Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Okcflyer
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 1:23 pm

MDC862 wrote:
Serious upgrade on both those routes.

Obviously the advance bookings will determine the gauge of aircraft on the route, but the yield to leisure markets such as these has to be minimal.


Got to be utilization runs creating "opportunities" to maintain pilot currency. It's a 54% capacity bump (276 vs 179), but a bit more than double the trip cost (lower yield). Not being done for route economics.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3348
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 1:24 pm

It's possible to do EWR-SDU if range stats are accurate. The longest range 752 UA flew with the only issue was headwinds was EWR-TXL, Berlin. That route is 800 miles shorter than EWR-SDU. The XLR has and 800NM longer range than the 752 and since there is little wind component to South America, it would appear to be doable pending runway length and reliable static low wind components.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 1:29 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
It's possible to do EWR-SDU if range stats are accurate. The longest range 752 UA flew with the only issue was headwinds was EWR-TXL, Berlin. That route is 800 miles shorter than EWR-SDU. The XLR has and 800NM longer range than the 752 and since there is little wind component to South America, it would appear to be doable pending runway length and reliable static low wind components.


EWR-SDU is nearly 4200nm. XLR can do it, especially with a ~160/170 seat cabin UA is likely to use. That said, I think these types of route are better served with closer cooperation (re timing) with Copa.Their new 9Max's have nice lay flats in the front.
 
maps4ltd
Posts: 963
Joined: Tue May 08, 2018 4:48 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 1:32 pm

cosyr wrote:
United857 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

When the 757s with blended winglets were retrofitted with the split scimitar winglets, the project at the time was limited to the 752. There was no word at the time on the 753s. It may have been a cost move, as the 753s mostly fly within the contiguous 48 and West Coast to Hawaii and perhaps the expense was not worth it for a sub fleet but I am not sure.

The supplemental type certificate (STC) was never developed for the 753, as the one-time certification cost is too high for just 16 DL and 21 UA frames, and would outweigh any potential fuel savings. There's no other 753 operator in the world with more than just a few frames, thus I doubt we will ever get the scimitar tip on the 753 winglets.

While I knew that about the 753, I have never thought about the cost for the 752, and who else benefited from it. What other airlines use the scimitars on 752's other than UA? Did they pay for the certification themselves (Obviously through the company that manufactures them)?


I know Icelandair has them. Don't know of any others.
 
codc10
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 1:38 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
MDC862 wrote:
Serious upgrade on both those routes.

Obviously the advance bookings will determine the gauge of aircraft on the route, but the yield to leisure markets such as these has to be minimal.


Got to be utilization runs creating "opportunities" to maintain pilot currency. It's a 54% capacity bump (276 vs 179), but a bit more than double the trip cost (lower yield). Not being done for route economics.


I’m not so sure. Reportedly domestic leisure yields are up, which is driven in substantial part by paid premium. A 777 with flat beds (and potentially a saleable premium economy cabin) will probably drive better paid premium bookings than a narrowbody.

Plus, with TPAC and EU flying at greatly reduced levels, the opportunity cost of flying widebodies changes dramatically. It might be worthwhile to deploy a 777 on a route like EWRLAS, especially as a competitive move against B6 and Mint service.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3348
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 1:47 pm

The problem is SDU runway is only 4300 feet. No way.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6433
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 3:17 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
It's possible to do EWR-SDU if range stats are accurate. The longest range 752 UA flew with the only issue was headwinds was EWR-TXL, Berlin. That route is 800 miles shorter than EWR-SDU. The XLR has and 800NM longer range than the 752 and since there is little wind component to South America, it would appear to be doable pending runway length and reliable static low wind components.


EWR-SDU is nearly 4200nm. XLR can do it, especially with a ~160/170 seat cabin UA is likely to use. That said, I think these types of route are better served with closer cooperation (re timing) with Copa.Their new 9Max's have nice lay flats in the front.


Not with that tiny runway at SDU.

SDU is one of my favorite airports to take off and land at, but its not going to support long distance flights in any aircraft.

Either way, IAH-GIG will be back for sure. The energy industry uses it wayyyy too much for it not to be flown.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 3:20 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
It's possible to do EWR-SDU if range stats are accurate. The longest range 752 UA flew with the only issue was headwinds was EWR-TXL, Berlin. That route is 800 miles shorter than EWR-SDU. The XLR has and 800NM longer range than the 752 and since there is little wind component to South America, it would appear to be doable pending runway length and reliable static low wind components.

