Pinto wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

ILikeTrains wrote:

This may be beating a dead horse, but the rumored 787-10HGW looks like a perfect 77E replacement. It could probably be bought in numbers great enough to cancel their A350 orders, albeit the engine contract may force them into getting RR. Not advantageous, but it would be a large fleet anyway, and preserve the common type rating.

I wonder if this HGW 78J can do EWR-HKG without penalty. Not that it matters since it'll be 77W territory for a long time, but not a bad benchmark.

EWR - HKG might be a stretch for it, however before UA officially launched the 78J it was substituted on IAD - PEK, which is 1,100 shorter that EWR - HKG. With the upgrades it could be possible. Ultimately I think UA would keep a 77W or 77E for the cargo potential that the 78J wouldn't be able to offer.

Yeah it's the cargo that would give the 777 and A350 the edge, but still would be a mean TPAC aircraft from SFO.

I am in the process of booking a flight, and I went to "Sort by Aircraft Type", and the A220-300 is an option. No other non-United aircraft types are listed. Interesting....

FlyHPN wrote:

cosyr wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Good find! Makes me wonder if the XLR will be more of a scaled down version if the hi-J 763. Lie flats take up a lot more room on a narrowbody. I can also see the premium Y be 2-2, probably 3-5 rows max. Interesting times ahead!

If they were consistent with other aircraft, I think the Premium Plus will be 2-3. That will still be a comfortable section, and since these planes will probably rotate on some transcons routes, so that would be an upgrade. I would pay for Premium Plus on short transatlantic flights and transcons, and having 5 across would make it cheaper, allowing me to do it more often. 2-2 would essentially be a domestic first class seat, and I think UA would find too big a leap from current Y+. I hope that they also put Prem Plus on the Max10's for transcons.

2-3 would make for an awkward aisle in the middle of the plane.

Yes and no.

For example the A220, MD-80/90, and E170/190 (in F) have asymmetric cabins with an offset aisle.

Yeah I don't think they'll go 2-3 in PP on the A321XLR. PP is doing well but not a large cabin. It takes up at most 24 seats on the 777s. I would guess they would have, what, maybe about a dozen or so seats on the A321? Having only two or three rows at five abreast seems like it would be a really awkward configuration.

My money would be on eight or 12 seats at four abreast. I don't think they need to make PP a lesser product on the A321 just because four abreast would make it too similar to domestic F. Narrowbody F on a 2-5 hour flight within the U.S. is still a different product, experience, and set of expectations altogether than PP on an 8-hour overnight international flight.

UA is certainly pricing PP on international flights at about the same level or slightly more as what domestic F would be on a transcon. I'd be pissed if I spent $1700 on a roundtrip ticket in PP and ended up in an inferior seat than what I'd get for a $700 F ticket to CLE.

FlyHPN wrote:

cosyr wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

Good find! Makes me wonder if the XLR will be more of a scaled down version if the hi-J 763. Lie flats take up a lot more room on a narrowbody. I can also see the premium Y be 2-2, probably 3-5 rows max. Interesting times ahead!

If they were consistent with other aircraft, I think the Premium Plus will be 2-3. That will still be a comfortable section, and since these planes will probably rotate on some transcons routes, so that would be an upgrade. I would pay for Premium Plus on short transatlantic flights and transcons, and having 5 across would make it cheaper, allowing me to do it more often. 2-2 would essentially be a domestic first class seat, and I think UA would find too big a leap from current Y+. I hope that they also put Prem Plus on the Max10's for transcons.

2-3 would make for an awkward aisle in the middle of the plane.

I think 2-3 would work just fine…most people who travel internationally fly with at least one other person…I know that is not the rule of course but it is true.

I could see them going 16 Polaris 2 rows of PP In 2-3 config and 3-4 rows of economy plus and then 96-102 seats in regular economy.. I think that is doable…JetBlue a321neo which is same dimensions as a321xlr is 24 mint and 114 Coach for a total of 138…so united getting to 150ish total with a smaller first class plus PP I think is very doable

I would love to see a reinvention of the old PS service. Use the A321XLR at 110 seats (16 Polaris, 14 PP, 40E+, 40E). This may also allow a small range increase due to the less seats as well.

Any word on when 737NG cabin refreshes will start?

