I really don’t think we’ll see a 100-seater in UA colors. They’ve had plenty of chances to order them, yet they haven’t. They were very close to ordering the CSeries in 2016, but we all know how that went. The current management team has said repeatedly that the numbers just don’t pencil out for a mainline aircraft with that few seats. And if that’s how they view things, then we’re just not going to see more large RJs, no matter how nice they would be. The union is never going to give up an inch on scope. UA is instead doing exactly what the pilots want them to do – order more mainline narrowbodies.

I’m also not sure if the so-called gap between the E175 and A319 is really all that significant. I think a lot of those RJ-heavy stations would be able stomach more A319s and 73Gs. Just look at all the places that have gotten them in recent years (EUG and SBA immediately come to my mind.)

Because of the contract, UA gets no credit for purchasing hundreds of MAXs, A321s and used narrowbodies representing how many pilot jobs? But, only a restricted group of specific aircraft can increase 76 seat express units at not even a 1 to 1 match. How frustrating and unnecessary.
So, the response is to build more CRJ550s as an alternative. There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Because of the contract, UA gets no credit for purchasing hundreds of MAXs, A321s and used narrowbodies representing how many pilot jobs? But, only a restricted group of specific aircraft can increase 76 seat express units at not even a 1 to 1 match. How frustrating and unnecessary.
So, the response is to build more CRJ550s as an alternative. There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

No, it doesn’t make sense, but that’s how it works with these contracts. UA could have tried to renegotiate and made the new order contingent, but they didn’t. Do I think pilots should give more in light of the changes? Yes, I think the E175-E2 would make a huge difference and adding those will ripple effect benefit mainline when it doesn’t actually change the existing mainline-regional dynamic. Yet, UA doesn’t think it’s necessary and I they know better about their needs than I do.

Full disclosure, I’m from a small town so I tend to favor regionals a bit more than others and don’t think moving to mostly 76-seaters and/or 550s with first/premium will bode well for many small cities that need that service to market themselves economically.

Edit to add that I think Embraer really misplayed things with no E175-E2 that meets scope-not UA or a union. Then again, I almost think the majors have said they’re fine with the E175 because unlike Mitsubishi, Embraer hasn’t indicated it intends to make it work.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Because of the contract, UA gets no credit for purchasing hundreds of MAXs, A321s and used narrowbodies representing how many pilot jobs? But, only a restricted group of specific aircraft can increase 76 seat express units at not even a 1 to 1 match. How frustrating and unnecessary.
So, the response is to build more CRJ550s as an alternative. There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

The contract is something which United agreed to with the pilot union. Compromises take place during negotiations from both sides to get to an agreement. United knows what is in the contract, the pilot union knows what is in the contract. They both represents the interests of two different groups.

What would United be willing to give to the pilot union for that flexibility is also a question. For many years pilots have given up scope, pay, retirement and more for United. This is not a one-sided conversation which you are making it into, it comes from both ways.

Disclaimer: I have zero gain from either side and after the SFH in 2000 went from over 100k miles a year on United to pretty much nothing.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

3 hard line responses. Impasse with little growth potential. How about a little give and take?

Conversely, why should United’s pilots give any ground? The company is hiring mainline pilots faster they can train them. There’s really no benefit to the pilot group for ceding on scope. Right now, it’s a moment that pilots have some leverage in contract negotiations.

The argument about getting “credit” for buying larger jets is missing the point. Those were always going to be mainline jobs, and nothing about scope enables or enhances the economics of those purchases. From the perspective of the pilots, the objective is to grow categories that must be flown by UAL ALPA members, not concede additional outsourced flying to low-rate contractors in exchange for flying that was always going to be mainline.

I really, really, really doubt UA will ever fly the E175 as mainline. I am not sure why this is ever brought up. UA could fly ATR42 or even DHC-6-400 mainline if they want.

UA has flown 737-200 and 727-100 in the 109/119 seats range in the not so near past. I think UA could grab some E2-195 and/or A220, but only if the trip costs are a lot lower than a 737-7 MAX.

I imagine the Boeing sales guy tries to convince UA that the labor costs will be the same, the maintenance costs for 737-7 is as good, and only the fuel costs will save money - but every day the A220-100/E2-195 goes out full the 737-7 could carry extra passengers paying for that fuel.

We'll see. I think UA could use some smallish jets to get over the 76 seat jet limit - but for now they seem happy with the 737.

intotheair wrote:

I’m also not sure if the so-called gap between the E175 and A319 is really all that significant. I think a lot of those RJ-heavy stations would be able stomach more A319s and 73Gs. Just look at all the places that have gotten them in recent years (EUG and SBA immediately come to my mind.)

FWIW, both EUG and SBA were mainline stations with 737s 20 years ago so it has come full circle.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

Once again, UAL already has the flexibility to order as many E175-E2s, or any other type of aircraft, as it wants. The methodology for doing so is literally already in the mainline pilot contract.

So, let's be frank. The express carriers at every legacy airline exist for only one reason: labor arbitrage. The aircraft, fuel, gates, and landing fess all cost the same regardless of the operating certificate. As a result. the only variable is labor. Since the legacy airlines sell the tickets and are ultimately responsible for all revenue and expenses, the actual business model of any given express carrier is really just that of a glorified staffing agency.

This was the model for years.