North south routes don’t have the wind issues east west does, but they do have their own weather issues over the Amazon basin that might make routes longer then normal.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 3:20 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
It's possible to do EWR-SDU if range stats are accurate. The longest range 752 UA flew with the only issue was headwinds was EWR-TXL, Berlin. That route is 800 miles shorter than EWR-SDU. The XLR has and 800NM longer range than the 752 and since there is little wind component to South America, it would appear to be doable pending runway length and reliable static low wind components.


EWR-SDU is nearly 4200nm. XLR can do it, especially with a ~160/170 seat cabin UA is likely to use. That said, I think these types of route are better served with closer cooperation (re timing) with Copa.Their new 9Max's have nice lay flats in the front.


It sounds like you have never flown out of SDU!
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 4:30 pm

United857 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
maps4ltd wrote:
Random question: How come United's 757-200s have scimitar winglets but the 753s don't?


When the 757s with blended winglets were retrofitted with the split scimitar winglets, the project at the time was limited to the 752. There was no word at the time on the 753s. It may have been a cost move, as the 753s mostly fly within the contiguous 48 and West Coast to Hawaii and perhaps the expense was not worth it for a sub fleet but I am not sure.

The supplemental type certificate (STC) was never developed for the 753, as the one-time certification cost is too high for just 16 DL and 21 UA frames, and would outweigh any potential fuel savings. There's no other 753 operator in the world with more than just a few frames, thus I doubt we will ever get the scimitar tip on the 753 winglets.


I have never seen a 757 with split scimitars, and I don't see any such product on Aviation Partners website. Since some 757-200's and most 757-300's will fly for many more years, I wonder if the US government and other world governments should agree to incentivize adding scimitars to this aircraft. The projected carbon reductions over the expected life of the aircraft may be lower cost than many other carbon reduction/offset schemes currently in use or planned in the future. Does anyone have any rough estimates on the $/ton carbon reduction cost of adding split scimitars to the 757? Below is the Aviation partners split scimitar web page for the 737-900, the closest thing to a 757.

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/p ... _900ER.php
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 4:42 pm

Jetport wrote:
United857 wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

When the 757s with blended winglets were retrofitted with the split scimitar winglets, the project at the time was limited to the 752. There was no word at the time on the 753s. It may have been a cost move, as the 753s mostly fly within the contiguous 48 and West Coast to Hawaii and perhaps the expense was not worth it for a sub fleet but I am not sure.

The supplemental type certificate (STC) was never developed for the 753, as the one-time certification cost is too high for just 16 DL and 21 UA frames, and would outweigh any potential fuel savings. There's no other 753 operator in the world with more than just a few frames, thus I doubt we will ever get the scimitar tip on the 753 winglets.


I have never seen a 757 with split scimitars, and I don't see any such product on Aviation Partners website. Since some 757-200's and most 757-300's will fly for many more years, I wonder if the US government and other world governments should agree to incentivize adding scimitars to this aircraft. The projected carbon reductions over the expected life of the aircraft may be lower cost than many other carbon reduction/offset schemes currently in use or planned in the future. Does anyone have any rough estimates on the $/ton carbon reduction cost of adding split scimitars to the 757? Below is the Aviation partners split scimitar web page for the 737-900, the closest thing to a 757.

http://www.aviationpartnersboeing.com/p ... _900ER.php


Clarification - there is no "split scimitar" for the 757, its a "scimitar" blended winglet.

 
airplanedriver6
Posts: 65
Joined: Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:27 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 4:46 pm

FWIW, there are two different types of winglets on UA’s 757 fleet.

757-200 now has a revised scimitar style winglet. This is not to be confused with the “split scimitar” on the 737 or the blended winglet that was previously installed on UA’s 757-200s.

757-300 has the traditional blended winglet. As mentioned previously in the thread, the market is too small to support a full certification program for the revised winglet.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 5:50 pm

Scott Kirby just announced to Wall Street and to employees that United would reach EBITDA break-even by the end of June.

Now before people take this statement and start going crazy Scott Kirby did make it 100% clear United still has a long way to go before we reach the real break even point.

He stated United has around $350 million dollars per month in expenses that we are paying, so at the end of the day we are still loosing money every month. However, United will reach EBITDA break-even months ahead of schedule thanks in no small part to robust demand for domestic leisure travel. Demand in the leisure market has lead to higher ticket prices especially compared to last year in fact leisure demand is so great ticket prices this summer could hit 2019 prices.

