Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
blockski
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 2:34 pm

joeljack wrote:
As the country is opening up, I made a couple calls to 3 friends and a relative that are are either a 1K or GS to see what there travel plans are and found out some startling, very concerning information. Below:

United Global Service member based in Austin: Needs to go to SFO a few times in June but over all, not going to be traveling much. United has no nonstops to SFO right now loaded and he said he will probably wait til a week before to book and he said he will be flying Alaska vs United if United doesn't load and nonstops because Alaska still has a nonstop (assuming they operate it). He said it will be his first time on Alaska.

United 1K in Houston: manages a construction site in Omaha...flies back and forth every week, even during covid to manage job site. United has cancelled so many flights he hasn't even been able to connect the last several weeks, gave up on United and has been flying American through Dallas lately instead. He is very mad at United for booking flights through DEN or ORD and cancelled all their flights on several days with zero options even with long layovers to get back and forth. He said American has cancelled some flights but still seems to be operating several flights a day between Dallas and both Houston and Omaha and hasn't been an issue. He had all his flights booked for June, united just pulled their schedule to eliminate OMA-IAH for June this past weekend. Spent Sunday on phone with United arguing and cancelling the flights. Said he will be re-booking with American.

United 1K in Omaha: Needs to go to Newark mid-June to receive a high dollar international shipment. Tried to book OMA-EWR Sunday and can't even get there with a connection in Chicago. She is super mad and has been a United loyalist. I suggested to try WN, she hates WN and said she would rather drive. lol. She said she'll probably end up on either American or Delta as the trip isn't an option but has to go.

United 1K in Omaha: In financial sector and was looking to get has travel back in order for June...also said flights are so limited with only a single flight a day to ORD from Omaha in June that he can't get any roundtrips to even price out and if they do, they have a super long layover. He said he will be looking at other airlines this week. Note all said they plan on flying in July too but none will be looking to book anything for several weeks until schedules finalize.

That said, out of the 4 1k/GS friends I spoke to Sunday night and last night, really none are booking United and all 4 are going to be traveling in June. Seems like most are waiting til last few weeks to book to make sure schedules are finalized as stuff has changed so much but if there is nothing to book, will need to book with other airlines.

My personal opinion after hearing this, United needs to be very careful not to lose too many high dollar elites. For example, after some searching, they are only flying 1 OMA-ORD in June and it doesn't even operate ever day. ORD-EWR is only 2x daily. You really can't run an airline with a schedule like that. I'd say at a minimum, you need 2x daily OMA-ORD and 5x daily ORD-EWR (hub to hub). Also, should probably be flying 1x daily OMA-IAH on a 50-seater.

If United doesn't add flights for June or start flying a reasonable schedule that allows for connections, other airlines will gain big time over United. and United loads will stay anemic.

As a side note, I'm a United Platinum, Iowa based, I don't know when I will fly next. Probably late June or July but won't be booking anytime soon.

Thoughts?


My thoughts are that all of these people need to radically lower their expectations, and none of this is a problem specific to United.

Like, a person in financial services living in Omaha needs to travel in the middle of a pandemic? Why? And then they complain about a super long layover? Come on.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1062
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 3:27 pm

joeljack wrote:
As the country is opening up, I made a couple calls to 3 friends and a relative that are are either a 1K or GS to see what there travel plans are and found out some startling, very concerning information. Below:

United Global Service member based in Austin: Needs to go to SFO a few times in June but over all, not going to be traveling much. United has no nonstops to SFO right now loaded and he said he will probably wait til a week before to book and he said he will be flying Alaska vs United if United doesn't load and nonstops because Alaska still has a nonstop (assuming they operate it). He said it will be his first time on Alaska.

United 1K in Houston: manages a construction site in Omaha...flies back and forth every week, even during covid to manage job site. United has cancelled so many flights he hasn't even been able to connect the last several weeks, gave up on United and has been flying American through Dallas lately instead. He is very mad at United for booking flights through DEN or ORD and cancelled all their flights on several days with zero options even with long layovers to get back and forth. He said American has cancelled some flights but still seems to be operating several flights a day between Dallas and both Houston and Omaha and hasn't been an issue. He had all his flights booked for June, united just pulled their schedule to eliminate OMA-IAH for June this past weekend. Spent Sunday on phone with United arguing and cancelling the flights. Said he will be re-booking with American.

United 1K in Omaha: Needs to go to Newark mid-June to receive a high dollar international shipment. Tried to book OMA-EWR Sunday and can't even get there with a connection in Chicago. She is super mad and has been a United loyalist. I suggested to try WN, she hates WN and said she would rather drive. lol. She said she'll probably end up on either American or Delta as the trip isn't an option but has to go.

United 1K in Omaha: In financial sector and was looking to get has travel back in order for June...also said flights are so limited with only a single flight a day to ORD from Omaha in June that he can't get any roundtrips to even price out and if they do, they have a super long layover. He said he will be looking at other airlines this week. Note all said they plan on flying in July too but none will be looking to book anything for several weeks until schedules finalize.

That said, out of the 4 1k/GS friends I spoke to Sunday night and last night, really none are booking United and all 4 are going to be traveling in June. Seems like most are waiting til last few weeks to book to make sure schedules are finalized as stuff has changed so much but if there is nothing to book, will need to book with other airlines.

My personal opinion after hearing this, United needs to be very careful not to lose too many high dollar elites. For example, after some searching, they are only flying 1 OMA-ORD in June and it doesn't even operate ever day. ORD-EWR is only 2x daily. You really can't run an airline with a schedule like that. I'd say at a minimum, you need 2x daily OMA-ORD and 5x daily ORD-EWR (hub to hub). Also, should probably be flying 1x daily OMA-IAH on a 50-seater.

If United doesn't add flights for June or start flying a reasonable schedule that allows for connections, other airlines will gain big time over United. and United loads will stay anemic.

As a side note, I'm a United Platinum, Iowa based, I don't know when I will fly next. Probably late June or July but won't be booking anytime soon.

Thoughts?


Your friends need to see the forest trough the trees. The country has been shuttered for a month what the hell do they expect?

