319:
N836UA exited DLH 2755/8May with 12F/36E+/78Y configuration.
69 of 74 complete.

772:
N76010 sked to exited HKG 2864/10May w/Polaris/PP
772GE #20 of 22 complete (N78013 expected to exit HKG soon, N77014 stored in IAH)

78X:
N13013 first revenue flight 989/5May IAD-FRA

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Nicknuzzii wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Headcount targets for widebody fleet with the displacement bid.

I really wish people would stop posting internal communications. The more it happens the less information we get.

We don’t get to see the planned WB aircraft vs. destination chart anymore because people keep posting it online.

Why is this a problem for you or something the airline would care about?

Maybe they don’t care. It just irks me when I see screen grabs of company communications. I prefer to get more information from the company but this shows we can’t be trusted with more information.

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Bigger bombshell is the fact they previously planned to retire the 764 in the first place.

UA444 wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Bigger bombshell is the fact they previously planned to retire the 764 in the first place.

That is a big bombshell but I suppose not all that surprising after the additional 78X orders.

I wonder if UA had/has a buyer lined up for them. UA generally markets their former aircraft to airlines they don't compete with so will be interesting to see where they end up.

Airlines are being circumspect about fleet plans. Partly because they don't know. Partly because it might trigger labour issues / negotiations. Partly because if there is a floating charge over them, lenders must be informed if permanently withdrawn from service. And partly because if any book value (usually the result of improvements, major service, significant new / overhauled parts) values need to be reviewed and written down / off promptly.

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

I wonder when they made the decision about the 764s because as recently as January the 764s are showing schedule for Polaris/PE installations slated to begin later this year.

However January 2020 is the last update in they system for Polaris/PE because by late February it was clear things were about to change. Also when were the additional 78X orders were place and was this top off order the nail that sealed the 764s fate? Would love to see that email perhaps next week UA will make some type of public announcement.

Projected WB staffing numbers suggest little augmented (long haul) flying. Not a surprise...

tphuang wrote:

I guess given this kind of reception, UA pretty much has to take the gov't loans. If they can't even get buyers with 11% interest, that's not a good sign.

These aren’t the only airplanes UA can collateralize. The package was basically a refinance at a pretty favorable loan to value rate. The tepid reaction is a bit of a surprise, though.

Speaks more to the industry outlook than a particularly grim sign for United, insofar as the market doesn’t see much value in 18-20 year old frames... and US carriers have a lot of them.

The Fed is buying junk bonds. Wonder if they’d be interested?

Not pretty outcome for United.
Lets see if they go back to the market with a reduced size bond offer.

Late on Friday, after some 48 hours of frantic attempts to lure investors to their faltering bond sale, executives at United Airlines let it be known that the deal was dead.

It was an odd moment, stuck smack in the middle of one of the busiest corporate bond booms ever, a period in which investors have shown themselves to be receptive to almost any debt offer backed by good collateral. But this last part was where United got in trouble. For collateral, it had scraped together 360 old jets, some of which analysts considered would be nearly worthless in a few years.


When United pawned old jets, bond traders sent a stark warning
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/airline ... rk-warning

janders wrote:

Not pretty outcome for United.
Lets see if they go back to the market with a reduced size bond offer.

Late on Friday, after some 48 hours of frantic attempts to lure investors to their faltering bond sale, executives at United Airlines let it be known that the deal was dead.

It was an odd moment, stuck smack in the middle of one of the busiest corporate bond booms ever, a period in which investors have shown themselves to be receptive to almost any debt offer backed by good collateral. But this last part was where United got in trouble. For collateral, it had scraped together 360 old jets, some of which analysts considered would be nearly worthless in a few years.


When United pawned old jets, bond traders sent a stark warning
https://www.chicagobusiness.com/airline ... rk-warning

That's strange. Did they not want to put up newer aircraft as collateral for some reason, or are too many of their newer aircraft on lease? If the latter is the case, that really doesn't bode well for their financial health. Sort of makes you wonder what they've been doing to better position themselves for the past decade, apart from stock buybacks, which obviously isn't looking so awesome right now.

