jayunited wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

My personal feeling, I believe a HGW 78X is coming within the next few years. It would be perfect for LAX, ORD, IAD to Asia while the non HGW versions handle the heavy Trans Atlantic traffic. Leave the 777-300’s inside EWR and SFO, move the 787-8’s and 9’s to DEN and IAH. The standard 78X can also sub as a high density on certain routes. EWR-SJU comes to mind especially considering the 767-400ER’s fate is still unknown.

I have to disagree with you on this because what you are describing is an entirely different aircraft than what the 78X represents today. Also UA does not have enough 77Ws in the fleet to cover all of EWR/SFO to Asia (pre-COVID not including SIN).

The 78X can accommodate the same fuel load as a 789. However when you begin operating a 78X on routes 12.5+ hours or longer with a full passenger cabin (in UA's case 318 passengers) that translates into 430 and some cases (especially during summer) can go up to around 630-700 bags, you can't take any cargo because the aircraft is maxed out or nearly max out. You have either A: hit MZFW or B: MTOG. With 600 bags and a full passenger cabin if you were operating lets say EWR-FRA the 78X could still handle 35,000-45,000 pounds of cargo with weight to spare.

Pre-COVID UA's 77Es and 789s that operated ORD, LAX, IAD, and SFO Asia (not including SIN) could accommodate 276 passengers (77E), or 252 passenger (789) with around 25,000-40,000 pounds of cargo. (Cargo varies depending on type of aircraft, route, and time of year among other things.) In my opinion for a hypothetical HGW 78X to do the same job as our 77Es you would need to get at least another 70,000 to perhaps even 100,000 pounds of MTOG. The MZFW would need to be increased as well.

How much untapped potential does the landing gear, the wing box and wings on the 787 have left?

Just for arguments sake lets say the pandemic starts to wane by Summer or 2021 and we're in a full blown recovery by 2022, would UA be interested in acquiring some second hand 77Ws? Seems there might be a decent amount of 77W's coming available that might be younger than ten years of age. They might be good replacements for older Pratt powered 777-222ERs.

I thought maybe an increase in 78X weight would require a third set of back wheels, but the 359 has nearly 50,000 more lbs with the same 8 wheels under the wings. The 78X has the same TOW weight as the 789, is 14,000 lbs heavier and in UA config a full load has about 12,000 more pax weight.

You'd need at least 33,000 more lbs of fuel and 60,0000 higher max TOW to get it up to 789 range with same load factor (15% increase from 6430 to 7635.nm.

Maybe a 5% increase in range would be more realistic, but it wouldn't make the aircraft a reliable for SFO-China or unrestricted ORD-NRT.

STT757 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

My personal feeling, I believe a HGW 78X is coming within the next few years. It would be perfect for LAX, ORD, IAD to Asia while the non HGW versions handle the heavy Trans Atlantic traffic. Leave the 777-300’s inside EWR and SFO, move the 787-8’s and 9’s to DEN and IAH. The standard 78X can also sub as a high density on certain routes. EWR-SJU comes to mind especially considering the 767-400ER’s fate is still unknown.

I have to disagree with you on this because what you are describing is an entirely different aircraft than what the 78X represents today. Also UA does not have enough 77Ws in the fleet to cover all of EWR/SFO to Asia (pre-COVID not including SIN).

The 78X can accommodate the same fuel load as a 789. However when you begin operating a 78X on routes 12.5+ hours or longer with a full passenger cabin (in UA's case 318 passengers) that translates into 430 and some cases (especially during summer) can go up to around 630-700 bags, you can't take any cargo because the aircraft is maxed out or nearly max out. You have either A: hit MZFW or B: MTOG. With 600 bags and a full passenger cabin if you were operating lets say EWR-FRA the 78X could still handle 35,000-45,000 pounds of cargo with weight to spare.

Pre-COVID UA's 77Es and 789s that operated ORD, LAX, IAD, and SFO Asia (not including SIN) could accommodate 276 passengers (77E), or 252 passenger (789) with around 25,000-40,000 pounds of cargo. (Cargo varies depending on type of aircraft, route, and time of year among other things.) In my opinion for a hypothetical HGW 78X to do the same job as our 77Es you would need to get at least another 70,000 to perhaps even 100,000 pounds of MTOG. The MZFW would need to be increased as well.