I can tell you Kirby does not and will not lose the business traveler. You can’t be everything to everyone all the time. For all of your united friends stories their are the same stories about DL and AA, some of their pax will come to UA because of convienience. When travel comes back things will slowly right themselves.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 3:27 pm

joeljack wrote:
My personal opinion after hearing this, United needs to be very careful not to lose too many high dollar elites. For example, after some searching, they are only flying 1 OMA-ORD in June and it doesn't even operate ever day. ORD-EWR is only 2x daily. You really can't run an airline with a schedule like that. I'd say at a minimum, you need 2x daily OMA-ORD and 5x daily ORD-EWR (hub to hub). Also, should probably be flying 1x daily OMA-IAH on a 50-seater.


The entire industry is retrenched. There may be hub closures, and certainly large network adjustments that will force huge number of so called "high dollar" elites and corporate travel departments to look elsewhere from their historic airlines of choice.

Nothing against the customer in Omaha, but these airlines are going to be in survival mode and will need to worry more about what happens in key markets like NYC, LA, Chicago etc first.

The post Covid-19 world is a new one for everyone - airline and customer alike.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1980
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 3:33 pm

blockski wrote:
My thoughts are that all of these people need to radically lower their expectations, and none of this is a problem specific to United.

Like, a person in financial services living in Omaha needs to travel in the middle of a pandemic? Why? And then they complain about a super long layover? Come on.


This was going to be a problem from the beginning. If the airlines reduce the number of flights to meet demand, the demand might fall off because of a lack of reasonable options. It becomes an endless circle. In some markets, the airline that blinks first might end up on the short end of the recovery.

It's obvious that the smallest-capacity plane is the most efficient way to go in the short-term for many markets. I just hope the carriers have enough flexibility with labor groups to do whatever is necessary to put the people and resources where they're needed and sideline the resources that aren't.

A business person in Omaha has just as much necessity to travel as a business person in a larger city. This virus isn't stopping most people from continuing to work and pay for the people that can't.
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 4:21 pm

blockski wrote:

My thoughts are that all of these people need to radically lower their expectations, and none of this is a problem specific to United.

Like, a person in financial services living in Omaha needs to travel in the middle of a pandemic? Why? And then they complain about a super long layover? Come on.


I completely agree that people need to lower and manage their expectations. I'm a multi-year 1K and work in a consulting role for a number of global companies and while traveling and working in person would make life easier in many ways, especially in managing employees I've been able to tackle 85% of what I need to remotely with Zoom, WebEx, etc.

If you're managing restructuring, financing for distressed companies, or have questions regarding the ethics of members of senior management at a company and need to be on the ground to see things firsthand, I can see the need to travel and the frustrations of not being able to get there especially when you have deals worth billions on the line. That said, if its that critical and worth that much probably worth looking into NetJets or something similar though I am not sure to what extent they are flying right now. One person mentioned accepting the physical delivery of a high value shipment, valid frustration but hopefully they move on quickly.

For the rest of us, we just need to accept that the pace of things will be slower due to less efficient travel options. Hopefully with a May schedule purpose built for the COVID environment, the number of cancellations goes down and confidence in the schedule goes up.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24851
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 5:06 pm

tphuang wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.


hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

UA has 50 A321XLR on order, along with this order bringing it to 21 78J and 38 789, so it can do either.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
UA444
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 6:00 pm

intotheair wrote:
What are the odds UA parts ways with some 787s and 77Ws? It may seem counterintuitive, but UA did shed a handful of newer 744s and 77Es during Ch 11.

They had 44 744s at the time which was too many.

The eight 777s they lost and the two 763s was due to the leasing company not renegotiating a new deal. They did not want to get rid of any.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1787
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 6:37 pm

N649DL wrote:
Boeing gave them a hell of a deal (again) it's what's more than likely what went down.

Those 787-10s seem to have teething issues, shouldn't they wait or did Boeing give them away essentially for free?


All airlines get a hell of a deal, there are very few that buy these planes in large quantities. UA is committed to the 787, why would BA have to give them away for free.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 6:45 pm

Revelation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.


hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

UA has 50 A321XLR on order, along with this order bringing it to 21 78J and 38 789, so it can do either.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet


The way Boeing is going with regards to the Max and NMA, a larger A321 order is possible. Who knows when the Max-9 will return and there’s no news at all with regards to the max-10 progression. My personal opinion, a large top off order for A321’s to deal with the aging A319’s, A320’s, and 757’s.

An A220 order to deal with the 737-700.

Leave the 767’s in the fleet until a real NMA comes to the table.

More 787’s to replace the 777’s

Goodbye A350
 
kaitak744
Posts: 2226
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:32 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 6:53 pm

If UA wants to reduce its wide body fleet, they are in the worst position of the big US3.

They just finished investing into refitting nearly all of their 777-200ERs and 767-300ERs (only 2-3 of each type left for refit). I highly doubt they would want to retire / store these aircraft having just put all that capital into them. 787s are new. 777-300ERs are new. The only wide body aircraft I can see UA removing from the fleet to reduce capacity are the 767-400ERs and 777-200As.


Does anyone know if UA still has plans to begin Polaris refits on the 767-400ERs?
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 6:58 pm

kaitak744 wrote:
If UA wants to reduce its wide body fleet, they are in the worst position of the big US3.

They just finished investing into refitting nearly all of their 777-200ERs and 767-300ERs (only 2-3 of each type left for refit). I highly doubt they would want to retire / store these aircraft having just put all that capital into them. 787s are new. 777-300ERs are new. The only wide body aircraft I can see UA removing from the fleet to reduce capacity are the 767-400ERs and 777-200As.


Does anyone know if UA still has plans to begin Polaris refits on the 767-400ERs?


The 767-400ER refit was suppose to start soon. It’s such a workhorse flying across the Atlantic and conducting charter flights, it’s hard to take it out of the rotation.
 
UA444
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 7:16 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
kaitak744 wrote:
If UA wants to reduce its wide body fleet, they are in the worst position of the big US3.

They just finished investing into refitting nearly all of their 777-200ERs and 767-300ERs (only 2-3 of each type left for refit). I highly doubt they would want to retire / store these aircraft having just put all that capital into them. 787s are new. 777-300ERs are new. The only wide body aircraft I can see UA removing from the fleet to reduce capacity are the 767-400ERs and 777-200As.


Does anyone know if UA still has plans to begin Polaris refits on the 767-400ERs?


The 767-400ER refit was suppose to start soon. It’s such a workhorse flying across the Atlantic and conducting charter flights, it’s hard to take it out of the rotation.