He also stated some companies have already resumed business travel on a limited basis, but United's business travel is still down 75%. Clearly United still has a long way to go to make up for lost business travel but he state even though business travel is down 75% that still represents a huge improvement over where we were just a few month ago.

Lastly he is cautiously optimistic about Europe re-opening to fully vaccinated Americans, depending on demand and each countries restrictions United will try to salvage a part of our summer European season.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 8:14 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
It's possible to do EWR-SDU if range stats are accurate. The longest range 752 UA flew with the only issue was headwinds was EWR-TXL, Berlin. That route is 800 miles shorter than EWR-SDU. The XLR has and 800NM longer range than the 752 and since there is little wind component to South America, it would appear to be doable pending runway length and reliable static low wind components.


EWR-SDU is nearly 4200nm. XLR can do it, especially with a ~160/170 seat cabin UA is likely to use. That said, I think these types of route are better served with closer cooperation (re timing) with Copa.Their new 9Max's have nice lay flats in the front.


Not with that tiny runway at SDU.

SDU is one of my favorite airports to take off and land at, but its not going to support long distance flights in any aircraft.

Either way, IAH-GIG will be back for sure. The energy industry uses it wayyyy too much for it not to be flown.


tphuang wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
It's possible to do EWR-SDU if range stats are accurate. The longest range 752 UA flew with the only issue was headwinds was EWR-TXL, Berlin. That route is 800 miles shorter than EWR-SDU. The XLR has and 800NM longer range than the 752 and since there is little wind component to South America, it would appear to be doable pending runway length and reliable static low wind components.


EWR-SDU is nearly 4200nm. XLR can do it, especially with a ~160/170 seat cabin UA is likely to use. That said, I think these types of route are better served with closer cooperation (re timing) with Copa.Their new 9Max's have nice lay flats in the front.


It sounds like you have never flown out of SDU!


:oops: Obviously not, had no idea the runway was that short. That's not going to work....
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 8:17 pm

jayunited wrote:
Scott Kirby just announced to Wall Street and to employees that United would reach EBITDA break-even by the end of June.

Now before people take this statement and start going crazy Scott Kirby did make it 100% clear United still has a long way to go before we reach the real break even point.

He stated United has around $350 million dollars per month in expenses that we are paying, so at the end of the day we are still loosing money every month. However, United will reach EBITDA break-even months ahead of schedule thanks in no small part to robust demand for domestic leisure travel. Demand in the leisure market has lead to higher ticket prices especially compared to last year in fact leisure demand is so great ticket prices this summer could hit 2019 prices.

He also stated some companies have already resumed business travel on a limited basis, but United's business travel is still down 75%. Clearly United still has a long way to go to make up for lost business travel but he state even though business travel is down 75% that still represents a huge improvement over where we were just a few month ago.

Lastly he is cautiously optimistic about Europe re-opening to fully vaccinated Americans, depending on demand and each countries restrictions United will try to salvage a part of our summer European season.


In the early days of COVID, the talk was a V shaped recovery in that it would ramp back just as fast as it ramped down.

At this juncture, it's looking more like an funny U shape, in that it fell rapidly and after nearly 1 year of crap (bottom of U), it's ramping back extremely fast.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3340
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 8:27 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Scott Kirby just announced to Wall Street and to employees that United would reach EBITDA break-even by the end of June.

Now before people take this statement and start going crazy Scott Kirby did make it 100% clear United still has a long way to go before we reach the real break even point.

He stated United has around $350 million dollars per month in expenses that we are paying, so at the end of the day we are still loosing money every month. However, United will reach EBITDA break-even months ahead of schedule thanks in no small part to robust demand for domestic leisure travel. Demand in the leisure market has lead to higher ticket prices especially compared to last year in fact leisure demand is so great ticket prices this summer could hit 2019 prices.

He also stated some companies have already resumed business travel on a limited basis, but United's business travel is still down 75%. Clearly United still has a long way to go to make up for lost business travel but he state even though business travel is down 75% that still represents a huge improvement over where we were just a few month ago.

Lastly he is cautiously optimistic about Europe re-opening to fully vaccinated Americans, depending on demand and each countries restrictions United will try to salvage a part of our summer European season.


In the early days of COVID, the talk was a V shaped recovery in that it would ramp back just as fast as it ramped down.

At this juncture, it's looking more like an funny U shape, in that it fell rapidly and after nearly 1 year of crap (bottom of U), it's ramping back extremely fast.