UAX Update:

All ExpressJet E175SCs are no longer flying for ExpressJet as the transition to Skywest continues.
Already Flying for Skywest: 601, 602, 619, 620, 621, 624, 625
At BOI for Skywest prep: 603, 608, 617
At OKC for Skywest prep: 604, 605, 606, 607, 609, 610, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 618, 622, 623

There has been a large drawdown of the active ZW CR2 Fleet. The following units are temporarily parked:
ATW: 471, 470, 469, 467, 459, 456, 449, 444, 439, 435, 434, 430, 427, 419, 417, 416, 415, 413, 405
DAY: 463, 462, 460, 458, 455, 454, 453, 452, 448, 447, 446, 445, 442, 421, 418, 414, 411
ROW: 451, 440, 438, 437, 436

MIflyer12 wrote:

2. The debt markets are starting to segregate winners and losers. Another carrier borrowed a lot more $ at a much lower rate recently.

Any info on the collateral used by the other carrier?

United1 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Bigger bombshell is the fact they previously planned to retire the 764 in the first place.

That is a big bombshell but I suppose not all that surprising after the additional 78X orders.

I wonder if UA had/has a buyer lined up for them. UA generally markets their former aircraft to airlines they don't compete with so will be interesting to see where they end up.

If Delta were to retire some or all of theirs, the rationale for converting all 37 to freighters if FX and 5X are interested goes up substantially. Both also fly other GE 767s, and have MD-11’s with CF6 engines, while that engine is an oddball at UA. My guess is they wanted to retire it the same way the USAF wanted to dump the KC-10. A completely removal of a fleet type has more cost savings than retiring a few more KC-135s.

And if I’m Boeing and a 764BCF is liked by one of those airlines, perhaps they revisit the proposal they had to build new freighters for FX a few years ago.

UA444 wrote:

United1 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

Bigger bombshell is the fact they previously planned to retire the 764 in the first place.

That is a big bombshell but I suppose not all that surprising after the additional 78X orders.

I wonder if UA had/has a buyer lined up for them. UA generally markets their former aircraft to airlines they don't compete with so will be interesting to see where they end up.

If Delta were to retire some or all of theirs, the rationale for converting all 37 to freighters if FX and 5X are interested goes up substantially. Both also fly other GE 767s, and have MD-11’s with CF6 engines, while that engine is an oddball at UA. My guess is they wanted to retire it the same way the USAF wanted to dump the KC-10. A completely removal of a fleet type has more cost savings than retiring a few more KC-135s.

And if I’m Boeing and a 764BCF is liked by one of those airlines, perhaps they revisit the proposal they had to build new freighters for FX a few years ago.

The issue for 5x and Fx is the wingspan is greater than the 763/A300. It would, however, fit in MD10/11 gates.

atcsundevil wrote:

That's strange. Did they not want to put up newer aircraft as collateral for some reason, or are too many of their newer aircraft on lease? If the latter is the case, that really doesn't bode well for their financial health. Sort of makes you wonder what they've been doing to better position themselves for the past decade, apart from stock buybacks, which obviously isn't looking so awesome right now.

What has United been doing for the past decade?

We know for the past decade UA the AA and DL have been preparing for and were ready for a 9/11 type event where air travel was shut down for 3 days, but demand did return. If this were a 9/11 type event it would not have been a problem for any carrier but now we are 2 months into this shut down and of course hindsight is 20/20.

Back in late March in the main Coronavirus thread people criticized those of us who stated the US3 should have had more liquidity by saying it is not good for companies to keep the kind of liquidity they now need on hand. Some people we're criticized for suggesting airlines may want to keep $10-$20 million dollars in cash on hand for next pandemic and they we're criticized for making those comments. Should the US3 have been involved in stock buybacks well in hindsight the answer is no. However before COVID-19 the only people complaining about the stock buybacks were employees, while everyone else thought airlines had a responsibility to give something back to their investors. COVID-19 aside you know what UA has done to better position themselves you only need look at their Q4 and full year 2019 financial results. It is not really a fair question or criticism to ask what UA has been doing for the past decade when for the past decade the bench mark incident all airlines judged themselves against was 9/11. According to a recent report out yesterday the U.S. has not seen demand at this level since the 1950's. United was effected a lot earlier than other U.S. carriers because of our extensive international routes that we're cut in February. But overall UA was as prepared as any other carrier could be for an event that has seen demand drop 90%-95%.