Fast forward to 2022 and UAL mainline is hiring 2000 pilots a year and the express carriers are having serious problems staffing their operations. Meanwhile, growth at all the hubs is constrained by gates, or slots, or airspace (or some combination).

UAL has gone into amazing detail, and in public, about its fleet strategy given the current landscape. And that plan is to not only up-gauge the entire fleet, but also offer more premium seats to improve the revenue mix.

Adding another 100 76-seat aircraft would actually make things worse given the circumstances. In the real world, UAL is already taking the actions to grow mainline by growing...wait for it...mainline.

UAL has placed huge mainline aircraft orders and is furiously hiring the staff to operate them.

I would agree with most of what is being posted regarding the scope clause. However, there's always inflation so 727-100s, 737-200s and the likes have been replaced with larger aircraft. UA like most, have bought larger capacity narrowbodies while added seats in mainline aircraft going from 9 to 10 across on 777s and slimlines on narrowbodies aircraft.
When scope clauses began it's a good chance the 50 seat RJ was the darling of the industry - now they are too small. A contract's a contract, but 50, 70, and 76 seat limitations haven't changed due to the scope clause, which is frustrating for all, I guess.
Does UA need a 100 seat aircraft? Probably not if mainline pilot costs are part of the deal - pay the pilots a bit more to fly a standard narrowbody even if frequency suffers. But times change and 50, 70 and 76 seat aircraft may need some type of bump in the express category - they feed larger mainline aircraft that employ a growing number of mainline pilots and flight attendants at airports with restrictions.
Both sides need to work together for reasonable ways to improve operations, control costs, increase revenue while maybe modifying problematic restrictions on both sides.

N16713 737-700 after several attempts is scheduled to exit ROW storage and Ferry to MCO MX and fleet reentry
Former GUM unit. F2725/19 Jan
N773UA PW 777-200 has exited HKG MX and will ferry to VCV for storage
N227UA PW 777-200 is scheduled to enter HKG MX

I'll tell you all why UA will never take an aircraft like the e190 or put e175's at mainline UA. It's because then UA will have to pay their regional pilots a fair bit more money.

Here's some historical evidence from delta to back that statement up. Delta once back in 2015 purchased 20 e190's used from AC (Source: https://news.delta.com/embraer-190-what-you-should-know) but they never went in the fleet because the pilot's unions spit them out like black licorice and forced delta to acquire the then C series now A220. Other sources of the event: https://news.delta.com/ceo-confirms-jet ... ncellation
going for the C series instead: https://www.flightglobal.com/delta-drop ... 24.article

overall news: https://news.delta.com/tags/e-190-0

Summary of event in a comedic tone: https://crankyflier.com/2015/06/11/delt ... airplanes/

Cardude2 wrote:

I'll tell you all why UA will never take an aircraft like the e190 or put e175's at mainline UA. It's because then UA will have to pay their regional pilots a fair bit more money.

Here's some historical evidence from delta to back that statement up. Delta once back in 2015 purchased 20 e190's used from AC (Source: https://news.delta.com/embraer-190-what-you-should-know) but they never went in the fleet because the pilot's unions spit them out like black licorice and forced delta to acquire the then C series now A220. Other sources of the event: https://news.delta.com/ceo-confirms-jet ... ncellation
going for the C series instead: https://www.flightglobal.com/delta-drop ... 24.article

overall news: https://news.delta.com/tags/e-190-0

Summary of event in a comedic tone: https://crankyflier.com/2015/06/11/delt ... airplanes/

That’s not correct. Delta bought 20 190s and a batch of 737s and said if the pilots didn’t approve the contact they’d cancel the order. Pilots voted it down. Delta canceled the order. Then they turned around and made an even larger purchase of 220s and 737s than they had before. The union and pilots don’t purchase airplanes, nor do they dictate or influence aircraft purchases. That’s not a union or pilot job. That’s a CEO/CFO/BOD job. Pilots don’t have a say in aircraft purchases. Sometimes mgmt will tie a purchase to contract to try to sway the vote when it otherwise may not pass, but that’s the extent of pilot involvement. What they DO have a say in is how much flying is farmed out. That’s about it though.

JoseSalazar wrote:

Cardude2 wrote:

I'll tell you all why UA will never take an aircraft like the e190 or put e175's at mainline UA. It's because then UA will have to pay their regional pilots a fair bit more money.

Here's some historical evidence from delta to back that statement up. Delta once back in 2015 purchased 20 e190's used from AC (Source: https://news.delta.com/embraer-190-what-you-should-know) but they never went in the fleet because the pilot's unions spit them out like black licorice and forced delta to acquire the then C series now A220. Other sources of the event: https://news.delta.com/ceo-confirms-jet ... ncellation
going for the C series instead: https://www.flightglobal.com/delta-drop ... 24.article

overall news: https://news.delta.com/tags/e-190-0

Summary of event in a comedic tone: https://crankyflier.com/2015/06/11/delt ... airplanes/

That’s not correct. Delta bought 20 190s and a batch of 737s and said if the pilots didn’t approve the contact they’d cancel the order. Pilots voted it down. Delta canceled the order. Then they turned around and made an even larger purchase of 220s and 737s than they had before. The union and pilots don’t purchase airplanes, nor do they dictate or influence aircraft purchases. That’s not a union or pilot job. That’s a CEO/CFO/BOD job. Pilots don’t have a say in aircraft purchases. Sometimes mgmt will tie a purchase to contract to try to sway the vote when it otherwise may not pass, but that’s the extent of pilot involvement. What they DO have a say in is how much flying is farmed out. That’s about it though.

huh, thought they did have sway in a purchase

If I remember correctly, United purchased 20 A319's from easyJet, and many of them are showing as "delivered" on Planespotters.com. Is there any word when these planes will enter service? Their plans are probably delayed from COVID. But at the time, I was surprised to see they bought these planes with CFM engines vs. the IAE fleet they already have. I believe they have some adjustments that need to be done with the 2 over-wing exits. Hopefully they will be fitted with PTV seats? I am eager to see one in service!