United 787-10 N17015 spotted on the ramp at CHS a couple of days ago



https://twitter.com/BoeingSCSpotter/sta ... 93092?s=20

JFKalumni wrote:

I would love to see a reinvention of the old PS service. Use the A321XLR at 110 seats (16 Polaris, 14 PP, 40E+, 40E). This may also allow a small range increase due to the less seats as well.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that. AA took its original tranche (16?) eight years ago and has added zero since, even with a fleet of 260+ 321ceos and neos. Plus, it's hard to know how long business demand will be in the toilet. AA cut 321T transcon services (at one point, entirely, between JFK and LAX) and flew 772s instead.

JFKalumni wrote:

I would love to see a reinvention of the old PS service. Use the A321XLR at 110 seats (16 Polaris, 14 PP, 40E+, 40E). This may also allow a small range increase due to the less seats as well.

Probably going to end up more like:
16 - Business
8 - Premium +
36 - economy +
109 - economy

MIflyer12 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

I would love to see a reinvention of the old PS service. Use the A321XLR at 110 seats (16 Polaris, 14 PP, 40E+, 40E). This may also allow a small range increase due to the less seats as well.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that. AA took its original tranche (16?) eight years ago and has added zero since, even with a fleet of 260+ 321ceos and neos. Plus, it's hard to know how long business demand will be in the toilet. AA cut 321T transcon services (at one point, entirely, between JFK and LAX) and flew 772s instead.

I was thinking along the lines of two different versions. A premium heavy product for Europe via the A321XLR around 110 seats with available range to cover EWR, ORD and IAD.

The A321LR will soon become the standard selling model with significant range already built in. A 170 seat standard version would be able to cover Hawaii and South America.

The XLR with reduced capacity maybe able to open up other cities such as NCE, MRS and WAW

JFKalumni wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

I would love to see a reinvention of the old PS service. Use the A321XLR at 110 seats (16 Polaris, 14 PP, 40E+, 40E). This may also allow a small range increase due to the less seats as well.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that. AA took its original tranche (16?) eight years ago and has added zero since, even with a fleet of 260+ 321ceos and neos. Plus, it's hard to know how long business demand will be in the toilet. AA cut 321T transcon services (at one point, entirely, between JFK and LAX) and flew 772s instead.

I was thinking along the lines of two different versions. A premium heavy product for Europe via the A321XLR around 110 seats with available range to cover EWR, ORD and IAD.

The A321LR will soon become the standard selling model with significant range already built in. A 170 seat standard version would be able to cover Hawaii and South America.

The XLR with reduced capacity maybe able to open up other cities such as NCE, MRS and WAW

Wouldn't that be the 321XLR for TATL and the 7MJ for the transcon-west coast to Hawaii routes? Seems probable to me.

fun2fly wrote:

Wouldn't that be the 321XLR for TATL and the 7MJ for the transcon-west coast to Hawaii routes? Seems probable to me.

UA has 50 A321XLR on order and 70 A321neo (non-LR) in addition to 250 737 MAX10. I think it's safe to assume that, of those three types, the XLRs will be on the longest thin TATL and South American routes plus maybe some transcon and Hawaii (DEN-OGG/KOA/LIH perhaps?). Some MAX10s will be getting lie-flats, but not all. I'm not sure about the A321neos. I would think both the A321neo and MAX10 would be used to upgauge a lot of mid-con domestic routes that are currently flown by the 739.

fun2fly wrote:

JFKalumni wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

I wouldn't hold my breath for that. AA took its original tranche (16?) eight years ago and has added zero since, even with a fleet of 260+ 321ceos and neos. Plus, it's hard to know how long business demand will be in the toilet. AA cut 321T transcon services (at one point, entirely, between JFK and LAX) and flew 772s instead.

I was thinking along the lines of two different versions. A premium heavy product for Europe via the A321XLR around 110 seats with available range to cover EWR, ORD and IAD.

The A321LR will soon become the standard selling model with significant range already built in. A 170 seat standard version would be able to cover Hawaii and South America.

The XLR with reduced capacity maybe able to open up other cities such as NCE, MRS and WAW

Wouldn't that be the 321XLR for TATL and the 7MJ for the transcon-west coast to Hawaii routes? Seems probable to me.

To me, the 7MJ is the heavy East Coast - Caribbean workhorse. I would be surprised to see it on Hawaii trips but anything can happen.

STT757 wrote:

I think UA sticks with the A350 order, replacing the international Pratt and GE 777-200ERs later in the decade (2028).