Should UA survive this and I believe UA will you will see them and all airlines better prepared for the next pandemic. Also what isn't fair is UA was the only airline called out for trying to reduce employees hours while other airlines some major other are niche or LCCs have done the exact same thing. From the beginning of this crisis I think UA and Kirby has done the best they could, UA was first out of the gate to respond to COVID-19 from a operational standpoint and from a management and administrative standpoint. The unions were left untouched because we thought CARES would cover 100% of the payroll which it did not. UA's plan to reduce daily cash burn to $45 million is now in jeopardy because we were the only airline called out for doing what other airlines have done and subsequently UA relented for at least a month. So for the month of June UA's daily cash burn might be closer to $60-$65 million dollars. Judging from UA Q1 results operationally UA managed the fall out better than AA, operationally we were only $105 million dollars behind DL. Delta has not release how much money they lost on assets that temporarily have no value, UA did which is how we got to $1.2 Billion dollar lost which was still a billion dollars better than American.

tphuang wrote:

UA444 wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Bigger bombshell is the fact they previously planned to retire the 764 in the first place.

Does this mean all the 757s with lie flat are gone or just a portion? Sorry for my ignorance here. What about the 300s?

The 757 PS fleet in this case are the PW powered 752s...the 75Ks.

We don't know about the rest yet...

tphuang wrote:

Does this mean all the 757s with lie flat are gone or just a portion? Sorry for my ignorance here. What about the 300s?

What I was told and posted in an earlier post from the team that oversaw UA's storage program was this, aircraft stored at ROW most likely will not fly again for at least one or two years if not longer. Aircraft stored at the hubs and line stations can be put back into service in a matter of days. UA has 16 RR 752 parked between MCO, our HUBS, and INT, the remaining RR 752 fleet and the entire PW 752 fleet is stored at ROW. Only 1 753 is stored at ROW the remaining 753 fleet is stored at locations where they can be placed back into service in a matter of days. Most of the 763s are parked at IAH, ORD, or IAD, I believe 9 763 frames are stored at ROW.

Personally I still believe the 16 752s will be back in service on EWR-SFO/LAX and BOS-SFO routes until there are enough MAX-10s to take over those routes. As demand returns I don't see UA leaving 738s on those routes and I think it really comes down to those lie flat seats. I could be wrong and the entire 752 fleet could be retired but why park almost the entire fleet at ROW but park 16 752 frames at the hubs, MCO and INT?

jayunited wrote:

What has United been doing for the past decade?

We know for the past decade UA the AA and DL have been preparing for and were ready for a 9/11 type event where air travel was shut down for 3 days, but demand did return. If this were a 9/11 type event it would not have been a problem for any carrier but now we are 2 months into this shut down and of course hindsight is 20/20.

Back in late March in the main Coronavirus thread people criticized those of us who stated the US3 should have had more liquidity by saying it is not good for companies to keep the kind of liquidity they now need on hand. Some people we're criticized for suggesting airlines may want to keep $10-$20 million dollars in cash on hand for next pandemic and they we're criticized for making those comments. Should the US3 have been involved in stock buybacks well in hindsight the answer is no. However before COVID-19 the only people complaining about the stock buybacks were employees, while everyone else thought airlines had a responsibility to give something back to their investors. COVID-19 aside you know what UA has done to better position themselves you only need look at their Q4 and full year 2019 financial results. It is not really a fair question or criticism to ask what UA has been doing for the past decade when for the past decade the bench mark incident all airlines judged themselves against was 9/11. According to a recent report out yesterday the U.S. has not seen demand at this level since the 1950's. United was effected a lot earlier than other U.S. carriers because of our extensive international routes that we're cut in February. But overall UA was as prepared as any other carrier could be for an event that has seen demand drop 90%-95%.

Should UA survive this and I believe UA will you will see them and all airlines better prepared for the next pandemic. Also what isn't fair is UA was the only airline called out for trying to reduce employees hours while other airlines some major other are niche or LCCs have done the exact same thing. From the beginning of this crisis I think UA and Kirby has done the best they could, UA was first out of the gate to respond to COVID-19 from a operational standpoint and from a management and administrative standpoint. The unions were left untouched because we thought CARES would cover 100% of the payroll which it did not. UA's plan to reduce daily cash burn to $45 million is now in jeopardy because we were the only airline called out for doing what other airlines have done and subsequently UA relented for at least a month. So for the month of June UA's daily cash burn might be closer to $60-$65 million dollars. Judging from UA Q1 results operationally UA managed the fall out better than AA, operationally we were only $105 million dollars behind DL. Delta has not release how much money they lost on assets that temporarily have no value, UA did which is how we got to $1.2 Billion dollar lost which was still a billion dollars better than American.