Pardon me if this has been discussed

Most if not all are not entering service anymore.

Last I saw they were sitting in GYR, still orange.

Polot wrote:

Most if not all are not entering service anymore.

One shows as being delivered yesterday, 1/18/22... Why would they still be accepting the deliveries if they aren't going into service?

Deltabravo1123 wrote:

Polot wrote:

Most if not all are not entering service anymore.

One shows as being delivered yesterday, 1/18/22... Why would they still be accepting the deliveries if they aren't going into service?

Because getting out of contracts cost money, as does entering them into service. They will be sold or more likely scrapped.

My understanding is that UA plans to part them out instead of use them for service. They have a different engine type as well as 2 overwinter exits. While the the second exits can be plugged I imagine adding in a new engine type, retroffiting the planes, and painting them probably make a better case for parts. With the large amount of impound new NBs that probably didn't help their case.

Did UA buy them intending to scrap them or have circumstances changed due to covid etc?

I'm thinking there was a change in plans for them. A few years back they were looking at buying NK's fleet of 319's to operate but it fell through.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

Once again, UAL already has the flexibility to order as many E175-E2s, or any other type of aircraft, as it wants. The methodology for doing so is literally already in the mainline pilot contract.

So, let's be frank. The express carriers at every legacy airline exist for only one reason: labor arbitrage. The aircraft, fuel, gates, and landing fess all cost the same regardless of the operating certificate. As a result. the only variable is labor. Since the legacy airlines sell the tickets and are ultimately responsible for all revenue and expenses, the actual business model of any given express carrier is really just that of a glorified staffing agency.

This was the model for years.

Fast forward to 2022 and UAL mainline is hiring 2000 pilots a year and the express carriers are having serious problems staffing their operations. Meanwhile, growth at all the hubs is constrained by gates, or slots, or airspace (or some combination).

UAL has gone into amazing detail, and in public, about its fleet strategy given the current landscape. And that plan is to not only up-gauge the entire fleet, but also offer more premium seats to improve the revenue mix.

Adding another 100 76-seat aircraft would actually make things worse given the circumstances. In the real world, UAL is already taking the actions to grow mainline by growing...wait for it...mainline.

UAL has placed huge mainline aircraft orders and is furiously hiring the staff to operate them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

SEAorPWM wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

Once again, UAL already has the flexibility to order as many E175-E2s, or any other type of aircraft, as it wants. The methodology for doing so is literally already in the mainline pilot contract.

So, let's be frank. The express carriers at every legacy airline exist for only one reason: labor arbitrage. The aircraft, fuel, gates, and landing fess all cost the same regardless of the operating certificate. As a result. the only variable is labor. Since the legacy airlines sell the tickets and are ultimately responsible for all revenue and expenses, the actual business model of any given express carrier is really just that of a glorified staffing agency.

This was the model for years.

Fast forward to 2022 and UAL mainline is hiring 2000 pilots a year and the express carriers are having serious problems staffing their operations. Meanwhile, growth at all the hubs is constrained by gates, or slots, or airspace (or some combination).

UAL has gone into amazing detail, and in public, about its fleet strategy given the current landscape. And that plan is to not only up-gauge the entire fleet, but also offer more premium seats to improve the revenue mix.

Adding another 100 76-seat aircraft would actually make things worse given the circumstances. In the real world, UAL is already taking the actions to grow mainline by growing...wait for it...mainline.

UAL has placed huge mainline aircraft orders and is furiously hiring the staff to operate them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

Amazingly, I’m gonna suspect it will not.

On the pilot side, UAL is constrained by training capacity and much of the short term plan is staffing for the summer of 2023.

However, plans can and do change so we’ll wait and see. That said, UAL just had one of its largest pilot classes in its history start today. Increasing the weekly class size seems like the opposite of hiring being slowed.

SEAorPWM wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

Once again, UAL already has the flexibility to order as many E175-E2s, or any other type of aircraft, as it wants. The methodology for doing so is literally already in the mainline pilot contract.

So, let's be frank. The express carriers at every legacy airline exist for only one reason: labor arbitrage. The aircraft, fuel, gates, and landing fess all cost the same regardless of the operating certificate. As a result. the only variable is labor. Since the legacy airlines sell the tickets and are ultimately responsible for all revenue and expenses, the actual business model of any given express carrier is really just that of a glorified staffing agency.

This was the model for years.

Fast forward to 2022 and UAL mainline is hiring 2000 pilots a year and the express carriers are having serious problems staffing their operations. Meanwhile, growth at all the hubs is constrained by gates, or slots, or airspace (or some combination).

