Ronaldo747 wrote:

Regardless of this premium heavy config it will be not enough for a reasonable, secured year-round transatlantic range.

chonetsao wrote:

United B737-MAX10 will have 10% more premium lie-flat seat than AA's B788. Brilliant.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Cointrin330 wrote:

This is not new news. The 737-MAX10 is the designated 757 replacement for UA's transcon service other than the 772s/77Ws/787-10s that are also flown on select flights. As for TATL, unlikely the MAX10 will appear on thin TATL routes. UA ordered the A321XLR and that's likely going to be the plane for such routes.

Did you know they were going offer all direct aisle access seats before this? We’re you anticipating this many premium seats? Did you know that the configuration was going to give the aircraft a range boost?

Cointrin330 wrote:

This is not new news. The 737-MAX10 is the designated 757 replacement for UA's transcon service other than the 772s/77Ws/787-10s that are also flown on select flights. As for TATL, unlikely the MAX10 will appear on thin TATL routes. UA ordered the A321XLR and that's likely going to be the plane for such routes.

alasizon wrote:

And also 10% more than AA's 332 and 25% more than the UA 757s they are replacing. All of which is irrelevant as they are going to be operating different segments than the AA widebodies and are targeting a bigger portion of the domestic F/J market.

Personally I think they should have stopped at 18 or 20 as opposed to 22 because the number of markets that can support that many paid J seats at the expense of the "wasted" real estate for upgrades is going to be tough. I don't see it making sense for a 50 plane fleet. 30-35 aircraft I could understand but 50 is probably pushing the envelope a bit on sustainable markets at good yield.

FriscoHeavy wrote:

Ronaldo747 wrote:

Regardless of this premium heavy config it will be not enough for a reasonable, secured year-round transatlantic range.

You have no idea if that’s correct or not. Don’t spew things that aren’t necessarily true.

jayunited wrote:

All though UA has stop publicly talking about United Coast (they learned the lessons from Polaris don't talk publicly about a product that won't truly exist for years to come) the work continues because our premium customers on these long coast to coast flights want more comfort. So you will see this aircraft on routes like EWR-SFO/SEA/LAX/SAN/PDX/SMF, SFO-IAD/EWR/BOS/DCA/BWI/RDU/FLL/MCO/ perhaps SFO-TPA/ATL/CLT, and LAX-EWR/IAD/BOS/MCO.

Midwestindy wrote:

TYSflyer wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

April Coronavirus cuts from SFO I have seen:
EWR-LAS -3
EWR-LAX -3
EWR-SFO -3
EWR-MIA -2
EWR-PIT -2
EWR-BNA -1
EWR-CLE -1
EWR-CMH -1
EWR-DEN -1
EWR-DFW -1
EWR-DTW -1
EWR-OMA -1
EWR-ORD -1
EWR-PDX -1
EWR-PHX -1
EWR-RDU -1
EWR-SEA -1
Ran out of energy

*EWR-SLC gone for April

MIflyer12 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

All though UA has stop publicly talking about United Coast (they learned the lessons from Polaris don't talk publicly about a product that won't truly exist for years to come) the work continues because our premium customers on these long coast to coast flights want more comfort. So you will see this aircraft on routes like EWR-SFO/SEA/LAX/SAN/PDX/SMF, SFO-IAD/EWR/BOS/DCA/BWI/RDU/FLL/MCO/ perhaps SFO-TPA/ATL/CLT, and LAX-EWR/IAD/BOS/MCO.

Seriously? You think they're going to get sufficient paid premium demand on a route like EWR-SMF, or SFO-RDU, or SFO-CLT? I'll take the under on that in a big way. It's not just the distance or departure time that determines premium demand for lie-flats - it's a high income/big business market.

jayunited wrote:

alasizon wrote:

And also 10% more than AA's 332 and 25% more than the UA 757s they are replacing. All of which is irrelevant as they are going to be operating different segments than the AA widebodies and are targeting a bigger portion of the domestic F/J market.

Personally I think they should have stopped at 18 or 20 as opposed to 22 because the number of markets that can support that many paid J seats at the expense of the "wasted" real estate for upgrades is going to be tough. I don't see it making sense for a 50 plane fleet. 30-35 aircraft I could understand but 50 is probably pushing the envelope a bit on sustainable markets at good yield.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say these aircraft will be on transcon routes. Having said that both EWR and SFO have an extremely high number of G.S. and 1K passengers, also even now UA on our SFO/LAX-EWR routes no longer gives the upgrade away for free so customers either have to use their miles or pay for the upgrade. Before COVID-19 very few upgrades and in some cased no upgrades were clearing onSFO/LAX-EWR because business class was booked full.