A 787-10 order to replace the domestic 777s sometime around 2026.

A 788/789 order to replace the 767-300s (2025) 767-400s, 2027.

An A220, A223, A225 order to replace 73Gs, A319s, A320s 2027.

Additional 737-8/9/10 to replace the oldest 737-800s, 737-900(non ERs), 757-300s 2028.

I would think the Max's currently on order would also start chipping away at the existing A320's and oldest NG's.

The former go back to 1993, and are the same age as the 752's, and from my last flight both fleets are showing their age.

SCFlyer wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Maybe this will be the year that they finally discard that 45-strong 359 order...

I would predict the A359s order may be 'silently' removed as a trade off for more A321neos and A321XLRs later this year.

Although in slight seriousness, I can see the A359 order become the new VS A380 order (or the remaining handful of undelivered QF A380s), being pushed back indefinitely, before both were eventually cancelled and removed with very little fanfare.

the A359 was never a viable order, It was ordered as a poke in the eye to Boeing. It never had a real place n United's fleet plans as the 787 took it's place. with the A321? they have am airplane they can actually use. And? they can also see the PW and GE small fand side by side. at least until the 757 replacement rolls off the line since GE never built an engine to directly compete with the PW 2040 or the Rolls 535.

has anyone heard anything on the used 737-700s from WN? last I heard they were still planning on bringing them into service.. they haven't received one since 3/16/21 and the fleet website says they should still get 7 or 8 more.

They have 50 A321XLR, 70 A321 NEO and 250 737-10 on order. I don’t think they need many more aircraft in that size category. If they were to cancel the A350 order they should use the deposits for A220s. United can add an additional 70 ERJ-175s to their Express operation if they add 88 new 100 seat mainline.

Adding 100 seat mainline aircraft might help with their regional situation as they can use some mainline to cities that only receive regional flights. Freeing up those regional resources for the smaller markets.

strfyr51 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Maybe this will be the year that they finally discard that 45-strong 359 order...

I would predict the A359s order may be 'silently' removed as a trade off for more A321neos and A321XLRs later this year.

Although in slight seriousness, I can see the A359 order become the new VS A380 order (or the remaining handful of undelivered QF A380s), being pushed back indefinitely, before both were eventually cancelled and removed with very little fanfare.

the A359 was never a viable order, It was ordered as a poke in the eye to Boeing. It never had a real place n United's fleet plans as the 787 took it's place. with the A321? they have am airplane they can actually use. And? they can also see the PW and GE small fand side by side. at least until the 757 replacement rolls off the line since GE never built an engine to directly compete with the PW 2040 or the Rolls 535.

I don't know that is true. The original A359 order was at the same time as UA's 787 order, and Boeing had not yet launched the 77X, so if UA was planning for life after 744/772, the A359 was a pretty appealing option. And I still think it is a pretty appealing option. The 788/9/10's cover 90% of UA's network very well, but the 359 would be a great plane for some routes, and given UA's 787, followed by Max, followed by PW777 groundings, clearly all eggs in one basket is not a foolproof long term plan.

STT757 wrote:

They have 50 A321XLR, 70 A321 NEO and 250 737-10 on order. I don’t think they need many more aircraft in that size category. If they were to cancel the A350 order they should use the deposits for A220s. United can add an additional 70 ERJ-175s to their Express operation if they add 88 new 100 seat mainline.

Adding 100 seat mainline aircraft might help with their regional situation as they can use some mainline to cities that only receive regional flights. Freeing up those regional resources for the smaller markets.

And I don't think UA should wait, because while getting rid of 50 seaters during COVID/pilot shortage is an easy decision, when COVID is done (or whatever post now is described as), I think demand is going to come back faster than they're planning for and they will have a several year lead time on any orders. UA was able to gain marketshare after the initial shutdowns, because their peers got rid of planes and UA didn't, so was able to ramp back up capacity much faster, as everyone was surprised how quickly travel rebounded up to ~80% of 2019 numbers. But I think AA and DL are in a much better position to retake small markets faster than UA, if demand were to exceed 2019 this year.

STT757 wrote:

If they were to cancel the A350 order they should use the deposits for A220s. United can add an additional 70 ERJ-175s to their Express operation if they add 88 new 100 seat mainline.

On the other hand, UA management already stated that a 100-seater didn't make sense for them and AA dumped their 100-seat E190s as well.