How much untapped potential does the landing gear, the wing box and wings on the 787 have left?

Just for arguments sake lets say the pandemic starts to wane by Summer or 2021 and we're in a full blown recovery by 2022, would UA be interested in acquiring some second hand 77Ws? Seems there might be a decent amount of 77W's coming available that might be younger than ten years of age. They might be good replacements for older Pratt powered 777-222ERs.

At this point anything is possible. The 77W is perfect for NRT, HND, SYD, TLV, GRU, GIG, HKG, LHR, BOM, DEL, and FRA. Cities requiring long range and heavy mail and freight traffic. Boeing gave UA a great deal for end of line 77W’s as a bridge gap to the 77X. Boeing may offer another deal just to keep the line active.

UAinAUS wrote:

UAX Update:

CR2: unfortunate news, more CR2s joining
N460AW returned to flying with Air Wis
N960SW exited ROW in EvoBlu livery
N919SW entered ROW for paint
N432SW (2001 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu)
N452SW (2002 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu)
N455SW (2003 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu)
N912EV (2002 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu)
N875AS (2001 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu)
N889AS (2001 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu)
N468CA (2002 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu)

E145XR:
N16112 (ex-AX) exited fleet, stored at IGM
N11199 returned to flying with CommutAir

CR5:
N653CA ferried AMA for paint (interior mod complete)

"Bad News" indeed for more/extra CRJ Flying, but in this day and age, I'll take any flying....even if a CRJ.

With that said...I was understanding UA had halted painting...was this only for mainline? Regionsl are able to proceed, or are these being painted on an "as needed" basis? Paint cycles perhaps?

Very neat to see the increase of CRJ's in Evol Blue. I have to admit, the CRJ just looks beautiful in the new UA Colors!

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

With that said...I was understanding UA had halted painting...was this only for mainline? Regionsl are able to proceed, or are these being painted on an "as needed" basis? Paint cycles perhaps?

Don't think they'd want UA flights flying in DL colors.

adamblang wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

With that said...I was understanding UA had halted painting...was this only for mainline? Regionsl are able to proceed, or are these being painted on an "as needed" basis? Paint cycles perhaps?

Don't think they'd want UA flights flying in DL colors.

Oooohhh, didn't think DL Build meant actually in DL Paint!

Ahh, yes that's one tiny detail left out! Hahaha

Explains it! Thanks!

Alex

atrude777 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

With that said...I was understanding UA had halted painting...was this only for mainline? Regionsl are able to proceed, or are these being painted on an "as needed" basis? Paint cycles perhaps?

Don't think they'd want UA flights flying in DL colors.

Oooohhh, didn't think DL Build meant actually in DL Paint!

Ahh, yes that's one tiny detail left out! Hahaha

Explains it! Thanks!

Alex

N919SW and N960SW were in UA colors though, so your question is still valid

It’s probably done and funded by the express carrier no? It’s most likely part of the contract.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

Retiring a few of many types doesn't really get you much in structural cost savings. The big $ is in retiring sub-types, or full types: it simplifies frame scheduling, it eliminates parts inventory, it eliminates a pilot work group (think of inefficiencies from small groups acraoss multiple bases). The 757, 753, 767 and 764 all have a common type rating.

Now, if you forecast that demand is going to be depressed for years and you've got a dozen 27-year-old A320s it's pragmatic to recognize they have little value to the carrier. Send them to retirement early.

Given that the 737's can adequately cover any A320 route? I do not find it hard to believe that many of the more elderly 320's might leave the fleet. However?
the A319-132's from CZ are a different subject. All of them have FULL Transcon range though they're presently not ETOPS (though they could be so equipped), It only matters as to how United would choose to deploy them.

All of our Airbus, 319 and 320, have the capability to do transcons. Not sure why you think they don’t.