All though UA has stop publicly talking about United Coast (they learned the lessons from Polaris don't talk publicly about a product that won't truly exist for years to come) the work continues because our premium customers on these long coast to coast flights want more comfort. So you will see this aircraft on routes like EWR-SFO/SEA/LAX/SAN/PDX/SMF, SFO-IAD/EWR/BOS/DCA/BWI/RDU/FLL/MCO/ perhaps SFO-TPA/ATL/CLT, and LAX-EWR/IAD/BOS/MCO.

Also as someone else already pointed out less seats on the MAX10 should equate to greater range which means these aircraft should be able to fly BOS-LAX with a full load of passengers in the dead of winter with a wind on the nose the whole way across the country and not need to make a fuel stop. Right now even UA's 738s struggle to make it during winter if the flight is fighting a headwind.

FlyHossD wrote:

tpaewr wrote:

The “meatball” was Saul Bass logo (same guy as the Tulip) it rolled out under Robert Six in 1968, the same era as CO first Pacific Ops.

Frank was in his late 20s and not remotely involved.

That's correct, but the original Bass tail logo was a black ball (there was also minor use of a red ball). It was during the Lorenzo era that the tail logo changed from the black ball to the a red ball, also known as the meatball.

So for many CO employees, the red ball / meatball is very symbolic of the Lorenzo era and all the bad times and corporate greed that it represented.

jetblastdubai wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Just when you thought things could not get anymore crazier they just did.

The amount of money and time UA is spending on moving planes back and forth to Asia to do retrofit and/or routing maintenance is staggering. Is there no place in the the US that can do this work? Is the labor savings in Asia the big reason this work is outsourced?

It seems like this type of upgrade work will go on for years and I would think that there a huge opportunity for a company to set up shop on US soil and perform this service. Keeping the talent and $ in the US would have benefits as well.

jetblastdubai wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I think this tells you how much cheaper labor is overseas. Heavy checks and interior mods on widebodies are extremely labor-intensive tasks, requiring tens of thousands of man-hours. Even Delta, the leader among the US3 in maintenance 'insourcing', is doing its D1 mods in Asia (764s in CAN, 777s in SIN).

The fuel and crew expense to ferry aircraft to/from Asia is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the labor savings. We're also in a time of low fuel prices, so the cost to gas up an empty 777 to fly to GUM, XMN, HKG or elsewhere isn't a tremendous consideration.

Those "tens of thousands of man-hours" would be nice to keep in the US if even they were in the ballpark of competitive wages.

Is this retrofit work all done my licenses AP mechanics or is some/most of the manual work done by general laborers? I realize there's a lot of certification/supervision responsibility but I can't imagine that unbolting old seats and bolting in new seats requires a diploma etc.

alasizon wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

All though UA has stop publicly talking about United Coast (they learned the lessons from Polaris don't talk publicly about a product that won't truly exist for years to come) the work continues because our premium customers on these long coast to coast flights want more comfort. So you will see this aircraft on routes like EWR-SFO/SEA/LAX/SAN/PDX/SMF, SFO-IAD/EWR/BOS/DCA/BWI/RDU/FLL/MCO/ perhaps SFO-TPA/ATL/CLT, and LAX-EWR/IAD/BOS/MCO.

Seriously? You think they're going to get sufficient paid premium demand on a route like EWR-SMF, or SFO-RDU, or SFO-CLT? I'll take the under on that in a big way. It's not just the distance or departure time that determines premium demand for lie-flats - it's a high income/big business market.

SFO-RDU probably has the chops but I agree that some of the markets are less likely. I just don't see a fifty plane fleet. I think UA is making smart moves domestically but I'm not sure they all add up to support 50 aircraft (remember, the HD 772s aren't going anywhere as of yet so they will still do some of the hub-hub transcon lifting).

CALTECH wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

That's correct, but the original Bass tail logo was a black ball (there was also minor use of a red ball). It was during the Lorenzo era that the tail logo changed from the black ball to the a red ball, also known as the meatball.

So for many CO employees, the red ball / meatball is very symbolic of the Lorenzo era and all the bad times and corporate greed that it represented.