Well it seems pretty easy to take it out of rotation, because that’s exactly what they’ve done now.
 
Opus99
Posts: 1176
Joined: Thu May 30, 2019 10:51 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 7:18 pm

Good for united on taking on more -10s. Fantastic aircraft. United have pushed out their 350 order so far they might as well just wait for the re-engined version
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24851
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 7:39 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
The 767-400ER refit was suppose to start soon. It’s such a workhorse flying across the Atlantic and conducting charter flights, it’s hard to take it out of the rotation.

Well, it once was...
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
User avatar
DL747400
Posts: 968
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 7:43 pm

Can't help but wonder how and where UA is going to find the funds to pay for these new widebodies? :scratchchin:
From First to Worst: The history of Airliners.net.

All posts reflect my opinions, not those of my employer or any other company.
 
Max Q
Posts: 8571
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:23 pm

DL747400 wrote:
Can't help but wonder how and where UA is going to find the funds to pay for these new widebodies? :scratchchin:



Financing is already in place for these airframes, big picture it’s more expensive to to not take delivery


In these challenging times you need the most efficient aircraft available and nothing fits the bill more than this type
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
ordbosewr
Posts: 621
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 8:30 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:26 pm

DL747400 wrote:
Can't help but wonder how and where UA is going to find the funds to pay for these new widebodies? :scratchchin:


Same can be said for WN (MAX), DL (all the A220's and A350's) and AA (787's+) [I am sure I am leaving out the full order book of each of these].
All of the major US carriers have planes on order that are planned for delivery.
Every single one of them need financing or CASH.

Kirby already came out and said UA will only take the frames they have the funding available. It is also why UA did the sales lease-back transaction. That allowed them to take possession of the airplane but not incur the large cash hit.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3030
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:30 pm

JFKalumni wrote:
UA has 50 A321XLR on order, along with this order bringing it to 21 78J and 38 789, so it can do either.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet


The way Boeing is going with regards to the Max and NMA, a larger A321 order is possible. Who knows when the Max-9 will return and there’s no news at all with regards to the max-10 progression. My personal opinion, a large top off order for A321’s to deal with the aging A319’s, A320’s, and 757’s.

An A220 order to deal with the 737-700.

Leave the 767’s in the fleet until a real NMA comes to the table.

More 787’s to replace the 777’s

Goodbye A350[/quote]

Actually there has been news about the MAX-10 progression the first high speed taxi test took place in early March. According to Boeing they are hoping the first flight will take place later this year (I think that is up to the FAA) and Boeing is hoping the MAX-10 will enter revenue service in 2021. However right now it is not clear how close or how far we are away from the MAX being re-certified. It will be interesting to see what impact COVID-19 has had on the process to get the MAX re-certified.
https://simpleflying.com/boeing-737-max ... taxi-test/

I know this order for 7 additional 78Xs were finalized before COVID-19. United had told employees that after 2020 no new wide-bodies would be arriving before the A359s in 2027. I wonder what changed prior to COVID-19 and what was the plan for 2021? Were we going to retire some older aircraft and use these 7 as replacements or were these 7 going to be used for international growth? I know COVID-19 has shredded those plans but it would be nice to know what those plans were when UA exercised the option for 7 more frames.
 
CX747
Posts: 6299
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:38 pm

Revelation wrote:
tphuang wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Glad to see that for now, more 787s are on the way to UA's fleet. I have flown a large majority of UA's 787-10s and they are fantastic aircraft.

As for the other arguments as to when they were ordered...WHO CARES? New aircraft have been ordered and that's pretty cool. UA ordered A321s before Wuhan tanked the world, think that order is safer than this?....... I hope the overall economy boomerangs back and all the orders are secure. At this time though, no one really knows. You could make an argument that the 787 order is more secure than the A321. Market fragmentation is at a stand still and frequency isn't going to be needed for a while. One large jet a day, going EWR-CDG is much cheaper than 3 757/A321 doing 3 flights.


hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

UA has 50 A321XLR on order, along with this order bringing it to 21 78J and 38 789, so it can do either.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet


You are absolutely right in that regard. I also think when the A321s get delivered, we will be far from the current economic crisis. My overall point was that right now and for the foreseeable future, market fragmentation is dead. We will more than likely see airlines bring back certain flights, (CDG flying for example) but in a very different format. Rather than using 3 seperate 757/A321s on the route from three seperate airports, we will see consolidation into one CDG route, with one 787, that serves the market maybe three times a week. So where we used to see BOS-CDG, EWR-CDG and IAD-CDG, we may now see just EWR-CDG and that be flown 3 times a week. Less crew, less fuel and an attempt to maximize passenger loads. That trickle down effect could see three 737 flights replaced with 1 A321 and 3 E-190 flights replaced with 1 737 flight.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
jfk777
Posts: 7390
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:43 pm

United 767 are going to stay around a while, they are paid for and have new seats. They are efficient at flying to Europe with their new Polaris interiors from Newark and Chicago. Eventually UA may do what AA is doing and buy more 787-8 to replace the 767-300ER fleet. Early 777 could certainly be leaving the UA fleet, but the 757 are the first toast if UA is going to burn beard.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:47 pm

As an interim solution could the Max -9s cover for the 757 on routes like EWR - GLA/EDI/KEF/SNN/ARN/OPO next summer?
 
CX747
Posts: 6299
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:53 pm

tphuang wrote:
CX747 wrote:
tphuang wrote:

Lower capacity aircraft with slightly higher unit cost results in much higher rasm. That's why you see in transcon market, narrowbody is winning.

You can either offer better schedule with multiple frequencies or offer same frequency and the lower number of seats will result in your RASM. In longer market, A321XLR would allow you to offer service year round or daily vs seasonal or 3x weekly with a larger aircraft.


I think we are slightly talking past one another. You are correct when we look at the economic model of 6-8 months ago. That is not our current climate. Those models are now incorrect, inaccurate and not worth very much. Have you seen the Pittsburgh video shot by the AA pilot when landing there? A mega ton of AA aircraft just sitting, parked on an adjacent taxiway. Not one or two, how about 40-70 A32X aircraft. No work, no flights and no need of a crew.

An overwhelming portion of an airline's fleet at this time is grounded. UA itself is parking their entire 757/767 fleet. The ability to operate, crew and fill multiple daily departures is not there anymore. Therefore, in an instance of long haul flying from EWR-DUB, you will not see 3 daily A321 flights. You will see consolidation on multiple levels. You will now get a once daily EWR-DUB on a 787-10, in lieu of multiple daily EWR departures OR departures to DUB from multiple US cities. Possibly, EWR-DUB will be three times weekly, not even daily. So where multiple 757/767/787 aircraft flew for UA, you may now see just a daily 787.

and the 1x daily A321 will be more profitable than 1x daily 787. The fewer seat you need to fill when the cost is only a little higher, the fewer seat will generate better margins any day of the week.

You simply cannot replace 757/767s with 787 in many of these markets when demand will be even lower now than before. However, you could replace A330/B787 with A321 in many of the markets that have decreased demand and serve these markets more profitably.


You certainly can replace a 757/767 with a 787 and do it profitably. Instead of 3 daily EWR-LHR 757 flights, you now have 1 787 flight. All the pax and cargo go on that one flight. That's it, you want to go to Heathrow from Newark, then you get one United option. Maybe you don't even get it daily flight, just three times a week. Not multiple evening departures etc.

UA and other airlines have already done this to an extent. UA is grounding all their 757s. So, you need a route done next week? It is either a 737, 777 or 787. No more 757, so in essence, no more A321 need for right now. You either get it done with a 737 OR you figure out how to do it with a 787.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24851
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 8:56 pm

CX747 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
tphuang wrote:

hmm yes, in a reduced demand market, A321XLR is far more economical than 787. If UA is trying to use 787-9/10 against AA/B6 flying A321XLR in a long thin market out of EWR, it will get killed.

UA has 50 A321XLR on order, along with this order bringing it to 21 78J and 38 789, so it can do either.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet


You are absolutely right in that regard. I also think when the A321s get delivered, we will be far from the current economic crisis. My overall point was that right now and for the foreseeable future, market fragmentation is dead. We will more than likely see airlines bring back certain flights, (CDG flying for example) but in a very different format. Rather than using 3 seperate 757/A321s on the route from three seperate airports, we will see consolidation into one CDG route, with one 787, that serves the market maybe three times a week. So where we used to see BOS-CDG, EWR-CDG and IAD-CDG, we may now see just EWR-CDG and that be flown 3 times a week. Less crew, less fuel and an attempt to maximize passenger loads. That trickle down effect could see three 737 flights replaced with 1 A321 and 3 E-190 flights replaced with 1 737 flight.

I'm not sure how that would work in practice though. My airport of choice for international travel is BOS. If I needed to get to CDG I'm not sure I'd expose myself to the road journey to EWR or a 2nd flight BOS-EWR to get to CDG. I'd prefer to wait for a once weekly CDG-BOS if the real concern is building up pax load to get a 787 full. BOS may still find with light loads they are better off just serving BOS-CDG with narrow body.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
tphuang
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 9:00 pm

CX747 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
CX747 wrote:

I think we are slightly talking past one another. You are correct when we look at the economic model of 6-8 months ago. That is not our current climate. Those models are now incorrect, inaccurate and not worth very much. Have you seen the Pittsburgh video shot by the AA pilot when landing there? A mega ton of AA aircraft just sitting, parked on an adjacent taxiway. Not one or two, how about 40-70 A32X aircraft. No work, no flights and no need of a crew.

An overwhelming portion of an airline's fleet at this time is grounded. UA itself is parking their entire 757/767 fleet. The ability to operate, crew and fill multiple daily departures is not there anymore. Therefore, in an instance of long haul flying from EWR-DUB, you will not see 3 daily A321 flights. You will see consolidation on multiple levels. You will now get a once daily EWR-DUB on a 787-10, in lieu of multiple daily EWR departures OR departures to DUB from multiple US cities. Possibly, EWR-DUB will be three times weekly, not even daily. So where multiple 757/767/787 aircraft flew for UA, you may now see just a daily 787.

and the 1x daily A321 will be more profitable than 1x daily 787. The fewer seat you need to fill when the cost is only a little higher, the fewer seat will generate better margins any day of the week.

You simply cannot replace 757/767s with 787 in many of these markets when demand will be even lower now than before. However, you could replace A330/B787 with A321 in many of the markets that have decreased demand and serve these markets more profitably.


You certainly can replace a 757/767 with a 787 and do it profitably. Instead of 3 daily EWR-LHR 757 flights, you now have 1 787 flight. All the pax and cargo go on that one flight. That's it, you want to go to Heathrow from Newark, then you get one United option. Maybe you don't even get it daily flight, just three times a week. Not multiple evening departures etc.

UA and other airlines have already done this to an extent. UA is grounding all their 757s. So, you need a route done next week? It is either a 737, 777 or 787. No more 757, so in essence, no more A321 need for right now. You either get it done with a 737 OR you figure out how to do it with a 787.


Not every route has as much demand as EWR-LHR. There are a lot of routes right now like EWR-MAD, where UA probably can't fill daily 787 year round. But if they had A321, they might be able to do it. Lower capacity aircraft that have similar cost will over time beat the higher capacity aircraft.

The advantages that higher capacity aircraft have are:
1) lower cost
2) longer range
3) greater real estate for suites
4) cargo space

With A321XLR, it's CASM is really close to smaller capacity A330NEO and 787s. It's range is long enough to serve the TATL markets. And in terms of real estate, we now have suites on narrowbody that we didn't have before. So aside from cargo, there is really not much other benefits for higher capacity aircraft.

Selling 20 J seats + 140 Y/Y+ seats is a lot easier than selling 40 J seats + 250 Y/Y+ seats.

This same theory works upchain also.
- A380 is no longer needed with 77W + A35J around
- 78X long term will replace 77W, not 77X.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3030
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 9:01 pm

intotheair wrote:
What are the odds UA parts ways with some 787s and 77Ws? It may seem counterintuitive, but UA did shed a handful of newer 744s and 77Es during Ch 11.


United did not willingly give up those newer 744s and 77Es that we lost during bankruptcy. As others have pointed out the leasing companies did not want to renegotiate with UA which left UA will little choice. Also if I'm not mistaken all the 744s and 77Es UA rejected during bankruptcy found new homes fairly quickly at other airlines.