UAL has gone into amazing detail, and in public, about its fleet strategy given the current landscape. And that plan is to not only up-gauge the entire fleet, but also offer more premium seats to improve the revenue mix.

Adding another 100 76-seat aircraft would actually make things worse given the circumstances. In the real world, UAL is already taking the actions to grow mainline by growing...wait for it...mainline.

UAL has placed huge mainline aircraft orders and is furiously hiring the staff to operate them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

I seriously doubt it. I don't think United had the capacity to hire and train at a rate that would have matched capacity growth plans from summer 2021 (which were dialed back after Delta and are being dialed back now after Omicron hysteria). United doesn't even have enough pilots to fly the current fleet, many of which remain in storage. Between getting the rest of the fleet back in service, returning the 777s and normal replacement/attrition, UA should be in a good place with current hiring pace to meet current capacity forecasts and be in a position to grow after 2022.

codc10 wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Once again, UAL already has the flexibility to order as many E175-E2s, or any other type of aircraft, as it wants. The methodology for doing so is literally already in the mainline pilot contract.

So, let's be frank. The express carriers at every legacy airline exist for only one reason: labor arbitrage. The aircraft, fuel, gates, and landing fess all cost the same regardless of the operating certificate. As a result. the only variable is labor. Since the legacy airlines sell the tickets and are ultimately responsible for all revenue and expenses, the actual business model of any given express carrier is really just that of a glorified staffing agency.

This was the model for years.

Fast forward to 2022 and UAL mainline is hiring 2000 pilots a year and the express carriers are having serious problems staffing their operations. Meanwhile, growth at all the hubs is constrained by gates, or slots, or airspace (or some combination).

UAL has gone into amazing detail, and in public, about its fleet strategy given the current landscape. And that plan is to not only up-gauge the entire fleet, but also offer more premium seats to improve the revenue mix.

Adding another 100 76-seat aircraft would actually make things worse given the circumstances. In the real world, UAL is already taking the actions to grow mainline by growing...wait for it...mainline.

UAL has placed huge mainline aircraft orders and is furiously hiring the staff to operate them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

I seriously doubt it. I don't think United had the capacity to hire and train at a rate that would have matched capacity growth plans from summer 2021 (which were dialed back after Delta and are being dialed back now after Omicron hysteria). United doesn't even have enough pilots to fly the current fleet, many of which remain in storage. Between getting the rest of the fleet back in service, returning the 777s and normal replacement/attrition, UA should be in a good place with current hiring pace to meet current capacity forecasts and be in a position to grow after 2022.

If the 777-200's are coming back, wouldn't that just mean the 756 fleet is currently being stored?

I love the retrofitted 763's and hope this doesn't give them a premature retirement.

From United Airlines Achieves Fourth Quarter Financial Targets and Reiterates Long-Term Commitments -- Despite Headwinds from Omicron Variant:

We look forward to beginning to return the Pratt & Whitney 777s to service this quarter and getting the full airline back to normal utilization — as we ramp up along with demand this year.

SEAorPWM wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

There's got to be a better way. Loosening the MGTOW or EMBs, changing the ratio of 76 seaters or anything else that seems reasonable. What would pilot be willing to give to have UA gain that flexibility?

Once again, UAL already has the flexibility to order as many E175-E2s, or any other type of aircraft, as it wants. The methodology for doing so is literally already in the mainline pilot contract.

So, let's be frank. The express carriers at every legacy airline exist for only one reason: labor arbitrage. The aircraft, fuel, gates, and landing fess all cost the same regardless of the operating certificate. As a result. the only variable is labor. Since the legacy airlines sell the tickets and are ultimately responsible for all revenue and expenses, the actual business model of any given express carrier is really just that of a glorified staffing agency.

This was the model for years.

Fast forward to 2022 and UAL mainline is hiring 2000 pilots a year and the express carriers are having serious problems staffing their operations. Meanwhile, growth at all the hubs is constrained by gates, or slots, or airspace (or some combination).

UAL has gone into amazing detail, and in public, about its fleet strategy given the current landscape. And that plan is to not only up-gauge the entire fleet, but also offer more premium seats to improve the revenue mix.

Adding another 100 76-seat aircraft would actually make things worse given the circumstances. In the real world, UAL is already taking the actions to grow mainline by growing...wait for it...mainline.

UAL has placed huge mainline aircraft orders and is furiously hiring the staff to operate them.

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

Why? He said its near term only: "United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby said in an earnings release. “Omicron is impacting near term demand, we remain optimistic about the spring and excited about the summer and beyond.”"

SEAorPWM wrote:

codc10 wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

I seriously doubt it. I don't think United had the capacity to hire and train at a rate that would have matched capacity growth plans from summer 2021 (which were dialed back after Delta and are being dialed back now after Omicron hysteria). United doesn't even have enough pilots to fly the current fleet, many of which remain in storage. Between getting the rest of the fleet back in service, returning the 777s and normal replacement/attrition, UA should be in a good place with current hiring pace to meet current capacity forecasts and be in a position to grow after 2022.

If the 777-200's are coming back, wouldn't that just mean the 756 fleet is currently being stored?

I love the retrofitted 763's and hope this doesn't give them a premature retirement.

whats either going to happen is
A. nothing
B. 77A retierment
C. 764 retierment
D. both

SEAorPWM wrote:

codc10 wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

I seriously doubt it. I don't think United had the capacity to hire and train at a rate that would have matched capacity growth plans from summer 2021 (which were dialed back after Delta and are being dialed back now after Omicron hysteria). United doesn't even have enough pilots to fly the current fleet, many of which remain in storage. Between getting the rest of the fleet back in service, returning the 777s and normal replacement/attrition, UA should be in a good place with current hiring pace to meet current capacity forecasts and be in a position to grow after 2022.

If the 777-200's are coming back, wouldn't that just mean the 756 fleet is currently being stored?

I love the retrofitted 763's and hope this doesn't give them a premature retirement.

No plans for any 767 retirements. We have been told, though plans of course can change, that the 767s will be around until 2026 at least. I sincerely hope they do as I, like you, love the 767.

You don’t hang onto all of your wide bodies all the way through the pandemic just to dump them as soon as traffic starts to pick up. You certainly don’t invest in engine and cowling fixes to 52 Pratt 772s if you’re planning in dumping them. If the 772As and 764s were leaving any time before 2026, they would’ve already done so.

adamblang wrote:

You certainly don’t invest in engine and cowling fixes to 52 Pratt 772s if you’re planning in dumping them.

Any word on where UA plans on flying these prodigal 777s? That's a whole lot of lift coming back online relatively soon. Were all or most of the 777 flight crews able to keep their currency?

jetblastdubai wrote:

adamblang wrote:

You certainly don’t invest in engine and cowling fixes to 52 Pratt 772s if you’re planning in dumping them.

Any word on where UA plans on flying these prodigal 777s? That's a whole lot of lift coming back online relatively soon. Were all or most of the 777 flight crews able to keep their currency?

I think so due to the 77W and GE 777s.

I imagine UA might put them on Cargo runs as that seems to still be a cash cow for them. Also using them to combine flights and relieve the tight NB flying.

I really don't care how they do it, but United needs to retire all of the CRJ200's now. I am flying PWM-AVL round trip in February and the only United options that fit my schedule are on CRJ200's both ways through ORD. United is usually my first choice (Platinum status), but all 4 segments on the awful one class CRJ200 is a deal breaker. I will either double connect on Delta or connect through CLT on AA. All segments have 3 class cabins on AA and Delta. Please kill the CRJ200 now, especially on longer flights like PWM-ORD!

Pinto wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

adamblang wrote:

You certainly don’t invest in engine and cowling fixes to 52 Pratt 772s if you’re planning in dumping them.

Any word on where UA plans on flying these prodigal 777s? That's a whole lot of lift coming back online relatively soon. Were all or most of the 777 flight crews able to keep their currency?

I think so due to the 77W and GE 777s.

I imagine UA might put them on Cargo runs as that seems to still be a cash cow for them. Also using them to combine flights and relieve the tight NB flying.

I agree. The return of the PW 777's should allow United to reduce some of the overscheduling of narrow bodies on hub to hub and other busy routes.

Jetport wrote:

I really don't care how they do it, but United needs to retire all of the CRJ200's now. I am flying PWM-AVL round trip in February and the only United options that fit my schedule are on CRJ200's both ways through ORD. United is usually my first choice (Platinum status), but all 4 segments on the awful one class CRJ200 is a deal breaker. I will either double connect on Delta or connect through CLT on AA. All segments have 3 class cabins on AA and Delta. Please kill the CRJ200 now, especially on longer flights like PWM-ORD!

Agreed, although I think we’re stuck with them for a while longer. Been flying ORD-ICT-ORD on the 200s weekly for the past 3 years, with a brief hiatus for Covid. Recently they started upgauging the return ICT-ORD flights to an E175 which is very much welcomed. Hopefully this is a permanent change but I am not sure. Maybe someone can chime in on this particular route?

SEAorPWM wrote:

codc10 wrote:

SEAorPWM wrote:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/19/united- ... 4q-21.html

I wonder if these hiring plans will be nixed for this year?

I seriously doubt it. I don't think United had the capacity to hire and train at a rate that would have matched capacity growth plans from summer 2021 (which were dialed back after Delta and are being dialed back now after Omicron hysteria). United doesn't even have enough pilots to fly the current fleet, many of which remain in storage. Between getting the rest of the fleet back in service, returning the 777s and normal replacement/attrition, UA should be in a good place with current hiring pace to meet current capacity forecasts and be in a position to grow after 2022.

If the 777-200's are coming back, wouldn't that just mean the 756 fleet is currently being stored?

I love the retrofitted 763's and hope this doesn't give them a premature retirement.

One doesn't really have anything to do with the other. UA has no firm plans to retire any of the 757/767s currently in the fleet, though it is clear the 757-200s will start to exit before the 767s, likely when the MAX10s and A321LR/XLR begin to arrive. Staffing issues have prevented the entire B756 fleet from returning to service, as around a dozen total of all stripes are still parked in the desert. Again, all are planned to return to service.

The company has invested (this is public information) in life-extension programs for the 767/777 fleet to keep them in service until past their 30th birthdays. It's no guarantee they will do so, as that depends on market conditions, but as of now this is the goal. The 763s and 77Es have all received new interiors over the past few years that (especially in the case of the PW fleet) have barely amortized. Some 777s have mere months in service with new cabins before they were parked following the 2021 AD.