Late Spring / Summer (?) 1985, we had a 727-224 in the HMV line in Bay 4B at LAX. Ran out of black paint, backorder would take time. Plane needed to get into service. Plenty of red paint around. Painted the tail meatball red. Already had red meatballs on the fuselage and other items. Old timers hated it, reminded them of the rising sun. High ups took a lot of pictures, and the next airplane went red too. Seemed to reflect the airlines financials at that time too.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

jayunited wrote:

alasizon wrote:

SFO-RDU probably has the chops but I agree that some of the markets are less likely. I just don't see a fifty plane fleet. I think UA is making smart moves domestically but I'm not sure they all add up to support 50 aircraft (remember, the HD 772s aren't going anywhere as of yet so they will still do some of the hub-hub transcon lifting).

I never stated or implied that the HD 772 were going anywhere. Of course the HD 772s are staying on the hub to hub routes the MAX10 would replace the 752s. A MAX 10 can not replace a 366 seat 77A never said they would.

On many of the coast to coast routes that I mentioned especially out of SFO and EWR demand outstrips supply for first class seats. If we take the upgrade list and jettison the silver, gold, and platinum members who don't have a chance in hell of getting an upgrade and just leave the 1K's and G.S. passengers demand for premium seating just from those two groups outstrips supply on many of the coast to coast routes I mentioned. The only time we really don't see G.S. passengers on the upgrade list is when the flight is operated by either a 78X with 44 lie flat seats or a 77W with 60 lie flat seats. But on flights operated on the HD 77A, or 757-200 both versions( 28 seats or 16 seats) demand out strips supply.

United has 2 really great hubs in 2 strong business locations SFO and EWR the demand for 22 lie flat seats is there for multiple downline locations on the opposite coast. Perhaps my list was a bit more generous than others but I seriously doubt you will see these aircraft at any interior hub location I believe these aircraft will be use greatly from our hubs at SFO and EWR and to a lessor extent from our hubs at LAX and IAD to hubs and line stations on the opposite coast. Also to try and catch B6 you might even see UA deploy a few frames on our EWR-Florida routes. If you really want to know what UA is planning to do with the MAX10 just take a look at what B6 is doing with their MINT product. They came up with the original blue print and while I have no idea what UA's final plans look like I do know UA is determined to try and catch up to MINT with lie flat seating on quite a few of our coast to coast flights.

Because the Max 10 will be smaller than the 757s it’s replacing do you see UA adding frequencies on EWR- SFO/LAX? I think SFO and LAX could support 20 and 18 flights respectively if all were operated by the Max.

jayunited wrote:

alasizon wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Seriously? You think they're going to get sufficient paid premium demand on a route like EWR-SMF, or SFO-RDU, or SFO-CLT? I'll take the under on that in a big way. It's not just the distance or departure time that determines premium demand for lie-flats - it's a high income/big business market.

SFO-RDU probably has the chops but I agree that some of the markets are less likely. I just don't see a fifty plane fleet. I think UA is making smart moves domestically but I'm not sure they all add up to support 50 aircraft (remember, the HD 772s aren't going anywhere as of yet so they will still do some of the hub-hub transcon lifting).

I never stated or implied that the HD 772 were going anywhere. Of course the HD 772s are staying on the hub to hub routes the MAX10 would replace the 752s. A MAX 10 can not replace a 366 seat 77A never said they would.

On many of the coast to coast routes that I mentioned especially out of SFO and EWR demand outstrips supply for first class seats. If we take the upgrade list and jettison the silver, gold, and platinum members who don't have a chance in hell of getting an upgrade and just leave the 1K's and G.S. passengers demand for premium seating just from those two groups outstrips supply on many of the coast to coast routes I mentioned. The only time we really don't see G.S. passengers on the upgrade list is when the flight is operated by either a 78X with 44 lie flat seats or a 77W with 60 lie flat seats. But on flights operated on the HD 77A, or 757-200 both versions( 28 seats or 16 seats) demand out strips supply.

