CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:02 am

jetmatt777 wrote:
DEN doesn’t have any takeoff obstacles that require exceptional climb performance.


Read 14 CFR25.121

It doesn’t matter if there is anything to hit or not an aircraft must meet several climb gradients at specific gates to be able to operate in the 121 world.

However as OKC mentioned usually it is the tire speeds and the brake energy limit that cause weight restrictions. Everyone thinks that 16,000 ft runway in DEN eliminates weight penalties but it doesn’t because you will melt the brakes and blow the tires before you get airborne....a longer runway doesn’t help with ground speed.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6266
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:32 am

codc10 wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
With the MAX problems, which hopefully will be resolved soon without long-term impact on the traveling public using the aircraft, I was wondering if UA could do a swap at Airbus by trading in the 359 orders for a huge order of 321NEO/321XLR units and at Boeing swap the MAX 10 for more maybe 50 789/78X added orders.


If the MAX10 were developed at the same time as the 8/9, it would still be in service right now as it does not have MCAS. No reason to think UA would ditch that forthcoming fleet.


Incorrect. This is a common error that came from who knows where. The 737-10 Max will have MCAS just like all other Max models.
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:46 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
codc10 wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
With the MAX problems, which hopefully will be resolved soon without long-term impact on the traveling public using the aircraft, I was wondering if UA could do a swap at Airbus by trading in the 359 orders for a huge order of 321NEO/321XLR units and at Boeing swap the MAX 10 for more maybe 50 789/78X added orders.


If the MAX10 were developed at the same time as the 8/9, it would still be in service right now as it does not have MCAS. No reason to think UA would ditch that forthcoming fleet.


Incorrect. This is a common error that came from who knows where. The 737-10 Max will have MCAS just like all other Max models.


I see this now, thanks. Can’t believe everything you read on these interwebs!
 
Cmac787
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:53 am

What’s going on with 777 005. It’s been in IAD the last 3 days
 
Cmac787
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:56 am

Never mind. I see it’s ferrying to EWR tomorrow
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:57 am

Interesting to think that a third stretch of a 737MAX wouldn't have the same systems as the 7/8/9s. you'd think the MCAS would be more critical in a longer aircraft. I guess my assumption was correct. Darn, if it were correct maybe Boeing would have taken the MAX9s of UAs hands and replaced them with MAX10s.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6266
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 6:42 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Interesting to think that a third stretch of a 737MAX wouldn't have the same systems as the 7/8/9s. you'd think the MCAS would be more critical in a longer aircraft. I guess my assumption was correct. Darn, if it were correct maybe Boeing would have taken the MAX9s of UAs hands and replaced them with MAX10s.


See four posts above. The -10 has MCAS.

Stating the 737-10 won’t have MCAS is yet another falsity apparently posted on A.net by someone who really didn’t know what they were talking about or just made something up.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:41 am

CriticalPoint wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
DEN doesn’t have any takeoff obstacles that require exceptional climb performance.


Read 14 CFR25.121

It doesn’t matter if there is anything to hit or not an aircraft must meet several climb gradients at specific gates to be able to operate in the 121 world.

However as OKC mentioned usually it is the tire speeds and the brake energy limit that cause weight restrictions. Everyone thinks that 16,000 ft runway in DEN eliminates weight penalties but it doesn’t because you will melt the brakes and blow the tires before you get airborne....a longer runway doesn’t help with ground speed.


This is what a dispatcher told me a few years ago concerning UA's DEN-NRT flight on the 788, when the temperature is at 32 celsius or higher we start to see weight restriction and its not that the 788 can't lift all the weight off the ground the limiting factor is tire speed. When I worked the ramp I always noticed max tire speed was stamped into every tire and the range was anywhere between 202 mph to 220 mph.

Cmac787 wrote:
What’s going on with 777 005. It’s been in IAD the last 3 days


It is a spare GE engined aircraft that was used a few days ago as a substitution for a PW engined 77E for IAD-NRT-IAD that had a problem with its fuel jettison system. UA took the PW 77E out of service and operated the roundtrip with the GE 77E ferried in from EWR. If neither EWR, IAH, or ORD needs the aircraft then I see no problem with UA letting it remain on the ground at IAD and then ferry the aircraft to which ever station may need it when the need arises. Right now there is a bit of slack and a few spares in the GE 77E fleet because of the suspension of EWR-DEL-EWR.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1135
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:24 pm

If you haven't seen it, the second aircraft in the new livery has appeared on the front page of this site:
146 319 320 321 332 333 343 717 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 789 AR1 AT4 CNA CR2 CR7 DC9 ER3 ERD ER4 E70 E75 E90
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:56 pm

adamblang wrote:
If you haven't seen it, the second aircraft in the new livery has appeared on the front page of this site:

On the whole, I like the new livery, but on that E Jet it looks a little bland. Maybe it's because the cheatline is lower because of the size of the doors relative to the height of the fuselage, maybe it's the lack of colors other than blue on that grey sky background, but it seems almost like something you printed at home in Greyscale to save on ink.

