non-hub traffic.
[list=]BOS
LAS
MCO
SAN
SEA
HNL
LGA
PHX
TPA
AUS
FLL
PDX
MSY
[/list]
It gives you a better idea of how little traffic you are chasing with the route network that extends to well over 100 airports.


jadedchameleon wrote:
United still flies way too many regional jets on routes that should be mostly mainline--and more heavily so outside the top 50 airports.

I am more concerned about what will happen to the airports way out on the distribution tail.

My home town airport, ABE, sits on an urban area with population of 664,651. While not a major urban area, it is not miniscule. Omaha NE only has an urban area population of 725,008 and its airport has 7X the traffic because of the long driving distances.

We are averaging 360 departures in a recent month (12 per day), plus two daily Allegiant flights to Orlando and other vacation destinations.

departures month - Airline - seats - model - destination
56 UA 50 Canadair RJ-200ER ORD
84 DL 50 Canadair RJ-200ER DTW
30 DL 110 Boeing 717-200 ATL
50 DL 76 Canadair CRJ 900 ATL
81 AA 76 Canadair CRJ 900 CLT
59 AA 50 Embraer-145 PHL
360

The only legacy mainline airline that flies here anymore is a daily flight with Delta with a B717 to ATL.
United Express is down to slightly less than two daily flights to Chicago on 50 seat jet. Since this data snapshot was taken American has launched their own two daily flights to Chicago and I suspect that UA may simply leave the airport.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2352
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:20 am

PacoMartin wrote:
jadedchameleon wrote:
Don't think your distribution proves that much. Of course we all know hubs and the most major cities make up a lot of mainline, that's pretty much a given....

Yes, that is a given. The distribution was to show you how quickly the total adds up outside of the hubs. The following airports add up to 50% of the non-hub traffic.
    BOS
    LAS
    MCO
    SAN
    SEA
    HNL
    LGA
    PHX
    TPA
    AUS
    FLL
    PDX
    MSY
It gives you a better idea of how little traffic you are chasing with the route network that extends to well over 100 airports.


Actually, it doesn’t. United could be double its current size, and, percentage-wise, you’d have a chart that still looks, more or less, the same.

The fact that the bulk of the traffic is to places where lots of people fly, and that places like Bozeman, MT, see that many passengers is hardly Earth-shattering. All these data show is that more people fly to big cities.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1478
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:54 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I thought this look at data might be interesting. Using the latest available month in BTS (November 2018) I organized UAL mainline flights by number of available domestic seats of flights by origin airport and kept a running percentage. United had 12.5% domestic seats leaving from ORD, and 52% who had origin in the big 5 hubs. We reach 90% by 33 airports. Total available seats for the month were 8,514,327 (domestic flights only).


12.5% ORD 1,074,439
23.3% DEN 904,761
33.2% IAH 835,157
42.5% SFO 797,447
52.0% EWR 797,099
57.2% LAX 435,599
61.5% IAD 363,689
63.8% BOS 198,156 - first airport that is not a hub
66.2% LAS 193,229
68.4% MCO 177,069
70.1% SAN 142,311
71.6% SEA 125,173
72.9% HNL 115,073
74.3% LGA 111,242
75.6% PHX 110,819
76.8% TPA 100,926
77.9% AUS 95,451
79.1% FLL 94,709
80.2% PDX 93,629
81.3% MSY 88,889
82.3% CLE 86,984
83.2% SNA 77,802
84.0% RDU 70,348
84.8% DCA 69,099
85.4% PHL 58,780
86.1% SAT 56,067
86.7% SMF 55,902
87.4% DFW 54,519
88.0% ATL 52,001
88.6% BWI 49,808
89.1% BNA 48,441
89.6% MIA 47,375
90.2% RSW 45,389

Even with only 33 airports we are starting to get some airports that are large on the list, but just that are mega hubs for other airports.

It gives you an idea just how long the tail of the distribution really is. If UAL mainline serves 117 cities in the USA, everything above 33 airports adds up to less than 10% of the passengers.

It is sad to see that CLE is now fewer seats than PDX, AUS or MSY. United always publicly tries to treat CLE as more than just a spoke, and I know that it has more destinations than just hubs, but I would guess that AA is still bigger in STL, and DL in MEM, than in some of those similarly sized cities.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1478
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 1:00 pm

GmoneyCO wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
Then UA should possibly cancel orders for at least some new MAXs or all the used 319s and order smaller narrowbodies to allow the upgrade from 50 seats to 76 seats. Net would be fewer mainline pilots at probably lower rates. Would the fewer mainline pilots be a win?

I'm just saying negotiations can make a win-win for both sides, but both sides have to be willing to give a bit. I don't hear giving an inch on this thread. If you're not willing to give an inch, you are not negotiating.


IMO it’s in everyone’s best interests to focus on expansion of existing fleet types where there are economies of scale vs ordering a smaller number of a new type to address scope.

For me, it's not just about Scope. Living in a small-middle sized market, Planes like the A220 and E190/195 represent an opportunity for growth, both in seat count and importance. When you live in a city served exclusively by Express, you're flights get cancelled when the weathers fine, and you can almost always count on a delay. UA can't put too many mainline planes to SYR, because it's a much tougher decision to change 2 50-76 seat flights for 1 140+ seat flight. If they had a 100 seater in the middle, they could see 25-50 extra seats as reasonable growth and not have to trade frequency. And when it comes to congestion at ORD, EWR and bad weather elsewhere, mainline flights get prioritized and SYR gets the shaft.
 
codc10
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:38 pm

Fargo wrote:
cosyr wrote:
Fargo wrote:

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.

I agree with that. If mgmt doesn't get more 70 or 76 seaters allowed in the contract, I expect these to park and more E145's or CR2's bought 2nd hand or coming out of the desert, but I hope that they get 100 seaters mainline either way.


I wonder if the larger A223 with 130ish seats could work?


A223 would not be compliant with current scope under the NSNB provision, which (IIRC) is written as CS100 (A221), E190 or E195. I'm sure the pilots would be willing to negotiate smaller or comparable aircraft into that language, but I doubt there will be anything larger, especially into the 130-seat category, which is already on-property and occupied by the A319/73G. The A223 would be ultimately be seen as a replacement for those fleets rather than the kind of net jobs add the NSNB provision is supposed to effectuate.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:46 pm

I'm not sure about the accuracy of this story, but it indicates the 100 seat market with mainline pilots is 20% higher than Airbus 320/321 for JetBlue and its a problem. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/ ... embra.aspx
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3230
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:48 pm

772:
N792UA now not going to XMN. N218UA shown ferrying to HKG an dno further flights.
I wonder if N794UA, which had a mechanical in NRT, could move to XMN for Polaris/PE mod.
 
jadedchameleon
Posts: 29
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:53 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:25 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
It gives you a better idea of how little traffic you are chasing with the route network that extends to well over 100 airports.


Again, the fact you are using MAINLINE only skews these percentages. Of course airports 50-100 have a far higher regional percentage than airports 1-49.

You are making the tail look even worse than it is.

Also, ABE vs OMA... markets are what they are. The driving distance is only one factor. OMA also has a huge amount of Fortune 500 traffic with a pretty healthy premium demand given the size of the market.

The reality is, yes, ABE may not make sense for United anymore, especially if 50 seaters become completely unviable. Folks are going to have to get used to fewer airlines in smaller airports, driving farther and less frequent flights for the routes that support it. 50 seaters are not going to last forever. The days of half empty mainline flights are over. Markets that can support 70-seat service will get it. Some airlines will pull out of smaller airports and make service more viable for the airlines that remain.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 4:34 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Actually, it doesn’t. United could be double its current size, and, percentage-wise, you’d have a chart that still looks, more or less, the same.
The fact that the bulk of the traffic is to places where lots of people fly, and that places like Bozeman, MT, see that many passengers is hardly Earth-shattering. All these data show is that more people fly to big cities.


The basic shape of the distribution is not earth-shattering, but you have to look at subtleties. DL and AA have much bigger primary hubs, but by the time you get to 5 hubs UA is the larger percentage of seats. Delta has a lot bigger percentage out on the tail.

In mature transportation networks small percentage differences make a huge difference in the bottom line. It's much easier for Delta to create reasonable domestic layovers than any other airline because over half their domestic traffic is flying into or out of ATL. So their percentages in the small airports is much higher. They have a greater demand for a fleet of small jets

UA -------- DL ------ AA
12.6% 26.6% 16.2%
23.2% 33.3% 27.1%
33.1% 39.1% 34.3%
42.4% 43.7% 40.3%
51.8% 47.6% 46.2%
.
56.9% 51.0% 51.7%
61.2% 53.7% 56.5%
63.4% 56.1% 59.1%
65.8% 58.3% 61.4%
67.8% 60.2% 63.7%
69.5% 61.8% 65.7%
71.0% 63.3% 67.3%
72.3% 64.4% 69.0%
73.6% 65.6% 70.6%
74.9% 66.8% 72.0%
76.1% 67.8% 73.2%
77.2% 68.8% 74.4%
78.3% 69.7% 75.6%
79.5% 70.6% 76.6%
80.5% 71.4% 77.6%
81.5% 72.3% 78.5%
82.4% 73.1% 79.4%
83.3% 73.9% 80.3%
84.1% 74.7% 81.1%
84.8% 75.4% 81.8%

In the most mature network in the country, freght trains, competition comes down to elevation gains and losses. The train network with the highest elevation gain must expend the most fuel to move goods, and is always at a competitive disadvantage.

Obviously competition among passenger jets are more subtle since people are more complex.
 
codc10
Posts: 2899
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:37 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
I'm not sure about the accuracy of this story, but it indicates the 100 seat market with mainline pilots is 20% higher than Airbus 320/321 for JetBlue and its a problem. https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/01/ ... embra.aspx


E90 is not a great CASM airplane to begin with, and has disproportionately high maintenance costs. Notable that this article was before JetBlue ratified a new pilot contract with some substantial raises.

The economics are better at mainline carriers closer to 120 seats. At 99 seats (AA config) the E90 probably has the highest CASM in the narrowbody fleet.
 
sketch
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:28 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:43 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
Actually, it doesn’t. United could be double its current size, and, percentage-wise, you’d have a chart that still looks, more or less, the same.
The fact that the bulk of the traffic is to places where lots of people fly, and that places like Bozeman, MT, see that many passengers is hardly Earth-shattering. All these data show is that more people fly to big cities.


The basic shape of the distribution is not earth-shattering, but you have to look at subtleties. DL and AA have much bigger primary hubs, but by the time you get to 5 hubs UA is the larger percentage of seats. Delta has a lot bigger percentage out on the tail.

In mature transportation networks small percentage differences make a huge difference in the bottom line. It's much easier for Delta to create reasonable domestic layovers than any other airline because over half their domestic traffic is flying into or out of ATL. So their percentages in the small airports is much higher. They have a greater demand for a fleet of small jets

UA -------- DL ------ AA
12.6% 26.6% 16.2%
23.2% 33.3% 27.1%
33.1% 39.1% 34.3%
42.4% 43.7% 40.3%
51.8% 47.6% 46.2%
.
56.9% 51.0% 51.7%
61.2% 53.7% 56.5%
63.4% 56.1% 59.1%
65.8% 58.3% 61.4%
67.8% 60.2% 63.7%
69.5% 61.8% 65.7%
71.0% 63.3% 67.3%
72.3% 64.4% 69.0%
73.6% 65.6% 70.6%
74.9% 66.8% 72.0%
76.1% 67.8% 73.2%
77.2% 68.8% 74.4%
78.3% 69.7% 75.6%
79.5% 70.6% 76.6%
80.5% 71.4% 77.6%
81.5% 72.3% 78.5%
82.4% 73.1% 79.4%
83.3% 73.9% 80.3%
84.1% 74.7% 81.1%
84.8% 75.4% 81.8%

In the most mature network in the country, freght trains, competition comes down to elevation gains and losses. The train network with the highest elevation gain must expend the most fuel to move goods, and is always at a competitive disadvantage.

Obviously competition among passenger jets are more subtle since people are more complex.