I don't know where you got that Idea. all the 319's can do transcon east to west in any season but the A320's is actually not so. and How might I know? I worked as a Maintenance controller For United ON the A320/319 desk and Had more than one occasion where an A320 had to land at DEN to refuel going westbound after being subbed for an A319 on a transcon. And? One I was actually as Pax ON! from IAD to SFO. So? Unless they're made Mods since I retired to increase their range? I would suspect that it's STILL the case. the A319-132's have a little more power than the -131's original to United but they can and DO fly the late night transcons and Have from SFO-IAD and PHL/BOS/IAD and ATL: westbound as that's how I book my Kids and Grandkids out to the coast from the East. And? they've never Not made it Yet on an A319.

strfyr51 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Given that the 737's can adequately cover any A320 route? I do not find it hard to believe that many of the more elderly 320's might leave the fleet. However?
the A319-132's from CZ are a different subject. All of them have FULL Transcon range though they're presently not ETOPS (though they could be so equipped), It only matters as to how United would choose to deploy them.

All of our Airbus, 319 and 320, have the capability to do transcons. Not sure why you think they don’t.

I don't know where you got that Idea. all the 319's can do transcon east to west in any season but the A320's is actually not so. and How might I know? I worked as a Maintenance controller For United ON the A320/319 desk and Had more than one occasion where an A320 had to land at DEN to refuel going westbound after being subbed for an A319 on a transcon. And? One I was actually as Pax ON! from IAD to SFO. So? Unless they're made Mods since I retired to increase their range? I would suspect that it's STILL the case. the A319-132's have a little more power than the -131's original to United but they can and DO fly the late night transcons and Have from SFO-IAD and PHL/BOS/IAD and ATL: westbound as that's how I book my Kids and Grandkids out to the coast from the East. And? they've never Not made it Yet on an A319.

With 6000+ hours in both the right and left seat on the Bus, the only fuel stops I’ve done are due to diversions because we didn’t have the fuel to continue holding, or a re route while in the air meant we didn’t have fuel to safely continue to destination. I.E. flight planned DCA-ORD along a normal route via CMH but then airborne got routed way west over STL to get to ORD because a line of storms devolved, then given holding, then another reroute back northeast, ended up in IND to get some gas. A 1:45 normal flight took almost 3 hours. Well within the range of a 320, but not the fuel boarded on that flight.

I’ve diverted domestically on the 767 too. I’m not saying that it doesn’t happen but wind busts or ATC re routes or a change in destination weather can all be reasons for diversions/ fuel stops after the initial flight plan has been released. That’s not the fault of the airframe. It just means that the planned fuel load is no longer enough. It’s very rare for the Bus to be planned for a fuel stop before takeoff. So rare that I have never had to do it. Could it happen? (and according to you it has) Sure. But it’s not anywhere close to being a normal happening.

atrude777 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

With that said...I was understanding UA had halted painting...was this only for mainline? Regionsl are able to proceed, or are these being painted on an "as needed" basis? Paint cycles perhaps?

Don't think they'd want UA flights flying in DL colors.

Oooohhh, didn't think DL Build meant actually in DL Paint!

Ahh, yes that's one tiny detail left out! Hahaha

Explains it! Thanks!

Alex

Just for clarity, Delta returned a bunch of CRJ200s to SkyWest earlier this summer, and those frames are now making their way over to United.

I'm not aware of an actual statement confirming this, but it looks like the ex-Delta CRJs are being added to backfill ExpressJet in Houston, so IAH regional feed swaps from ERJs to CRJs.

RyanairGuru wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Don't think they'd want UA flights flying in DL colors.

Oooohhh, didn't think DL Build meant actually in DL Paint!

Ahh, yes that's one tiny detail left out! Hahaha

Explains it! Thanks!

Alex

Just for clarity, Delta returned a bunch of CRJ200s to SkyWest earlier this summer, and those frames are now making their way over to United.

I'm not aware of an actual statement confirming this, but it looks like the ex-Delta CRJs are being added to backfill ExpressJet in Houston, so IAH regional feed swaps from ERJs to CRJs.

This is correct. In addition CommutAir is opening a IAH base in October and will gradually grow. So Houston 50-seat feed will eventually be half CRJ and half ERJ.
Skywest CRJs also took over all of the DEN 50-seat feed with AX’s collapse.