Jetport wrote:

I really don't care how they do it, but United needs to retire all of the CRJ200's now. I am flying PWM-AVL round trip in February and the only United options that fit my schedule are on CRJ200's both ways through ORD. United is usually my first choice (Platinum status), but all 4 segments on the awful one class CRJ200 is a deal breaker. I will either double connect on Delta or connect through CLT on AA. All segments have 3 class cabins on AA and Delta. Please kill the CRJ200 now, especially on longer flights like PWM-ORD!

Wow, incredibly selfish post. You don’t care about the impact to dozens of communities that need air connections, but can’t support larger RJs. Complain about UA putting the -200s on longer routes, but to assert they should all be retired immediately because it’s not your preference is selfish.

767-300ER Polaris:
N663UA sked to exit HKG 2691/21Jan in High J Polaris/PP configuration.
Only N657UA and N658UA remain in non-Polaris configuration - stored at GYR-Goodyear AZ).

jbs2886 wrote:

Jetport wrote:

I really don't care how they do it, but United needs to retire all of the CRJ200's now. I am flying PWM-AVL round trip in February and the only United options that fit my schedule are on CRJ200's both ways through ORD. United is usually my first choice (Platinum status), but all 4 segments on the awful one class CRJ200 is a deal breaker. I will either double connect on Delta or connect through CLT on AA. All segments have 3 class cabins on AA and Delta. Please kill the CRJ200 now, especially on longer flights like PWM-ORD!

Wow, incredibly selfish post. You don’t care about the impact to dozens of communities that need air connections, but can’t support larger RJs. Complain about UA putting the -200s on longer routes, but to assert they should all be retired immediately because it’s not your preference is selfish.

That’s a core component of United Next program though – 200 single class 50-seat RJs are going to exit the fleet in favor of CRJ-500s, E-175s, and cascading upgauges.

jbs2886 wrote:

Jetport wrote:

I really don't care how they do it, but United needs to retire all of the CRJ200's now. I am flying PWM-AVL round trip in February and the only United options that fit my schedule are on CRJ200's both ways through ORD. United is usually my first choice (Platinum status), but all 4 segments on the awful one class CRJ200 is a deal breaker. I will either double connect on Delta or connect through CLT on AA. All segments have 3 class cabins on AA and Delta. Please kill the CRJ200 now, especially on longer flights like PWM-ORD!

Wow, incredibly selfish post. You don’t care about the impact to dozens of communities that need air connections, but can’t support larger RJs. Complain about UA putting the -200s on longer routes, but to assert they should all be retired immediately because it’s not your preference is selfish.

I think you might gave been a little harsh here, however you mention a great point about the CRJs. For myself I love the CRJ because it means 2 hours of a drive and 1 hour off of time wasted at an airport. I am lucky enough to have access to an EAS airport, however it couldn't support anything larger than the -200s. Once they go I am afraid to see what might happen. So while yes they do suck for those long distance flights rember they are a godsend for some customers and once they are gone our connection to air travel might be as well.

adamblang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Jetport wrote:

I really don't care how they do it, but United needs to retire all of the CRJ200's now. I am flying PWM-AVL round trip in February and the only United options that fit my schedule are on CRJ200's both ways through ORD. United is usually my first choice (Platinum status), but all 4 segments on the awful one class CRJ200 is a deal breaker. I will either double connect on Delta or connect through CLT on AA. All segments have 3 class cabins on AA and Delta. Please kill the CRJ200 now, especially on longer flights like PWM-ORD!

Wow, incredibly selfish post. You don’t care about the impact to dozens of communities that need air connections, but can’t support larger RJs. Complain about UA putting the -200s on longer routes, but to assert they should all be retired immediately because it’s not your preference is selfish.

That’s a core component of United Next program though – 200 single class 50-seat RJs are going to exit the fleet in favor of CRJ-500s, E-175s, and cascading upgauges.

It’s a gradual drawdown though, not just an immediate retirement. I also suspect it will be like DL and a lot of at-risk flying remaining on -200s. UA does have the benefit of the -550 as a 50-seater.

Pinto wrote:

I think you might gave been a little harsh here, however you mention a great point about the CRJs. For myself I love the CRJ because it means 2 hours of a drive and 1 hour off of time wasted at an airport. I am lucky enough to have access to an EAS airport, however it couldn't support anything larger than the -200s. Once they go I am afraid to see what might happen. So while yes they do suck for those long distance flights rember they are a godsend for some customers and once they are gone our connection to air travel might be as well.

You’re right, I admit I was. But it’s so frustrating when posters demand airlines to change things immediately because it’s not their preference or it inconveniences them. Air service is critical for communities and simply ignoring that is selfish, IMO.

Bert65 wrote:

Boeing12345 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Thanks, CALTECH.

I show 4 788s (3901/3903/3909/3912) had received paint touch-ups.
Looks like 3902 and 3904 have been untouched since 2012 delivery.
Looks like 3905 in Wave since 2018 and 3913 in Wave since 2019.
Remaining three 788s painted at delivery in 2013/14

Numerous 319s on my Used Fleet list: Assume some or all will fly for UA?
N883UA, former B-6006 & N884UA, former B6207 both in GYR (other China Southern in current fleet)
N4866U, former OE-1HF, LCQ
N5867U, former OE-IHI, N4868U, former OE-IHC, N870UB, former OE-IDE both in GYR
N4869U, former OE-IHJ, could be in BFI

Units 4301-4230, former easyJet units in GYR or in Europe I believe are for parts.

883 and 884 are scheduled for induction mods later this year. As for 866-869, 866 is already parted out and the same fate for 867-869. 4910-4915 will also be parted and scrapped.

Do you have any idea what will happen with N870UB?

Sorry, yes 4870 will be parted and scrapped as well.

As for the EasyJet aircraft, believe a deal was reached in December for 19 if not all 20. One odd thing is they appear to be a sell or lease back to EasyJet.

JoseSalazar wrote:

The union and pilots don’t purchase airplanes, nor do they dictate or influence aircraft purchases. That’s not a union or pilot job. That’s a CEO/CFO/BOD job. Pilots don’t have a say in aircraft purchases.

Sure pilots do - they can make operation so uneconomic (like the foolishness of arguing that E2-175s can just be operated as mainline) that planes don't get purchased.

It doesn't mean that all those jobs go to mainline - one of the few advantages in domestic ops that UA has vs. LCCs/ULCCs is the ability to market flights with fewer than 143 seats (a WN 737-700, as an example). If UA can't have a viable product for smaller communities (mainline too big, RJs constrained by number), LCCs win. Look at the rates of ASM growth for WN/NK/F9/G4 vs. AA/DL/UA over the last decade.

jbs2886 wrote:

Jetport wrote:

I really don't care how they do it, but United needs to retire all of the CRJ200's now. I am flying PWM-AVL round trip in February and the only United options that fit my schedule are on CRJ200's both ways through ORD. United is usually my first choice (Platinum status), but all 4 segments on the awful one class CRJ200 is a deal breaker. I will either double connect on Delta or connect through CLT on AA. All segments have 3 class cabins on AA and Delta. Please kill the CRJ200 now, especially on longer flights like PWM-ORD!

Wow, incredibly selfish post. You don’t care about the impact to dozens of communities that need air connections, but can’t support larger RJs. Complain about UA putting the -200s on longer routes, but to assert they should all be retired immediately because it’s not your preference is selfish.

Not selfish at all. I was simply pointing out that United lost a ticket sale on this route because they are using an uncompetitive aircraft on a rather long segment (PWM to ORD). I believe this has been the longest segment any of the big 3 has used a 1 class aircraft on for many years out of PWM. I will probably end up double connecting on Delta since I have status with them (Gold) and I will get an Economy Comfort seat on every flight, and likely get a 1st class seat on some flights. So Delta gets my money instead of United. If Untied had a CRJ550 on this route I would definitely fly United.

By the way, PWM and AVL are both very fast growing airports. I don't think either of them will be losing any service any time soon.

Of note on the earnings call this morning:

Not new: 53 MAXes this year, 8 787s this year.
New: But the 787s are expected to enter the fleet after the summer travel season.

United Next cabin upgrades are still expected to be complete in 2025. But there was no detail given about refit schedule.

Having kept the widebody fleet was touted as a strength and will be used for future international growth. (My 2¢ — again, the 772s and 764s aren't going anywhere for the foreseeable future.)

The grounded 777s represent 10% of normal ASM capacity. And those will be all flying again by Q4.

The Express fleet will continue to be underutilized as long as there's a regional pilot shortage. The regional pilot shortage is accelerating the United Next upgauging program.

While pilot and mechanic hiring is going gangbusters, there's not a problem finding candidates and training them. Full capacity, yes, but running smoothly.

adamblang wrote:

Of note on the earnings call this morning:

Not new: 53 MAXes this year, 8 787s this year.
New: But the 787s are expected to enter the fleet after the summer travel season.

United Next cabin upgrades are still expected to be complete in 2025. But there was no detail given about refit schedule.

Having kept the widebody fleet was touted as a strength and will be used for future international growth. (My 2¢ — again, the 772s and 764s aren't going anywhere for the foreseeable future.)

The grounded 777s represent 10% of normal ASM capacity. And those will be all flying again by Q4.

The Express fleet will continue to be underutilized as long as there's a regional pilot shortage. The regional pilot shortage is accelerating the United Next upgauging program.

While pilot and mechanic hiring is going gangbusters, there's not a problem finding candidates and training them. Full capacity, yes, but running smoothly.

Thanks for the fleet summary from the call. UAL has been very public about the United Next strategy (source) and this call reaffirmed UAL’s plans to grow mainline and shrink express. And the plan is actually being accelerated due to a pilot (pay) shortage at the regional level resulting in further block hour and city reductions. Alternatively, UAL will grow mainline by 60 airframes in 2022 and over 100 in 2023.

Meanwhile, on a-net: “UA needs scope relief to fly more RJs!”

MIflyer12 wrote:

JoseSalazar wrote:

The union and pilots don’t purchase airplanes, nor do they dictate or influence aircraft purchases. That’s not a union or pilot job. That’s a CEO/CFO/BOD job. Pilots don’t have a say in aircraft purchases.

Sure pilots do - they can make operation so uneconomic (like the foolishness of arguing that E2-175s can just be operated as mainline) that planes don't get purchased.

It doesn't mean that all those jobs go to mainline - one of the few advantages in domestic ops that UA has vs. LCCs/ULCCs is the ability to market flights with fewer than 143 seats (a WN 737-700, as an example). If UA can't have a viable product for smaller communities (mainline too big, RJs constrained by number), LCCs win. Look at the rates of ASM growth for WN/NK/F9/G4 vs. AA/DL/UA over the last decade.

Pilots making market rate wages doesn’t make the operation uneconomic. Labor (especially when highly skilled and in demand) aren’t there to subsidize a company’s costs. They get paid market rate largely based on supply and demand. Fuel companies don’t sell fuel cheaper to airlines when oil goes up “to make it more economical” for the airline. No reason labor should make any more gives than they already have—especially in this market. Also, the pilot shortage isn’t unique to one airline. It’s a level playing field (actually UAL has an advantage because there is no shortage of applicants and attrition is at the top, compared to LCC/ULCCs who are facing record attrition off the bottom…similar to regional attrition…so here legacies have the advantage that may largely outweigh their regional pilot shortage and turnover issues). Labor costs go up? Revenue side will likely have to go up to match the increasing cost side. Ticket prices will have to go up eventually. Car, meat, housing, and many other costs have gone up. I don’t see anyone calling for any labor in those markets for more gives. Truck drivers aren’t taking pay cuts to help lower shipping costs, nor are they allowing more outsourced underpaid drivers to take their jobs. Additionally, pilot wage increases aren’t even keeping up with inflation.

Delta partially solved this issue with A220/717. Other airlines did it with DC9s back in the day before the proliferation of outsourced RJs. And A319s are a quasi-solution, albeit at very high CASM and trip cost relative to other current options. Just because UA and AA mgmt don’t want to buy anything smaller than a 319 doesn’t mean there isn’t a “viable product” available. Delta makes it work. WN makes it work with 737. B6 makes it work with 100 now 140 seaters while still paying pilots at least 2x RJ wages. Delta pays their 717/220 pilots even better and they make it work. WN/B6 costs are not that much lower than UA/AA.

So I don’t buy the “constrained by number” argument, especially since a new small NB at UAL increase that number while providing an in-between product. Some 50 seat routes shift to 76 seat routes. 76 seat routes shift to 100-130 seat routes. And 130 seat routes shift to 160 seat routes. 160 seat routes shift to 180-200 seat routes That’s what’s happening anyway. We are seeing industry wide upgauging as larger variants become more economical and smaller variants become less so as labor and fuel costs rise. There is zero reason to allow more 76 seaters outside of existing, already mutually agreed-upon provisions in the contract. A business model predicated on outsourced and underpaid labor is not viable (nor ethical imo), and now that the pilot shortage is here, it’s even more clear it isn’t sustainable, at least to the scale it exists now. RJ pilot costs (both wages/bonuses and massive training costs) will continue to go up as retention is more difficult and training churn increases. RJ CASM is through the roof as it is, and at some point there’s a crossover in costs where it’s more viable to bring in smaller mainline planes.

As far as ASM growth, legacies traditionally lag LCC/ULCC in growth. They already have mature networks and higher costs. Though UAL’s order book and growth plans makes for some of the highest legacy ASM growth I’ve ever seen.

In short, UA is not constrained by RJs. It’s not that they don’t have a pathway to market a flight with less than 143 seats…that’s complete misinformation. They can shift capacity and frequency with what they have, and they have the means to get more 76 seaters, which would also give them more planes in the small in-between range as well to more precisely match capacity. That would kill 2 birds with one stone. But they don’t want to do that as of now. They think 319/737 and existing RJ count is adequate for what they want to do. But the levers to pull to give them more flexibility to compete on smaller markets are there for them to pull. Pilot input not required.

787-9 Polaris/PP:
N26952 sked to exit XMN 2741/22Jan in Polaris/PP
N27957 sked to enter XMN 2740/22Jan for Polari/PP mod.
N26966 sked to exit XMN 2743/23Jan in Polaris/PP
Expect N24972 as next one in on 1/23.
This will leave only 7 flying with Diamond seats and 3 in mod.

jbs2886 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

Wow, incredibly selfish post. You don’t care about the impact to dozens of communities that need air connections, but can’t support larger RJs. Complain about UA putting the -200s on longer routes, but to assert they should all be retired immediately because it’s not your preference is selfish.

That’s a core component of United Next program though – 200 single class 50-seat RJs are going to exit the fleet in favor of CRJ-500s, E-175s, and cascading upgauges.

It’s a gradual drawdown though, not just an immediate retirement. I also suspect it will be like DL and a lot of at-risk flying remaining on -200s. UA does have the benefit of the -550 as a 50-seater.

Pinto wrote:

I think you might gave been a little harsh here, however you mention a great point about the CRJs. For myself I love the CRJ because it means 2 hours of a drive and 1 hour off of time wasted at an airport. I am lucky enough to have access to an EAS airport, however it couldn't support anything larger than the -200s. Once they go I am afraid to see what might happen. So while yes they do suck for those long distance flights rember they are a godsend for some customers and once they are gone our connection to air travel might be as well.

You’re right, I admit I was. But it’s so frustrating when posters demand airlines to change things immediately because it’s not their preference or it inconveniences them. Air service is critical for communities and simply ignoring that is selfish, IMO.

No one is advocating for cutting service. I think we’re just saying that, relatively speaking, the 200 is an awful plane. I’d take EMB-145s allllll day long over the 200.