Instead of acquiring a new plane UA doesn't want just to appease ALPA and (current) scope language, why not just let mainline pilots fly the additional E175s? Pilot pay would no doubt be a bit more than what regionals pay but it might not be all that much more to the bottom line after factoring in the costs associated with a totally new type. This would allow for unlimited 76-seat capacity, allow for more up gauging from the retired single-class RJs as well as keeping the fleet types to a minimum.

I know the E175 would be a new type to UA but the A/C type already exists in the UA/UAX system so it's not like they'd be starting from scratch. The A220/E190 would be totally new.

strfyr51 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

Maybe this will be the year that they finally discard that 45-strong 359 order...

I would predict the A359s order may be 'silently' removed as a trade off for more A321neos and A321XLRs later this year.

Although in slight seriousness, I can see the A359 order become the new VS A380 order (or the remaining handful of undelivered QF A380s), being pushed back indefinitely, before both were eventually cancelled and removed with very little fanfare.

the A359 was never a viable order, It was ordered as a poke in the eye to Boeing. It never had a real place n United's fleet plans as the 787 took it's place. with the A321? they have am airplane they can actually use. And? they can also see the PW and GE small fand side by side. at least until the 757 replacement rolls off the line since GE never built an engine to directly compete with the PW 2040 or the Rolls 535.

What really killed the A359 at UA was the 77W. When UA swapped some 78Js to 77Ws that effectively killed any reason in the shorterm for UA to need those planes. With the PWs being grounded they got an extra 2 years in their lifespan and they will just print money for UA. Once those are ready to leave a A350neo should be on the table and I bet UA will move on those. However if UA can get out if their RR contract (which is the only tying keeping the A359 order alive) then they might try and do an 320neo top up order.

jetblastdubai wrote:

STT757 wrote:

If they were to cancel the A350 order they should use the deposits for A220s. United can add an additional 70 ERJ-175s to their Express operation if they add 88 new 100 seat mainline.

On the other hand, UA management already stated that a 100-seater didn't make sense for them and AA dumped their 100-seat E190s as well.

Instead of acquiring a new plane UA doesn't want just to appease ALPA and (current) scope language, why not just let mainline pilots fly the additional E175s? Pilot pay would no doubt be a bit more than what regionals pay but it might not be all that much more to the bottom line after factoring in the costs associated with a totally new type. This would allow for unlimited 76-seat capacity, allow for more up gauging from the retired single-class RJs as well as keeping the fleet types to a minimum.

I know the E175 would be a new type to UA but the A/C type already exists in the UA/UAX system so it's not like they'd be starting from scratch. The A220/E190 would be totally new.

If you assign mainline pilots the fly the E175s, I believe you would need mainline flight attendants, mechanics, and dispatchers as well which will increase CASM.

RTWin10 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

STT757 wrote:

If they were to cancel the A350 order they should use the deposits for A220s. United can add an additional 70 ERJ-175s to their Express operation if they add 88 new 100 seat mainline.

On the other hand, UA management already stated that a 100-seater didn't make sense for them and AA dumped their 100-seat E190s as well.

Instead of acquiring a new plane UA doesn't want just to appease ALPA and (current) scope language, why not just let mainline pilots fly the additional E175s? Pilot pay would no doubt be a bit more than what regionals pay but it might not be all that much more to the bottom line after factoring in the costs associated with a totally new type. This would allow for unlimited 76-seat capacity, allow for more up gauging from the retired single-class RJs as well as keeping the fleet types to a minimum.

I know the E175 would be a new type to UA but the A/C type already exists in the UA/UAX system so it's not like they'd be starting from scratch. The A220/E190 would be totally new.

If you assign mainline pilots the fly the E175s, I believe you would need mainline flight attendants, mechanics, and dispatchers as well which will increase CASM.

Plus, there's enough similarities between the E175's and E195's that if UA were going to put their own crews on one, it would be the larger, just for economies of scale. The only reason that UA Express is flying 175's instead of 190's is because of the scope clause limitations. It's the same reason why all of their new 737/320 orders are for MAX8/9/10 instead of 7's and A321NEOs, instead of 320/319.

AA may have dumped their tiny oddball fleet of E190's, but DL went out and ordered A220's.