I still think it looks more modern, and still professional, compared with the gold livery. It may not be as bold as Thai Airways, but I think it is less polarizing and divisive as AA's.
Last edited by cosyr on Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 7:58 pm

cosyr wrote:
adamblang wrote:
If you haven't seen it, the second aircraft in the new livery has appeared on the front page of this site:

On the whole, I like the new livery, but on that E Jet it looks a little bland. Maybe it's because the cheatline is lower because of the size of the doors relative to the height of the fuselage, maybe it's the lack of colors other than blue on that grey sky background, but it seems almost like something you printed at home in Greyscale to save on ink.


I still think it looks more modern, and still professional, compared with the gold livery. It may not be as bold as Thai Airways, but I think it is less polarizing and divisive as AA's.
 
sketch
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2019 8:28 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 8:30 pm

IMO the new livery is a decent improvement from the previous, more modern, and I love the blue nacelles. This Express livery avoids the one big problem I have with the full-size livery on the 737: the billboard-style lettering does not work well with United's logotype—the letters are too far apart, so it appears to be punctuated with windows, like U.N.I.T.E.D. Doesn't pull it off as well as WN or AA (with thick lettering) or B6 (with closely-spaced lettering).
 
wxtech
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 3:04 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Tue Jun 11, 2019 11:19 pm

Anything new/upcoming for IAH? Looking at the stats so far for calendar year 2019 looks like 45 million pax is within reach.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:48 am

sketch wrote:
IMO the new livery is a decent improvement from the previous, more modern, and I love the blue nacelles. This Express livery avoids the one big problem I have with the full-size livery on the 737: the billboard-style lettering does not work well with United's logotype—the letters are too far apart, so it appears to be punctuated with windows, like U.N.I.T.E.D. Doesn't pull it off as well as WN or AA (with thick lettering) or B6 (with closely-spaced lettering).

Oh, it's ironic you said that, because I didn't even realize that the Billboard name was different until you did. I think the smaller titles are why I think this looks bland.
 
sohanb82
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2019 5:37 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Wed Jun 12, 2019 1:59 am

I think that the blue on the swoop doesn't fit well with the whole livery. I wished they used the blue on the engines for the swoop, it would have looked more cohesive.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:48 am

The wave that was introduced on the first 787, which is now years ago (my how time flies! No pun) did look SO MUCH BETTER. (IMHO)
I know many people loved its introduction. It would be difficult to determine how much of that liking of the wave was simply due to the dynamic of “finally “something” different” vs just being great looking on its own.
From a “communications” standpoint it did help underscore “this is a brand new 787 Dreamliner” to the average person who may or may not have noticed. It WAS big news at the time and a feather in United’s hat at a time when they didn’t have many feathers in their hat.

However, today it feels (to me) so out of place, a total oddball branding treatment that fits with NOTHING ELSE in UA’s new visual and environmental design. Somewhere at HQ and elsewhere there is a “Brand Standards Guideline” that codifies every single new UNITED visual brand toolkit of elements, down to every pattern and detail. Example: have you seen the rectangular tower light on the tables at the gates, (it also has all the power outlets around the base)? That 1ft tall rectangular tower light has a pattern of straight fine lines and rectangular dashes printed on light panels, the clear blue band thick plastic band that wraps around each Polaris seat has a subtle pattern of rectangular dashes printed on the clear blue plastic band- it comes from the lines and squares of the longitude & latitude lines if the globe, it’s on the china too. There seems to be basically 2 patterns used for subtle detailing that would be considered tertiary branding, 1: the dashes and lines, 2: the negative space from the “Globe ‘n a box”
Other than than the curvature of the globe, EVERYTHING is straight and/angular in design. It presents a crisper more tailored modern feel.
SO TODAY, the wave on the livery is going to be a one-off mismatch to all other branding- and it hurts my head to look at as it’s SO inconsistent.
I once loved it: but that was before UA committed in FULL to straight lines, with 1 curve (the 1/4 circle globe) - there is not even a curvy bar in a lounge, nothing.
I believe it was kept on the livery due to its popularity at a time when “it” was the only “new thing” and NOT because it integrated well with everything.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
unitedewr737
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 8:58 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:26 pm

sohanb82 wrote:
I think that the blue on the swoop doesn't fit well with the whole livery. I wished they used the blue on the engines for the swoop, it would have looked more cohesive.


I think that would have been too much of that blue. I agree it doesn't look very cohesive, I think a better solution would have been to incorporate the navy, or whatever color it is, gradient that begins just above the globe on the tail. Then the engine bottom would have been that navy color and moved to the united blue on top, even if it was just a little bit. The navy swoop looks much better when you focus on the back of the tail because, or at least I think its because of the navy gradient being there. I think another possibility would have been to, in addition, add the sky blue gradient on the top of the winglets but maybe that would be too much going on. Also, on the mockups for the wide bodies and on the picture of the E175 in the new livery, I think the swoop goes too low just behind the wing. A more subtle swoop would be more modern and look better. Even having a swoop that started as it does now, levels off along the fuselage, then goes back up as it reaches the tail could have been cool. Anyway, since this is the fleet chat is it possible after now seeing it on two airplanes that they would still make tweets to the rest of the fleet?
 