I didn't intend for my "what were they doing" statement to be contentious or overly critical, I was mainly intending it in regard to their fleet ownership plans. That's why I was asking why old aircraft were put up as collateral as part of this plan. Given their financial results for the past decade, it seems to me that they should have had the liquidity to ensure that they outright own a portion of their newer jets. Certainly for business sense you want to keep a percentage of them on lease, but if they owned enough newer jets, then presumably they should have been part of this deal.

I don't know where United lies in terms of relative financial strength in comparison to the other major US carriers, which is why I was asking those questions. It would seem that they're better off than American, but worse off than Delta. Granted Delta has been quite a bit more profitable over the years, but I suppose the optics of United attempting a fundraiser by putting up older aircraft as collateral aren't good. I just wanted to know if they had other options and chose not to go that way, or if this is the best they could offer. If this was the best they could pull together, then it seems to me that's fairly concerning, and it might justify the comparably grim outlook coming from management. I don't mean to suggest they won't survive, but how they survive and what their future holds could be real question.

atcsundevil wrote:

jayunited wrote:

What has United been doing for the past decade?

We know for the past decade UA the AA and DL have been preparing for and were ready for a 9/11 type event where air travel was shut down for 3 days, but demand did return. If this were a 9/11 type event it would not have been a problem for any carrier but now we are 2 months into this shut down and of course hindsight is 20/20.

Back in late March in the main Coronavirus thread people criticized those of us who stated the US3 should have had more liquidity by saying it is not good for companies to keep the kind of liquidity they now need on hand. Some people we're criticized for suggesting airlines may want to keep $10-$20 million dollars in cash on hand for next pandemic and they we're criticized for making those comments. Should the US3 have been involved in stock buybacks well in hindsight the answer is no. However before COVID-19 the only people complaining about the stock buybacks were employees, while everyone else thought airlines had a responsibility to give something back to their investors. COVID-19 aside you know what UA has done to better position themselves you only need look at their Q4 and full year 2019 financial results. It is not really a fair question or criticism to ask what UA has been doing for the past decade when for the past decade the bench mark incident all airlines judged themselves against was 9/11. According to a recent report out yesterday the U.S. has not seen demand at this level since the 1950's. United was effected a lot earlier than other U.S. carriers because of our extensive international routes that we're cut in February. But overall UA was as prepared as any other carrier could be for an event that has seen demand drop 90%-95%.

Should UA survive this and I believe UA will you will see them and all airlines better prepared for the next pandemic. Also what isn't fair is UA was the only airline called out for trying to reduce employees hours while other airlines some major other are niche or LCCs have done the exact same thing. From the beginning of this crisis I think UA and Kirby has done the best they could, UA was first out of the gate to respond to COVID-19 from a operational standpoint and from a management and administrative standpoint. The unions were left untouched because we thought CARES would cover 100% of the payroll which it did not. UA's plan to reduce daily cash burn to $45 million is now in jeopardy because we were the only airline called out for doing what other airlines have done and subsequently UA relented for at least a month. So for the month of June UA's daily cash burn might be closer to $60-$65 million dollars. Judging from UA Q1 results operationally UA managed the fall out better than AA, operationally we were only $105 million dollars behind DL. Delta has not release how much money they lost on assets that temporarily have no value, UA did which is how we got to $1.2 Billion dollar lost which was still a billion dollars better than American.

I didn't intend for my "what were they doing" statement to be contentious or overly critical, I was mainly intending it in regard to their fleet ownership plans. That's why I was asking why old aircraft were put up as collateral as part of this plan. Given their financial results for the past decade, it seems to me that they should have had the liquidity to ensure that they outright own a portion of their newer jets. Certainly for business sense you want to keep a percentage of them on lease, but if they owned enough newer jets, then presumably they should have been part of this deal.

I don't know where United lies in terms of relative financial strength in comparison to the other major US carriers, which is why I was asking those questions. It would seem that they're better off than American, but worse off than Delta. Granted Delta has been quite a bit more profitable over the years, but I suppose the optics of United attempting a fundraiser by putting up older aircraft as collateral aren't good. I just wanted to know if they had other options and chose not to go that way, or if this is the best they could offer. If this was the best they could pull together, then it seems to me that's fairly concerning, and it might justify the comparably grim outlook coming from management. I don't mean to suggest they won't survive, but how they survive and what their future holds could be real question.

This was not a "last, best" attempt to raise funds. Again, it's much more of an indication that the investment community sees little value in old aircraft, going forward. United has a number of newer, owned airplanes that can be part of future debt offerings.