United has 2 really great hubs in 2 strong business locations SFO and EWR the demand for 22 lie flat seats is there for multiple downline locations on the opposite coast. Perhaps my list was a bit more generous than others but I seriously doubt you will see these aircraft at any interior hub location I believe these aircraft will be use greatly from our hubs at SFO and EWR and to a lessor extent from our hubs at LAX and IAD to hubs and line stations on the opposite coast. Also to try and catch B6 you might even see UA deploy a few frames on our EWR-Florida routes. If you really want to know what UA is planning to do with the MAX10 just take a look at what B6 is doing with their MINT product. They came up with the original blue print and while I have no idea what UA's final plans look like I do know UA is determined to try and catch up to MINT with lie flat seating on quite a few of our coast to coast flights.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Anyone have any ideas on the economy configuration for the Max 10? I’m thinking if they are going premium it could be 22/42/66, could it fit more? Furthermore do we see UA do a 24 domestic first class seats on the stand Max 10s or do they keep it the same as the -9?

cosyr wrote:

jayunited wrote:

alasizon wrote:

And also 10% more than AA's 332 and 25% more than the UA 757s they are replacing. All of which is irrelevant as they are going to be operating different segments than the AA widebodies and are targeting a bigger portion of the domestic F/J market.

Personally I think they should have stopped at 18 or 20 as opposed to 22 because the number of markets that can support that many paid J seats at the expense of the "wasted" real estate for upgrades is going to be tough. I don't see it making sense for a 50 plane fleet. 30-35 aircraft I could understand but 50 is probably pushing the envelope a bit on sustainable markets at good yield.

I'm willing to go out on a limb and say these aircraft will be on transcon routes. Having said that both EWR and SFO have an extremely high number of G.S. and 1K passengers, also even now UA on our SFO/LAX-EWR routes no longer gives the upgrade away for free so customers either have to use their miles or pay for the upgrade. Before COVID-19 very few upgrades and in some cased no upgrades were clearing onSFO/LAX-EWR because business class was booked full.

All though UA has stop publicly talking about United Coast (they learned the lessons from Polaris don't talk publicly about a product that won't truly exist for years to come) the work continues because our premium customers on these long coast to coast flights want more comfort. So you will see this aircraft on routes like EWR-SFO/SEA/LAX/SAN/PDX/SMF, SFO-IAD/EWR/BOS/DCA/BWI/RDU/FLL/MCO/ perhaps SFO-TPA/ATL/CLT, and LAX-EWR/IAD/BOS/MCO.

Also as someone else already pointed out less seats on the MAX10 should equate to greater range which means these aircraft should be able to fly BOS-LAX with a full load of passengers in the dead of winter with a wind on the nose the whole way across the country and not need to make a fuel stop. Right now even UA's 738s struggle to make it during winter if the flight is fighting a headwind.

AA is currently the only of the 3 that has 3 classes of service on transcons. These new seats will exceed AA's J class, and approach AA's F, though reverse herringbone offer more space and privacy than regular herringbone (at the expense of seat density, so I understand why UA didn't do that.) But if UA really wanted to offer something different, they could be the first airline to offer domestic Premium Plus. Just put in 3 rows of 5 across PP seats, then half Y+ and half regular Y, it would be brilliant!

Antarius wrote:

So glad UA has a.net experts to fact check their planning. What were they thinking!

FriscoHeavy wrote:

You have no idea if that’s correct or not. Don’t spew things that aren’t necessarily true.

cosyr wrote:

AA is currently the only of the 3 that has 3 classes of service on transcons. These new seats will exceed AA's J class, and approach AA's F, though reverse herringbone offer more space and privacy than regular herringbone (at the expense of seat density, so I understand why UA didn't do that.) But if UA really wanted to offer something different, they could be the first airline to offer domestic Premium Plus. Just put in 3 rows of 5 across PP seats, then half Y+ and half regular Y, it would be brilliant!

argentinevol98 wrote:

I've also thought for a while now as well that there was a market for a 2-3 W product for transcons with probably like 36" or perhaps up to 38" pitch. Slightly differentiate it from your standard 2-2 domestic F seat. JL has 738s with a 2-3 J product for shorter domestic flights as does SAA on their A319s. I think it could sell well-a lot of people that want something more that a simple Y+ but are unwilling to pay for a lie-flat J seat could definitely go for it.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The MAX10 is 64 inches longer than the MAX9. I'm assuming the 64 extra inches of length are evenly placed before and after the wing.

As for the MAX10 trranscon version, if the 739MAX10 F seats are the Thompson Vantage Solo, they are 33 inch pitch. I'm glad UA looks to be moving the lav back behind F. At 33 inch pitch 11 rows of Vantage Solo seats would take up 330 inches and the lav would be moved back 113 inches, before the start of the wing. (330" [11rows] - 185" [739 5 rows at 37"] -32" [longer fuselage] = 113" [farther back start of coach vs. 739]

The length for Y should be 81" shorter (113-32 of extra length. This would cut 3 to 5 rows out of the E+/Y section vs. the 739 depending on the E+/Y split.
My guess would be a configuration of 22AAA-LieFlat/ 57E+/84Y, total 163.