At a certain point UA will have markets that will be better served by a plane somewhere in between 76 and 150 seats. They currently have a smaller gap in seats between the different sizes of widebodies in their fleet. I think the tipping point is going to happen when the cost of regional pilots goes up. Current pay isn't attracting enough people to the field, so supply and demand either says that mainline has to take over flights regionals can't sustain, or regionals have to raise pay, increasing contract costs to mainline, and shrinking the delta between regional and mainline pay, which would change the economic breakeven of flying a 100-120 seater.

N27965 789 Polaris Mod looks to leave XMN on 11 Jan.

N26967 looks to take it's place in mod.

intotheair wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Wouldn't that be the 321XLR for TATL and the 7MJ for the transcon-west coast to Hawaii routes? Seems probable to me.

UA has 50 A321XLR on order and 70 A321neo (non-LR) in addition to 250 737 MAX10. I think it's safe to assume that, of those three types, the XLRs will be on the longest thin TATL and South American routes plus maybe some transcon and Hawaii (DEN-OGG/KOA/LIH perhaps?). Some MAX10s will be getting lie-flats, but not all. I'm not sure about the A321neos. I would think both the A321neo and MAX10 would be used to upgauge a lot of mid-con domestic routes that are currently flown by the 739.

you almost forgot the XLR's on east coast European services like EWR to Oslo

I haven't been very active in the UA threads the last few years. Can someone summarize the planned fleet retirements for the next 5 years? Thank you.

United787 wrote:

I haven't been very active in the UA threads the last few years. Can someone summarize the planned fleet retirements for the next 5 years? Thank you.

we pretty much have no idea now what or what not UA is retiring except for the 752 which will be repaced by a mixture of A321XLR and 737MAX10

Cardude2 wrote:

United787 wrote:

we pretty much have no idea now what or what not UA is retiring except for the 752 which will be repaced by a mixture of A321XLR and 737MAX10

Just spitballing, but I’m gonna suspect a small number of the newest 752s might just stick around longer with the 753s that are planned to remain.

There are several markets where neither the MAX10s nor XLRs quite have the performance to directly replace them.

I’m surprised that we haven’t heard a thing on retrofits of the new United Next interior to existing planes since the new interior was announced in June.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

There are several markets where neither the MAX10s nor XLRs quite have the performance to directly replace them.

What might those markets be? Everything I've seen published says the XLRs beat the 752s on range. Is there a takeoff performance market where 752s work and XLRs don't?

MDC862 wrote:

Im thinking he has been "silenced" by the powers that be. If not and he was terminated, he would still be posting.

I don't know too many people who would go public on the Internet about their termination.

adamblang wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

There are several markets where neither the MAX10s nor XLRs quite have the performance to directly replace them.

What might those markets be? Everything I've seen published says the XLRs beat the 752s on range. Is there a takeoff performance market where 752s work and XLRs don't?

Sure. Markets where the departure runway is either short or high elevation followed by a long flight. The MAX10 and XLR will both require long, low elevation runways to achieve max range.

LIH-DEN and OGG-DEN both immediately pop into my head as current 752 long/thin routes with short departure runways.

I would not be surprised if a MAX7 could do it as the expense of capacity.

Golfmikey wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

cosyr wrote:

If they were consistent with other aircraft, I think the Premium Plus will be 2-3. That will still be a comfortable section, and since these planes will probably rotate on some transcons routes, so that would be an upgrade. I would pay for Premium Plus on short transatlantic flights and transcons, and having 5 across would make it cheaper, allowing me to do it more often. 2-2 would essentially be a domestic first class seat, and I think UA would find too big a leap from current Y+. I hope that they also put Prem Plus on the Max10's for transcons.

2-3 would make for an awkward aisle in the middle of the plane.

I think 2-3 would work just fine…most people who travel internationally fly with at least one other person…I know that is not the rule of course but it is true.

I’m not saying passengers would have a problem with 2-3, I think the layout of the aisle would be odd. On RJs it’s common for the aisle to swerve as you go from first to economy(+). To go from an aisle that’s centered (biz), to off center (PE), back to center (economy) in this proposed 2-3 scenario just seems awkward to me.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

There are several markets where neither the MAX10s nor XLRs quite have the performance to directly replace them.

What might those markets be? Everything I've seen published says the XLRs beat the 752s on range. Is there a takeoff performance market where 752s work and XLRs don't?

Sure. Markets where the departure runway is either short or high elevation followed by a long flight. The MAX10 and XLR will both require long, low elevation runways to achieve max range.