One thing that goes unmentioned quite a bit is that United bought dozens of aircraft off lease during the 2010s boom times, using free cash flow. That will figure into United's ability to raise cash, although expectations may be tempered based on this week's attempted offering. Believe me, the failure was a surprising development in the industry... not completely unforeseeable, but I don't think many people expected this deal to fall apart the way it did. It will no doubt influence the way other airlines approach the debt market in the coming weeks.

I would also agree that United falls somewhere between AA and DL/WN in terms of prospects coming out of this crisis. UA is in better financial health than AA, but if the recovery is primarily domestic, its starting position is behind the others.

Is the threat of removing the 764s from the fleet a negotiating position? That is, the 764s pay wide body pay rates for the pilots, like the 787s and 777s, whereas the 763s pay only the same as the 753s; both are just a bit more than the 752s, 738s and 739s. So will UA argue that since the 763s pay less and are used similarly to the 764s, they should both pay the same lower rate?

Having had flown the 764s, I found them to be capable aircraft and often wished that CO hadn't cancelled the orders for the last 10 in the post 9/11 environment (rather that CO had found a way to postpone the last orders). I firmly believe that CO could have and would have made good use of more 764s, especially with the lengthy 787 delays.

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Any idea if ALL of the retired 757/764s will stay at ROW, or if there will be any movement between boneyards? When UA retired their 744s, most of them flew to VCV but then flew out to various scrap yards across the US such as MZJ, TUP, and MEB. Will something similar happen...(if there aren't other airlines waiting to take them up)? I can see 757s going to cargo as others stated, but is there a market for a 764 in this situation?

For what it's worth "Her Art Here" N14102 sked to enter ROW today 2720/9May

Interesting article from 2011 on the 764 potential freighter. Obviously times changed, but the fact that the 764 was considered for a freighter means the aircraft makes senses as a freighter and has crew compatibility with 757 - maybe FedEx would be interested in picking them up to replace 12 40+ year old DC10-10s, adding cargo space and 2500NM extra range. The negatives: 764 has a 5 foot wider windspan and is 19 feet longer than the DC10-10.

I hate to see these frames go, but the market dictates reduction in fleet and I'm pretty sure UA must have a place to sell them or they would instead dump the 10 year older 763s and just grab their Polaris seats. Of course some of the 763s may go as well. The situation with with different engines on a 16 aircraft 764 fleet and 11 aircraft 757PW fleet will save costs. Let's hope UA has a buyer for the newest 6 757PW units as well.

Obviously FedEx is using the DC10-10s in domestic service as it probably can't make TATL from MEM (3500NM range and heavy cargo could further limit range).
https://cargofacts.com/allposts/news/fe ... freighter/

It looks like all but 1 DL 767-300 has PW engines, meaning DL has the same issue with CF6 engines on the 764. Could DL see a buyer of their 764s as enticing during these dire times? A fleet of 37 would sure make more sense for a carrier like FedEx.

VCVSpotter wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Any idea if ALL of the retired 757/764s will stay at ROW, or if there will be any movement between boneyards? When UA retired their 744s, most of them flew to VCV but then flew out to various scrap yards across the US such as MZJ, TUP, and MEB. Will something similar happen...(if there aren't other airlines waiting to take them up)? I can see 757s going to cargo as others stated, but is there a market for a 764 in this situation?

The airplanes can end up at a variety of airports just like several of the United 757s recently that spent time in Goodyear before ferrying to their final scrapping site. The two recent 747-400s went to MZJ to have work done for their new buyers. I think you will see the remaining PW 757s going to Tupelo for scrapping. The 767-300s or other 757-200s would depend on how much life they have left in their parts. The scrapper at TUP is known to be more of the bottom feeders in the business. They bid the lowest and get air frames that are worth a lot less in parts.

codc10 wrote:

I would also agree that United falls somewhere between AA and DL/WN in terms of prospects coming out of this crisis. UA is in better financial health than AA, but if the recovery is primarily domestic, its starting position is behind the others.

You do make a great point about domestic vs international.

I do believe in the beginning the recovery will be primarily domestic, then perhaps by the fall/winter season it may spread to beach locations in the Caribbean and Mexico. Although UA was the weakest domestic carrier when compared to AA, DL and WN, could AA's financial position provide UA with an opening to hit the reset button domestically and perhaps gain some much needed domestic market share.