UAinAUS wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

atrude777 wrote:

Oooohhh, didn't think DL Build meant actually in DL Paint!

Ahh, yes that's one tiny detail left out! Hahaha

Explains it! Thanks!

Alex

Just for clarity, Delta returned a bunch of CRJ200s to SkyWest earlier this summer, and those frames are now making their way over to United.

I'm not aware of an actual statement confirming this, but it looks like the ex-Delta CRJs are being added to backfill ExpressJet in Houston, so IAH regional feed swaps from ERJs to CRJs.

This is correct. In addition CommutAir is opening a IAH base in October and will gradually grow. So Houston 50-seat feed will eventually be half CRJ and half ERJ.
Skywest CRJs also took over all of the DEN 50-seat feed with AX’s collapse.

Interesting, I didn't realise that Commutair was opening a IAH base. It will be interesting to see how that goes for them, they are only a small airline and IAH is quite far away from their operations in the North East. Hopefully they have maintenance etc sorted, but nonetheless I wouldn't be surprised if they had some teething issues there.

I was under the impression that 50 seats (not including the CRJ550s) were going to fall broadly along the lines of Commutair in EWR and IAD, Wisconsin in ORD, and SkyWest in IAH, DEN, SFO and LAX. Obviously things aren't that clear cut if Commutair are also backfilling in IAH.

IAH is a huge 50-seat market. Many dozens of small cities across the Southeast that really aren’t large enough for anything bigger.

strfyr51 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Given that the 737's can adequately cover any A320 route? I do not find it hard to believe that many of the more elderly 320's might leave the fleet. However?
the A319-132's from CZ are a different subject. All of them have FULL Transcon range though they're presently not ETOPS (though they could be so equipped), It only matters as to how United would choose to deploy them.

All of our Airbus, 319 and 320, have the capability to do transcons. Not sure why you think they don’t.

I don't know where you got that Idea. all the 319's can do transcon east to west in any season but the A320's is actually not so. and How might I know? I worked as a Maintenance controller For United ON the A320/319 desk and Had more than one occasion where an A320 had to land at DEN to refuel going westbound after being subbed for an A319 on a transcon. And? One I was actually as Pax ON! from IAD to SFO. So? Unless they're made Mods since I retired to increase their range? I would suspect that it's STILL the case. the A319-132's have a little more power than the -131's original to United but they can and DO fly the late night transcons and Have from SFO-IAD and PHL/BOS/IAD and ATL: westbound as that's how I book my Kids and Grandkids out to the coast from the East. And? they've never Not made it Yet on an A319.

Incorrect. The 320 can do transcon just fine.

Just saw N23983, one of United's future Dreamliners, on descent into Charleston on a test flight. Flew right over my house. Looks beautiful, really dig this new United livery.

Okcflyer wrote:

IAH is a huge 50-seat market. Many dozens of small cities across the Southeast that really aren’t large enough for anything bigger.

Id say the 50 seat market from IAH is largely in Texas itself. The only ones in the Southeast I can think of that really cant support anything bigger would be CHA, TLH, AEX, and MLU. The rest could be served at a lower frequency with a E-175.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

IAH is a huge 50-seat market. Many dozens of small cities across the Southeast that really aren’t large enough for anything bigger.

Id say the 50 seat market from IAH is largely in Texas itself. The only ones in the Southeast I can think of that really cant support anything bigger would be CHA, TLH, AEX, and MLU. The rest could be served at a lower frequency with a E-175.

Of the 6 Louisiana destinations, only MSY is large and premium enough for mainline and 70 seat mixes.

Several smaller Mexican cities served too.

Shreveport is the only other that’s borderline.

Based on personal observations on into these cities. Not statistically significant.

Okcflyer wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

IAH is a huge 50-seat market. Many dozens of small cities across the Southeast that really aren’t large enough for anything bigger.

Id say the 50 seat market from IAH is largely in Texas itself. The only ones in the Southeast I can think of that really cant support anything bigger would be CHA, TLH, AEX, and MLU. The rest could be served at a lower frequency with a E-175.

Of the 6 Louisiana destinations, only MSY is large and premium enough for mainline and 70 seat mixes.

