1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

VC10er wrote:

Semi related United fleet question:

If one day United did decide to add the 777X to the fleet I would assume that would end any hope for the A350?
I recall Kirby saying that “they are very expensive”, but I could envision a future 10+ years from now where UA’s network would support both the size and range of the 777X?
When it comes to range do either the 777-8 or -9 meet or exceed the range of the A350?

1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

Velocirapture wrote:

1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

Cash. Money. Dollars. Dinero. You get the idea. If you UAL thought it was a good deal, they'd probably go for it. But then there are other carriers who likely want the NEOs, too. So if you're a leasing company, you're looking for the highest bidder.

GEWhiz wrote:

cosyr wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

Yes, but there will still be regionals at SFO and EWR. They aren’t going away. Adding nearly 500 mainline aircraft over the next few isn’t simply coming at the expense of regionals, the 70 seaters aren’t going anywhere. Again, I fail to see how where UA will be able to add so many flights. DEN and IAD sure, but no way can those two cities absorb 1,500-2,000 daily flights, which is how many flights all these new planes will likely add.

Jeremy

Gate constrained airports that have new gates opened up, can keep regionals and expand mainline (DEN, ORD, IAD, IAH), but runway constrained airports like EWR and SFO will have no choice but to trade off regional flying for mainline to a degree. Yes, there will still be regionals at those airports, but when they cut 50 seat flying, those airports will be the first to lose service...they already have. EMB-120's are gone from SFO and LAX, and while there is CR5 flying out of EWR, there is much less E145/CR2 flying than even last year. Routes might change. Some markets that had 50 seat flights out of EWR might lose service (hopefully they'll mostly just shift to ORD/IAD), but if UA wants to grow at EWR or SFO, they only option left is to upgauge and that takes gate space. EWR/SFO won't have more flights, but they will have more seats.

Is LAX gate constrained or runway constrained?

GEWhiz wrote:

1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

1. Alaska's A321NEOs have the classic door configuration, while UA's A321s will have the new door configuration. Unlike some other airline that is not new to the A321, like AA or Air Canada, UA does not have any A321s with the classic door configuration, therefore the classic door layout will only add complexity in UA's A321 fleet.
2. As much as I wish otherwise, insiders are saying that UA's A321s will have PW engines, although I don't know why United made this risky decision. In contrast, AS's A321s have LEAP engines.

LAXPolaris wrote:

GEWhiz wrote:

cosyr wrote:

I saw somewhere that both AA and UA were interested, but the AA was most likely to get them given they're partners with Alaska unlike UA. Also, I didn't realize the differences in the doors, but that is probably another reason for UA not to get them, no need to add an extra complexity to the fleet for such a small number of planes.

1kloudvoice wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Semi related United fleet question:

If one day United did decide to add the 777X to the fleet I would assume that would end any hope for the A350?
I recall Kirby saying that “they are very expensive”, but I could envision a future 10+ years from now where UA’s network would support both the size and range of the 777X?
When it comes to range do either the 777-8 or -9 meet or exceed the range of the A350?

The 777-9 is 500-1,100 nm short of the base A350 models, but the 777-8 is nearly identical in range to the -1000. The ULR 350 is a monster

777-9: 7,600 nm
A350-900: 8,100 nm
A350-1000: 8,700 nm
777-8: 8,730 nm
A350-900ULR: 9,700 nm

GEWhiz wrote:

1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

1. Alaska's A321NEOs have the classic door configuration, while UA's A321s will have the new door configuration. Unlike some other airline that is not new to the A321, like AA or Air Canada, UA does not have any A321s with the classic door configuration, therefore the classic door layout will only add complexity in UA's A321 fleet.
2. As much as I wish otherwise, insiders are saying that UA's A321s will have PW engines, although I don't know why United made this risky decision. In contrast, AS's A321s have LEAP engines.

DreamDriver wrote:

Still scratching my head on why they merged to begin with.

1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

• Those have CFM Leap 1A engines whereas United has Pratt GTF 1100G planes on order.
• Those have the traditional A321 door configuration whereas United has the newer, better flex door configuration on order. This would require a different seat plan with fewer seats.
• Those are leased and frankly they should be able to get a large premium. UA's cost structure for new build A321neos is probably significantly better.
• The A321neo is a new "type" for United that requires training across the entire organization to be ready for. It's highly unlikely they could accelerate this plan significantly, especially considering their hands are full with new hires already.