Looking at UA's current fleet what would be a good strategy going forward for UA to gain domestic market share seeing that we have the largest wide-body fleet but the smallest narrow-body fleet? Are our wide-bodies useless in a fight for a larger piece of the domestic market?

Just a reminder to keep your posts on topic, this includes no personal attacks. Those engaging in personal attacks are at risk of being on the end of a warning and/or ban

73G:
N7708E - Future N17759 delivered to UA on 8-May per FAA records. Currently parked at PAE.

MohawkWeekend wrote:

Will UA/AA's 757 find life as freighters? I actually thought UA had already had agreements to do that already with UPS.

How many will end up at UPS or in Iceland?

752 as UA2720 going to Roswell from Orlando, right now.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KMCO/KROW

Any word on the UA Regional fleets? I have been noticing multiple deadheads all week, sometimes as many as three at once, moving between hubs and bases. Mostly OO and YX.

FlyingElvii wrote:

Any word on the UA Regional fleets? I have been noticing multiple deadheads all week, sometimes as many as three at once, moving between hubs and bases. Mostly OO and YX.

Not just UA, OO (DL) just repo'd 6 CR9s from storage in OKC to SLC yesterday afternoon and last night. Not sure if those are just being moved back to the hub to be ready to be activated in the future, or if they are bringing them into service right away.

With the failure of the bond issue, UAL is under even more pressure to reduce costs. The 30% size reduction is the start of the new baseline size. Every work group will get the 30% as of 1 Oct, with certain leadership indicating pilots should draw their own conclusions give the info UAL has put out. It’s time for new UAL management, as the current committee (which should be a singular person in crisis) is clueless.

TSA numbers show 215000 screened yesterday compared to 171000 a week ago; we will all take that improvement!

Anyone heard about UA not bringing back the 764? i follow Diecastjames on instagram, and he posted something this morning saying "united has decided they wont bring back their 764 fleet after this virus blows over"

if this is true, i guess it paid off for UA to hold off the polaris retrofit for that plane.

^^^

I think that's some good analysis, though I still have hope that the recovery will come sooner. The number of people flying is already starting to pick up (not by a ton, but it's something). I agree that I think UA is being the most honest (if a little blunt) about the pain that's coming, whereas AA appears to be in denial.

xxcr wrote:

Anyone heard about UA not bringing back the 764? i follow Diecastjames on instagram, and he posted something this morning saying "united has decided they wont bring back their 764 fleet after this virus blows over"

if this is true, i guess it paid off for UA to hold off the polaris retrofit for that plane.

It is discussed on the previous page of this thread:

United1 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Bigger bombshell is the fact they previously planned to retire the 764 in the first place.

That is a big bombshell but I suppose not all that surprising after the additional 78X orders.

I wonder if UA had/has a buyer lined up for them. UA generally markets their former aircraft to airlines they don't compete with so will be interesting to see where they end up.

V/F

intotheair wrote:

^^^

I think that's some good analysis, though I still have hope that the recovery will come sooner. The number of people flying is already starting to pick up (not by a ton, but it's something). I agree that I think UA is being the most honest (if a little blunt) about the pain that's coming, whereas AA appears to be in denial.

Not the best source for inside information; and the 767-400s have not been slated for retirement.

FlyingElvii wrote:

752 as UA2720 going to Roswell from Orlando, right now.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KMCO/KROW

Sadly this was N14102/Ship 0102, Her Art NYC... I’m sure she will fly again...

nonrevelite wrote:

intotheair wrote:

^^^

I think that's some good analysis, though I still have hope that the recovery will come sooner. The number of people flying is already starting to pick up (not by a ton, but it's something). I agree that I think UA is being the most honest (if a little blunt) about the pain that's coming, whereas AA appears to be in denial.

Not the best source for inside information; and the 767-400s have not been slated for retirement.

redrooster3's post sounds like it comes from a more solid source:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

V/F

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Interesting, but since the 764 wasn't already slated for retirement, it does call into question the accuracy of the information.

tphuang wrote:

I think grouping DL/WN together is unwarranted. WN will have more cash than debt at end of Q2, whereas DL will be swimming in debt by the end of Q2. In term of financial health, it's more like
AA <gap> UA <gap> DL <huge gap> WN

I think coming into this, AA and UA were in about the same position in terms of how much trouble they are in. AA had higher debt/fixed costs but UA was more exposed in terms of all the widebodies + international exposure. Two months in and it's clear that AA's management is just not up to task. They are burning 50% more cash per day than UA.