Certainly great news, we've seen AA and DL make other optimistic statements. Unfortunately, however, that "I" in EBITDA has got to be pretty painful for the US3 with the debt that was accumulated over the past year.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Tue May 25, 2021 9:29 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Certainly great news, we've seen AA and DL make other optimistic statements. Unfortunately, however, that "I" in EBITDA has got to be pretty painful for the US3 with the debt that was accumulated over the past year.


Not sure how much of the $350 million dollars in monthly expenses are interest ("I") payments alone, but it is good to see United's financial situation SLOWLY improving. We still have a long road ahead of us but it looks like the industry has bottomed out and we are entering the recovery. Another piece of good news was on the yield front, even in the leisure sector yields are already up and the expectation is leisure ticket prices could hit 2019 levels this summer.

Low cost carriers and niche carriers like B6 will probably hit their true breakeven point this year but for airlines like United we probably won't hit our true break-even point until some time in 2023.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 12:26 am

So United just wrapped up another virtual NOC town hall and depending on your point of view it was more of a good news bad news situation.

In my opinion here is the bad news:
If the 77A's return United will put them back on our hub to hub and unfortunately our Hawaii routes. We were told United absolutely needs a high density aircraft especially on Hawaii (HNL) and our hub to hub routes and right now the 77Es in their current layout simply do not have enough seats to meet demand once things return to normal. United admits customers are loving the Polaris seats to Hawaii but United will put the 77As back on the route if they return to service.

Here is the mix bag of nuts:
We can finally say with absolute certainty the 764s will not be leaving the fleet at all no matter what happens with the PW777s. Now for the bad news the 764s will retain their current layout and diamond seats through the end of 2022. United does expect to start Polaris/PE modifications on the 764s at some point in 2023 stay tuned for more information on this fleet.

As far as the 763s, United did confirmed we had a few 763s go to HKG and leave without Polaris (they did not explain why) however it was confirmed that all 5 remaining 763s will receive Polaris by the end of this year.

The 788s are basically done the last of the 788s are in modification now for Polaris/PE.

All 77Es that will used for future international travel are 100% complete.

The 789s Polaris modifications should be wrapped up by the start of the summer travel season in 2022. Do not confuse summer travel season with the start of IATA summer those are two different dates.

United's A350 order came up in this town hall. I know why talk about a fleet type that is years away from delivery? The A350s were brought up as it pertains to UA's PW 777 fleet. United is still working with both Boeing and Pratt and Whitney to return ALL PW 777s back to revenue service safely. However if (and let me stress IF) for some reason United is not able to get ALL the PW 777s back into service United has already engaged in conversations with Airbus over our A359 order and Airbus will allow United to move forward our A359 delivery date by a few years if necessary.

Let me be 100% clear, United expects the PW77Es to return to service either this fall or winter. Those frames just need a redesigned or strengthened cowling no cracks found in any fan blades. United wants the 77As back as well but the 77As especially the 2300 and 2400 (nose number) series are a bit more dicey because there were cracks found within additional fan blades.

United wants/expects is for Boeing and Pratt and Whitney to fix this issues with our PW 777s, but if for whatever reason it is not possible the contingency plan would be (if necessary (meaning depending on the recovery and demand)) to move forward the A359 deliveries.
 
BigPlaneGuy13
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:01 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 2:26 am

jayunited wrote:
United wants/expects is for Boeing and Pratt and Whitney to fix this issues with our PW 777s, but if for whatever reason it is not possible the contingency plan would be (if necessary (meaning depending on the recovery and demand)) to move forward the A359 deliveries.


A lot of Anetters scoffed at the idea that the a359 order would ever come to fruition. Now it could very well be a lifeline for the company if these 777 birds don't make it back into service.
 
Jetport
Posts: 304
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 4:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 3:46 am

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United wants/expects is for Boeing and Pratt and Whitney to fix this issues with our PW 777s, but if for whatever reason it is not possible the contingency plan would be (if necessary (meaning depending on the recovery and demand)) to move forward the A359 deliveries.


A lot of Anetters scoffed at the idea that the a359 order would ever come to fruition. Now it could very well be a lifeline for the company if these 777 birds don't make it back into service.


If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 842
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 4:01 am

Jetport wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United wants/expects is for Boeing and Pratt and Whitney to fix this issues with our PW 777s, but if for whatever reason it is not possible the contingency plan would be (if necessary (meaning depending on the recovery and demand)) to move forward the A359 deliveries.


A lot of Anetters scoffed at the idea that the a359 order would ever come to fruition. Now it could very well be a lifeline for the company if these 777 birds don't make it back into service.