Cmac787
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:07 pm

Is it me? Or has there been some problems with the 787-10’s. I think 2 are out of service. Cancelled 56 EWR-CDG and put a 767-300 on EWR-LAX
 
airboss787
Posts: 59
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:39 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Thu Jun 13, 2019 11:44 pm

Cmac787 wrote:
Is it me? Or has there been some problems with the 787-10’s. I think 2 are out of service. Cancelled 56 EWR-CDG and put a 767-300 on EWR-LAX


I sure hope not. I am due to fly on my first 787 next week EWR-FRA and would be mad to see it getting subbed for something else. Looking at FR24, I can't find any out of service as such. But sure see a lot of delays on the -10.
Star Alliance Gold
 
User avatar
KVH68
Posts: 202
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 4:09 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 1:49 am

Cmac787 wrote:
Is it me? Or has there been some problems with the 787-10’s. I think 2 are out of service. Cancelled 56 EWR-CDG and put a 767-300 on EWR-LAX


I only see one 787-10 out of service at this time. N12006 at EWR has a Lav 3R issue that has to be fixed. The deferral ran out of time.
 
UAinAUS
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:11 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 7:59 am

UAX Update:

E175:
Correction to my earlier post, first 2 E175SC to enter revenue service were N602UX and N603UX (13Jun)
N601UX and N604UX still just “delivered” but not yet in service

CR7:
N153GJ entered STL 7Jun for CR5 conversion
N154GJ entered STL 11Jun for CR5 conversion
N163GJ entered AMA 12Jun for paint (new livery)
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:15 pm

772:
N78002 entered HKG 895/13Jun for Polaris/PE
N56016 sked to exit HKG 895/15Jun, Polaris/PE seat maps confirmed (60 day mod)
 
jayunited
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Jun 14, 2019 2:17 pm

Cmac787 wrote:
Is it me? Or has there been some problems with the 787-10’s. I think 2 are out of service. Cancelled 56 EWR-CDG and put a 767-300 on EWR-LAX


The reason UA56 CDG-EWR and UA 57 EWR-CDG on June 13th were both canceled was do to an EICAS message concerning the right main landing gear pressure. According to the report UA sent mechanics and parts from LHR to CDG to fix the problem. Aircraft N16008 is back in the air today June 14th operating UA56 CDG-EWR. Then do to a second 78X being down for a LAV issues that was deferred but ran out of time on the deferral UA downguaged an EWR-LAX-EWR segment to a 763 on June 13th as well however N91007 is was returned to service today as well, this means all 9 of UA's 78X are back in service today June 14th.
 
Cmac787
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Jun 15, 2019 8:30 pm

Are the 319’s in GYR there for MOD? Or there for storage?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 1:30 pm

The fleet changes post at the start of this thread has been updated.

✈️ atcsundevil
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:15 pm

Question: the fancy, sculpted and it bulkheads on the 77W, and the smaller version I’ve seen on the 2 767s I was on - were not on the 787-10. Instead just plain silver with a Polaris plaque.

I’m assuming lost to budget cuts. SAD!

Under the banner of CONSISTENCY - I have yet to fly a refurbished 772. I’m going to assume no fanciful modern branding panel on the 772?

Maybe the next 77Ws will?

Or, will United remove them from the aircraft that already have those specially designed modern sculpted bulkheads, and go to flat silver?

Naturally I think it’s penny wise and pound foolish- details count. It makes the Polaris cabin unique and unmistakable vs any other front cabin. It demonstrates “pride in their premium cabin”

But, aside for the per unit cost, each one must also add X amount of weight- even if it is much lighter than they look, multiplied X the number of WB I would assume a small, on going cost in fuel?

UA has been SO PLAIN and unstylish for many years. Nothing inside to distinguish the atmosphere- just a “plain plane” (Mary Wells)
That it was refreshing to see the level of effort that United FINALLY was putting into the brand experience.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 90
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 2:47 pm

Cmac787 wrote:
Are the 319’s in GYR there for MOD? Or there for storage?


Current belief/understanding is that they are at GYR for induction and modification work though nothing definitive has been posted.

N4868U which was the first delivery from Shaheen/AerCap, is still sitting covered up and in Shaheen livery as of the end of May (https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/9329109. It's engines also look to be missing --- likely undergoing inspection and maintenance work. GYR has a couple of pretty sizable MRO companies at it, the assumption is that they will be doing all of the work. Would be rather frustrating to see these aircraft ferry to LCQ or DLH after sitting on the ground for 6 months.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:02 pm

I calculated the average age in years of single-aisle fleet (not including MAXs)
15.8 United
15.5 Delta
14.5 Sun Country
13.3 Allegiant Air
11.8 Southwest
11.1 American
11.0 Hawaiian
10.4 Jetblue
7.6 Alaska Airlines
5.7 Spirit Airlines
3.9 Frontier Airlines
--------------------
It has struck me that United is making no efforts to purchase new smaller jets (A319 or B737-700) or mid size jets (A320 pr B737-800) . They do have plans to add 34 used A319s. Instead they are spending all their money on twin aisle jets and larger B737-900ER and now MAX 9/10s..