The MAX10 in domestic config should be something like 24F/51E+/114Y = 189 giving an extra row in front and behind the wing. 24 F seats at 37 inch pitch on the domestic version is possible by reducing the front closet/galley 5 inches and leaving the lav where it is in relation to the wing vs the 739.That assumes UA puts the left side lav behind a 24 seat F class.

GoSharks wrote:

cosyr wrote:

AA is currently the only of the 3 that has 3 classes of service on transcons. These new seats will exceed AA's J class, and approach AA's F, though reverse herringbone offer more space and privacy than regular herringbone (at the expense of seat density, so I understand why UA didn't do that.) But if UA really wanted to offer something different, they could be the first airline to offer domestic Premium Plus. Just put in 3 rows of 5 across PP seats, then half Y+ and half regular Y, it would be brilliant!

argentinevol98 wrote:

I've also thought for a while now as well that there was a market for a 2-3 W product for transcons with probably like 36" or perhaps up to 38" pitch. Slightly differentiate it from your standard 2-2 domestic F seat. JL has 738s with a 2-3 J product for shorter domestic flights as does SAA on their A319s. I think it could sell well-a lot of people that want something more that a simple Y+ but are unwilling to pay for a lie-flat J seat could definitely go for it.

UA already offers PP on the 787-10 transcon flights. It’s been what, 6 months?

VC10er wrote:

jayunited wrote:

alasizon wrote:

SFO-RDU probably has the chops but I agree that some of the markets are less likely. I just don't see a fifty plane fleet. I think UA is making smart moves domestically but I'm not sure they all add up to support 50 aircraft (remember, the HD 772s aren't going anywhere as of yet so they will still do some of the hub-hub transcon lifting).

I never stated or implied that the HD 772 were going anywhere. Of course the HD 772s are staying on the hub to hub routes the MAX10 would replace the 752s. A MAX 10 can not replace a 366 seat 77A never said they would.

On many of the coast to coast routes that I mentioned especially out of SFO and EWR demand outstrips supply for first class seats. If we take the upgrade list and jettison the silver, gold, and platinum members who don't have a chance in hell of getting an upgrade and just leave the 1K's and G.S. passengers demand for premium seating just from those two groups outstrips supply on many of the coast to coast routes I mentioned. The only time we really don't see G.S. passengers on the upgrade list is when the flight is operated by either a 78X with 44 lie flat seats or a 77W with 60 lie flat seats. But on flights operated on the HD 77A, or 757-200 both versions( 28 seats or 16 seats) demand out strips supply.

United has 2 really great hubs in 2 strong business locations SFO and EWR the demand for 22 lie flat seats is there for multiple downline locations on the opposite coast. Perhaps my list was a bit more generous than others but I seriously doubt you will see these aircraft at any interior hub location I believe these aircraft will be use greatly from our hubs at SFO and EWR and to a lessor extent from our hubs at LAX and IAD to hubs and line stations on the opposite coast. Also to try and catch B6 you might even see UA deploy a few frames on our EWR-Florida routes. If you really want to know what UA is planning to do with the MAX10 just take a look at what B6 is doing with their MINT product. They came up with the original blue print and while I have no idea what UA's final plans look like I do know UA is determined to try and catch up to MINT with lie flat seating on quite a few of our coast to coast flights.

I personally think that with 50 737-10’s, United could become the US airline with the most domestic lie flat AAA aircraft of the majors. Aside from EWR/LAX-SFO, I can envision more “worth the up-charge” for SFO/LAX to MIA/FLL, EWR/LGA to Denver, or even Las Vegas!
As southern Florida is like NYC’s 6th borough (and NJ) EWR to FLL/MIA would be AMAZING! (today there is at least 1 752 to MIA)
But these 737-10s should mostly be used for long haul Polaris Pax arriving at a big hub such as IAH, IAD, SFO, & ORD who then (after being re-screened, etc) then forward onto a 3+ hour flight...the last 3 hours just made you trip feel very inconsistent!
When I go to GIG through IAH, gone will be the days of a 738 to EWR. Today its a 752 or 763 to EWR at just the right time. So from end to end it's a very consistent comfortable experience even if it's a true Polaris Long Haul, then connecting to a Diamond seat. It makes a HUGE difference!
Even EWR/LAG to ORD. Sometimes I AM THE WALKING DEAD after a day long intense meeting in Chicago, then dinner- race to ORD and get a lie flat: GLORIOUS!!!
Bring ‘em on, ALL 50 of the 737-10!

tphuang wrote:

VC10er wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I never stated or implied that the HD 772 were going anywhere. Of course the HD 772s are staying on the hub to hub routes the MAX10 would replace the 752s. A MAX 10 can not replace a 366 seat 77A never said they would.

On many of the coast to coast routes that I mentioned especially out of SFO and EWR demand outstrips supply for first class seats. If we take the upgrade list and jettison the silver, gold, and platinum members who don't have a chance in hell of getting an upgrade and just leave the 1K's and G.S. passengers demand for premium seating just from those two groups outstrips supply on many of the coast to coast routes I mentioned. The only time we really don't see G.S. passengers on the upgrade list is when the flight is operated by either a 78X with 44 lie flat seats or a 77W with 60 lie flat seats. But on flights operated on the HD 77A, or 757-200 both versions( 28 seats or 16 seats) demand out strips supply.

United has 2 really great hubs in 2 strong business locations SFO and EWR the demand for 22 lie flat seats is there for multiple downline locations on the opposite coast. Perhaps my list was a bit more generous than others but I seriously doubt you will see these aircraft at any interior hub location I believe these aircraft will be use greatly from our hubs at SFO and EWR and to a lessor extent from our hubs at LAX and IAD to hubs and line stations on the opposite coast. Also to try and catch B6 you might even see UA deploy a few frames on our EWR-Florida routes. If you really want to know what UA is planning to do with the MAX10 just take a look at what B6 is doing with their MINT product. They came up with the original blue print and while I have no idea what UA's final plans look like I do know UA is determined to try and catch up to MINT with lie flat seating on quite a few of our coast to coast flights.

I personally think that with 50 737-10’s, United could become the US airline with the most domestic lie flat AAA aircraft of the majors. Aside from EWR/LAX-SFO, I can envision more “worth the up-charge” for SFO/LAX to MIA/FLL, EWR/LGA to Denver, or even Las Vegas!
As southern Florida is like NYC’s 6th borough (and NJ) EWR to FLL/MIA would be AMAZING! (today there is at least 1 752 to MIA)
But these 737-10s should mostly be used for long haul Polaris Pax arriving at a big hub such as IAH, IAD, SFO, & ORD who then (after being re-screened, etc) then forward onto a 3+ hour flight...the last 3 hours just made you trip feel very inconsistent!
When I go to GIG through IAH, gone will be the days of a 738 to EWR. Today its a 752 or 763 to EWR at just the right time. So from end to end it's a very consistent comfortable experience even if it's a true Polaris Long Haul, then connecting to a Diamond seat. It makes a HUGE difference!
Even EWR/LAG to ORD. Sometimes I AM THE WALKING DEAD after a day long intense meeting in Chicago, then dinner- race to ORD and get a lie flat: GLORIOUS!!!
Bring ‘em on, ALL 50 of the 737-10!

I think what you are talking about here is unrealistic. B6 with mint has far lower cost than UA and even they don't think it's justifiable to put mint on JFK-DEN or JFK-FLL/PBI.

Keep in mind the existing mint schedule uses at least 35 aircraft for about 45 R/T. And B6 utilizes their fleet at a rate that's much higher than legacy airlines. So 50 737-10 might only enable UA to do about 50 R/T a day.

That could be
16 EWR-SFO R/T
12 EWR-LAX
7 BOS-SFO
4 EWR-SAN
3 EWR-LAS
3 EWR-SEA
4 IAD-SFO
3 IAD-LAX

This will already be 50 R/T

tphuang wrote:

VC10er wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I never stated or implied that the HD 772 were going anywhere. Of course the HD 772s are staying on the hub to hub routes the MAX10 would replace the 752s. A MAX 10 can not replace a 366 seat 77A never said they would.

On many of the coast to coast routes that I mentioned especially out of SFO and EWR demand outstrips supply for first class seats. If we take the upgrade list and jettison the silver, gold, and platinum members who don't have a chance in hell of getting an upgrade and just leave the 1K's and G.S. passengers demand for premium seating just from those two groups outstrips supply on many of the coast to coast routes I mentioned. The only time we really don't see G.S. passengers on the upgrade list is when the flight is operated by either a 78X with 44 lie flat seats or a 77W with 60 lie flat seats. But on flights operated on the HD 77A, or 757-200 both versions( 28 seats or 16 seats) demand out strips supply.

United has 2 really great hubs in 2 strong business locations SFO and EWR the demand for 22 lie flat seats is there for multiple downline locations on the opposite coast. Perhaps my list was a bit more generous than others but I seriously doubt you will see these aircraft at any interior hub location I believe these aircraft will be use greatly from our hubs at SFO and EWR and to a lessor extent from our hubs at LAX and IAD to hubs and line stations on the opposite coast. Also to try and catch B6 you might even see UA deploy a few frames on our EWR-Florida routes. If you really want to know what UA is planning to do with the MAX10 just take a look at what B6 is doing with their MINT product. They came up with the original blue print and while I have no idea what UA's final plans look like I do know UA is determined to try and catch up to MINT with lie flat seating on quite a few of our coast to coast flights.

I personally think that with 50 737-10’s, United could become the US airline with the most domestic lie flat AAA aircraft of the majors. Aside from EWR/LAX-SFO, I can envision more “worth the up-charge” for SFO/LAX to MIA/FLL, EWR/LGA to Denver, or even Las Vegas!
As southern Florida is like NYC’s 6th borough (and NJ) EWR to FLL/MIA would be AMAZING! (today there is at least 1 752 to MIA)
But these 737-10s should mostly be used for long haul Polaris Pax arriving at a big hub such as IAH, IAD, SFO, & ORD who then (after being re-screened, etc) then forward onto a 3+ hour flight...the last 3 hours just made you trip feel very inconsistent!
When I go to GIG through IAH, gone will be the days of a 738 to EWR. Today its a 752 or 763 to EWR at just the right time. So from end to end it's a very consistent comfortable experience even if it's a true Polaris Long Haul, then connecting to a Diamond seat. It makes a HUGE difference!
Even EWR/LAG to ORD. Sometimes I AM THE WALKING DEAD after a day long intense meeting in Chicago, then dinner- race to ORD and get a lie flat: GLORIOUS!!!
Bring ‘em on, ALL 50 of the 737-10!

I think what you are talking about here is unrealistic. B6 with mint has far lower cost than UA and even they don't think it's justifiable to put mint on JFK-DEN or JFK-FLL/PBI.

Keep in mind the existing mint schedule uses at least 35 aircraft for about 45 R/T. And B6 utilizes their fleet at a rate that's much higher than legacy airlines. So 50 737-10 might only enable UA to do about 50 R/T a day.

That could be
16 EWR-SFO R/T
12 EWR-LAX
7 BOS-SFO
4 EWR-SAN
3 EWR-LAS
3 EWR-SEA
4 IAD-SFO
3 IAD-LAX

This will already be 50 R/T

Nicknuzzii wrote:

alasizon wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think what you are talking about here is unrealistic. B6 with mint has far lower cost than UA and even they don't think it's justifiable to put mint on JFK-DEN or JFK-FLL/PBI.

Keep in mind the existing mint schedule uses at least 35 aircraft for about 45 R/T. And B6 utilizes their fleet at a rate that's much higher than legacy airlines. So 50 737-10 might only enable UA to do about 50 R/T a day.

That could be
16 EWR-SFO R/T
12 EWR-LAX
7 BOS-SFO
4 EWR-SAN
3 EWR-LAS
3 EWR-SEA
4 IAD-SFO
3 IAD-LAX

This will already be 50 R/T

EWR-SFO isn't going to be 16x daily 737-10 though (nor would EWR-LAX be 12x daily) as that would detract from the existing HD 772 routes.

Realistically, you're looking at 8-10 EWR-SFO and 6-7 EWR-LAX (assuming the HD 772 continues to run at the same frequencies and the 787s no longer are doing hub to hub which is unlikely).

BOS-SFO is currently 6x daily so 7x isn't out of the realm of possibility but that is a large increase in J seats.

I don't see EWR-LAS or EWR-SEA going all 737-10 either (maybe 1x daily each).

That leaves you with:
10x EWR-SFO
7x EWR-LAX
6x BOS-SFO
4x EWR-SAN
3x IAD-SFO
2x IAD-LAX
1x EWR-LAS
1x EWR-SEA
1x SFO-RDU (my personal opinion on a route it'll be used on)

That is roughly ~450 block hours per day. Assuming an average utilization of 16 hours per day (well within reason given transcon allows for high utilization when there are hubs on both ends); that is right around 28.5 frames.

I'm also a little doubtful on all of the transcon hub to hub being lie-flat as UA may need to rotate some 738/739s between bases.

It seems you don’t really have the full picture of the EWR - LAX/SFO market. If the routes were operated exclusively by a 737-10 at frequencies ranging between 7-10x a day, a lot of capacity would be lost. Right now SFO is scheduled to operated 15x daily and 12x for LAX. Yet, the Max is way smaller than the wide bodies and 757s that frequent the route (Absolutely no 737s). So even if we wanted to throw in a few 772s or 78Xs we’re still at a loss of capacity. An ideal combo would be,

SFO
12x 737-10
3x 772
2x 787-10

LAX
10x 737-10
2x 772
2x 78X

codc10 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Sad but true. The Battleship livery also represents a particularly turbulent period for United (ESOP, SFH, 9/11, Ch. 11), inclusive of a time where thousands of current employees made tremendous concessions and simultaneously lost pensions, share value, etc.

The distant retro-liveries create more touchy-feely nostalgia, combined with the fact that very few present employees (probably none in the case of the CO retrojet) were actually around for those respective eras.

United was by far the best airline in the 1990s, IMO, and immensely enjoyable as a customer. That was a time when the airline grew, especially abroad, took on many modern aircraft like the 744, 319/320, and 777. The product back then was really good and they were truly a global airline and innovative one. Things like e-tickets, easy checkin, founding Star Alliance, launching the 777, new DEN, and Shuttle (which was enormously successful prior to 9/11). Regardless of how 9/11 hurt UA and helped steer them to a Ch11, I’ve never once talked to a UA employee in my travels that didn’t love United. Certain CEOs? Maybe. But they loved UA.

I didn’t like the Battleship when it came out and I would never choose it over the Rainbow livery, but at this point I’d give a kidney to see even a shred of UA.

I am not beholden to liveries and symbolism, but you’re missing a major point if you simply gloss over the long-term structural issues that led to United’s bankruptcy... it wasn’t just 9/11.

United’s employees sacrificed tremendous promised value in the form of the failed ESOP, post-9/11 concessions and canceled pensions that were directly tied to management incompetence.

United management rode the 90s boom times HARD... and the fall was indicative of it. Sadly it was born by the rank-and-file, not the people who sold them down the river.

argentinevol98 wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

cosyr wrote:

But if UA really wanted to offer something different, they could be the first airline to offer domestic Premium Plus. Just put in 3 rows of 5 across PP seats, then half Y+ and half regular Y, it would be brilliant!

argentinevol98 wrote:

I've also thought for a while now as well that there was a market for a 2-3 W product for transcons with probably like 36" or perhaps up to 38" pitch.

UA already offers PP on the 787-10 transcon flights. It’s been what, 6 months?

I was mainly referring to a product on a dedicated narrowbody fleet. No one is offering that right now and it seems, to me at least, that there might be room for something like that, though I admit that I am no market expert.

777-500er wrote:

Has anyone published international route adjustments for April 2020?

adamblang wrote:

argentinevol98 wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

UA already offers PP on the 787-10 transcon flights. It’s been what, 6 months?

I was mainly referring to a product on a dedicated narrowbody fleet. No one is offering that right now and it seems, to me at least, that there might be room for something like that, though I admit that I am no market expert.

When I compare the united.com domestic first and Premium Plus product descriptions side by side, they read to me to be nearly identical. (Premium Plus gets you discounted Club access, First gets you complementary Club access.)

I don't know if that's an argument for or against Premium Plus on a 737-10.

On the one hand, the 787-10s on premium transcons call the lie-flat cabin "business" and it'd be weird to market the big upright seats cabin as "first." Business-first-Economy Plus-economy.

On the other hand, HD 777s and 757-200s doing domestic runs call their lie-flat cabins "first."

If the 737-10 domestic lie-flat product is going to be marketed as "business," calling an upright big seats cabin "premium economy" would make sense. If the 737-10 domestic lie-flat product is going to be marketed as "first," calling an upright big seats cabin "business" might be clearer.

Maybe that's a distinction without a difference, though.

Tangentially related, I find it interesting that Delta on their KEF and PDL services flies domestic 757s and calls the cabin that would be "first" domestically "premium economy" in those markets. The products have feature parity and it lets Delta keep marketing all of their Atlantic services as "100% lie-flat in business."