LIH-DEN and OGG-DEN both immediately pop into my head as current 752 long/thin routes with short departure runways.

I would not be surprised if a MAX7 could do it as the expense of capacity.

LIH-DEN flew this summer with a 763 and OGG-DEN gets a 77E regularly… both types that will likely be in service longer than the 752 at UA.

avi8 wrote:

amtravels wrote:

I’m surprised that we haven’t heard a thing on retrofits of the new United Next interior to existing planes since the new interior was announced in June.

I’m Surprised too.

I’m also curious to know the proportion of MAX8 and MAX9 UA is receiving this year.

When is the first delivery of the year?

In last year's forum, it was reported that deliveries after April, the Max deliveries would be in the new interior. No idea on retrofits.

codc10 wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

What might those markets be? Everything I've seen published says the XLRs beat the 752s on range. Is there a takeoff performance market where 752s work and XLRs don't?

Sure. Markets where the departure runway is either short or high elevation followed by a long flight. The MAX10 and XLR will both require long, low elevation runways to achieve max range.

LIH-DEN and OGG-DEN both immediately pop into my head as current 752 long/thin routes with short departure runways.

I would not be surprised if a MAX7 could do it as the expense of capacity.

LIH-DEN flew this summer with a 763 and OGG-DEN gets a 77E regularly… both types that will likely be in service longer than the 752 at UA.

Yup. It works as long as there is demand for a widebody and there is aircraft availability.

It’s a good example of runway performance as those city pairs are short hops for widebodies and pushing the envelope for narrowbodies.

763 Hi J mod N663UA to depart HKG 14 Jan. PE? Or just Polaris? 60+ days.

fun2fly wrote:

avi8 wrote:

amtravels wrote:

I’m surprised that we haven’t heard a thing on retrofits of the new United Next interior to existing planes since the new interior was announced in June.

I’m Surprised too.

I’m also curious to know the proportion of MAX8 and MAX9 UA is receiving this year.

When is the first delivery of the year?

In last year's forum, it was reported that deliveries after April, the Max deliveries would be in the new interior. No idea on retrofits.

I found it puzzling that UA would announce such a big capital expenditure plan, and then go essentially go mum on the project. Frankly at the rate they are going just with the livery repaint I can't imagine that they will truly have their mainline narrowbody fleet completely renovated with the new interior by 2025.

We still have yet to find out what fleet types won't be put through the project and will instead be retired.

FlyHPN wrote:

Golfmikey wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

2-3 would make for an awkward aisle in the middle of the plane.

I think 2-3 would work just fine…most people who travel internationally fly with at least one other person…I know that is not the rule of course but it is true.

I’m not saying passengers would have a problem with 2-3, I think the layout of the aisle would be odd. On RJs it’s common for the aisle to swerve as you go from first to economy(+). To go from an aisle that’s centered (biz), to off center (PE), back to center (economy) in this proposed 2-3 scenario just seems awkward to me.

It can sometimes have some odd consequences, but it exists on almost all widebody aircraft, and not long ago it was commonplace on narrowbodies too. DC-9/MD-80/Fokkers, and now A220's. Plus for a while in Europe, a number of carriers were doing a 2-3 European Business Class on 757's and similar, until they all settled on 3-3 with the middle seat blocked.

cosyr wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

Golfmikey wrote:

I think 2-3 would work just fine…most people who travel internationally fly with at least one other person…I know that is not the rule of course but it is true.

I’m not saying passengers would have a problem with 2-3, I think the layout of the aisle would be odd. On RJs it’s common for the aisle to swerve as you go from first to economy(+). To go from an aisle that’s centered (biz), to off center (PE), back to center (economy) in this proposed 2-3 scenario just seems awkward to me.

It can sometimes have some odd consequences, but it exists on almost all widebody aircraft, and not long ago it was commonplace on narrowbodies too. DC-9/MD-80/Fokkers, and now A220's. Plus for a while in Europe, a number of carriers were doing a 2-3 European Business Class on 757's and similar, until they all settled on 3-3 with the middle seat blocked.

SAA had 2-3 J on some short haul planes for a while. Then went back to a 3-3 economy. It could happen—just wouldn’t feel all that premium

USAirALB wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I’m Surprised too.

I’m also curious to know the proportion of MAX8 and MAX9 UA is receiving this year.

When is the first delivery of the year?