What is up with United? I think they are hoping that the scoping clause will be re-negotiated from 76 seats to 125 seats and they can eliminate their smallest jets and farm out those routes to United Express.
 
flight152
Posts: 3411
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:26 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I calculated the average age in years of single-aisle fleet (not including MAXs)
15.8 United
15.5 Delta
14.5 Sun Country
13.3 Allegiant Air
11.8 Southwest
11.1 American
11.0 Hawaiian
10.4 Jetblue
7.6 Alaska Airlines
5.7 Spirit Airlines
3.9 Frontier Airlines
--------------------
It has struck me that United is making no efforts to purchase new smaller jets (A319 or B737-700) or mid size jets (A320 pr B737-800) . They do have plans to add 34 used A319s. Instead they are spending all their money on twin aisle jets and larger B737-900ER and now MAX 9/10s..

What is up with United? I think they are hoping that the scoping clause will be re-negotiated from 76 seats to 125 seats and they can eliminate their smallest jets and farm out those routes to United Express.

Yeah, that last paragraph— Will. Never. Happen.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 1906
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 7:33 pm

flight152 wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
...It has struck me that United is making no efforts to purchase new smaller jets (A319 or B737-700) or mid size jets (A320 pr B737-800) . They do have plans to add 34 used A319s. Instead they are spending all their money on twin aisle jets and larger B737-900ER and now MAX 9/10s..

What is up with United? I think they are hoping that the scoping clause will be re-negotiated from 76 seats to 125 seats and they can eliminate their smallest jets and farm out those routes to United Express.

Yeah, that last paragraph— Will. Never. Happen.


The pilots I know that are still at UA have a strong memory of what happened when UAL ALPA allowed the 70 seat RJs (100 737s were parked with large numbers of pilot furloughs as a result), so I don't see Scope Relief in the offing either. In the meantime, UA is losing ground to DL, IMHO.
My statements do not represent my former employer or my current employer and are my opinions only.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3309
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 8:38 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
It has struck me that United is making no efforts to purchase new smaller jets (A319 or B737-700) or mid size jets (A320 pr B737-800) . They do have plans to add 34 used A319s. Instead they are spending all their money on twin aisle jets and larger B737-900ER and now MAX 9/10s..

What is up with United? I think they are hoping that the scoping clause will be re-negotiated from 76 seats to 125 seats and they can eliminate their smallest jets and farm out those routes to United Express.


UA badly needs more large narrowbodies such as the MAX 9 and MAX 10, particularly with their congested, gate constrained hubs. That's the area needing focus first.
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:04 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I calculated the average age in years of single-aisle fleet (not including MAXs)
15.8 United
15.5 Delta
14.5 Sun Country
13.3 Allegiant Air
11.8 Southwest
11.1 American
11.0 Hawaiian
10.4 Jetblue
7.6 Alaska Airlines
5.7 Spirit Airlines
3.9 Frontier Airlines
--------------------
It has struck me that United is making no efforts to purchase new smaller jets (A319 or B737-700) or mid size jets (A320 pr B737-800) . They do have plans to add 34 used A319s. Instead they are spending all their money on twin aisle jets and larger B737-900ER and now MAX 9/10s..

What is up with United? I think they are hoping that the scoping clause will be re-negotiated from 76 seats to 125 seats and they can eliminate their smallest jets and farm out those routes to United Express.

Not a chance in hell the scope clause will be relaxed to 125 seats. Hell, they can’t even get relief on more 76-seaters.
 
hereandthere41
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:31 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 9:45 pm

VC10er wrote:
Question: the fancy, sculpted and it bulkheads on the 77W, and the smaller version I’ve seen on the 2 767s I was on - were not on the 787-10. Instead just plain silver with a Polaris plaque.

I’m assuming lost to budget cuts. SAD!

Under the banner of CONSISTENCY - I have yet to fly a refurbished 772. I’m going to assume no fanciful modern branding panel on the 772?

Maybe the next 77Ws will?

Or, will United remove them from the aircraft that already have those specially designed modern sculpted bulkheads, and go to flat silver?

Naturally I think it’s penny wise and pound foolish- details count. It makes the Polaris cabin unique and unmistakable vs any other front cabin. It demonstrates “pride in their premium cabin”

But, aside for the per unit cost, each one must also add X amount of weight- even if it is much lighter than they look, multiplied X the number of WB I would assume a small, on going cost in fuel?

UA has been SO PLAIN and unstylish for many years. Nothing inside to distinguish the atmosphere- just a “plain plane” (Mary Wells)
That it was refreshing to see the level of effort that United FINALLY was putting into the brand experience.



I'm on Polaris aircraft on a weekly basis.. 773s and 772s. And yet, I haven't witnessed a single paying customer remark that they won't fly United again because the sculpted bulkhead is not present. The cabin is still full on every flight.
 
User avatar
Amwest2United
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:36 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Jun 16, 2019 10:00 pm

hereandthere41 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
Question: the fancy, sculpted and it bulkheads on the 77W, and the smaller version I’ve seen on the 2 767s I was on - were not on the 787-10. Instead just plain silver with a Polaris plaque.

I’m assuming lost to budget cuts. SAD!

Under the banner of CONSISTENCY - I have yet to fly a refurbished 772. I’m going to assume no fanciful modern branding panel on the 772?

Maybe the next 77Ws will?

Or, will United remove them from the aircraft that already have those specially designed modern sculpted bulkheads, and go to flat silver?

Naturally I think it’s penny wise and pound foolish- details count. It makes the Polaris cabin unique and unmistakable vs any other front cabin. It demonstrates “pride in their premium cabin”

But, aside for the per unit cost, each one must also add X amount of weight- even if it is much lighter than they look, multiplied X the number of WB I would assume a small, on going cost in fuel?