If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.
 
tpaewr
Posts: 728
Joined: Sat May 19, 2001 9:01 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 6:39 am

While the aging sUA 777 PW aren my least fav, they do serve a purpose. I am a pinch surprised but also glad to hear they are all returning. The 787 fleet and sCO 77E don’t belong going to Hawaii. I am glad they can go back to doing what they should. EWR-HKG, SFO-BLG, etc.


What ever happens. We are blessed with the CO legacy in EWR and the UA legacy in SFO.the gate ways are ours.

SEA, BOS, PHL. They......just don’t cut it
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 8:08 am

Jetport wrote:
If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's.


If it's the short run we're talking about, even expedited 350s or 787s probably can't get pumped out soon enough to do UA much good. From what Jay indicated, UA is needing higher capacity planes for hub-hub and HNL. The highest-capacity plane out there is the 77W or the HD 772 and there should be a fair amount of those frames on the market if UA needs something sooner than later. They don't necessarily need a plane with a 14-hour range.

The airlines are just starting to come out of "record-loss" territory and accelerating the purchases of brand new (expensive) planes seems a little risky. OTOH, used widebodies from foreign carriers could come with their own special set of problems. I wonder if the ex-DL 777LRs are on a contingency list anywhere at UA?
 
DaCubbyBearBar
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 9:10 am

4 777-300 on SFOHNL.... DAILY.... WOW!!!!!
 
VC10er
Posts: 4323
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 10:50 am

codc10 wrote:
VC10er wrote:
My DREAM would be an EWR to SDU nonstop on an A321XLR! (But the A321XLR doesn’t have the range, does it?)


EWR-SDU, sure... but it's not going to make it back to EWR out of SDU!


Thanks!
Because of the runway, I’d assume? Could it fly EWR/GIG in both directions?
 
VC10er
Posts: 4323
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 11:23 am

I read Kirby’s announcement as a net “good” based solely on the fact that it’s better to need more WB aircraft as soon as possible than the reverse. If business travel comes back (if) sooner than projected, then UA is in a good place and ready to take more WB’s. I like the idea of the A350 in UA’s fleet. Before I die I’d love to see the 777-8/9 also.
I’m also happy about the 764s staying on. There must be markets where the 764 would be good for, it could perhaps have a larger PE section?
 
codc10
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 11:37 am

jetblastdubai wrote:
I wonder if the ex-DL 777LRs are on a contingency list anywhere at UA?


Don’t think so. I believe Bastian has already said they’ve been sold?
 
jayunited
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 12:09 pm

It was interesting yesterday in the town hall listening to United explain why United needs a high density widebody aircraft and why they want and/or needs those 77As back in service.

Lets go with the worst case scenario, lets say none of the 2300 or 2400 series 77A models come back into service (it is a possibility especially if Pratt and Whitney has no fix for the fan blades). If this were to happen United would still have some high density 777s in our fleet, we would have five 2500 series (nose numbers 2510 - 2515) 77As, and we would have have four 77Es, nose number 2822 (already converted pre-pandemic into high density), nose numbers 2019, 2020, and 2021 are still slated to join the HD fleet these aircraft still need to be convert into the HD layout.

In the short term could United make it work with just 9 HD aircraft and use some 77Ws to supplement the remainder of the fleet until international travel returns?

I could be wrong but I believe Europe with be well on it way to recovery by summer 2022 but it will take a few years before we really see demand to Asia recover so United could take some of those 77Ws we were using to Asia and put them to use to Hawaii or hub to hub. I admit it isn't ideal but it could be the best outcome in the short term. Long term if the 2300/2400s don't come back then United would perhaps move forward the A359 order by 2 or 3 years (to be clear United did not give a time frame, all they said was Airbus would allow us to move the order forward by a few years).
 
codc10
Posts: 3203
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 12:31 pm

Given projected global widebody demand for the next few years, Airbus would probably bend over backwards to accelerate A359 deliveries if UA had interest in doing so.
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 4570
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 1:03 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
In the early days of COVID, the talk was a V shaped recovery in that it would ramp back just as fast as it ramped down.

At this juncture, it's looking more like an funny U shape, in that it fell rapidly and after nearly 1 year of crap (bottom of U), it's ramping back extremely fast.