Several smaller Mexican cities served too.

Shreveport is the only other that’s borderline.

Based on personal observations on into these cities. Not statistically significant.

BTR and SHV are regularly served with American and Delta 70 seaters. United was 70 seater out of BTR a good bit until Covid. LFT, BTR and SHV have the 70 seater market potential. I'd be happy with CRJ550 to be honest. Not wanting to derail the thread into a microcosm of the system though. United has always been tardy to the party when it comes to cracking open markets in our area.

I definitely agree with you that MSY is the only city large enough to support mainline and 70 seat mixes. But I can remember the day of Delta 767's into MSY as well. Times have changed.

Does anyone have an idea on how UA is doing on the newly reopened Central American routes?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

IAH is a huge 50-seat market. Many dozens of small cities across the Southeast that really aren’t large enough for anything bigger.

Id say the 50 seat market from IAH is largely in Texas itself.

CO had a ton of E145 routes IAH-Mexico. It was big in the Mexico secondary markets even before AA from DFW.

avi8 wrote:

Does anyone have an idea on how UA is doing on the newly reopened Central American routes?

What does this question mean, what type of information are you looking for?

A lot of countries in Central America still have some type of restriction in place on who an enter and what is required either before entry is granted or afterward (meaning a mandatory 14 day quarantine) but they are either opening or scheduled to reopen with a few days to weeks.

If you are looking for load factors, they are low to many of these countries, but in some cases UA is making up for it with cargo. I never thought I would ever see a UA cargo load report showing over 8,600 LBS of cargo on a 738 out of Central America with passengers onboard and around 80 bags.

If you are talking about yield most people on this site can't answer that question either because we don't have access to the information and also ticket prices are all over the place especially if demand is outstripping supply.

A good case and point (but at the same time a bad case in point) is the U.S. to Australia. With the current restrictions in place in Australia ticket prices are sky high even for coach. In many cases UA is charing $4,000 dollar or more for a coach ticket. Ever wondered why did UA convert LAX-SYD from a cargo only route to a passenger service flight with 3x weekly service, while continuing cargo only service 4x weekly, this while continuing daily SFO-SYD passenger service and 3x weekly SFO-SYD cargo only flights, after everyone else ceased operations. UA did it because demand is still outstripping supply both in terms of cargo and passenger service. Remember when you could fly UA to SYD for less than $1,000 dollars roundtrip in coach out of LAX in 2018, those days are over.

So when you ask how a particular route is doing it is hard to answer a vague question because so much has changed. Prior to COVID having a 15%-30% load factor on an international flight was consider an absolute failure. Now in the age of COVID with cargo rates being as high as they are and with UA going after more high priority cargo contracts, cargo is now the main driver for many of UA's international routes and the passengers have become the de-facto gravy.

How have LF been for UA lately? I’ve been only able to base my guesses off seat maps (after departure) and they seem to be improving.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

How have LF been for UA lately? I’ve been only able to base my guesses off seat maps (after departure) and they seem to be improving.

Based on what I've seen in Q3, UA's LF's have been up even with UA operating around 40% of their pre-COVID schedule compared to a much lower percentage in Q2.

I said this in another thread that has since been deleted but US-Mexico is really heating up last weekend there were several UA flights go to Mexico popular beach destinations that operated completed full. There have also been some flights to Florida that have started getting close to that 70% LF or exceeding it (70% triggers the alert to passengers). I think these trends will continue as cooler and then colder air begins pouring into the northern half of the US.

We will have to wait for the official Q3 results to see real concrete numbers, but overall I think UA has done a much better job in Q3 handling this pandemic than we did in Q2. The three things I really want to see when we announce Q3 results is our load factor, how much money we lost, and did we get our daily burn rate down to $25 million dollars. If UA managed to narrow our losses in Q3 vs Q2 while increasing capacity, and if we hit our burn rate goal, then personally I would consider Q3 a success for UA.

At today's Skift Global Forum, Kirby stated he does not foresee the airline growing beyond its current size until there is widespread distribution of a vaccine which unlikely to occur until late 2021 at best.

Also mentioned the airlines hub strategy was predicated on business demand, but its handicapped today. Hubs like Newark, San Francisco, and Washington underperform, while Denver benefits from more leisure and connecting traffic.

https://skift.com/2020/09/22/united-air ... buted-ceo/

I also saw another interview today where he mentioned chasing market share was a dead end, and he would rather have United focus on flying that has chance of making money.

LAXintl wrote:

ALPA and company reached an agreement in principle to avoid involuntary furloughs.

Lets see what the details are.



https://i.ibb.co/YT6r0rT/UALMEC090820.jpg

ALPA MEC has passed the LOA or AIP with ever is correct and now the agreement goes before the entire UAL pilot membership for ratification.

If the agreement is passed there would be no involuntary pilot furloughs at United Airlines prior to June 2021.

janders wrote:

At today's Skift Global Forum, Kirby stated he does not foresee the airline growing beyond its current size until there is widespread distribution of a vaccine which unlikely to occur until late 2021 at best.

Also mentioned the airlines hub strategy was predicated on business demand, but its handicapped today. Hubs like Newark, San Francisco, and Washington underperform, while Denver benefits from more leisure and connecting traffic.

https://skift.com/2020/09/22/united-air ... buted-ceo/

I also saw another interview today where he mentioned chasing market share was a dead end, and he would rather have United focus on flying that has chance of making money.

This doesn't surprise me our mid-continent hubs have been out performing our coastal hubs from a load factor standpoint since late June.

Also I wouldn't be surprise if UA trimmed domestic capacity back to around 30% - 35% after the holidays. January through mid-March is going to be tough time period for all airlines but especially US3. So it wouldn't surprise me if UA trimmed capacity as a means to control our burn rate in Q1 2021, then ramping up capacity again to around 40% - 45% starting in Q2 2021. In anticipation of us getting closer to widespread release of a vaccine UA may go as high as 50% pre-COVID capacity in Q3 or Q4 2021.

The investment Kirby's made in the past at our mid-continent hubs especially DEN is paying off during this pandemic. I wish things were better domestically at our coastal hubs but I still believe UA will be just fine at EWR. This pandemic has presented B6 with an opportunity at EWR but I think in the long run UA will be just fine. As far as SFO is concerned it doesn't look like AS is trying anything yet, but that could change as well.

Looks like a few frames have found a lessor to enter into a sale-and-leaseback agreement:

From https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/c ... 78.article:

The transaction comprises two Boeing 787-9s and 10 737 Max 8s...

Under the agreement, the lessor expects to take delivery of the aircraft between 2020 and 2021.

adamblang wrote:

Looks like a few frames have found a lessor to enter into a sale-and-leaseback agreement:

From https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/c ... 78.article:

The transaction comprises two Boeing 787-9s and 10 737 Max 8s...

Under the agreement, the lessor expects to take delivery of the aircraft between 2020 and 2021.

Is that a typo or a new max or is coming ? We only ordered the Max-9 and the Max-10.

UAX Update:

CR7:
N514MJ has returned to flying

E145XR:
N18101 (ex-AX) has exited fleet, stored IGM
N13123 (ex-AX) has exited fleet, stored IGM

E145:
N14562 exited fleet, stored IGM
N13979 exited fleet, stored IGM
N16981 exited fleet, stored IGM

JFKalumni wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Looks like a few frames have found a lessor to enter into a sale-and-leaseback agreement:

From https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/c ... 78.article:

The transaction comprises two Boeing 787-9s and 10 737 Max 8s...

Under the agreement, the lessor expects to take delivery of the aircraft between 2020 and 2021.

Is that a typo or a new max or is coming ? We only ordered the Max-9 and the Max-10.

UA hasn’t officially confirmed it, but many on this thread have found evidence there are definitely MAX 8s coming.

ericm2031 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Looks like a few frames have found a lessor to enter into a sale-and-leaseback agreement:

From https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/c ... 78.article:

Is that a typo or a new max or is coming ? We only ordered the Max-9 and the Max-10.

UA hasn’t officially confirmed it, but many on this thread have found evidence there are definitely MAX 8s coming.