UA has been SO PLAIN and unstylish for many years. Nothing inside to distinguish the atmosphere- just a “plain plane” (Mary Wells)
That it was refreshing to see the level of effort that United FINALLY was putting into the brand experience.



I'm on Polaris aircraft on a weekly basis.. 773s and 772s. And yet, I haven't witnessed a single paying customer remark that they won't fly United again because the sculpted bulkhead is not present. The cabin is still full on every flight.

Now that is just funny there..... Great statement
Life is what happens to you while you making plans to live it!
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:17 am

hereandthere41 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
Question: the fancy, sculpted and it bulkheads on the 77W, and the smaller version I’ve seen on the 2 767s I was on - were not on the 787-10. Instead just plain silver with a Polaris plaque.

I’m assuming lost to budget cuts. SAD!

Under the banner of CONSISTENCY - I have yet to fly a refurbished 772. I’m going to assume no fanciful modern branding panel on the 772?

Maybe the next 77Ws will?

Or, will United remove them from the aircraft that already have those specially designed modern sculpted bulkheads, and go to flat silver?

Naturally I think it’s penny wise and pound foolish- details count. It makes the Polaris cabin unique and unmistakable vs any other front cabin. It demonstrates “pride in their premium cabin”

But, aside for the per unit cost, each one must also add X amount of weight- even if it is much lighter than they look, multiplied X the number of WB I would assume a small, on going cost in fuel?

UA has been SO PLAIN and unstylish for many years. Nothing inside to distinguish the atmosphere- just a “plain plane” (Mary Wells)
That it was refreshing to see the level of effort that United FINALLY was putting into the brand experience.



I'm on Polaris aircraft on a weekly basis.. 773s and 772s. And yet, I haven't witnessed a single paying customer remark that they won't fly United again because the sculpted bulkhead is not present. The cabin is still full on every flight.


AND THEY WONT, MENTION IT. OBVIOUSLY IT WONT MEAN THE GAIN OF 1 TICKET SALE OR LOSS OF ONE TICKET! I never even came close to implying such a thing.

However (just an FYI) brand and branding are different things yet both are holistic things, never depending on a single execution. The giant pictures of diseased lungs and worse never once slowed the sale of cigarettes. Only jacking up price through taxes has reduced smoking

If you need to understand HOW branding works, how professionals (such a PriestmanGoode) develop such elements, are then created and approved in the first place..I’d be happy to take you through the process and impact of such features on the subliminal mind, it’s effect on the over all perceptions people create, I’d gladly take you through it. It’s a fairly scientific process that can move people’s feelings and affinity from bad to good. Nobody with an average mind would even know how their minds are manipulated via marketing and a brand’s unique semiotics and messaging.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:06 am

FlyHossD wrote:
In the meantime, UA is losing ground to DL, IMHO.


Certainly by number of passengers (domestic& international by percentage increase) since their respective mergers that is a massive understatement.

year   domestic   international   total
2012    67,533,828   23,960,160    91,493,988 United
2012    95,438,871   19,519,241   114,958,112 Delta
..
2018    85,896,058   27,258,521   113,154,579 United
2018   126,472,812   25,217,431   151,690,243 Delta


year   domestic   international   total    United      
2012   67,533,828   23,960,160   91,493,988
2013   65,113,482   24,164,556   89,278,038
2014   64,668,313   25,203,272   89,871,585
2015   69,178,641   25,712,986   94,891,627
2016   73,780,114   25,989,838   99,769,952
2017   80,434,383   26,603,451   107,037,834
2018   85,896,058   27,258,521   113,154,579
         
year   domestic   international   total    Delta      
2010   89,951,688   19,378,104   109,329,792
2011   92,710,952   19,305,310   112,016,262
2012   95,438,871   19,519,241   114,958,112
2013   98,372,322   20,561,599   118,933,921
2014   106,220,106   21,798,229   128,018,335
2015   114,904,010   22,828,442   137,732,452
2016   118,997,547   23,288,473   142,286,020
2017   120,734,881   24,492,781   145,227,662
2018   126,472,812   25,217,431   151,690,243



FlyHossD wrote:
The pilots I know that are still at UA have a strong memory of what happened when UAL ALPA allowed the 70 seat RJs (100 737s were parked with large numbers of pilot furloughs as a result), so I don't see Scope Relief in the offing either.


Well the scope relief was a shot in the dark, but the alternative is that nearly all the UA jets under 170 seats are going to get old at once. Are they just going to keep buying used ones forever, or are they going to operate a smaller airline with no small jets?


577 single aisle -15.8 years   United
762 single aisle-15.5 years   Delta

Aircraft   Type   Current   years      
Airbus   A319-100   72   17.9      
Airbus   A320-200   99   21.0      
Boeing   737-700    40   20.3      
Boeing   737-800   141   15.4      
Boeing   737-900   148   7.4      
Boeing   757-200    56   23.2      
Boeing   757-300    21   16.9      
               
Aircraft   Type   Current   years      
Airbus   A220-100   14   0.3      
Airbus   A319-100   57   17.4      
Airbus   A320-200   62   23.8      
Airbus   A321-200   83   1.4      
Boeing   717-200   91   17.8      
Boeing   737-700   10   10.4      
Boeing   737-800   77   17.8      
Boeing   737-900   129   2.8      
Boeing   757-200   111   22.6      
Boeing   757-300   16   16.4      
McDonnell   MD-88   76   28.5      
McDonnell   MD-90   36   22.2      
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 10:39 am

As a novice, and one who sucks at math in general (I cannot stand looking at an xl spreadsheet for my own company!)