That discussion applies more to the stock market and the economy overall rather than the airline industry in particular. Aviation is an easy switch to turn off, but not one you can just turn back on. Metrics are still very far off from pre-2020, and it will require a multi-year recovery. The global financial crash in 2008 led to a decrease in passenger counts of roughly 3-4%. The overall decline in the months following 9/11 was similar. In April 2020, the decline in passenger numbers was 96% from baseline, numbers not seen since the 1950s.

While it seems like things are roaring back, traffic counts are still way, way down.

Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM)
5/11/21

ASPM77 Airport Ops
Current ops: 43,765
Seasonal avg: 57,109
-23.3%

Core Airport Ops
Current ops: 25,781
Seasonal avg: 36,686
-29.7%

Center Ops
Current ops: 92,705
-25.5% var from baseline

Top 7 TRACONs
Current ops: 23,361
-26.4% var from baseline
(source FAA/NATCA)

While the numbers have been steadily trending upward, I don't think the "V" or "U" shaped recovery model can apply here. United alone is still down 20% on the schedule for domestic ops, and while it may largely recover by the end of the year, I'm not optimistic that the numbers will return to pre-pandemic levels until at least next year — and then of course there's the international market, which has been obliterated and will take at least three to four years to recover. There are definitely a lot of reasons to be optimistic about the recovery of the industry, but there is still a long, long way to go, and it will be fairly slow and steady increases from this point.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavi ... story.html
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9890
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 1:06 pm

jayunited wrote:
In my opinion here is the bad news:
If the 77A's return United will put them back on our hub to hub and unfortunately our Hawaii routes. We were told United absolutely needs a high density aircraft especially on Hawaii (HNL) and our hub to hub routes and right now the 77Es in their current layout simply do not have enough seats to meet demand once things return to normal. United admits customers are loving the Polaris seats to Hawaii but United will put the 77As back on the route if they return to service.


jayunited wrote:
In the short term could United make it work with just 9 HD aircraft and use some 77Ws to supplement the remainder of the fleet until international travel returns?


On how many of these Hawaii or hub-to-hub routes is UA gate/slot/range constrained? Not many, IMHO. If they don't have a free 77A, throw two MAXs at it. If demand for premium seats is substantial and fares good, roll out a 77W.

It's not likely that UA is going to need 100% of 2019 ASMs in the next eighteen months, IMHO.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9890
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 1:27 pm

jayunited wrote:
Scott Kirby just announced to Wall Street and to employees that United would reach EBITDA break-even by the end of June.

Now before people take this statement and start going crazy Scott Kirby did make it 100% clear United still has a long way to go before we reach the real break even point.

He stated United has around $350 million dollars per month in expenses that we are paying, so at the end of the day we are still loosing money every month. However, United will reach EBITDA break-even months ahead of schedule thanks in no small part to robust demand for domestic leisure travel. Demand in the leisure market has lead to higher ticket prices especially compared to last year in fact leisure demand is so great ticket prices this summer could hit 2019 prices.


Thanks for this post. I'm surprised it didn't get more discussion.

For those who aren't familiar with the acronym, EBITDA is

Earnings Before Interest Taxes Depreciation and Amortization

It's a long way from GAAP Net Income.

U.S. airlines have a lot of expensive assets. Depreciation is not trivial. UA's depreciation and amortization last quarter was $623 million.

U.S. airlines now have a ton of debt. (AA, UA, WN and others issued new equity, but most of the financing of op losses over the last 15 months has come from added debt.) Even at fairly low interest rates by historical standards, interest expense is significant. UA's net interest expense last quarter was $353 million (DL, $361 million; AA, $371 million).

UA can break even on EBITDA and still show a loss of $1 Billion a quarter in pre-tax income.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 2:20 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
In my opinion here is the bad news:
If the 77A's return United will put them back on our hub to hub and unfortunately our Hawaii routes. We were told United absolutely needs a high density aircraft especially on Hawaii (HNL) and our hub to hub routes and right now the 77Es in their current layout simply do not have enough seats to meet demand once things return to normal. United admits customers are loving the Polaris seats to Hawaii but United will put the 77As back on the route if they return to service.


jayunited wrote:
In the short term could United make it work with just 9 HD aircraft and use some 77Ws to supplement the remainder of the fleet until international travel returns?


On how many of these Hawaii or hub-to-hub routes is UA gate/slot/range constrained? Not many, IMHO. If they don't have a free 77A, throw two MAXs at it. If demand for premium seats is substantial and fares good, roll out a 77W.

It's not likely that UA is going to need 100% of 2019 ASMs in the next eighteen months, IMHO.