If we look at the market today all airlines are hurting and to be honest we have no idea how many will survive globally and how much used inventory will be on the market as airlines worldwide downsize their fleet. There may be more of an incentive today for leasing companies to work with airlines to keep aircraft in their fleet to keep revenue coming in. In this environment if the used market becomes saturated with frames that does not benefit the leasing company it benefits the airlines. An aircraft sitting on the ground is not making money, it doesn't matter if the owner is an airline or a leasing company.

I think one of the best examples of this are the SQ A380s that were returned to their lessor after just 10 years of service. It was cheaper for the leasing company to scrap these frames than continue to pay to maintain the aircraft while looking for an airline willing to take them.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1618
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 9:13 pm

UA can quickly divest of the 23 (planned) 77A's + 16 764's + 7 non Polaris (6 x '92/93) = 45 quick wide-body a/c gone. Then it gets tough deciding as you point out, UA did a lot of investment in everything else.
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 9:21 pm

tphuang wrote:
CX747 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
and the 1x daily A321 will be more profitable than 1x daily 787. The fewer seat you need to fill when the cost is only a little higher, the fewer seat will generate better margins any day of the week.

You simply cannot replace 757/767s with 787 in many of these markets when demand will be even lower now than before. However, you could replace A330/B787 with A321 in many of the markets that have decreased demand and serve these markets more profitably.


You certainly can replace a 757/767 with a 787 and do it profitably. Instead of 3 daily EWR-LHR 757 flights, you now have 1 787 flight. All the pax and cargo go on that one flight. That's it, you want to go to Heathrow from Newark, then you get one United option. Maybe you don't even get it daily flight, just three times a week. Not multiple evening departures etc.

UA and other airlines have already done this to an extent. UA is grounding all their 757s. So, you need a route done next week? It is either a 737, 777 or 787. No more 757, so in essence, no more A321 need for right now. You either get it done with a 737 OR you figure out how to do it with a 787.


Not every route has as much demand as EWR-LHR. There are a lot of routes right now like EWR-MAD, where UA probably can't fill daily 787 year round. But if they had A321, they might be able to do it. Lower capacity aircraft that have similar cost will over time beat the higher capacity aircraft.

The advantages that higher capacity aircraft have are:
1) lower cost
2) longer range
3) greater real estate for suites
4) cargo space

With A321XLR, it's CASM is really close to smaller capacity A330NEO and 787s. It's range is long enough to serve the TATL markets. And in terms of real estate, we now have suites on narrowbody that we didn't have before. So aside from cargo, there is really not much other benefits for higher capacity aircraft.

Selling 20 J seats + 140 Y/Y+ seats is a lot easier than selling 40 J seats + 250 Y/Y+ seats.

This same theory works upchain also.
- A380 is no longer needed with 77W + A35J around
- 78X long term will replace 77W, not 77X.


You have a good argument but right now the cargo capacity is keeping many of these airlines afloat. There are many flights where the cargo paid for the entire trip and everything else was pure profit.

EWR-MAD is perfect for a 757 or an A321. Question is are you willing to leave 5 PMC pallets of valuable freight on the ground to right size every aspect of the flight ?
Last edited by JFKalumni on Tue May 05, 2020 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3030
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 9:34 pm

tphuang wrote:
Not every route has as much demand as EWR-LHR. There are a lot of routes right now like EWR-MAD, where UA probably can't fill daily 787 year round. But if they had A321, they might be able to do it. Lower capacity aircraft that have similar cost will over time beat the higher capacity aircraft.

The advantages that higher capacity aircraft have are:
1) lower cost
2) longer range
3) greater real estate for suites
4) cargo space

With A321XLR, it's CASM is really close to smaller capacity A330NEO and 787s. It's range is long enough to serve the TATL markets. And in terms of real estate, we now have suites on narrowbody that we didn't have before. So aside from cargo, there is really not much other benefits for higher capacity aircraft.

Selling 20 J seats + 140 Y/Y+ seats is a lot easier than selling 40 J seats + 250 Y/Y+ seats.

This same theory works upchain also.
- A380 is no longer needed with 77W + A35J around
- 78X long term will replace 77W, not 77X.


You are correct when talking about year around service. In the pre-COVID-19 world UA utilized a 77HD on EWR-MAD from IATA-spring till IATA-winter schedule. However for the entire IATA-winter schedule UA utilized a 763s a difference of more than 130 seats. It is cheaper in the winter for UA to fill a 763 on this route than a 77HD. If UA were to utilize a 77HD on EWR-MAD in the winter even if by some miracle we managed to fill all 366 seats we still would loose money because of lower RASMs. During the winter months or when demand is subdued a A321XLR would beat a 78X any day. However if demand has returned by summer 2022 a single 78X flying EWR-MAD during July would beat 3 A321LXRs flying the same route because the cost associated with operating #A321XLR would be higher than a single 78X. So when looking at year around service UA might have to suspend a route in the winter because a we would loose money flying a wide-body while an airline with a A321LXR might be able to continue to serve the route profitably.

But not to fear UA has 50 A321LXRs on order! I appreciate your point of view tphuang even if in some threads I may disagree with you or not like what you are sayin gone thing is clear you are well informed and know your stuff.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 9:37 pm

jayunited wrote:

But not to fear UA has 50 A321LXRs on order! I appreciate your point of view tphuang even if in some threads I may disagree with you or not like what you are sayin gone thing is clear you are well informed and know your stuff.

Thanks a lot. I also really appreciate your insight. Some of the most candid/insightful of anyone here regarding their employer.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 9:41 pm

United applied with DOT for authority to restart HKG-SIN service.

Carrier says it seeks to operate daily 77W service to carry cargo effective May 10th.

OST-2020-0047
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 9:55 pm

LAXintl wrote:
United applied with DOT for authority to restart HKG-SIN service.

Carrier says it seeks to operate daily 77W service to carry cargo effective May 10th.

OST-2020-0047


They plan to add pax to those flights in the future. Sounds like the end for SFO - SIN for a little bit.
 
GSP psgr
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:09 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 10:16 pm

I do wonder if there will be a few new market opportunities for United because of the bankruptcy and end of some airlines. EWR-JNB and IAD-ACC(-JNB) come to mind immediately because of the collapse of South African, for example.
 
UA444
Posts: 2998
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 10:31 pm

jayunited wrote:
intotheair wrote:
What are the odds UA parts ways with some 787s and 77Ws? It may seem counterintuitive, but UA did shed a handful of newer 744s and 77Es during Ch 11.


United did not willingly give up those newer 744s and 77Es that we lost during bankruptcy. As others have pointed out the leasing companies did not want to renegotiate with UA which left UA will little choice. Also if I'm not mistaken all the 744s and 77Es UA rejected during bankruptcy found new homes fairly quickly at other airlines.

If we look at the market today all airlines are hurting and to be honest we have no idea how many will survive globally and how much used inventory will be on the market as airlines worldwide downsize their fleet. There may be more of an incentive today for leasing companies to work with airlines to keep aircraft in their fleet to keep revenue coming in. In this environment if the used market becomes saturated with frames that does not benefit the leasing company it benefits the airlines. An aircraft sitting on the ground is not making money, it doesn't matter if the owner is an airline or a leasing company.

I think one of the best examples of this are the SQ A380s that were returned to their lessor after just 10 years of service. It was cheaper for the leasing company to scrap these frames than continue to pay to maintain the aircraft while looking for an airline willing to take them.

All eight 777s and 14 747s found new homes, The 777s went to a mix of Varig, Air India, Transaero, and Omni. None are flying today. The 747s went to Corsair, and various others with a few winding up in Iran, probably through illegal means. The UAE government has two of them in VIP config.

Of the remaining 30, only 1 of the 6 retired during the 2008-2009 downturn found another home, going to Orient Thai and eventually scrapped.

Only one so far of the ones retired in 2017 has found a new home. I think only a few are left in VCV in flyable condition with the rest derelict.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 10:39 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
AA flies JFK to DUB on a 772 and PHL to DUB on an A332/333.


Off topic now, but AA never flew JFK-DUB on a 772 as far as I know. They flew it for a few years on a 752, but cut it last year in favor of starting DFW-DUB.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
CX747
Posts: 6299
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 10:53 pm

Revelation wrote:
CX747 wrote:
Revelation wrote:
UA has 50 A321XLR on order, along with this order bringing it to 21 78J and 38 789, so it can do either.

Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_fleet


You are absolutely right in that regard. I also think when the A321s get delivered, we will be far from the current economic crisis. My overall point was that right now and for the foreseeable future, market fragmentation is dead. We will more than likely see airlines bring back certain flights, (CDG flying for example) but in a very different format. Rather than using 3 seperate 757/A321s on the route from three seperate airports, we will see consolidation into one CDG route, with one 787, that serves the market maybe three times a week. So where we used to see BOS-CDG, EWR-CDG and IAD-CDG, we may now see just EWR-CDG and that be flown 3 times a week. Less crew, less fuel and an attempt to maximize passenger loads. That trickle down effect could see three 737 flights replaced with 1 A321 and 3 E-190 flights replaced with 1 737 flight.

I'm not sure how that would work in practice though. My airport of choice for international travel is BOS. If I needed to get to CDG I'm not sure I'd expose myself to the road journey to EWR or a 2nd flight BOS-EWR to get to CDG. I'd prefer to wait for a once weekly CDG-BOS if the real concern is building up pax load to get a 787 full. BOS may still find with light loads they are better off just serving BOS-CDG with narrow body.


They may very well indeed do that BUT it leads to additional aircraft, crews, landing fees etc. In essence you need two crew of three pilots to get you from EWR/BOS-CDG. You will probably see a reduced BOS-EWR pattern. I'm just spitballing but maybe two daily BOS-EWR flights with a 737. 1000 and 1600. That lines you up for the 2200 EWR-LHR either way you slice it.

I completely understand not wanting to connect...I think that will actually see less competition occur. UA will dominate EWR but lose out at MIA, where AA truly becomes king of the roost. Airlines just won't have the finances to offer the flights and connections like before.

Slight deviation, before the crisis trying to get from EWR to Florida destinations was very easy and non-stop with United. It was next to impossible with AA as everything connected somewhere else. So, in that regard, I bet we see almost no presence at EWR for AA as things open up. Under great conditions, they couldn't or didn't want to make NJ-FL flights work. Why would they try to do it now?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
EssentialPowr
Posts: 1732
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2000 10:30 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 11:04 pm

CriticalPoint “What you will see is massive amounts of 787 FOs in LAX go to SFO and the company will accept them. They will accept the pilots that bid into the 756.....etc. United will furlough on OCT 1st but how many isn’t yet clear but it will certainly not be 4000-5000.”

United is going to start this drawdown with the 5000 displacements and a 30% size reduction; unless things change significantly by September not only will they furlough all 5000 initially but will probably displace more. Pre merger United’s philosophy was to shrink to profitability. That didn’t work but based on the millions of dollars wasted on buying a flight school, uniform debacles and a massive HR increase over the past few years, this is always the solution when managed by a committee instead of a singular airline guru like Bethune, Anderson or Carty.
Last edited by EssentialPowr on Tue May 05, 2020 11:15 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
x1234
Posts: 949
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Tue May 05, 2020 11:06 pm

Traditionally UA & DL are the most unique launcher of routes. Delta into Africa and UA into Asia. I agree if SAA goes down then UA should launch EWR-JNB in addition to EWR-CPT. I also seriously hope that DL launches SEA-SIN/MNL.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Tue May 05, 2020 11:47 pm

tphuang wrote:
Lower capacity aircraft that have similar cost will over time beat the higher capacity aircraft.

The advantages that higher capacity aircraft have are:
1) lower cost
2) longer range
3) greater real estate for suites
4) cargo space

With A321XLR, it's CASM is really close to smaller capacity A330NEO and 787s. It's range is long enough to serve the TATL markets. And in terms of real estate, we now have suites on narrowbody that we didn't have before. So aside from cargo, there is really not much other benefits for higher capacity aircraft.


In a low demand environment this is certainly true. The smaller the aircraft, the better. But once demand picks back up, a 321XLR doesn't necessarily beat a 78J on a route that can comfortably support both flights. In that case, the more seats you can sell at a healthy price, the better.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
tphuang
Posts: 5477
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Wed May 06, 2020 12:38 am

FSDan wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Lower capacity aircraft that have similar cost will over time beat the higher capacity aircraft.

The advantages that higher capacity aircraft have are:
1) lower cost
2) longer range
3) greater real estate for suites
4) cargo space

With A321XLR, it's CASM is really close to smaller capacity A330NEO and 787s. It's range is long enough to serve the TATL markets. And in terms of real estate, we now have suites on narrowbody that we didn't have before. So aside from cargo, there is really not much other benefits for higher capacity aircraft.


In a low demand environment this is certainly true. The smaller the aircraft, the better. But once demand picks back up, a 321XLR doesn't necessarily beat a 78J on a route that can comfortably support both flights. In that case, the more seats you can sell at a healthy price, the better.

2 xlr flights will give you roughly the same capacity but a better schedule.
 
codc10
Posts: 2912
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Wed May 06, 2020 1:41 am

EssentialPowr wrote:
Carty.


Don, is that you?
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 868
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Wed May 06, 2020 1:42 am

tphuang wrote:
FSDan wrote:
tphuang wrote:
Lower capacity aircraft that have similar cost will over time beat the higher capacity aircraft.

The advantages that higher capacity aircraft have are:
1) lower cost
2) longer range
3) greater real estate for suites
4) cargo space

With A321XLR, it's CASM is really close to smaller capacity A330NEO and 787s. It's range is long enough to serve the TATL markets. And in terms of real estate, we now have suites on narrowbody that we didn't have before. So aside from cargo, there is really not much other benefits for higher capacity aircraft.


In a low demand environment this is certainly true. The smaller the aircraft, the better. But once demand picks back up, a 321XLR doesn't necessarily beat a 78J on a route that can comfortably support both flights. In that case, the more seats you can sell at a healthy price, the better.

2 xlr flights will give you roughly the same capacity but a better schedule.

But more costs. 2 sets of crew, 2 sets of engines, separate airport and airway fees.
 
FSDan
Posts: 3340
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Wed May 06, 2020 1:52 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
tphuang wrote:
FSDan wrote:

In a low demand environment this is certainly true. The smaller the aircraft, the better. But once demand picks back up, a 321XLR doesn't necessarily beat a 78J on a route that can comfortably support both flights. In that case, the more seats you can sell at a healthy price, the better.

2 xlr flights will give you roughly the same capacity but a better schedule.

But more costs. 2 sets of crew, 2 sets of engines, separate airport and airway fees.


Yep, I expect the cost/benefit of one strategy vs the other would vary case by case. In some markets, schedule flexibility will be important enough that the extra cost of operating two flights is justified by higher premium revenues. In other cases, slots or other operational restrictions will give preference to the larger aircraft. Some markets would be a better fit for the 321XLR capacity-wise, while others like large leisure-oriented destinations would be better fits for the 787.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
United1
Posts: 4196
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Wed May 06, 2020 1:55 am

DL747400 wrote:
Can't help but wonder how and where UA is going to find the funds to pay for these new widebodies? :scratchchin:


Actually it's fairly easy to finance aircraft right now. At one point a week ago t-bonds were negative (meaning the holders paid the government for the privilege) so investors are searching for yield. Aircraft are a physical asset so it's almost always fairly simple to line up financing. From what I understand it's already done.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
GSP psgr
Posts: 719
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 7:09 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Wed May 06, 2020 2:04 am

x1234 wrote:
Traditionally UA & DL are the most unique launcher of routes. Delta into Africa and UA into Asia. I agree if SAA goes down then UA should launch EWR-JNB in addition to EWR-CPT. I also seriously hope that DL launches SEA-SIN/MNL.


The only hiccup with EWR-JNB would be what restrictions might exist using a 787 out of JNB nonstop because it is hot and high (there may or may not be restrictions). UA may opt to do a EWR-JNB-CPT-EWR routing in order to be able to haul a full belly of cargo back to the US. DL uses the 77L on ATL-JNB which was somewhat purpose built for the route.

As for ACC, there were rumors to the extent that it was a significantly more profitable 5th Freedom flight than IAD-DKR/DSS and IAD-ACC had only recently gone daily on SAA. Something to keep an eye on in the medium to long term-I think we'll see DL pick up the slack on JFK-ACC first, though.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 24851
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Wed May 06, 2020 2:18 am

CX747 wrote:
They may very well indeed do that BUT it leads to additional aircraft, crews, landing fees etc. In essence you need two crew of three pilots to get you from EWR/BOS-CDG. You will probably see a reduced BOS-EWR pattern. I'm just spitballing but maybe two daily BOS-EWR flights with a 737. 1000 and 1600. That lines you up for the 2200 EWR-LHR either way you slice it.

I completely understand not wanting to connect...I think that will actually see less competition occur. UA will dominate EWR but lose out at MIA, where AA truly becomes king of the roost. Airlines just won't have the finances to offer the flights and connections like before.

Slight deviation, before the crisis trying to get from EWR to Florida destinations was very easy and non-stop with United. It was next to impossible with AA as everything connected somewhere else. So, in that regard, I bet we see almost no presence at EWR for AA as things open up. Under great conditions, they couldn't or didn't want to make NJ-FL flights work. Why would they try to do it now?

My point of view is that of someone taking risk of the virus seriously. I wouldn't be flying anywhere unless I had a very strong reason to go. Then once I decide to go I would not want to expose myself to a second airport filled with mostly different pax and staff, then a second cabin filled with many different pax and staff, so I would insist on direct and would be prepared to pay through the nose for it. Yes, the airlines will have a tough time delivering services under the circumstances but that is an unavoidable reality. I'd actually prefer to drive to EWR rather than take an extra BOS-EWR hop since I have a lot more control over my environment in the car.
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world
The heart has its beaches, its homeland and thoughts of its own
Wake now, discover that you are the song that the morning brings
The heart has its seasons, its evenings and songs of its own
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1314
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Wed May 06, 2020 2:55 am

Revelation wrote:
CX747 wrote:
They may very well indeed do that BUT it leads to additional aircraft, crews, landing fees etc. In essence you need two crew of three pilots to get you from EWR/BOS-CDG. You will probably see a reduced BOS-EWR pattern. I'm just spitballing but maybe two daily BOS-EWR flights with a 737. 1000 and 1600. That lines you up for the 2200 EWR-LHR either way you slice it.

I completely understand not wanting to connect...I think that will actually see less competition occur. UA will dominate EWR but lose out at MIA, where AA truly becomes king of the roost. Airlines just won't have the finances to offer the flights and connections like before.

Slight deviation, before the crisis trying to get from EWR to Florida destinations was very easy and non-stop with United. It was next to impossible with AA as everything connected somewhere else. So, in that regard, I bet we see almost no presence at EWR for AA as things open up. Under great conditions, they couldn't or didn't want to make NJ-FL flights work. Why would they try to do it now?

My point of view is that of someone taking risk of the virus seriously. I wouldn't be flying anywhere unless I had a very strong reason to go. Then once I decide to go I would not want to expose myself to a second airport filled with mostly different pax and staff, then a second cabin filled with many different pax and staff, so I would insist on direct and would be prepared to pay through the nose for it. Yes, the airlines will have a tough time delivering services under the circumstances but that is an unavoidable reality. I'd actually prefer to drive to EWR rather than take an extra BOS-EWR hop since I have a lot more control over my environment in the car.


If you haven’t been exposed already you probably have better odds to be at the grocery store than on plane where social disgracing measures are being implemented.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Wed May 06, 2020 3:39 am

Due to high and hot, isn't tire speed the issue with JNB departures? I wonder how the 789 does vs. the 77L in this factor?
I wonder if LH pullback will put more UA metal on FRA and MUC flights? Maybe when things come back, there would be an opportunity to add more Germany smaller markets from EWR, especially with the 321XLR.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1900
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Wed May 06, 2020 4:37 am

I'd love to see UA do routes like that, but at this point, I think UA needs to focus on keeping as much as what it already has been flying. They're not predicting to get back to 2019 levels for another 2-3 years, which, 2019 was a great year, but in the meantime, I think UA and all the airlines are going to shrink by quite a bit, unfortunately. Destinations like South Africa are probably going to be on the backburner for a while, even with the impending collapse of SAA taken into consideration.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

Re: United exercises options for 7 787-10s

Wed May 06, 2020 5:05 am

jeffrey0032j wrote:
tphuang wrote:
FSDan wrote:

In a low demand environment this is certainly true. The smaller the aircraft, the better. But once demand picks back up, a 321XLR doesn't necessarily beat a 78J on a route that can comfortably support both flights. In that case, the more seats you can sell at a healthy price, the better.

2 xlr flights will give you roughly the same capacity but a better schedule.

But more costs. 2 sets of crew, 2 sets of engines, separate airport and airway fees.


In the US model of flying isn't frequency more important than efficiency? Otherwise much more domestic flying would be widebody.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6194
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, & Livery Thread - 2020

Wed May 06, 2020 5:12 am

UALifer wrote:
joeljack wrote:
As the country is opening up, I made a couple calls to 3 friends and a relative that are are either a 1K or GS to see what there travel plans are and found out some startling, very concerning information. Below:

United Global Service member based in Austin: Needs to go to SFO a few times in June but over all, not going to be traveling much. United has no nonstops to SFO right now loaded and he said he will probably wait til a week before to book and he said he will be flying Alaska vs United if United doesn't load and nonstops because Alaska still has a nonstop (assuming they operate it). He said it will be his first time on Alaska.

United 1K in Houston: manages a construction site in Omaha...flies back and forth every week, even during covid to manage job site. United has cancelled so many flights he hasn't even been able to connect the last several weeks, gave up on United and has been flying American through Dallas lately instead. He is very mad at United for booking flights through DEN or ORD and cancelled all their flights on several days with zero options even with long layovers to get back and forth. He said American has cancelled some flights but still seems to be operating several flights a day between Dallas and both Houston and Omaha and hasn't been an issue. He had all his flights booked for June, united just pulled their schedule to eliminate OMA-IAH for June this past weekend. Spent Sunday on phone with United arguing and cancelling the flights. Said he will be re-booking with American.

United 1K in Omaha: Needs to go to Newark mid-June to receive a high dollar international shipment. Tried to book OMA-EWR Sunday and can't even get there with a connection in Chicago. She is super mad and has been a United loyalist. I suggested to try WN, she hates WN and said she would rather drive. lol. She said she'll probably end up on either American or Delta as the trip isn't an option but has to go.

United 1K in Omaha: In financial sector and was looking to get has travel back in order for June...also said flights are so limited with only a single flight a day to ORD from Omaha in June that he can't get any roundtrips to even price out and if they do, they have a super long layover. He said he will be looking at other airlines this week. Note all said they plan on flying in July too but none will be looking to book anything for several weeks until schedules finalize.

That said, out of the 4 1k/GS friends I spoke to Sunday night and last night, really none are booking United and all 4 are going to be traveling in June. Seems like most are waiting til last few weeks to book to make sure schedules are finalized as stuff has changed so much but if there is nothing to book, will need to book with other airlines.

My personal opinion after hearing this, United needs to be very careful not to lose too many high dollar elites. For example, after some searching, they are only flying 1 OMA-ORD in June and it doesn't even operate ever day. ORD-EWR is only 2x daily. You really can't run an airline with a schedule like that. I'd say at a minimum, you need 2x daily OMA-ORD and 5x daily ORD-EWR (hub to hub). Also, should probably be flying 1x daily OMA-IAH on a 50-seater.

If United doesn't add flights for June or start flying a reasonable schedule that allows for connections, other airlines will gain big time over United. and United loads will stay anemic.

As a side note, I'm a United Platinum, Iowa based, I don't know when I will fly next. Probably late June or July but won't be booking anytime soon.

Thoughts?


Well I can’t really say much for the first two, though Alaska has only been operating a handful (~15) daily flights at SFO, so I seriously doubt they’ll be offering a nonstop to AUS in June. The two in OMA are full of it though.

United just redesigned their schedule in May to improve connections and will be implementing similar changes for June either this weekend or next. Most of the hubs ran roughly a 30% seat factor yesterday with this new schedule so I’m not sure why everyone is so down on the United schedule.

There are currently two daily flights OMA-ORD and OMA-DEN, both of which line up with the “mega banks” that have been built in each hub, and both of which offer 45-60 minute connections to anywhere they want to go.

For example, OMA-EWR via ORD:

OMA 0630 ORD 0811
ORD 0920 EWR 1224

OMA 1515 ORD 1658
ORD 1745 EWR 2055

Even your friend who wants to go IAH-OMA should not have much longer than a 1 hour layover in ORD or DEN, though he’s right that it’s a bit out of the way versus going through DFW.


Its all a matter of waiting it out. When the smoke clears, I cannot imagine that OMA-IAH wont come back. It wouldnt make since for UA not to fly it even in the new normal.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!

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