But Kirby and Munoz MUST have a long term plan and vision- they couldn’t hold down their jobs without one. Is it the CORRECT PLAN, that is “TBD”

CLEARLY, the handful of used aircraft (mostly Airbuses) is a short term play...they are PRE OWNED aircraft and will have a shorter life span- but long enough to allow for a bigger and more permanent fix. (although they certainly spent enough time and money on them to make them look factory new, down to the smallest detail.)

I have no clue how fleet and route planning works and I don’t know how they work with the people who have set the long term goals.

It’s also obvious that UA got off to a bad start: sorting out all the crap from the merger, which was made worse by not sorting all the problems out well or fast enough.

That was then, this is now. Had someone showed me the Polaris video of the seats and Lounges, new UC club, along with images of 18 (?) 77W, all 3 787 models, etc, etc during the worst of the Snisek years - I’d think everything was just a CGI fantasy.

If I am seeing these numbers then so are top brass at UA. They might not have a settled plan set in stone, but they must have one that is rational and shared with the BoD.

However, even if they had the required fleet on property, there was way too much of an image and perception problem that had to be addressed first and other assets (such as Lounges that looked as fresh and modern as Aeroflot in 1985)

Nobody had foreseen the 737MAX problem when UA ordered 150 of them. In a perfect world without issues, sure, I would love to see XX amount of A321XLR’s already on order.

But even if there were no issues with the 737MAX and UA had all all 150 delivered next Friday, how fast can UA (just pretend destinations) get a FLL nonstop from FLL to SEA? Wouldn’t securing routes and gates be a very time consuming for over 150 NBs be a very time consuming process?

So, closing the gap with Delta (I am assuming) is part of a 5 year plan (or more) and the used Airbuses are far better than nothing for now.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 11:04 am

I have a question aside from all the above.
Last night I was on a UA 772 from ORD to EWR. Except for the old short hop from GRU to GIG, I have never before flown an internationally configured 772 for such a short domestic trip.
I paid for the upgrade to “domestic F” only because I would get a bed and relaxing short hop.
It was the old Diamond seat (NOT a refurbished 772)
Clearly evident: While old, while plain and monochromatic inside, the seats, the carpet, the walls, the dusty blue “galley box” and large lavatory, the ceiling with speakers etc, the bins were ALL perfect. As if it was her first day in service. I assume it was exCO, and don’t really know how old she was. BUT, she was impeccably maintained. No scuffs or scratches, no sign of wear & tear.
I had to ask myself “so why does a United Transcontinental 752 often look like canine stool in First Class?” All the Diamond seats on this 772 looked factory new. Old fashioned (yes) but in perfect condition. All aisle access, no, but sleep comfort is actually great in them.

So when the 772 I was on for a 2+ hour flight goes in to get Polaris, what is UA going to do with many hundreds of these seats? eBay?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 174
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:09 pm

MSPNWA wrote:
UA badly needs more large narrowbodies such as the MAX 9 and MAX 10, particularly with their congested, gate constrained hubs. That's the area needing focus first.


Also their oldest single-aisle jets are the B752s. So I agree.

Aircraft   Type   Current   years      
Boeing   B757-200    56   23.2     
Airbus   A320-200    99   21.0     
Boeing   B737-700    40   20.3     
Airbus   A319-100    72   17.9     
Boeing   B757-300    21   16.9 
Boeing   B737-800   141   15.4     
Boeing   B737-900   148    7.4     


But you have over 200 jets that are advanced age and there is not even an purchase order in place. If you look at United's post merger orders there are only 11 for B738s, 81 for B739s and 137 for B39Ms.

11   737-900ER   2. Mar. 2011
99   737 MAX   12. Jul. 2012
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
 6   737-800     24. Apr. 2015
 2   737-900ER   24. Apr. 2015
 4   737-900ER   12. Jun. 2015
 3   737-800     20. Jan. 2016
 1   737-800     8. Feb. 2016
 1   737-800     7. Mar. 2016
38   737 MAX   27. Dec. 2016

I sometimes wonder if United is going to completely shed their feeder network and just concentrate on their large hubs.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:43 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
I sometimes wonder if United is going to completely shed their feeder network and just concentrate on their large hubs.


UAL just placed an order for 20 E175s along with options for 19 more. They might not be growing the regional feeder much but definitely not shedding it.
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
United1
Posts: 3841
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:49 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
MSPNWA wrote:
UA badly needs more large narrowbodies such as the MAX 9 and MAX 10, particularly with their congested, gate constrained hubs. That's the area needing focus first.


Also their oldest single-aisle jets are the B752s. So I agree.