At this point, we are not going to have V shaped recovery and probably likely not a U shaped recovery, but a L shaped recovery. Given that's the case, airlines will still be struggling next year to break even for much of the year. There just no way AA avoids chapter 11. This recent attempt by UA at raising debt that's backed by older widebodies should show the market simply isn't going to value aircraft at the same way that even third party appraisers are going to. If investors are scared of your liquidity position, they are just not going to take unencumbered aircraft as assets. So aside from CARES act loans, I'm really not sure where else AA can get loans from. UA has tried pretty hard thus far, but I think it will have to take the gov't loans also. The difference is that I think UA actually has a good chance of avoiding the courts as long as it keeps the burn rate low. Yes, it will probably end up reducing its work force by 1/3 in order to lower its burn rate to like $20 million a day in Q4, but that's at least a honest way of looking at the danger of the situation. AA is acting like it will resume 80% of flying by next Q2 when it's burning $70 million a day in Q2. By my calculation, they will be down to $4 billion liquidity by end of this year even including the additional loan from federal gov't. And DL is talking about trying to be cash neutral by the end of this year while burning $50 million a day in June? That seems wildly optimistic.

And once AA hits the courts, it's going to really cut its work force and fleet and those precious slots at LGA/DCA and gates at LAX/ORD are going to get lost too. I would not be surprised if AA comes out of this smaller than UA. At least with UA, I could see a way for them to get out of this in another year and bring back some of its work force. I do expect UA to be substantially smaller a year from, probably 30% smaller. As for how long it will take UA to recover, that's really a matter of both domestic economy and TATL/TPAC demand.

In this environment, you can essentially throw out debt load when it comes to the financial viability of an airline. In fact, you can even pretty much throw it out in stable times, like the one we just exited ((as a side note, DL's true debt load (including their laughably optimistic underfunded pension liability) prior to the collapse was comparable to UA's, and when you adjust debt further against fleet age, AA, DL, and UA were all remarkably close to one another)).

What will matter going forward is who can turn cash-flow positive the quickest and keep that positive momentum going the fastest/farthest. That could be any of the carriers. This will be an extended period of determining new financial front-runners. Not only is the cost adjustment side of each carrier undetermined, there's no doubt that demand won't return in a known, predictable fashion. With all this even AA could end up being the strongest in the long-run. I wouldn't put my money on it, but their "peril" (along with UA's) is far from the cut-and-dry situation people make it out to be. Take WN for example. Good balance sheet, but burning through more cash than necessary with their less severe capacity cuts. That balance sheet advantage will go away in a hurry if they don't make the right moves in the coming months and years. When you look at current cash burn versus previous ASM counts, UA is doing well in that area. Will that translate into a the best recovery? Maybe. The point is we have no idea who will make the best decisions.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

319:
N836UA exited DLH 2755/8May with 12F/36E+/78Y configuration.
69 of 74 complete.

772:
N76010 sked to exited HKG 2864/10May w/Polaris/PP
772GE #20 of 22 complete (N78013 expected to exit HKG soon, N77014 stored in IAH)

78X:
N13013 first revenue flight 989/5May IAD-FRA

N78013 2849/10May
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n78013

After May 15th, both 787-10’s from EWR/SFO/LAX show seat maps of Diamond Seats.

Which is it? I don’t understand why they show a 787-10 but the seat map of a different aircraft? I am planning on flying. Thanks!

VC10er wrote:

After May 15th, both 787-10’s from EWR/SFO/LAX show seat maps of Diamond Seats.

Which is it? I don’t understand why they show a 787-10 but the seat map of a different aircraft? I am planning on flying. Thanks!

I think it might be a 788 like United threw in last minute.

EssentialPowr wrote:

With the failure of the bond issue, UAL is under even more pressure to reduce costs. The 30% size reduction is the start of the new baseline size. Every work group will get the 30% as of 1 Oct, with certain leadership indicating pilots should draw their own conclusions give the info UAL has put out. It’s time for new UAL management, as the current committee (which should be a singular person in crisis) is clueless.

TSA numbers show 215000 screened yesterday compared to 171000 a week ago; we will all take that improvement!

The incremental growth is a good sign, but we are still <10% of where we were this time last year. In other words, still at crisis level.

Again, I wouldn't read the bond failure as a sign United is on the brink of anything, and certainly not as an indictment of management. Its purpose was a refinance of existing aircraft-secured debt to extract more cash, and the market is saying it does not believe old aircraft (especially 737s and A320s) have much value. United's ability to pay is priced in, as well, but the real concern last week was the quality of the asset. I think everyone was surprised by the result.

In challenging times, management is always "clueless". But this is no ordinary recession, downturn or otherwise. There's really no blueprint for success here.

tphuang wrote:

jayunited wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I would also agree that United falls somewhere between AA and DL/WN in terms of prospects coming out of this crisis. UA is in better financial health than AA, but if the recovery is primarily domestic, its starting position is behind the others.

You do make a great point about domestic vs international.

I do believe in the beginning the recovery will be primarily domestic, then perhaps by the fall/winter season it may spread to beach locations in the Caribbean and Mexico. Although UA was the weakest domestic carrier when compared to AA, DL and WN, could AA's financial position provide UA with an opening to hit the reset button domestically and perhaps gain some much needed domestic market share.

Looking at UA's current fleet what would be a good strategy going forward for UA to gain domestic market share seeing that we have the largest wide-body fleet but the smallest narrow-body fleet? Are our wide-bodies useless in a fight for a larger piece of the domestic market?

I think grouping DL/WN together is unwarranted. WN will have more cash than debt at end of Q2, whereas DL will be swimming in debt by the end of Q2. In term of financial health, it's more like
AA <gap> UA <gap> DL <huge gap> WN

I think coming into this, AA and UA were in about the same position in terms of how much trouble they are in. AA had higher debt/fixed costs but UA was more exposed in terms of all the widebodies + international exposure. Two months in and it's clear that AA's management is just not up to task. They are burning 50% more cash per day than UA.

At this point, we are not going to have V shaped recovery and probably likely not a U shaped recovery, but a L shaped recovery. Given that's the case, airlines will still be struggling next year to break even for much of the year. There just no way AA avoids chapter 11. This recent attempt by UA at raising debt that's backed by older widebodies should show the market simply isn't going to value aircraft at the same way that even third party appraisers are going to. If investors are scared of your liquidity position, they are just not going to take unencumbered aircraft as assets. So aside from CARES act loans, I'm really not sure where else AA can get loans from. UA has tried pretty hard thus far, but I think it will have to take the gov't loans also. The difference is that I think UA actually has a good chance of avoiding the courts as long as it keeps the burn rate low. Yes, it will probably end up reducing its work force by 1/3 in order to lower its burn rate to like $20 million a day in Q4, but that's at least a honest way of looking at the danger of the situation. AA is acting like it will resume 80% of flying by next Q2 when it's burning $70 million a day in Q2. By my calculation, they will be down to $4 billion liquidity by end of this year even including the additional loan from federal gov't. And DL is talking about trying to be cash neutral by the end of this year while burning $50 million a day in June? That seems wildly optimistic.

And once AA hits the courts, it's going to really cut its work force and fleet and those precious slots at LGA/DCA and gates at LAX/ORD are going to get lost too. I would not be surprised if AA comes out of this smaller than UA. At least with UA, I could see a way for them to get out of this in another year and bring back some of its work force. I do expect UA to be substantially smaller a year from, probably 30% smaller. As for how long it will take UA to recover, that's really a matter of both domestic economy and TATL/TPAC demand.

I only classify DL and WN together as they were clearly viewed a notch or two healthier than UAL entering the crisis.

I agree that the leadership positions industry could very well be reshuffled in this recovery.

MSPNWA wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Interesting, but since the 764 wasn't already slated for retirement, it does call into question the accuracy of the information.

My sources comes straight from company email which Ramp/CS/Tech ops all receive. Dated May 8th, straight from Jon Roitman

redrooster3 wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

This looks like the end for the 764s and PW757s. In an email I got earlier today.

"Currently, we’ve parked 450 mainline aircraft and 300 United Express aircraft across 23 locations. Some of those planes were already slated for retirement, including our B767-400 and B757 PS fleets."

Interesting, but since the 764 wasn't already slated for retirement, it does call into question the accuracy of the information.

My sources comes straight from company email which Ramp/CS/Tech ops all receive. Dated May 8th, straight from Jon Roitman

Im not surprised they are retiring the PW 752, those birds had a lot of issues. 2017/2019, i flew SFO-EWR-SFO a lot, usually around 10-12 flights per year, and i avoided the PW since they were always delayed because of a mechanical issue. the RR birds were older inside, but were more reliable.

Cant beat the 78J on that route, that plane is so quiet and comfortable. Its nice to see an occasional 77W or polaris 772 swap!!!