I wonder how big a factor the MD95 (and now the CS100) plays into this difference and into DL's mainline advantage here. DL has more than 100 mainline jets with seating for just over 100 pax which has allowed them to move a lot of routes to mainline that would have been/used to be flown with the CRJ9. The MSY-DTW round trip, for example, is done 3x daily and entirely with the MD95. The other two can't really compare (although AA has a handful of mainline E190s which they are preparing to phase out) for the routes from the higher-pax count outstations to further hubs.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:06 pm

cosyr wrote:
It is sad to see that CLE is now fewer seats than PDX, AUS or MSY. United always publicly tries to treat CLE as more than just a spoke,


By June 5, 2014, United Airlines effectively terminated its hub operation at the airport, reducing its daily departures by more than 60%, but I also was a little surprised to see CLE ranked #21 as officially it is still listed as a focus city in some literature

UAL last order with Boeing for a jet smaller than a B738 was on 10. Oct. 1996 (22.7 years ago). On that day UA ordered 30 737-500 and 11 737-700.
I am not sure when UAL ordered the A319-100s, but it was around the same time.

I am not sure why people are so shocked by my feeling that UA might find it easier to close mainline operations at smaller airports rather than spend billions of dollars on smaller jets.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:32 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
impilot.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...

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


This seems to be a case of "fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me." That is, I suspect that there are still too many legacy-UAL pilots who gave up 100 737 Classics by allowing 70 seat RJs (massive furloughs), but with the promise of keeping their pensions. Then Tilton defaulted on the pensions anyway.

And those legacy-UAL pilots have made sure that the sCO pilots know all about the furloughs and lost/stolen pensions.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2100
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:53 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
...I thought it was 137 orders
99 on 12. Jul. 2012 - United - Airlines MAX orders
38 on 27. Dec. 2016 - United - Airlines MAX orders


UAL had 65 737-700 ordered until Kirby came on board. This was then converted to 4 737-800s (already delivered) and 61 737-9Max aircraft, 14 (?) already delivered.

Then 100 737-10Max were ordered - net 161 737-Max's.

Finally, about 2 quarters ago, UAL ordered 24 more Max aircraft (model not yet specified), so 185 737-Max aircraft total.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 901
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:54 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
...I thought it was 137 orders
99 on 12. Jul. 2012 - United - Airlines MAX orders
38 on 27. Dec. 2016 - United - Airlines MAX orders


UAL had 65 737-700 ordered until Kirby came on board. This was then converted to 4 737-800s (already delivered) and 61 737-9Max aircraft, 14 (?) already delivered.

Then 100 737-10Max were ordered - net 161 737-Max's.

Finally, about 2 quarters ago, UAL ordered 24 more Max aircraft (model not yet specified), so 185 737-Max aircraft total.


https://www.boeing.com/commercial/
Used to keep a database of orders and deliveries on this web site, but they took it down shortly after the last MAX crash.
The entry for orders under United for B737s follows:

Total Model Order Date
    40 737-200 5. Apr. 1965
    10 737-200 21. Oct. 1966
    25 737-200 25. Jul. 1967
    .
    101 737-300 7. Nov. 1985
    .
    57 737-500 26. Apr. 1989
    32 737-500 19. Jul. 1989
    2 737-500 7. Feb. 1994
    30 737-500 10. Oct. 1996
    .
    25 737-700 25. Jul. 1996
    11 737-700 10. Oct. 1996
    .
    23 737-800 25. Jul. 1996
    19 737-800 10. Oct. 1996
    2 737-800 18. Mar. 1998
    1 737-800 15. Dec. 1998
    17 737-800 15. Dec. 1999
    8 737-800 21. Mar. 2000
    4 737-800 24. May. 2000
    5 737-800 12. Sep. 2000
    5 737-800 31. Oct. 2000
    2 737-800 26. Dec. 2000
    7 737-800 3. Apr. 2001
    4 737-800 29. Jun. 2001
    6 737-800 7. Sep. 2001
    10 737-800 25. Sep. 2001
    4 737-800 31. Dec. 2001
    6 737-800 4. Nov. 2003
    1 737-800 6. Jun. 2006
    2 737-800 14. Jun. 2007
    4 737-800 21. Feb. 2008
    6 737-800 24. Apr. 2015
    3 737-800 20. Jan. 2016
    1 737-800 8. Feb. 2016
    1 737-800 7. Mar. 2016
    .
    12 737-900 18. Mar. 1998
    .
    1 737-900ER 18. Mar. 1998
    1 737-900ER 26. Dec. 2000
    1 737-900ER 3. Apr. 2001
    1 737-900ER 29. Jun. 2001
    4 737-900ER 7. Sep. 2001
    1 737-900ER 25. Sep. 2001
    7 737-900ER 31. Dec. 2001
    2 737-900ER 31. Mar. 2006
    22 737-900ER 6. Jun. 2006
    2 737-900ER 14. Jun. 2007
    13 737-900ER 21. Feb. 2008
    11 737-900ER 2. Mar. 2011
    50 737-900ER 12. Jul. 2012
    8 737-900ER 1. Mar. 2013
    2 737-900ER 7. May. 2013
    2 737-900ER 3. Jun. 2013
    2 737-900ER 3. Jul. 2013
    2 737-900ER 24. Apr. 2015
    4 737-900ER 12. Jun. 2015
    .
    99 737-MAX 12. Jul. 2012
    38 737-MAX 27. Dec. 2016
759 total
 