For Hawaii, range constrained is anything beyond the west coast. A Max is not going to be doing ORD/EWR/IAD and DEN is iffy given runway performance out of Den westbound and off of short runways like LIH going east.
 
BigPlaneGuy13
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:01 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 3:59 pm

codc10 wrote:
jetblastdubai wrote:
I wonder if the ex-DL 777LRs are on a contingency list anywhere at UA?


Don’t think so. I believe Bastian has already said they’ve been sold?


I heard from a Fedex pilot that they were seriously eyeing those birds.
 
BigPlaneGuy13
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:01 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 4:03 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

A lot of Anetters scoffed at the idea that the a359 order would ever come to fruition. Now it could very well be a lifeline for the company if these 777 birds don't make it back into service.


If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 735
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 4:13 pm

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.

The problem is the engine, not the plane.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3281
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 4:19 pm

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.


How is Boeing responsible for a PW issue?
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7695
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 4:34 pm

Jetport wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United wants/expects is for Boeing and Pratt and Whitney to fix this issues with our PW 777s, but if for whatever reason it is not possible the contingency plan would be (if necessary (meaning depending on the recovery and demand)) to move forward the A359 deliveries.


A lot of Anetters scoffed at the idea that the a359 order would ever come to fruition. Now it could very well be a lifeline for the company if these 777 birds don't make it back into service.


If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.

I see it more as away to replace the lost high density 777s faster. The A350 would come in to bump the (read older, less efficient) 77Es off the international routes only to have those 777s be reconfig'd into HD layouts.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 4:35 pm

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.


It is as others have noted an engine, not an airframe issue. Additionally, airlines don’t usually make a complicated fleet decision which they have to live with for 25-30 years because they are “pissed.” At least I hope not . . .
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 4:44 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
Jetport wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

A lot of Anetters scoffed at the idea that the a359 order would ever come to fruition. Now it could very well be a lifeline for the company if these 777 birds don't make it back into service.


If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.

I see it more as away to replace the lost high density 777s faster. The A350 would come in to bump the (read older, less efficient) 77Es off the international routes only to have those 777s be reconfig'd into HD layouts.


At that point they should probably just take on some additional -10s and call it a day
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 5:03 pm

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.

The max10 can’t do what the 321 is planned for, replacing the 757 for transatlantic ops. Boeing didn’t, and still doesn’t, have a viable replacement aircraft. UAL couldn’t wait till Boeing did, so they ordered the 321XLR.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1711
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 5:06 pm

gwrudolph wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.

I see it more as away to replace the lost high density 777s faster. The A350 would come in to bump the (read older, less efficient) 77Es off the international routes only to have those 777s be reconfig'd into HD layouts.


At that point they should probably just take on some additional -10s and call it a day


Agreed. Domestic configured 78J's would have to be a CASM killer. There are a good # of used 77W's out there also which may have much lower acquisition costs.

Either way, the 77A's are terrible a/c to fly in over 4 hours and only 1 is retrofitted, etc. Why put all that time and effort into them (retrofit, fix cowlings, fans, etc.) and STILL have a bad customer experience with IPTE on one unit and no IFE on the other 18? I know UA has run the #'s and apparently they feel it's either the 77A's or the 35J (probably pushing the 78J's to domestic/hub service). I'd be OK with that too.
 
UA444
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 5:19 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:

Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.


How is Boeing responsible for a PW issue?

Because the cowling is Boeing’s design. The blades are PW.
 
toga998
Posts: 49
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 8:09 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 6:31 pm

I noticed some changes in the July schedule, in this case a reduction from IAH. IAH-AUS/ELP/ATL. Has anyone noticed other reductions in the system?
 
BigPlaneGuy13
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2018 2:01 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 6:31 pm

gwrudolph wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:

Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.


It is as others have noted an engine, not an airframe issue. Additionally, airlines don’t usually make a complicated fleet decision which they have to live with for 25-30 years because they are “pissed.” At least I hope not . . .


The cowlings are Boeing's design. This issue as presented by jayunited depicts this as a joint PW and Boeing issue.