Tayo826 wrote:

What is Polaris 2.0 going to look like?

adamblang wrote:

Tayo826 wrote:

What is Polaris 2.0 going to look like?

There hasn't been a concrete statement that there's a Polaris 2.0 on the horizon, let alone any published descriptions or renderings.

1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

Tayo826 wrote:

What routes can we expect to see the non-XLR A321neos on?

SFOtoORD wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Tayo826 wrote:

What is Polaris 2.0 going to look like?

There hasn't been a concrete statement that there's a Polaris 2.0 on the horizon, let alone any published descriptions or renderings.

It seems like all we’ve heard about is putting a door on the current product. I could see them maybe refreshing a couple other aspects of the seat, but hat sounds more like a Polaris 1.1

LAXPolaris wrote:

Tayo826 wrote:

What routes can we expect to see the non-XLR A321neos on?

Routes you see the 757-300 on now will definitely see it, so hub to hub, big spoke markets like MCO or LAS, maybe LAX/SFO-Hawaii assuming they're ETOPS certified.

Definitely more besides these too, those are just the given ones. There's 70 of them on order though so I'm sure a decent amount of markets will eventually see them.

adamblang wrote:

Tayo826 wrote:

What is Polaris 2.0 going to look like?

There hasn't been a concrete statement that there's a Polaris 2.0 on the horizon, let alone any published descriptions or renderings.

Tayo826 wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

Tayo826 wrote:

What routes can we expect to see the non-XLR A321neos on?

Routes you see the 757-300 on now will definitely see it, so hub to hub, big spoke markets like MCO or LAS, maybe LAX/SFO-Hawaii assuming they're ETOPS certified.

Definitely more besides these too, those are just the given ones. There's 70 of them on order though so I'm sure a decent amount of markets will eventually see them.

Aren’t the A321neos smaller than the 757-300s?

SFOtoORD wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Tayo826 wrote:

What is Polaris 2.0 going to look like?

There hasn't been a concrete statement that there's a Polaris 2.0 on the horizon, let alone any published descriptions or renderings.

It seems like all we’ve heard about is putting a door on the current product. I could see them maybe refreshing a couple other aspects of the seat, but hat sounds more like a Polaris 1.1

jonahsachs wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

adamblang wrote:

There hasn't been a concrete statement that there's a Polaris 2.0 on the horizon, let alone any published descriptions or renderings.

It seems like all we’ve heard about is putting a door on the current product. I could see them maybe refreshing a couple other aspects of the seat, but hat sounds more like a Polaris 1.1

If they planned on doing this, would have made sense to on the 764.
Don’t see an updated seat on the horizon. The retrofits are nearing their 7 year completion. Time for a consistent product!

jonahsachs wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

adamblang wrote:

There hasn't been a concrete statement that there's a Polaris 2.0 on the horizon, let alone any published descriptions or renderings.

It seems like all we’ve heard about is putting a door on the current product. I could see them maybe refreshing a couple other aspects of the seat, but hat sounds more like a Polaris 1.1

If they planned on doing this, would have made sense to on the 764.
Don’t see an updated seat on the horizon. The retrofits are nearing their 7 year completion. Time for a consistent product!

ikolkyo wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

It seems like all we’ve heard about is putting a door on the current product. I could see them maybe refreshing a couple other aspects of the seat, but hat sounds more like a Polaris 1.1

If they planned on doing this, would have made sense to on the 764.
Don’t see an updated seat on the horizon. The retrofits are nearing their 7 year completion. Time for a consistent product!

I don't see what the 764 has anything to do with it, those retrofits have probably been planned well in advanced. The next tranche of 787s would be the ideal time to introduce a refreshed product that wouldn't be too dissimilar to what's currently in the fleet.

jonahsachs wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

If they planned on doing this, would have made sense to on the 764.
Don’t see an updated seat on the horizon. The retrofits are nearing their 7 year completion. Time for a consistent product!