jayunited
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 8:44 pm

UA just released another update this morning for the PW 77Es and it looks like someone finally caught their mistake when they mysteriously left 4 PW 77Es off the last revised schedule that came out.
The revised schedule now shows all PW 77Es being reconfigured with Polaris and PE this includes nose numbers 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. However with UA only running 1 line at XMN for the summer going back up to 2 lines by mid September this newly revised schedule now shows there will 3 perhaps 4 IPTE PW 77Es still flying around come January 2020. The old schedule which was missing these 4 frames showed all PW 77Es would be done or in XMN by the end of 2019 It now seems like there will be a few hanging around with the IPTE seating arrangement till mid February 2020. I'm not sure why UA in November and December can't run 3 lines at XMN to get back on schedule maybe they will. But if they don't I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 3 or 4 IPTE frames will probably be confined to a routing like this ORD-NRT-ORD-FRA/MUC-ORD and/or ORD-PVG-ORD-GRU-ORD. The update does however still stresses that the GE 77Es are still on schedule and all GE 77Es will be done or in modification at HKG by May 2020.

Sad to see the PW 77E schedule slip into 2020 but for now the GE 77E schedule is holding. No update was given on the 787-8/9s, we know the schedule slipped on those from the previous update instead of modifications beginning this summer it was pushed back till November 2019, and still no update on the black sheep of the fleet the 764s.
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:42 pm

jayunited wrote:
UA just released another update this morning for the PW 77Es and it looks like someone finally caught their mistake when they mysteriously left 4 PW 77Es off the last revised schedule that came out.
The revised schedule now shows all PW 77Es being reconfigured with Polaris and PE this includes nose numbers 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021. However with UA only running 1 line at XMN for the summer going back up to 2 lines by mid September this newly revised schedule now shows there will 3 perhaps 4 IPTE PW 77Es still flying around come January 2020. The old schedule which was missing these 4 frames showed all PW 77Es would be done or in XMN by the end of 2019 It now seems like there will be a few hanging around with the IPTE seating arrangement till mid February 2020. I'm not sure why UA in November and December can't run 3 lines at XMN to get back on schedule maybe they will. But if they don't I'm going to go out on a limb and say the 3 or 4 IPTE frames will probably be confined to a routing like this ORD-NRT-ORD-FRA/MUC-ORD and/or ORD-PVG-ORD-GRU-ORD. The update does however still stresses that the GE 77Es are still on schedule and all GE 77Es will be done or in modification at HKG by May 2020.

Sad to see the PW 77E schedule slip into 2020 but for now the GE 77E schedule is holding. No update was given on the 787-8/9s, we know the schedule slipped on those from the previous update instead of modifications beginning this summer it was pushed back till November 2019, and still no update on the black sheep of the fleet the 764s.


They likely want the addition 77E lift over the holiday period otherwise 3 mod lines would make sense.

Who is online

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