You need to think beyond the surface of United being "pissed" in this scenario. Why exactly are they pissed? Because an entire subfleet aircraft are grounded and are forcing United to forfeit revenue. Not to mention the terrible PR nightmare they suffered following the explosion of the cowling over DEN. Surely a properly managed airline would take this situation into consideration and is a just cause for switching from B to A.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3348
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 7:01 pm

There are a lot of 77Ws out there for purchase. A dynamite high density configuration would be 28 Polaris (Door 1 to Door 2), 3 rows of PP, and about 350E+/Y. According to Wiki, there doesn't seem to be much difference in fuel burn from the 772E to 77W. Only a couple thousand pounds more fuel volume, but 300 more miles of range. In any case adding 40 to 50 seats vs. the 772A would probably be profitable. Etihad has a similar version of the 77W with 28 lie flat business and 374 10-across Y.
Regarding the 772A, why would UA decide to get rid of the older jets in total and keep the 2000 version? One might expect keeping some of the 1995/96 aircraft depending on condition and time remaining on the airframe.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 570
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 10:31 pm

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

I don't think United is as gung ho about being "all Boeing" as they used to be. Look at the purchase of the 321 when they could have simply bought more MAX10s.

Having a fleet of a350s doesn't seem like as much of a pipe dream. Why would United want to shell out money to Boeing if Boeing can't fix a problem with their 777? The only way I could see them taking on more 787 is if Boeing offered them a fire sale deal. Because if I was United I would be pissed to even be in this situation and would likely take my business elsewhere unless I was made an offer I could not refuse.

It's not like these planes were simply at the end of their useful life. They are defective.


It is as others have noted an engine, not an airframe issue. Additionally, airlines don’t usually make a complicated fleet decision which they have to live with for 25-30 years because they are “pissed.” At least I hope not . . .


The cowlings are Boeing's design. This issue as presented by jayunited depicts this as a joint PW and Boeing issue.

You need to think beyond the surface of United being "pissed" in this scenario. Why exactly are they pissed? Because an entire subfleet aircraft are grounded and are forcing United to forfeit revenue. Not to mention the terrible PR nightmare they suffered following the explosion of the cowling over DEN. Surely a properly managed airline would take this situation into consideration and is a just cause for switching from B to A.


Yes, I fully understand the cowling is a Boeing design issue. I’m guessing the bigger and more complicated issue isn’t the cowling, but the blade failures. While securing the cowling is likely complicated, dealing with blade fatigue on an engine that is no longer in production is likely more complicated. Also, while both issues now need to be addressed, the blade off event is what caused the cowling separation.

Also, for clarification, I wasn’t the one who said United probably wouldn’t buy more 787s because they are “pissed.” I only rebuffed that claim by saying that airlines don’t usually make long term fleet decisions based on emotions.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3598
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 10:34 pm

United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
 
UA444
Posts: 3108
Joined: Sun Mar 09, 2014 7:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 10:50 pm

gwrudolph wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:

It is as others have noted an engine, not an airframe issue. Additionally, airlines don’t usually make a complicated fleet decision which they have to live with for 25-30 years because they are “pissed.” At least I hope not . . .


The cowlings are Boeing's design. This issue as presented by jayunited depicts this as a joint PW and Boeing issue.

You need to think beyond the surface of United being "pissed" in this scenario. Why exactly are they pissed? Because an entire subfleet aircraft are grounded and are forcing United to forfeit revenue. Not to mention the terrible PR nightmare they suffered following the explosion of the cowling over DEN. Surely a properly managed airline would take this situation into consideration and is a just cause for switching from B to A.


Yes, I fully understand the cowling is a Boeing design issue. I’m guessing the bigger and more complicated issue isn’t the cowling, but the blade failures. While securing the cowling is likely complicated, dealing with blade fatigue on an engine that is no longer in production is likely more complicated. Also, while both issues now need to be addressed, the blade off event is what caused the cowling separation.

Also, for clarification, I wasn’t the one who said United probably wouldn’t buy more 787s because they are “pissed.” I only rebuffed that claim by saying that airlines don’t usually make long term fleet decisions based on emotions.

The engine being out of production doesn’t mean they can’t get more new fan blades made. PW was making new 777 engines as recently as 2012 and 2013 for new builds NH and OZ had on order, so it isn’t as we are talking about every single one worldwide being on its last legs and not economic. They also still make PW4000s by the boatload with the KC-46

People really have blown the issue out of proportion in hopes these a/c will get sent to the scrap heap. Funny, if they didn’t have “UA” in the reg or “22” in the customer code the reaction would be different
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2053
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 11:06 pm

jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)


Assuming that other carriers will be beefing up their schedules as well, it looks like UA is putting a lot of metal into airports that will be bursting at the seams once again. If they can lock up some more market share at EWR and SFO, it might help with spreading out the gridlock but unfortunately they will not be able to expand in a vacuum. It's nice to know that UA has secured a good amount of the new gates at EWR as gates space acts as a barrier to entry as well.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos