andrew1996 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

splitterz wrote:

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.

Is there often still room for cargo or mail on these flights? Do narrowbody even usually carry much cargo/mail particularly on domestic flights where most passengers have no checked bags?

Very little. Usually a dog in the rear pit and that’s it.

JFKalumni wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

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.

Is there often still room for cargo or mail on these flights? Do narrowbody even usually carry much cargo/mail particularly on domestic flights where most passengers have no checked bags?

Very little. Usually a dog in the rear pit and that’s it.

Is that lack of cargo because of a lack of demand on those 737 routes or a lack fo space and the fact that it is a narrowbody and not a widebody?

andrew1996 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

Is there often still room for cargo or mail on these flights? Do narrowbody even usually carry much cargo/mail particularly on domestic flights where most passengers have no checked bags?

Very little. Usually a dog in the rear pit and that’s it.

Is that lack of cargo because of a lack of demand on those 737 routes or a lack fo space and the fact that it is a narrowbody and not a widebody?

It depends on the city. Certain cities have lots of cargo while other cities will be an all bag loading.

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.

Just because you don't buy it does not mean it isn't true.

Pre-COVID both EWR and especially IAH to Central America and vice versa Central America back to either IAH or EWR you could easily see 300-400 bags on a 739ER. I hope no one takes this the wrong way but in my opinion a lot of ramp personnel have forgotten or never knew how to properly stack a pit. When done correctly a 739ER can handle 400 bags. There have been times when the ramp has loaded 180-190 bags on a 737-700 going to or coming from Central America.

From my own ramp experience back in 1999 at ORD on gate C24 my crew and I loaded 650 bags on a 757-200 going to SEA. We had a ton of bags after a weather event that we had to move some bags were terminating in SEA others were continuing on SEA-ANC. But we had no choice we had to get all those bags on that aircraft. Needless to say whether a 752 or a 739ER it can be done while still observing the 2 inch fire safety rule.

If UA does so well on EWR-PTY (which I’m not doubting) I don’t get why they haven’t added a second daily flight or even introduced Copa onto the route. EWR-PTY seems to make a lot more sense for connections compared to JFK itineraries for Copa which all probably end at JFK.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

If UA does so well on EWR-PTY (which I’m not doubting) I don’t get why they haven’t added a second daily flight or even introduced Copa onto the route. EWR-PTY seems to make a lot more sense for connections compared to JFK itineraries for Copa which all probably end at JFK.

EWR-PTY pre COVID was double daily. First departure around 3:45pm and the second departure shortly before midnight.

Scarebus34 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

EssentialBusDC wrote:

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.

I was at United 33 years and a ;ot of it on the A320/A319 desk in Maint. control we didn't have it happen often but the A320 in fact couldn't make it transcon East to west part of the year, Mostly in the Winter, which we found out when the original batch of 737-322's and -522's left the fleet before the Merger. They had to 20 some Mods to get the A320's to fly Transcon against high winds in the winter but we ALWAYS flew the A319's transcon all year long and especially the Late night Transcons which I took quite a bit to Go and return to the west coast from IAD and PHL when I went home to visit from the west coast. I was sorry that my hot secret for out asfer a while because the 777a ahd the 767 that left at 2200 were always booked full up but the A319 that left at 2300 to IAD and Bos seemed to always be open with seats and I got Many times a row to myself in the emergency exit row over wing. Which I loved. I was bummed out when the secret got out and then they were Booked solid. After having to move to the WHQ I got the hot ticket on the Morning 777A from ORD to SFO at 0800 and I got the exit row at door 2R pretty much all to myself when they quit letting people move from Economy Coach to Economy Plus for Free after takeoff. Usually I got the 1020 A320 departure out of SFO to land at ORD at 1800 so I could buy dinner on my way back to the Apartment.. Even Now retired I still scan for the Plumb flights . Can't wait for this COVID thing to be over so I can go to Boston and Maine for some Clams and Lobster because this stuff is cutting into my hustle in getting to my favorite east coast Eateries. And Yes I fly to BWI to eat at Chaps Pit Beef!

I, for one, enjoy strfyr51’s posts, especially those reminiscing about the good old days!! Very welcome in this era, for sure.

codc10 wrote:

I, for one, enjoy strfyr51’s posts, especially those reminiscing about the good old days!! Very welcome in this era, for sure.

Agreed, sometimes they are a little hard to read but I very much appreciate his insights. I'm sure he would be a great guy to get a beer with and listen to his stories.

Two things: first, I think we've gone around and around on how many bags a 737 can hold, so let's just consider that horse thoroughly beaten to death and move on. Second, it is up to moderators to appoint Grammar Police on this forum. Since we haven't yet named anyone to the positions, and those positions are likely to go unfilled, please keep the snark out of the discussion. We're all friends here, so let's act like it.

✈️ atcsundevil

Going back to the 737-8/9/10 (formerly known as the MAX) the latest fleet update shows 26 737-9s. Of those 26 frames, 14 have already been delivered meaning once the program is recertified Boeing has an additional 12 frames ready for delivery. The fleet plan does show future deliveries in 2021 of 737-9s and 737-10s however as it stands right now there are no concrete numbers attached to either sub-fleet (outside of the 12 737-9 frames already built and the 14 already delivered). No where does the fleet plan mention or show 737-8 deliveries in 2021.

If UA sticks with the plan and only takes delivery of 40 737 frames this leaves 28 frames outstanding because 14 have already been delivered. By the end of 2021 UA's 737-9/10 fleet should be around 54 total frames.

The DOT selects Skywest/United Express to operate 12 weekly services from ORD and/or IAD to Johnstown (JST), Pennsylvania on the CRJ-200 for three years starting November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023 with annual subsidies of $3,484,020.

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/D ... 11451-0180

Ishrion wrote:

The DOT selects Skywest/United Express to operate 12 weekly services from ORD and/or IAD to Johnstown (JST), Pennsylvania on the CRJ-200 for three years starting November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023 with annual subsidies of $3,484,020.

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/D ... 11451-0180

It looks like the infamous "Airport For Nobody" is still living up to its name 11 years later. I had assumed these EAS subsidies would have dried up when John Murtha died, but it looks like political favors in a swing state will continue with or without him. Awards like these are what gives the EAS a bad name given how close PIT is to JST. That's a lot of money to fly empty planes around.

atcsundevil wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

The DOT selects Skywest/United Express to operate 12 weekly services from ORD and/or IAD to Johnstown (JST), Pennsylvania on the CRJ-200 for three years starting November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023 with annual subsidies of $3,484,020.

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/D ... 11451-0180

It looks like the infamous "Airport For Nobody" is still living up to its name 11 years later. I had assumed these EAS subsidies would have dried up when John Murtha died, but it looks like political favors in a swing state will continue with or without him. Awards like these are what gives the EAS a bad name given how close PIT is to JST. That's a lot of money to fly empty planes around.

I agree that it's markets like Johnstown that give EAS a bad name (before losing EAS eligibility I think Hagerstown, MD was the worse offender) but this is the first time Johnstown has been served by jets, and the first time in 8 years it has been connected to a major network carrier. If Johnstown has any chance of growing to a point where it can support service without requiring subsidy, this is it. Unfortunately Covid depressing demand means that probably won't happen in coming years.

RyanairGuru wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

The DOT selects Skywest/United Express to operate 12 weekly services from ORD and/or IAD to Johnstown (JST), Pennsylvania on the CRJ-200 for three years starting November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2023 with annual subsidies of $3,484,020.

https://beta.regulations.gov/document/D ... 11451-0180

It looks like the infamous "Airport For Nobody" is still living up to its name 11 years later. I had assumed these EAS subsidies would have dried up when John Murtha died, but it looks like political favors in a swing state will continue with or without him. Awards like these are what gives the EAS a bad name given how close PIT is to JST. That's a lot of money to fly empty planes around.

I agree that it's markets like Johnstown that give EAS a bad name (before losing EAS eligibility I think Hagerstown, MD was the worse offender) but this is the first time Johnstown has been served by jets, and the first time in 8 years it has been connected to a major network carrier. If Johnstown has any chance of growing to a point where it can support service without requiring subsidy, this is it. Unfortunately Covid depressing demand means that probably won't happen in coming years.

With the population of the area actually trending down, EAS makes less and less sense for airports like this.

jayunited 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.

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.

Latest Update
The 737-MAX8s are coming......
737MAX Dated: SEP 15/20

Nose#........Type.............MSN.......Reg#.......Line.......Yr Mfg.......Fleet

7251 .........737MAX-8 ...43931 ....N27251 ..8035 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7252 .........737MAX-8 ...43932 ....N27252 ..8075 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7253 .........737MAX-8 ...43930 ....N27253 ..8092 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7254 .........737MAX-8 ...43436 ....N17254 ..8104 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7255 .........737MAX-8 ...43440 ....N27255 ..8109 ....20...............41 / 61
7256 .........737MAX-8 ...64447 ....TBD ........8110 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7257 .........737MAX-8 ...43442 ....TBD ........8111 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7258 .........737MAX-8 ...66593 ....TBD ........8113 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7259 .........737MAX-8 ...43462 ....TBD ........8114 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7260 .........737MAX-8 ...43458 ....TBD ........8116 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7261 .........737MAX-8 ...43464 ....TBD ........8118 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7262 .........737MAX-8 ...66594 ....TBD ........8120 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7263 .........737MAX-8 ...66595 ....TBD ........8126 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7264 .........737MAX-8 ...66596 ....TBD ........8129 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7265 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD........ 8293 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7266 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8304 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7267 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8326 ..10/20 ...........41 / 61

Latest Update
The 737-MAX10s are coming......
737MAX Dated: SEP 15/20

Nose#........Type.............MSN.......Reg#.......Line.......Yr Mfg.......Fleet

7751 ........737MAX-10 ..66122 ....N27751 ..7644 .....TBD .........43 / 61
7752 ........737MAX-10 ..66123 ....N27752 ..7705 .....TBD .........43 / 61
7753 ........737MAX-10 ..66118 ....N27753 ..7935 .....TBD .........43 / 61
7754 ........737MAX-10 ..66115 ....TBD ........8124 ....TBD .........43 / 61
7755 ........737MAX-10 ..66116 ....TBD ........8131 ....TBD .........43 / 61
7756 ........737MAX-10 ..66117 ....TBD ........8140 ....TBD .........43 / 61
7757 ........737MAX-10 ..64450 ....TBD ........8152 ....TBD..........43 / 61
TBD .........737MAX-10 ..64451 ....TBD ........8163 ....21 ............43 / 61
TBD .........737MAX-10 ..43489 ....TBD ........8173 ....21 ............43 / 61
TBD .........737MAX-10 ..64452 ....TBD ........8182 ....21 ............43 / 61
TBD .........737MAX-10 ..43508 ....TBD ........8729 ....21 ............43 / 61

Southwest 737-700s
Latest Update Dated: SEP 15/20

NOSE .......TYPE ........MSN .......REG ........LINE .......(MFG_YR) .......EX-OP
......................................................................................SchedDelivery........

0755 .........737-76N ...32679 ......N13755 ...1514 .......Sep-19 ...........SWA/N7714B (610)
0756 .........737-76N ...32653 ......N16756 ...1566 .......Dec-19 ...........SWA/N7703A (612)
0757 .........737-76N ...32661 ......N18757 ...1593 .......Mar-20 ...........SWA/N7706A (614)
0758 .........737-76N ...32667 ......N15758 ...1623 .......Mar-20 ...........SWA/N7707C (615)
0759 .........737-76N ...32652 ......N17759 ...1627 .......Apr-20 ...........SWA/N7708E (616)
0760 .........737-76N ...32654 ......N24760 ...1641 .......Apr-20 ...........SWA/N7709A (617)
0761 .........737-76N ...32656 ......N12761 ...1671 .......Jun-20 ...........SWA/N7710A (618)
0762 .........737-76N ...32657 ......N12762 ...1687 ........Jul-20 ...........SWA/N7711N (619)
0763 .........737-76N ...32660 ......N12763 ...1710 .......Aug-20 ..........SWA/N7712G (620)
0764 .........737-76N ...32662 ......N12764 ...1788 .......Jan-21 ...........SWA/N7716A (621)
0765 .........737-76N ...32664 ......N13765 ...1804 .......Feb-21 ...........SWA/N7717D (622)
0766 .........737-76N ...32665 ......N16766 ...1827 .......Mar-21 ...........SWA/N7718B (623)
0767 .........737-76N ...32666 ......N28767 ...1833 .......Mar-21 ...........SWA/N7719A (624)
0768 .........737-76N ...32668 ......N17768 ...1876 ......May-21 ...........SWA/N7722B (625)
0769 .........737-76N ...32670 ......N13769 ...1898 .......Jun-21 ...........SWA/N7723E (626)
0770 .........737-76N ...32671 ......N47770 ...1925 ........Jul-21 ...........SWA/N7725A (627)
0771 .........737-76N ...32673 ......N13771 ...1943 ......Aug-21 ...........SWA/N7727A (628)
0772 .........737-76N ...32675 ......N13772 ...1970 ......Sep-21 ...........SWA/N7729A (629)
0773 .........737-76N ...32677 ......N13773 ...2002 ......Oct-21 ............SWA/N7731A (630)
0774 .........737-76N ...32678 ......N13774 ...2055 ......Jan-22 ............SWA/N7733B (631)

Latest Update

737MAX9 Dated: SEP 15/20



Nose#........Type.............MSN.......Reg#.......Line.......Yr Mfg.......Fleet

7531 .........737MAX-9 ...TBD .......TBD .......TBD ......TBD ..........42 / 61
7532 .........737MAX-9 ...43465 ....TBD .......7818 .....TBD ..........42 / 61

RyanairGuru wrote:

I agree that it's markets like Johnstown that give EAS a bad name (before losing EAS eligibility I think Hagerstown, MD was the worse offender) but this is the first time Johnstown has been served by jets, and the first time in 8 years it has been connected to a major network carrier. If Johnstown has any chance of growing to a point where it can support service without requiring subsidy, this is it. Unfortunately Covid depressing demand means that probably won't happen in coming years.

Hagerstown was pretty bad. I live near IAD and have coworkers who commute from farther away than Hagerstown. Staunton was pretty bad too — they were one of the highest cost EAS airports for a while, despite the fact that Charlottesville is less than 45 minutes away. But yes, the last time JST was EAS, it was served with the SF34, which still flew around empty seats, but at a lower cost. Now, the CRJ2 will fly around even more empty seats for even more money.

Given the timing of the announcement, it's abundantly clear that it's purely politically motivated. I can't see any way that it would add value to the IAD/ORD hubs, so they may as well lie fly the thing to Akron instead, because it would be about as useful. The numbers on this route would have been abysmal pre-covid, but starting it now, and going into the winter no less, I'm predicting single digit load factors *on a good day*. At least social distancing will be absolutely no problem.

787-8/-9/-10 Dated: SEP 15/20
787-10

NOSE ......TYPE .......MSN .......REG .......LINE .......MFG_YR.......Fleet .......EX-Operator

1001 ........787-10 .....40936 .....N14001 ...0731 ......18 .................10 ...........CO
1002 ........787-10 .....40930 .....N17002 ...0763 ......18 .................10 ...........CO
1003 ........787-10 .....40935 .....N12003 ...0782...... 18 .................10 ...........CO
1004 ........787-10 .....60139 .....N12004 ...0795 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1005 ........787-10 .....40937 .....N12005 ...0800 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1006 ........787-10 .....60140 .....N12006 ...0814 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1007 ........787-10 .....40929 .....N91007 ...0548 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1008 ........787-10 .....60138 .....N16008 ...0822 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1009 ........787-10 .....40938 .....N16009 ...0828 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1010 ........787-10 .....40926 .....N12010 ...0948 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1011 ........787-10 .....40934 .....N14011 ...0950 .......19 .................10 ...........CO
1012 ........787-10 .....60145 .....N12012 ...0964 ......20 ..................10 ..........CO
1013 ........787-10 .....40931 .....N13013 ...0996 ......20 ..................10 ..........CO
1014 ........787-10 .....40940 .....N13014 ...1114 .......21 ..................10 .........CO
1015 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N17015 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10 .........CO
1016 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N14016 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10 .........CO
1017 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N17017 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1018 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N13018 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1019 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N14019....TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1020 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N12020 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1021 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N12021 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1022 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N17022 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1023 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N14023 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1024 ........787-10 .....TBD.........N12024 ...TBD........TBD ...............10......... CO
1025 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N12025 ...TBD .......TBD................10......... CO

CALTECH wrote:

787-8/-9/-10 Dated: SEP 15/20
787-10

NOSE ......TYPE .......MSN .......REG .......LINE .......MFG_YR.......Fleet .......EX-Operator

1001 ........787-10 .....40936 .....N14001 ...0731 ......18 .................10 ...........CO
1002 ........787-10 .....40930 .....N17002 ...0763 ......18 .................10 ...........CO
1003 ........787-10 .....40935 .....N12003 ...0782...... 18 .................10 ...........CO
1004 ........787-10 .....60139 .....N12004 ...0795 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1005 ........787-10 .....40937 .....N12005 ...0800 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1006 ........787-10 .....60140 .....N12006 ...0814 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1007 ........787-10 .....40929 .....N91007 ...0548 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1008 ........787-10 .....60138 .....N16008 ...0822 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1009 ........787-10 .....40938 .....N16009 ...0828 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1010 ........787-10 .....40926 .....N12010 ...0948 ......19 .................10 ...........CO
1011 ........787-10 .....40934 .....N14011 ...0950 .......19 .................10 ...........CO
1012 ........787-10 .....60145 .....N12012 ...0964 ......20 ..................10 ..........CO
1013 ........787-10 .....40931 .....N13013 ...0996 ......20 ..................10 ..........CO
1014 ........787-10 .....40940 .....N13014 ...1114 .......21 ..................10 .........CO
1015 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N17015 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10 .........CO
1016 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N14016 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10 .........CO
1017 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N17017 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1018 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N13018 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1019 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N14019....TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1020 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N12020 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1021 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N12021 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1022 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N17022 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1023 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N14023 ...TBD .......TBD ...............10..........CO
1024 ........787-10 .....TBD.........N12024 ...TBD........TBD ...............10......... CO
1025 ........787-10 .....TBD ........N12025 ...TBD .......TBD................10......... CO

It looks like UA is exercising even more options for the 78X I thought ship 1020 was the last of the 2020 order but you found five more added to the list.

Question:

With all of these new additions to the fleet, do you believe at some point UA will have a sub fleet of 787’s with Trent 1000’s just to satisfy the contract?

Multiple fleet types already flying with different engines.

757: PW-2000 / RR-RB211
767: PW-4000 / CFM-56
777: PW-4090 / GE-90
319/20: IAE-2500 / Easyjet CFM-56 soon

A319-111 Dated: SEP 15/20

NOSE .......TYPE .........MSN....... REG .......LINE .......MFG_YR .......Fleet.......EX-OP

4301 .........A319-111 ...02495......N2301U ...N/A ........2005 ..............16 ..........G-EZIM/3jet
4302 .........A319-111 ...02565 .....N2302U ...N/A ........2005 ..............16 ..........G-EZIV/Easyjet
4303 .........A319-111 ...02578 .....N3303U ...N/A ........2005 ..............16 ..........G-EZIW/Easyjet
4304 .........A319-111 ...02605 .....N3304U ...N/A... .....2005 ..............16 ..........G-EZIX/Easyjet
4305 .........A319-111 ...02636 .....N3305U ...N/A ........2005 ..............16 ..........G-EZIY/Easyjet
4306 .........A319-111 ...02646 .....N4306U ...N/A ........2006 ..............16 ..........G-EZIZ/Easyjet
4307 .........A319-111 ...02677 .....N5307U ...N/A ........2006 ..............16 ..........G-EZAA/Easyjet
4308 .........A319-111 ...02691 .....N6308U ...N/A ........2006 ..............16 ..........G-EZAC/Easyjet
4309 .........A319-111 ...02715 .....N6309U ...N/A ........2006 ..............16 ..........G-EZAF/Easyjet
4310 .........A319-111 ...02742 .....N6310U ...N/A ........2006 ..............16 ..........G-EZAJ/Easyjet
4311 .........A319-111 ...02744 .....N6311U ....N/A .......2006 ...............16 .........G-EZAK/Easyjet
4312 .........A319-111 ...02754 .....N9312U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAL/Easyjet
4313 .........A319-111 ...02765..... N9313U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAN/Easyjet
4314 .........A319-111 ...02769 .....N3314U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAO/Easyjet
4315 .........A319-111 ...02777 .....N3315U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAP/Easyjet
4316 .........A319-111 ...02779 .....N3316U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAS/Easyjet
4317 .........A319-111 ...02782 .....N5317U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAT/Easyjet
4318 .........A319-111 ...02795 .....N6318U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAU/Easyjet
4319 .........A319-111 ...02803 .....N8319U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAV/Easyjet
4320 .........A319-111 ...02818 .....N8320U ...N/A .......2006 ................16 .........G-EZAX/Easyjet

JFKalumni wrote:

Question:

With all of these new additions to the fleet, do you believe at some point UA will have a sub fleet of 787’s with Trent 1000’s just to satisfy the contract?

Multiple fleet types already flying with different engines.

757: PW-2000 / RR-RB211
767: PW-4000 / CFM-56
777: PW-4090 / GE-90
319/20: IAE-2500 / Easyjet CFM-56 soon

Do you mean the A-350 contract ? Don't know, it would maybe appease Rolls-Royce which is the word on why the A-350 order wasn't cancelled. It supposedly was agreed to by UAL and Airbus, but Rolls-Royce refused to amend the contract terms and penalties. And you would introduce a new engine type on the 787. Up to the bean counters whether to cancel the order and pay the penalty, trade the order for more A-321XLRs, or bring the A-350 into the fleet. Very happy with the 787 is the word......

757 Pratts are on the way out, as soon as 737-MAX10s start arriving.

767-300s ...-PW4060s,
767-400s ...-CF6-80C2,

no CFM-56 on UAL 767s

777-222........-PW4077
777-222ER...-PW4090-3
777-224ER...-GE90-94
777-300ER...-GE90-115B

787-8.........-GENX-1B70
787-9.........-GENX-1B74/75
787-10.......-GENX-1B76

CALTECH wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

Question:

With all of these new additions to the fleet, do you believe at some point UA will have a sub fleet of 787’s with Trent 1000’s just to satisfy the contract?

Multiple fleet types already flying with different engines.

757: PW-2000 / RR-RB211
767: PW-4000 / CFM-56
777: PW-4090 / GE-90
319/20: IAE-2500 / Easyjet CFM-56 soon

Do you mean the A-350 contract ? Don't know, it would maybe appease Rolls-Royce, but then you would introduce a new engine type on the 787. Up to the bean counters whether to cancel the order and pay the penalty, trade the order for more A-321XLRs, or bring the A-350 into the fleet. Very happy with the 787 is the word......

757 Pratts are on the way out.

767-300s ...-PW4060s,
767-400s ...-CF6-80C2,

no CFM-56 on UAL 767s

777-222........-PW4077
777-222ER...-PW4090-3
777-224ER...-GE90-94
777-300ER...-GE90-115B

787-8.........-GENX-1B70
787-9.........-GENX-1B74/75
787-10.......-GENX-1B76

You’re right about the CF6 my mistake.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

EWR-PTY seems to make a lot more sense for connections compared to JFK itineraries for Copa which all probably end at JFK.

I'm guessing Copa's target demographic for the JFK flights is ethnic traffic from Brooklyn/Queens/Long Island bound for Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, El Salvador, etc. Probably way more volume there than there is for connections from Upstate NY, New England, and Eastern Canada to Panama City via EWR.

N2910U aka 4915 ferried GYR-TUP fleet exit. Ex vueling

7507 MCO maintenance done, 7506 next on the board

1008 - Shim rework, its Boeing's airplane. Text flt possible October 11th

772s GE stored in ROW: 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 11, 14, 15, 30 & 21. 14 is last sole subCO to have diamond seats and not polaris.

FSDan wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

EWR-PTY seems to make a lot more sense for connections compared to JFK itineraries for Copa which all probably end at JFK.

I'm guessing Copa's target demographic for the JFK flights is ethnic traffic from Brooklyn/Queens/Long Island bound for Colombia, Ecuador, Brazil, El Salvador, etc. Probably way more volume there than there is for connections from Upstate NY, New England, and Eastern Canada to Panama City via EWR.

IIRC, when CO had an interest in CM, the agreement was CO metal to CO hubs.

United/SkyWest has been selected to provide EAS to Victoria, Texas, from IAH.

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... 20454-0131

atcsundevil wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

I agree that it's markets like Johnstown that give EAS a bad name (before losing EAS eligibility I think Hagerstown, MD was the worse offender) but this is the first time Johnstown has been served by jets, and the first time in 8 years it has been connected to a major network carrier. If Johnstown has any chance of growing to a point where it can support service without requiring subsidy, this is it. Unfortunately Covid depressing demand means that probably won't happen in coming years.

Hagerstown was pretty bad. I live near IAD and have coworkers who commute from farther away than Hagerstown. Staunton was pretty bad too — they were one of the highest cost EAS airports for a while, despite the fact that Charlottesville is less than 45 minutes away. But yes, the last time JST was EAS, it was served with the SF34, which still flew around empty seats, but at a lower cost. Now, the CRJ2 will fly around even more empty seats for even more money.

Given the timing of the announcement, it's abundantly clear that it's purely politically motivated. I can't see any way that it would add value to the IAD/ORD hubs, so they may as well lie fly the thing to Akron instead, because it would be about as useful. The numbers on this route would have been abysmal pre-covid, but starting it now, and going into the winter no less, I'm predicting single digit load factors *on a good day*. At least social distancing will be absolutely no problem.

PIT isn't really a hub for anyone anymore, is it? Doesn't look like it from what I can gather.

I'm guessing that's how/why Johnstown still qualifies for EAS.

I have similar feelings about MKG qualifying for EAS despite its proximity to GRR. It qualifies because of its distance from Detroit and Chicago, but it still seems absurd to subsidize its air service when GRR is 45 minutes away. EAS should really be revised so that qualification depends on proximity to any airport with commercial service factors in, not just hub cities.

JBo wrote:

PIT isn't really a hub for anyone anymore, is it? Doesn't look like it from what I can gather.

I'm guessing that's how/why Johnstown still qualifies for EAS.

I have similar feelings about MKG qualifying for EAS despite its proximity to GRR. It qualifies because of its distance from Detroit and Chicago, but it still seems absurd to subsidize its air service when GRR is 45 minutes away. EAS should really be revised so that qualification depends on proximity to any airport with commercial service factors in, not just hub cities.

You're right, it isn't, but it's not like PIT is really lacking connectivity relative to the size of the region. That is how JST qualifies even though it's ridiculous. I'm very much a supporter of EAS, simply because there are extremely remote parts of the lower 48 (obviously Alaska is a whole other discussion) that depend on air service that may not otherwise be profitable. The problem is that political interference leads to airports like these getting massive subsidies for pet projects and to please constituents. I understand that it's just politics, but it undermines the program as a whole. SkyWest in particular seems to love picking up these routes, and usually under the UA code. It's easy money to pick off the routes because they're perfectly happy to run empty planes.

redrooster3 wrote:

N2910U aka 4915 ferried GYR-TUP fleet exit. Ex vueling

What's up with that? Did they just buy some of these for parts only? Are the ex-Easyjet frames facing the same fate?

CALTECH wrote:

jayunited wrote:

ericm2031 wrote:

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.

Latest Update
The 737-MAX8s are coming......
737MAX Dated: SEP 15/20

Nose#........Type.............MSN.......Reg#.......Line.......Yr Mfg.......Fleet

7251 .........737MAX-8 ...43931 ....N27251 ..8035 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7252 .........737MAX-8 ...43932 ....N27252 ..8075 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7253 .........737MAX-8 ...43930 ....N27253 ..8092 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7254 .........737MAX-8 ...43436 ....N17254 ..8104 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7255 .........737MAX-8 ...43440 ....N27255 ..8109 ....20...............41 / 61
7256 .........737MAX-8 ...64447 ....TBD ........8110 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7257 .........737MAX-8 ...43442 ....TBD ........8111 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7258 .........737MAX-8 ...66593 ....TBD ........8113 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7259 .........737MAX-8 ...43462 ....TBD ........8114 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7260 .........737MAX-8 ...43458 ....TBD ........8116 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7261 .........737MAX-8 ...43464 ....TBD ........8118 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7262 .........737MAX-8 ...66594 ....TBD ........8120 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7263 .........737MAX-8 ...66595 ....TBD ........8126 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7264 .........737MAX-8 ...66596 ....TBD ........8129 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7265 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD........ 8293 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7266 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8304 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7267 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8326 ..10/20 ...........41 / 61

I'm not surprised that UA is getting the Max8, but it is sooner than I would have thought they would. I would think they would want a bigger fleet of Max9's before they start getting different variants. With the Max10's coming soon too, UA will have 8 subfleets of 737's (not counting used frames with their quirks). 737-7/8/9/900ER, and Max 8/9/10. At least originally, as far as pilots were concerned, it didn't require separate groups, does anyone know for certain that that certification isn't changing after the grounding?

I suppose this is prompted by COVID, expected lower LF's for the next 18-24 months, UA saves some money on acquisitions in the short term, and I'm guessing they got a deal with delivery slots opening up because of COVID and the grounding, as well.

cosyr wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

jayunited wrote:

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.

Latest Update
The 737-MAX8s are coming......
737MAX Dated: SEP 15/20

Nose#........Type.............MSN.......Reg#.......Line.......Yr Mfg.......Fleet

7251 .........737MAX-8 ...43931 ....N27251 ..8035 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7252 .........737MAX-8 ...43932 ....N27252 ..8075 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7253 .........737MAX-8 ...43930 ....N27253 ..8092 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7254 .........737MAX-8 ...43436 ....N17254 ..8104 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7255 .........737MAX-8 ...43440 ....N27255 ..8109 ....20...............41 / 61
7256 .........737MAX-8 ...64447 ....TBD ........8110 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7257 .........737MAX-8 ...43442 ....TBD ........8111 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7258 .........737MAX-8 ...66593 ....TBD ........8113 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7259 .........737MAX-8 ...43462 ....TBD ........8114 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7260 .........737MAX-8 ...43458 ....TBD ........8116 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7261 .........737MAX-8 ...43464 ....TBD ........8118 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7262 .........737MAX-8 ...66594 ....TBD ........8120 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7263 .........737MAX-8 ...66595 ....TBD ........8126 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7264 .........737MAX-8 ...66596 ....TBD ........8129 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7265 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD........ 8293 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7266 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8304 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7267 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8326 ..10/20 ...........41 / 61

I'm not surprised that UA is getting the Max8, but it is sooner than I would have thought they would. I would think they would want a bigger fleet of Max9's before they start getting different variants. With the Max10's coming soon too, UA will have 8 subfleets of 737's (not counting used frames with their quirks). 737-7/8/9/900ER, and Max 8/9/10. At least originally, as far as pilots were concerned, it didn't require separate groups, does anyone know for certain that that certification isn't changing after the grounding?

I suppose this is prompted by COVID, expected lower LF's for the next 18-24 months, UA saves some money on acquisitions in the short term, and I'm guessing they got a deal with delivery slots opening up because of COVID and the grounding, as well.

Getting some 737-8 was a pre Covid thing.

atcsundevil wrote:

I understand that it's just politics, but it undermines the program as a whole. SkyWest in particular seems to love picking up these routes, and usually under the UA code. It's easy money to pick off the routes because they're perfectly happy to run empty planes.

I'm not familiar with the working of the EAS program. Do the feds pick and choose the markets they think should benefit from EAS monies or it is the local governments that submit requests for EAS funds from the feds and the feds then respond accordingly?

I agree with you on the fact that some of these markets are definitely close enough to drive to a nearby city and aren't a good use of federal funds. To simply eliminate someone's "hour or hour and a half" drive to the next city over with established air service seems wasteful especially since people in more rural areas will more than likely have a car or some sort of ground transportation. Heck, when I lived downtown Chicago or in LA. my drive to the airport within the same city limits sometimes exceeded 90 minutes.

I know this has been discussed many times, but all the way back near the beginning or middle of the thread.

Of all the UA 767’s, are any still being paid for somehow (lease, loans or Boeing?) or are most or all fully paid off and owned by UA?

I realize they burn more fuel, and might be a better size (smaller), but why use the 763’s they have over 787-8/9’s that are either brand new, or a few years old, and still paying dearly for them as they remain parked?

I know there is a very good reason, I just do not know it.

I can understand the High J 763’s being parked for now (unless some are flying?)

jetblastdubai wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

I understand that it's just politics, but it undermines the program as a whole. SkyWest in particular seems to love picking up these routes, and usually under the UA code. It's easy money to pick off the routes because they're perfectly happy to run empty planes.

I'm not familiar with the working of the EAS program. Do the feds pick and choose the markets they think should benefit from EAS monies or it is the local governments that submit requests for EAS funds from the feds and the feds then respond accordingly?

I agree with you on the fact that some of these markets are definitely close enough to drive to a nearby city and aren't a good use of federal funds. To simply eliminate someone's "hour or hour and a half" drive to the next city over with established air service seems wasteful especially since people in more rural areas will more than likely have a car or some sort of ground transportation. Heck, when I lived downtown Chicago or in LA. my drive to the airport within the same city limits sometimes exceeded 90 minutes.

I might be slightly off, and someone can correct me, but EAS was introduced at the same time as deregulation to quell the fears of legislators from rural areas who were concerned about loosing service in the deregulated market. Any airport with service at the time of deregulation was eligible for EAS if it was more than 2 hours (?) drive from a "hub". Note that the FAA use a different definition of hub, basically a major airport, so this doesn't mean a hub-and-spoke major airline operation. For example I'm fairly certain PIT is still a hub under the FAA definition.

Some of the markets in rural Pennsylvania, Maryland etc were always a bit tenuous, but the improvement in highway infrastructure since the 1970s means that driving times are shorter than they were when they entered the EAS program, and are therefore strictly speaking no longer eligible. The problem is that removing an airport from the program is a long and drawn out process, and everyone from the county agriculture commissioner to the state's US senators gets involved, possibly even the administration if it's a swing state (hello Pennyslvania). Hagerstown used some creative logic to argue why they should remain in the program, including (IIRC) trying to argue that the most common drive to IAD was down I80 and then US50, rather than the much more direct I70 and US15.

The flipside though is that when someone like SkyWest enters a market with reliable jet service connected to a major network carrier, markets that had daily passenger numbers in the single digits when served by a no-name airline flying unpressurized 9-19 seat props to an airport without obvious connections (other than self-connects to an LCC, such as WN at STL and BWI) have grown in passenger numbers to the point of no longer requiring subsidy.

It appears six 2 class 763s are leased. I would imagine others are fully paid.
No High J units leased and they are all stored.
Almost all 788/9/X aircraft are moving daily.
Usually about 4 763s operating daily from a fleet of 7 non-stored units.

EssentialBusDC wrote:

cosyr wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Latest Update
The 737-MAX8s are coming......
737MAX Dated: SEP 15/20

Nose#........Type.............MSN.......Reg#.......Line.......Yr Mfg.......Fleet

7251 .........737MAX-8 ...43931 ....N27251 ..8035 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7252 .........737MAX-8 ...43932 ....N27252 ..8075 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7253 .........737MAX-8 ...43930 ....N27253 ..8092 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7254 .........737MAX-8 ...43436 ....N17254 ..8104 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7255 .........737MAX-8 ...43440 ....N27255 ..8109 ....20...............41 / 61
7256 .........737MAX-8 ...64447 ....TBD ........8110 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7257 .........737MAX-8 ...43442 ....TBD ........8111 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7258 .........737MAX-8 ...66593 ....TBD ........8113 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7259 .........737MAX-8 ...43462 ....TBD ........8114 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7260 .........737MAX-8 ...43458 ....TBD ........8116 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7261 .........737MAX-8 ...43464 ....TBD ........8118 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7262 .........737MAX-8 ...66594 ....TBD ........8120 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7263 .........737MAX-8 ...66595 ....TBD ........8126 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7264 .........737MAX-8 ...66596 ....TBD ........8129 ....20 ..............41 / 61
7265 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD........ 8293 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7266 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8304 ....9/20 ...........41 / 61
7267 .........737MAX-8 ...TBD .......TBD ........8326 ..10/20 ...........41 / 61

I'm not surprised that UA is getting the Max8, but it is sooner than I would have thought they would. I would think they would want a bigger fleet of Max9's before they start getting different variants. With the Max10's coming soon too, UA will have 8 subfleets of 737's (not counting used frames with their quirks). 737-7/8/9/900ER, and Max 8/9/10. At least originally, as far as pilots were concerned, it didn't require separate groups, does anyone know for certain that that certification isn't changing after the grounding?

I suppose this is prompted by COVID, expected lower LF's for the next 18-24 months, UA saves some money on acquisitions in the short term, and I'm guessing they got a deal with delivery slots opening up because of COVID and the grounding, as well.

Getting some 737-8 was a pre Covid thing.

Yes sir, believe post #612 updated the 737-MAX8 count to 17, seven months ago.

And in the 2019 thread, post # #3534 9 months ago, showed the 737-MAX8s getting their fleet numbers.

Some of these threads are very long and filled with information other than the old fleet updates. Makes it tougher to keep up with fleet changes when one thread is now all things for the airline.

intotheair wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

N2910U aka 4915 ferried GYR-TUP fleet exit. Ex vueling

What's up with that? Did they just buy some of these for parts only? Are the ex-Easyjet frames facing the same fate?

I have thought that would be the case ever since I first heard of the order. Especially if they scrapped an IAE bird. These are a bit newer, but still.

UAX Update:

E145XR:
N13161 returned to flying with C5
N10156 (ex-AX) has exited fleet (stored IGM)

E145:
N16571 exited fleet, stored IGM
N14902 exited fleet, stored IGM
N13989 exited fleet, stored IGM
N13995 exited fleet, stored IGM

CR2:
N415AW returned to flying with ZW
Fleet site Correction: N889AS joined fleet this week (not N889CA)
N453SW (2002 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu livery)
N463SW (2003 build ex-DL) entered UAX revenue service with Skywest (EvoBlu livery)

Polaris Mods!!

789:
N38950 exited XMN 2748/25Sept with Polaris/PP config

788:
N30913 entered XMN 2747/25Sept for heavy check and Polaris/PP mod

UAinAUS wrote:

Polaris Mods!!

789:
N38950 exited XMN 2748/25Sept with Polaris/PP config

788:
N30913 entered XMN 2747/25Sept for heavy check and Polaris/PP mod

Not sure about N38950 in Polaris configuration. Seat map on flight 2748-25 not showing it.

TrafficCop wrote:

UAinAUS wrote:

Polaris Mods!!

789:
N38950 exited XMN 2748/25Sept with Polaris/PP config

788:
N30913 entered XMN 2747/25Sept for heavy check and Polaris/PP mod

Not sure about N38950 in Polaris configuration. Seat map on flight 2748-25 not showing it.

Correct, I was looking at the current flight 2863 out of NRT which is showing Polaris map. Will have to see what seatmap gets loaded when it takes off on first revenue flight. Often it takes until a revenue flight boards for the map to be correctly updated.

intotheair wrote:

redrooster3 wrote:

N2910U aka 4915 ferried GYR-TUP fleet exit. Ex vueling

What's up with that? Did they just buy some of these for parts only? Are the ex-Easyjet frames facing the same fate?

Yes, part out better than inducting into service.. cheaper too.
4915 is being decommisioned.....

TrafficCop wrote:

UAinAUS wrote:

Polaris Mods!!

789:
N38950 exited XMN 2748/25Sept with Polaris/PP config

788:
N30913 entered XMN 2747/25Sept for heavy check and Polaris/PP mod

Not sure about N38950 in Polaris configuration. Seat map on flight 2748-25 not showing it.

For right now Polaris configurations are on hold, we had a couple 788s that went through the configuration at the beginning of this pandemic only because the ship sets had already been delivered to XMN. Any 787 that you see going to XMN is only going for heavy maintenance, no date has been set for when United will resume Polaris/PE installation.

jayunited wrote:

TrafficCop wrote:

UAinAUS wrote:

Polaris Mods!!

789:
N38950 exited XMN 2748/25Sept with Polaris/PP config

788:
N30913 entered XMN 2747/25Sept for heavy check and Polaris/PP mod

Not sure about N38950 in Polaris configuration. Seat map on flight 2748-25 not showing it.

For right now Polaris configurations are on hold, we had a couple 788s that went through the configuration at the beginning of this pandemic only because the ship sets had already been delivered to XMN. Any 787 that you see going to XMN is only going for heavy maintenance, no date has been set for when United will resume Polaris/PE installation.

Reportedly, 787 mods have, or will soon be resuming at XMN.

codc10 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

TrafficCop wrote:

Not sure about N38950 in Polaris configuration. Seat map on flight 2748-25 not showing it.

For right now Polaris configurations are on hold, we had a couple 788s that went through the configuration at the beginning of this pandemic only because the ship sets had already been delivered to XMN. Any 787 that you see going to XMN is only going for heavy maintenance, no date has been set for when United will resume Polaris/PE installation.

Reportedly, 787 mods have, or will soon be resuming at XMN.

They have not resumed only 2 788s have be modified since the pandemic every other 787 that has entered and subsequently left XMN has all left with the same diamond seats.

Right now UA is trying to conserve cash most capitol projects including Polaris have been put on hold. This isn't reportedly or rumor mill this comes straight from a NOC town hall meeting Polaris installations are on hold. Every 787 that goes to XMN is only going for heavy maintenance, if you have access take a look at the maintenance schedule for yourself its all there in black and white.

jayunited wrote:

codc10 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

For right now Polaris configurations are on hold, we had a couple 788s that went through the configuration at the beginning of this pandemic only because the ship sets had already been delivered to XMN. Any 787 that you see going to XMN is only going for heavy maintenance, no date has been set for when United will resume Polaris/PE installation.

Reportedly, 787 mods have, or will soon be resuming at XMN.

They have not resumed only 2 788s have be modified since the pandemic every other 787 that has entered and subsequently left XMN has all left with the same diamond seats.

Right now UA is trying to conserve cash most capitol projects including Polaris have been put on hold. This isn't reportedly or rumor mill this comes straight from a NOC town hall meeting Polaris installations are on hold. Every 787 that goes to XMN is only going for heavy maintenance, if you have access take a look at the maintenance schedule for yourself its all there in black and white.

Oh yes they have resumed, Check again on # 913.....

'Day Of Induction: 0913/XMN/4C/Polaris Mod, 40 day span, ETR 05 NOV 20 08:00 '

2 of our former MCOQC Department guys are on it....

Now on 950, I do not show any Polaris Mod in it's latest visit documented, but in the A.M.M. it shows it having Polaris under it's effectivity. Trying to track when Polaris was accomplished.....