I never understood why UA bought so many Max 9's and no Max 8's. Even if all they ever actually fly are Max 9's, it was common practice to upgrade orders from NG 800's to 900's, and then the production slot was saved for a lower deposit. I guess downgrading saves some money on delivery.

ericm2031 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Looks like a few frames have found a lessor to enter into a sale-and-leaseback agreement:

From https://www.flightglobal.com/airlines/c ... 78.article:

Is that a typo or a new max or is coming ? We only ordered the Max-9 and the Max-10.

UA hasn’t officially confirmed it, but many on this thread have found evidence there are definitely MAX 8s coming.

There has been internal documentation suggesting the Max 8 or now the 737-8 is coming the most compelling information that I've seen is a fleet type code for the 737-8 but publicly UA has never confirmed an order for any 737-8. However nothing that I've seen has suggested that any 737-8 is scheduled for delivery in 2021. Everything that I've seen so far points to deliveries of the 737-9 and 737-10 in 2021 although I'm not sure how many 737-10s will actually be delivered. UA has stated we are only taking delivery for 40 MAX aircraft in 2021 and have deferred the remaining order to a later date. So far it has been a challenge to nail down how many 737-10s are coming in 2021 but I personally have not seen any documentation on deliveries of the 737-8.

cosyr wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Is that a typo or a new max or is coming ? We only ordered the Max-9 and the Max-10.

UA hasn’t officially confirmed it, but many on this thread have found evidence there are definitely MAX 8s coming.

I never understood why UA bought so many Max 9's and no Max 8's. Even if all they ever actually fly are Max 9's, it was common practice to upgrade orders from NG 800's to 900's, and then the production slot was saved for a lower deposit. I guess downgrading saves some money on delivery.

The Max-9 was a no brainer considering we have flights departing EWR with 400 bags on a 737-900ER. The Max-9 is perfect for AUA, CUN, SJO, LIR, and PTY. UA might be addressing the future 737-700/800, A319/20 replacement cycle with this possible order.

Me personally, I still say that A350 order gets transformed into a large A321LR / XLR order.

jetmatt777 wrote:

I have never heard of 400 bags on any 737.

I have put 275 on an ANC flight. and that was really pushing the space limitations.

Haha no kidding. 400 is not possible, unless they are smaller backpacks!

splitterz wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I have never heard of 400 bags on any 737.

I have put 275 on an ANC flight. and that was really pushing the space limitations.

Haha no kidding. 400 is not possible, unless they are smaller backpacks!

Come to EWR and load outbound PTY then come back and make that statement

JFKalumni wrote:

splitterz wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I have never heard of 400 bags on any 737.

I have put 275 on an ANC flight. and that was really pushing the space limitations.

Haha no kidding. 400 is not possible, unless they are smaller backpacks!

Come to EWR and load outbound PTY then come back and make that statement

Maybe the times years ago EWR-PTY ran with a 753, but I could never fathom 400 (!!!) bags on a 739!

codc10 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

splitterz wrote:

Haha no kidding. 400 is not possible, unless they are smaller backpacks!

Come to EWR and load outbound PTY then come back and make that statement

Maybe the times years ago EWR-PTY ran with a 753, but I could never fathom 400 (!!!) bags on a 739!

PTY before Covid was 350-400 bags on a daily basis. It’s not uncommon to have over 100 last minute gate checks on that flight. PTY and LIM are crazy when it comes to bulking out the pits with bags

I vaguely recall an earnings call commentary saying United was raising its hand to take any MAX cancellations from other airlines, regardless of MAX type. I can't find a transcript to link to back that up.

But this is in PaxEx.aero:

Multiple internal documents reviewed by PaxEx.Aero suggest that the carrier will add the MAX 8 to its fleet. Not only has a fleet type code been added to internal documentation, but some interiors layout materials also reference the MAX 8 for the company. It is unclear if this will be an incremental order of conversion of existing backlog.

Pre-COVID United was opportunistically scooping up MAX8 delivery slots from cancellations and deferrals, but there hasn't been a formal order for the -8.

I wonder if this sale / leaseback covers the 787 order from earlier this year. Our 78X fleet is supposed to increase from 13 to 20

JFKalumni wrote:

cosyr wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

UA hasn’t officially confirmed it, but many on this thread have found evidence there are definitely MAX 8s coming.

I never understood why UA bought so many Max 9's and no Max 8's. Even if all they ever actually fly are Max 9's, it was common practice to upgrade orders from NG 800's to 900's, and then the production slot was saved for a lower deposit. I guess downgrading saves some money on delivery.

The Max-9 was a no brainer considering we have flights departing EWR with 400 bags on a 737-900ER. The Max-9 is perfect for AUA, CUN, SJO, LIR, and PTY. UA might be addressing the future 737-700/800, A319/20 replacement cycle with this possible order.

Me personally, I still say that A350 order gets transformed into a large A321LR / XLR order.

Their A320's are as old as the 757/763 fleet. I would hope they have plans already to replace at least the oldest 320's if the latter will likely be gone shortly.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

cosyr wrote:

I never understood why UA bought so many Max 9's and no Max 8's. Even if all they ever actually fly are Max 9's, it was common practice to upgrade orders from NG 800's to 900's, and then the production slot was saved for a lower deposit. I guess downgrading saves some money on delivery.

The Max-9 was a no brainer considering we have flights departing EWR with 400 bags on a 737-900ER. The Max-9 is perfect for AUA, CUN, SJO, LIR, and PTY. UA might be addressing the future 737-700/800, A319/20 replacement cycle with this possible order.

Me personally, I still say that A350 order gets transformed into a large A321LR / XLR order.

Their A320's are as old as the 757/763 fleet. I would hope they have plans already to replace at least the oldest 320's if the latter will likely be gone shortly.

You have a large pilot pool already type rated for the A320, the A350 order is up in the air, large number of A319/20’s due to be replaced, why not transfer that order towards a product you actually need.

JFKalumni wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

The Max-9 was a no brainer considering we have flights departing EWR with 400 bags on a 737-900ER. The Max-9 is perfect for AUA, CUN, SJO, LIR, and PTY. UA might be addressing the future 737-700/800, A319/20 replacement cycle with this possible order.

Me personally, I still say that A350 order gets transformed into a large A321LR / XLR order.

Their A320's are as old as the 757/763 fleet. I would hope they have plans already to replace at least the oldest 320's if the latter will likely be gone shortly.

You have a large pilot pool already type rated for the A320, the A350 order is up in the air, large number of A319/20’s due to be replaced, why not transfer that order towards a product you actually need.

Makes sense - the XLR was already chosen as the future long range NB, so why not add more regular NEO's to take care of all the 90's A320's?

I suppose the 787's can replace the oldest 777-200/ER's.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Their A320's are as old as the 757/763 fleet. I would hope they have plans already to replace at least the oldest 320's if the latter will likely be gone shortly.

You have a large pilot pool already type rated for the A320, the A350 order is up in the air, large number of A319/20’s due to be replaced, why not transfer that order towards a product you actually need.

Makes sense - the XLR was already chosen as the future long range NB, so why not add more regular NEO's to take care of all the 90's A320's?

I suppose the 787's can replace the oldest 777-200/A320's.

After the merger, IAH fell in love with the Airbus. You can open up more Central and South American cities with the LR / XLR

JFKalumni wrote:

codc10 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Come to EWR and load outbound PTY then come back and make that statement

Maybe the times years ago EWR-PTY ran with a 753, but I could never fathom 400 (!!!) bags on a 739!

PTY before Covid was 350-400 bags on a daily basis. It’s not uncommon to have over 100 last minute gate checks on that flight. PTY and LIM are crazy when it comes to bulking out the pits with bags

And IAH says the same thing with SAL and their loads. I don’t buy it.

splitterz wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Maybe the times years ago EWR-PTY ran with a 753, but I could never fathom 400 (!!!) bags on a 739!

PTY before Covid was 350-400 bags on a daily basis. It’s not uncommon to have over 100 last minute gate checks on that flight. PTY and LIM are crazy when it comes to bulking out the pits with bags

And IAH says the same thing with SAL and their loads. I don’t buy it.

We have flights with very heavy loads on the 737. I can’t speak for IAH but here at EWR, it’s true. PTY is known for heavy loads with the majority of the bags being connections to copa air.