I don't see what the 764 has anything to do with it, those retrofits have probably been planned well in advanced. The next tranche of 787s would be the ideal time to introduce a refreshed product that wouldn't be too dissimilar to what's currently in the fleet.

The 764 Polaris retrofit was pushed back quite a bit due to the pandemic, and there was some question as to if they’d ever return. Thankfully they did, but they definitely could have debut a new Polaris product given the lengthy delay in getting the program started.

jonahsachs wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

If they planned on doing this, would have made sense to on the 764.
Don’t see an updated seat on the horizon. The retrofits are nearing their 7 year completion. Time for a consistent product!

I don't see what the 764 has anything to do with it, those retrofits have probably been planned well in advanced. The next tranche of 787s would be the ideal time to introduce a refreshed product that wouldn't be too dissimilar to what's currently in the fleet.

The 764 Polaris retrofit was pushed back quite a bit due to the pandemic, and there was some question as to if they’d ever return. Thankfully they did, but they definitely could have debut a new Polaris product given the lengthy delay in getting the program started.

ikolkyo wrote:

jonahsachs wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

I don't see what the 764 has anything to do with it, those retrofits have probably been planned well in advanced. The next tranche of 787s would be the ideal time to introduce a refreshed product that wouldn't be too dissimilar to what's currently in the fleet.

The 764 Polaris retrofit was pushed back quite a bit due to the pandemic, and there was some question as to if they’d ever return. Thankfully they did, but they definitely could have debut a new Polaris product given the lengthy delay in getting the program started.

Again, seats and etc are ordered well in advance for these retrofits. Just because it was pushed back doesn’t mean an entire new product could be quickly designed, especially for the odd dimensions of the 767 cabin.

CALTECH wrote:

Update

#4238 has completed CX Mod and was placed into a 7 Day STC Hold, ETR Noon 5/30.

#4032 CX Mod. ETR 6/10.

#0259 CX Mod. ETR 6/18.

#0121 is scheduled for RTS but doesn't look like this year.

A-321NEO Differences Training has been ongoing. Schedule is September Service Entry.

CALTECH wrote:

Update

#4238 has completed CX Mod and was placed into a 7 Day STC Hold, ETR Noon 5/30.

#4032 CX Mod. ETR 6/10.

#0259 CX Mod. ETR 6/18.

#0121 is scheduled for RTS but doesn't look like this year.

A-321NEO Differences Training has been ongoing. Schedule is September Service Entry.

avi8 wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Update

#4238 has completed CX Mod and was placed into a 7 Day STC Hold, ETR Noon 5/30.

#4032 CX Mod. ETR 6/10.

#0259 CX Mod. ETR 6/18.

#0121 is scheduled for RTS but doesn't look like this year.

A-321NEO Differences Training has been ongoing. Schedule is September Service Entry.

Are these all A319s?

SFOtoORD wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Update

#4238 has completed CX Mod and was placed into a 7 Day STC Hold, ETR Noon 5/30.

#4032 CX Mod. ETR 6/10.

#0259 CX Mod. ETR 6/18.

#0121 is scheduled for RTS but doesn't look like this year.

A-321NEO Differences Training has been ongoing. Schedule is September Service Entry.

Is CX Mod the NEXT interior work?

CONTACREW wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Update

#4238 has completed CX Mod and was placed into a 7 Day STC Hold, ETR Noon 5/30.

#4032 CX Mod. ETR 6/10.

#0259 CX Mod. ETR 6/18.

#0121 is scheduled for RTS but doesn't look like this year.

A-321NEO Differences Training has been ongoing. Schedule is September Service Entry.

Is CX Mod the NEXT interior work?

Yes. 259 is the first 738, 4238 is the first 320 and 4032 is the second 319.

LAXPolaris wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Is CX Mod the NEXT interior work?

Yes. 259 is the first 738, 4238 is the first 320 and 4032 is the second 319.

Don’t the 738 and 320 still need FAA approval? Is that going to take forever like it did for the 319?

Also, will the 73G and 739 need separate approval, assuming so? Wonder if they’ll want to get a prototype of those done soon, although the 738s are way more in need of a retrofit so maybe it’s smart to just start hammering those out.

GEWhiz wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

Yes. 259 is the first 738, 4238 is the first 320 and 4032 is the second 319.

Don’t the 738 and 320 still need FAA approval? Is that going to take forever like it did for the 319?

Also, will the 73G and 739 need separate approval, assuming so? Wonder if they’ll want to get a prototype of those done soon, although the 738s are way more in need of a retrofit so maybe it’s smart to just start hammering those out.

Also, will the ex-CZ A319s need separate approval since they're slightly different than UA A319s? And as for the 737-800, there is a lot of variety within that variant. Some have SFP, the 2010-built 738s have a different configuration, different seatback for economy, and different first class seat. The 2011-built 738s have Sky interior but no Space-bins. The 2016-2017 built 738s have Space Bins and a different seatback. 8 of the ex-Continental 737s lack DirecTV. There is also some variation in the 739 variant. 12 of them are not ER. Some have DTV, some don't. Some have BSI, few have Space Bins, some don't have BSI. Will UA need separate approvals for the various subcategories within the 738 variant and 739 variant?

CALTECH wrote:

Update

#4238 has completed CX Mod and was placed into a 7 Day STC Hold, ETR Noon 5/30.

#4032 CX Mod. ETR 6/10.

#0259 CX Mod. ETR 6/18.

#0121 is scheduled for RTS but doesn't look like this year.

A-321NEO Differences Training has been ongoing. Schedule is September Service Entry.

1kloudvoice wrote:

Can someone smarter than me address why UA is not buying the lightly used AS 321neos? Would allow them to retire the next few A320s faster...

https://onemileatatime.com/news/alaska- ... s-a321neo/

• The AS 321neos have CFMs, whereas UA is reportedly ordering their 321neos with Pratts
• For UA, 321neos are more replacements for the 757 fleet rather than the 320s. To be clear, UA isn't really replacing aircraft 1-for-1. New aircraft (321neos, MAXs, and 787s) aren't pigeonholed into replacing specific subfleets or numbers of aircraft. Rather, the new aircraft are being brought in to both fill certain capabilities (e.g. narrowbody international flying or transcon specialists) and more generally upgauge the fleet. The retirement schedule for older aircraft is somewhat uncoupled from the flow of new aircraft, and is based on network need, passenger demand, and HMV (heavy maintenance) schedule. If demand falls drastically in conjunction with an economic downturn, the retirement schedule will be accelerated. If demand stays strong, some (or many) of the 320s may be around for another 7-10 years.
• UA's long term network and fleet plan likely doesn't need another 10 large narrowbodies, as that projected need is factored into the existing 321 and MAX orders. I can't 100% rule out UA buying the AS 321neos, but the difference in engine type, cost of conformity mods, and likely price competition to buy the airframes stack up against it.

dctraynr wrote:

I can't 100% rule out UA buying the AS 321neos, but the difference in engine type, cost of conformity mods, and likely price competition to buy the airframes stack up against it.[/list]

GEWhiz wrote:

LAXPolaris wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

Yes. 259 is the first 738, 4238 is the first 320 and 4032 is the second 319.

Don’t the 738 and 320 still need FAA approval? Is that going to take forever like it did for the 319?

Also, will the 73G and 739 need separate approval, assuming so? Wonder if they’ll want to get a prototype of those done soon, although the 738s are way more in need of a retrofit so maybe it’s smart to just start hammering those out.

Also, will the ex-CZ A319s need separate approval since they're slightly different than UA A319s? And as for the 737-800, there is a lot of variety within that variant. Some have SFP, the 2010-built 738s have a different configuration, different seatback for economy, and different first class seat. The 2011-built 738s have Sky interior but no Space-bins. The 2016-2017 built 738s have Space Bins and a different seatback. 8 of the ex-Continental 737s lack DirecTV. There is also some variation in the 739 variant. 12 of them are not ER. Some have DTV, some don't. Some have BSI, few have Space Bins, some don't have BSI. Will UA need separate approvals for the various subcategories within the 738 variant and 739 variant?

jonahsachs wrote:

With Next, do we expect a standardized seat map among all 738s & 739s? Would they have the same layout as the MAX 8 & 9?

fun2fly wrote:

For my opinion, look at the LH Allegris business class seat as the next iteration of the standard to meet. At minimum, the door is needed.

https://www.lufthansa.com/us/en/allegris#business-class