In last year's forum, it was reported that deliveries after April, the Max deliveries would be in the new interior. No idea on retrofits.

I found it puzzling that UA would announce such a big capital expenditure plan, and then go essentially go mum on the project. Frankly at the rate they are going just with the livery repaint I can't imagine that they will truly have their mainline narrowbody fleet completely renovated with the new interior by 2025.

We still have yet to find out what fleet types won't be put through the project and will instead be retired.

I wonder if the fleet mod capex was deferred (or originally planned?) into 2022? Even still, lots of 7M8/7M9 coming in 22 and all will have the new interior.

My guess is the silence on which frames/fleets will be retired in the near-term is deliberate as the demand picture has been dynamic. The United Next announcement came as the Delta variant was emerging in the USA and airlines were just starting to factor it in to guidance, which was materially to the negative. Of course, Omicron was not even a consideration at that point. I don't think either have significantly changed United's long-term outlook, but there can be no doubt that these two variants have extended several quarters into the future the rather optimistic recovery timetable proposed this summer.

question: 764 N78060 arrived in SFO from ROW 6 days ago and doesnt look like it will leave. Are they doing its return to service mx there? Also 73G N16713 was supposed to leave ROW 11 days ago to MCO for return to service but was canceled and is still in ROW. just wondering if anyone had any info on these two frames

cosyr wrote:

RTWin10 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

On the other hand, UA management already stated that a 100-seater didn't make sense for them and AA dumped their 100-seat E190s as well.

Instead of acquiring a new plane UA doesn't want just to appease ALPA and (current) scope language, why not just let mainline pilots fly the additional E175s? Pilot pay would no doubt be a bit more than what regionals pay but it might not be all that much more to the bottom line after factoring in the costs associated with a totally new type. This would allow for unlimited 76-seat capacity, allow for more up gauging from the retired single-class RJs as well as keeping the fleet types to a minimum.

I know the E175 would be a new type to UA but the A/C type already exists in the UA/UAX system so it's not like they'd be starting from scratch. The A220/E190 would be totally new.

If you assign mainline pilots the fly the E175s, I believe you would need mainline flight attendants, mechanics, and dispatchers as well which will increase CASM.

Plus, there's enough similarities between the E175's and E195's that if UA were going to put their own crews on one, it would be the larger, just for economies of scale. The only reason that UA Express is flying 175's instead of 190's is because of the scope clause limitations. It's the same reason why all of their new 737/320 orders are for MAX8/9/10 instead of 7's and A321NEOs, instead of 320/319.

AA may have dumped their tiny oddball fleet of E190's, but DL went out and ordered A220's.

At a certain point UA will have markets that will be better served by a plane somewhere in between 76 and 150 seats. They currently have a smaller gap in seats between the different sizes of widebodies in their fleet. I think the tipping point is going to happen when the cost of regional pilots goes up. Current pay isn't attracting enough people to the field, so supply and demand either says that mainline has to take over flights regionals can't sustain, or regionals have to raise pay, increasing contract costs to mainline, and shrinking the delta between regional and mainline pay, which would change the economic breakeven of flying a 100-120 seater.

AAs 190 fleet was also only 20 strong which offered no economies of scale and the fleet was also designed for a much smaller pmUS. DL on the other hand had 80+ 717s and 100+MD80/90s to replace with the A220. Plus buying the larger of the family makes the smaller more economical to operate from an economy of scale perspective while also spread around the whole network.

The A220/E2 at UA would also allow it to make much more efficient use of EWR as well as offer long/thin pairings like DEN-PWM or LAX-MKE.

But the economies of scale offered by the larger MAXs in such high numbers makes the argument for the MAX 7 in UAs fleet a lot stronger than the 220/EW even if the aircraft is more expensive to operate on a per aircraft basis.

TWA772LR wrote:

AAs 190 fleet was also only 20 strong which offered no economies of scale and the fleet was also designed for a much smaller pmUS. DL on the other hand had 80+ 717s and 100+MD80/90s to replace with the A220.....

But the economies of scale offered by the larger MAXs in such high numbers makes the argument for the MAX 7 in UAs fleet a lot stronger than the 220/EW even if the aircraft is more expensive to operate on a per aircraft basis.

UAs longer-term issue is being able to operate some type of aircraft that can replace the 1-class 50-seaters that are soon to be gone. I doubt there are enough potential CR5s in production that could come close to subbing for all the E145/CRs in the UAX system currently. The E175 is about the smallest A/C in production and due to scope, that's already capped at 153 total frames.

To AAs benefit, their scope language (IMO) is much more of a commonsense formula whereas it's based on a total narrowbody fleet, regardless of type, and not tied to a totally new A/C. Case in point...UA has over 300 new narrowbody A/C on order and not one of those A/C will allow for more 76-seat flying. At AA/APA, they have a 40% formula (according to wiki) so theoretically 300 additional planes at AA would allow for 120 additional 76-seaters.

Granted, there are many UAX markets that can support a true mainline aircraft since many of them did years ago so it's not like the 50-seaters will need to be replaced 1-for-1.

jetblastdubai wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

AAs 190 fleet was also only 20 strong which offered no economies of scale and the fleet was also designed for a much smaller pmUS. DL on the other hand had 80+ 717s and 100+MD80/90s to replace with the A220.....

But the economies of scale offered by the larger MAXs in such high numbers makes the argument for the MAX 7 in UAs fleet a lot stronger than the 220/EW even if the aircraft is more expensive to operate on a per aircraft basis.

UAs longer-term issue is being able to operate some type of aircraft that can replace the 1-class 50-seaters that are soon to be gone. I doubt there are enough potential CR5s in production that could come close to subbing for all the E145/CRs in the UAX system currently. The E175 is about the smallest A/C in production and due to scope, that's already capped at 153 total frames.

To AAs benefit, their scope language (IMO) is much more of a commonsense formula whereas it's based on a total narrowbody fleet, regardless of type, and not tied to a totally new A/C. Case in point...UA has over 300 new narrowbody A/C on order and not one of those A/C will allow for more 76-seat flying. At AA/APA, they have a 40% formula (according to wiki) so theoretically 300 additional planes at AA would allow for 120 additional 76-seaters.

Granted, there are many UAX markets that can support a true mainline aircraft since many of them did years ago so it's not like the 50-seaters will need to be replaced 1-for-1.

there are probably enough used CR7's to convert into CR5's or used e170's to substitute to retire all e145's and a few CR2's (with indirect retirement of the CR7's at SkyWest to CR5's) However for the rest of the CR2's, an indirect upscaling might happen from an a319 sized airplane down. So along with the joint 73G and a319 retierment, this aircraft would also have to be good for that also. My money (if UA is smart about this) is A223

jetblastdubai wrote:

Granted, there are many UAX markets that can support a true mainline aircraft since many of them did years ago so it's not like the 50-seaters will need to be replaced 1-for-1.

Exactly. UAL’s domestic ASM growth is ultimately limited by gates and slots which in turn drives a new fleet strategy.

Thus, UAL has been very public about the ‘United Next’ plan which involves up-gauging the domestic network. The CRJ550s and E170s replace most 50-seat RJs, small mainline aircraft backfill many of the previous 170/175 markets, and the large orders of domestic narrow-body aircraft are mostly MAX10s and 321 which slide in on top.

As a consequence, UAL will grow the mainline fleet and available ASMs with the same airport real estate while offing F and E+ cabins is nearly all markets. Once could argue that UAL actually does not need additional 70/76 seat RJs, especially considering pilot staffing is already a major issue at the regional level.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

Granted, there are many UAX markets that can support a true mainline aircraft since many of them did years ago so it's not like the 50-seaters will need to be replaced 1-for-1.

Exactly. UAL’s domestic ASM growth is ultimately limited by gates and slots which in turn drives a new fleet strategy.

Thus, UAL has been very public about the ‘United Next’ plan which involves up-gauging the domestic network. The CRJ550s and E170s replace most 50-seat RJs, small mainline aircraft backfill many of the previous 170/175 markets, and the large orders of domestic narrow-body aircraft are mostly MAX10s and 321 which slide in on top.

As a consequence, UAL will grow the mainline fleet and available ASMs with the same airport real estate while offing F and E+ cabins is nearly all markets. Once could argue that UAL actually does not need additional 70/76 seat RJs, especially considering pilot staffing is already a major issue at the regional level.

With the pending arrivals of the large number of 737 Maxes, I would assume the shuffling of the deck chairs with the Regional fleets will start as well. I look forward to seeing the fleet change/upgauge reports on this thread to track which stations go through the process. I would assume as we get closer to planned Summer 22 actual schedules that those will be a big indication?