Aircraft   Type   Current   years      
Boeing   B757-200    56   23.2     
Airbus   A320-200    99   21.0     
Boeing   B737-700    40   20.3     
Airbus   A319-100    72   17.9     
Boeing   B757-300    21   16.9 
Boeing   B737-800   141   15.4     
Boeing   B737-900   148    7.4     


But you have over 200 jets that are advanced age and there is not even an purchase order in place. If you look at United's post merger orders there are only 11 for B738s, 81 for B739s and 137 for B39Ms.

11   737-900ER   2. Mar. 2011
99   737 MAX   12. Jul. 2012
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
 6   737-800     24. Apr. 2015
 2   737-900ER   24. Apr. 2015
 4   737-900ER   12. Jun. 2015
 3   737-800     20. Jan. 2016
 1   737-800     8. Feb. 2016
 1   737-800     7. Mar. 2016
38   737 MAX   27. Dec. 2016

I sometimes wonder if United is going to completely shed their feeder network and just concentrate on their large hubs.


Between grounded aircraft, orders and options UA has about 250 737MAX aircraft they can use to replace aircraft when the time comes. Their contracts with Boeing allow them to swap between models so if the MAX10 or MAX9 is too large they can always swap to the 7/8.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
jayunited
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:49 pm

PacoMartin wrote:
What is up with United? I think they are hoping that the scoping clause will be re-negotiated from 76 seats to 125 seats and they can eliminate their smallest jets and farm out those routes to United Express.


Untied has never stated they wanted a 125 seat UAX aircraft, UA would like to use 90 or at most 100 seat aircraft for UAX but there is no way the pilot will give in to UA. UA could add more 76 seat RJ's is they added a new fleet type however none of that is UA's most pressing problem. UA's most pressing problem is we don't have enough large narrow body aircraft UA needs and has order more than enough large narrow bodies like the MAX9/10 which will help UA shift more A319s and A320s into those smaller stations thus replacing some of the 76 seat RJ's which would then allow those 76 seat aircraft to take over 50 seat routes. UA also has aquired used some A319s and A320s and the has already invested in a life extension program for the Airbuses already in our fleet. At some point UA will have to replace the A320s but (and this is just my opinion) I'm thinking UA is probably looking to get another 7-8 years out of our A320s.
Last edited by jayunited on Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 12:51 pm

jetblastdubai wrote:
PacoMartin wrote:
I sometimes wonder if United is going to completely shed their feeder network and just concentrate on their large hubs.


UAL just placed an order for 20 E175s along with options for 19 more. They might not be growing the regional feeder much but definitely not shedding it.


Those are the 70 seat ERJ-175SC, they ordered 25 of those last year for a total of 64. When combined with the 38 ERJ-170s they already have in the fleet that will put them at their maximum allowed aircraft in the 70 seat category. They’re replacing the 70 seat CRJ-700, some of which are being converted to the 50 seat CRJ-550 to be allowed under scope.

That will be it for their regional operation unless they add a new 100 seat mainline.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:02 pm

That order finishes off the remaining CR7s; wonder if UA will send the CR5 into ASE or if the airport operating procedures will change to allow larger-span jets...
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:07 pm

VC10er wrote:
As a novice, and one who sucks at math in general (I cannot stand looking at an xl spreadsheet for my own company!)

But Kirby and Munoz MUST have a long term plan and vision- they couldn’t hold down their jobs without one. Is it the CORRECT PLAN, that is “TBD”

CLEARLY, the handful of used aircraft (mostly Airbuses) is a short term play...they are PRE OWNED aircraft and will have a shorter life span- but long enough to allow for a bigger and more permanent fix. (although they certainly spent enough time and money on them to make them look factory new, down to the smallest detail.)

I have no clue how fleet and route planning works and I don’t know how they work with the people who have set the long term goals.

It’s also obvious that UA got off to a bad start: sorting out all the crap from the merger, which was made worse by not sorting all the problems out well or fast enough.

The Pre-owned aircraft are a short term solution, because they are stretched thin with both the new growth they want to accomplish, and replacing what was a more pressing need first, the aging 752's, which also happened to be less fuel-efficient than older small narrowbodies. Glen Tilton set UA up to be in this situation, through the bankruptcy in 2002, which I believe is approximately the last time that UA took delivery of a new narrowbody (or correct me if I'm wrong, possibly any plane?) prior to the merger. With the merger, UA got some temporary relief from this issue by merging with CO, who had a healthy narrowbody delivery schedule, but early on in the merger, they focused on replacing widebodies, and then the recession, meant it has been decades since anything under 160 seats got the attention it deserved. To compound it, they also retired 733's and 735's as quickly as possible, reducing even more sub 150 seaters.

I realize that many airlines have had trouble with the economics of 100-125 seat planes, but UA isn't ordering anything under 180 seats anymore. Even if they can't justify an E2-190 or A220, I would hope that the MAX7 would be a good replacement for 73G's, 319's and 320s, as it is slightly larger than previous generation 73G's. Every airline, even WN, has focused more on MAX8 and larger, but I think airlines will once again find a need for a plane in between 120 and 180 seats. That's a big gap, and for UA it's even larger, because it will be a gap of between 76 and 180 seats.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 1:24 pm

cosyr wrote:
VC10er wrote:
As a novice, and one who sucks at math in general (I cannot stand looking at an xl spreadsheet for my own company!)

But Kirby and Munoz MUST have a long term plan and vision- they couldn’t hold down their jobs without one. Is it the CORRECT PLAN, that is “TBD”

CLEARLY, the handful of used aircraft (mostly Airbuses) is a short term play...they are PRE OWNED aircraft and will have a shorter life span- but long enough to allow for a bigger and more permanent fix. (although they certainly spent enough time and money on them to make them look factory new, down to the smallest detail.)

I have no clue how fleet and route planning works and I don’t know how they work with the people who have set the long term goals.

It’s also obvious that UA got off to a bad start: sorting out all the crap from the merger, which was made worse by not sorting all the problems out well or fast enough.

The Pre-owned aircraft are a short term solution, because they are stretched thin with both the new growth they want to accomplish, and replacing what was a more pressing need first, the aging 752's, which also happened to be less fuel-efficient than older small narrowbodies. Glen Tilton set UA up to be in this situation, through the bankruptcy in 2002, which I believe is approximately the last time that UA took delivery of a new narrowbody (or correct me if I'm wrong, possibly any plane?) prior to the merger. With the merger, UA got some temporary relief from this issue by merging with CO, who had a healthy narrowbody delivery schedule, but early on in the merger, they focused on replacing widebodies, and then the recession, meant it has been decades since anything under 160 seats got the attention it deserved. To compound it, they also retired 733's and 735's as quickly as possible, reducing even more sub 150 seaters.

I realize that many airlines have had trouble with the economics of 100-125 seat planes, but UA isn't ordering anything under 180 seats anymore. Even if they can't justify an E2-190 or A220, I would hope that the MAX7 would be a good replacement for 73G's, 319's and 320s, as it is slightly larger than previous generation 73G's. Every airline, even WN, has focused more on MAX8 and larger, but I think airlines will once again find a need for a plane in between 120 and 180 seats. That's a big gap, and for UA it's even larger, because it will be a gap of between 76 and 180 seats.


Don't forget UA did order 73G's and then cancelled them rather quickly. So, they have looked at this and decided not to order these. It's interesting that the CRJ550 can continue to build more volume.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1861
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 2:20 pm

cosyr wrote:

I realize that many airlines have had trouble with the economics of 100-125 seat planes, but UA isn't ordering anything under 180 seats anymore. Even if they can't justify an E2-190 or A220, I would hope that the MAX7 would be a good replacement for 73G's, 319's and 320s,


If the economics of the 100-125-seats planes are, in fact, troublesome then maybe UA has determined that it's just better off simply flying larger planes with a few more empty seats on some select routes than trying to "right size" every route with the perfect plane when market conditions are fluid. Holidays, irrops, special events such as trade shows or sporting events in smaller markets sometimes warrant the additional lift and if all you have is RJs available you can't meet that demand.

I don't think enough can be said about the economic advantage of a smaller fleet mix.
Every zoo is a petting zoo......if you're a man!
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 302
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:00 pm

codc10 wrote:
That order finishes off the remaining CR7s; wonder if UA will send the CR5 into ASE or if the airport operating procedures will change to allow larger-span jets...

Its not just about the airport, it's also aircraft performance.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 3:05 pm

763:
N684UA (operating as N588HA), was sked on FR24 HKG-HNL 2791/19Jun. That flight is showing cancelled. Maybe this STC conversion form HAL is about ready to exit HKG.

N78002 showed ferrying back toEWR on 2751/18Jun, but that flight is cancelled. I wonder if the damage to 752 N26123 at EWR and/or MAX situation has UA going down to 1 mod GE772 in HKG mod.

I don't know the process of mod at XMN and HKG, but couldn't the timeframe be reduced if UA goes to a single mod unit at each facility?
 
jayunited
Posts: 2160
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Jun 17, 2019 4:57 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
763:
N684UA (operating as N588HA), was sked on FR24 HKG-HNL 2791/19Jun. That flight is showing cancelled. Maybe this STC conversion form HAL is about ready to exit HKG.

N78002 showed ferrying back toEWR on 2751/18Jun, but that flight is cancelled. I wonder if the damage to 752 N26123 at EWR and/or MAX situation has UA going down to 1 mod GE772 in HKG mod.

I don't know the process of mod at XMN and HKG, but couldn't the timeframe be reduced if UA goes to a single mod unit at each facility?


I believe N78002 ferry was loaded in error which is why it was canceled out very quickly. For now there are 2 mod lines for the 77Es at HKG running, N57016 came out of HKG earlier this week and N78002 and N78003 are at HKG.
The schedule for the MAX for most if not all of our summer flying been adjusted and zero out of the schedule and even with us now being down one 757 there are spares available within the fleet especially since UA has adjusted the schedule as a result of the MAX groundings. We have to keep in mind when the MAXs were first grounded they were still on the schedule UA had to cover that flying with other aircraft. However as the grounding has gone one UA just like WN and AA has remove them from the schedule resulting in at least 105 fewer daily flights on UA for the summer travel season. The good news is removing MAX flying from the schedule has given us stability in terms of spare aircraft availability. It was easier for UA to cover MAX flying right after the the grounding because the MAX our spring schedule was able absorb the MAX flights. Trying to cover MAX flying through the height of the summer travel season would result in UA easily canceling 70 or more flights every day. the best option was to just remove all MAX flights from the schedule and adjust the schedule before passengers ever check-in or arrive at the airport.

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