Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
ourboeing
Posts: 328
Joined: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:52 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Sun Nov 14, 2004 10:13 pm

767-332ER,

There was a post here a few days ago about Air India buying/leasing 6 of UAs 777s from the desert. They are supposed to start flying them by next month. I don't know how much of that is true but I personally see it happening in a few weeks. So there you go, UAs is letting go of some of its 777s.

And about UAs buying 340s....I DON'T THINK SO..Airbus keep dreamin'.....It ain't happenin'

OURBOEING
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:23 am

You fools

Get over the fact that it is an Airbus A340, and realise this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AIRCRAFT!!!!!

This is purely an opportunity for UA to grab a pile of money, effectively interest-free for a period of time, and in UA's current situation, it may be forced to by the court if such an opportunity was to present itself.

Think of it like this. You go to the court and say, well, we could pay XYZ this money and retire this outstanding debt and reorganise this for at least 2 years, but we don't want to because we really like 777s and 747s with Pratt Engines, and we don't really like the 8 abreast seating configuration or the RR engines used on those A340-600s. Now, do you think they're honestly going to say yes? Of course not!

In response to the other questions,
Firstly NO A340 model was specified because ALL currently in production models can do the Job. It was that simple. Also, despite what the great circle mapper says, that doesnt take into account pravialing headwinds and the Jetstream. I live in the south pacific and have flown this route before and I can tell you that they don't fly the great circle route prefectly (just like they dont often across the atlantic either!!!!) and yes ETOPS is thus an issue.

What it would come down to is UA taking a gamble that they get things right and that things would be better in 2 or 3 years time and they can afford to pay for them. If it came down to "we're doomed now, but maybe, there is a chance we'll be okay in 2 or 3 years time if we retired some of this debt" don't you think they'd take the chance?

Once again GET OVER THE FACT IT IS AN AIRBUS A340 in question here and think of it in terms of a pile of money. The thought of an A340 in UA's fleet as blinded so many of you your not looking at the reality of the situation.

This would be no different if Boeing had offered/does offer the same kind of deal. Trouble is, right now, they can't afford to.

[Edited 2004-11-14 16:32:23]
 
StarGoldLHR
Posts: 1346
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:29 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:36 am

"I'd love to be wrong and see a 340 @LHR,but hey,I doubt it."

I see a lot of A340's at LHR every day. I presume you mean a UA A340  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

My guess is the UA may start IAD and ORD to MAN, as US's future on this route (to PHL only 100 or so miles away) has to be in danger right now.
In fact I would guess all US's european routes are in danger and most likely on UA's takeover list.

If US was to give UA's it's international routes and say it's FF debts.. then both UA and US would benefit from a customer point of view.
So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
 
ba319-131
Posts: 8314
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2001 1:27 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 12:55 am

Stargoldlhr,

Yes,thank you Smile
111 732 733 734 735 736 73G 738 739,7M8 BBJ 741 742 743 744 752 753 762 763 764 772 77L 773 77W L15 D10 D30 D40 AB3 AB6 312 313 318 319 320 20N 321 21N 332 333 342 343 345 346 359 351 388 CS1 CS3 I86 154 SSJ CRJ CR7 CR9 CRK 145 170 175 220
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:18 am

You fools.... Get over the fact that it is an Airbus A340, and realise this HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AIRCRAFT!!!!!

You're correct, it has everything to do with money..

Once again GET OVER THE FACT IT IS AN AIRBUS A340 in question here and think of it in terms of a pile of money. The thought of an A340 in UA's fleet as blinded so many of you your not looking at the reality of the situation.

It would be a massive risk for Airbus to take on any of UA's debt, and it would eat into the money the *need* for more pressing issues.... they would loose flexibility in price discounts, they would loose RD dollars... and what if UA does indeed fail? This money has to come from somewhere! If Airbus thinks a massive pile of cash will place UA in a position to pay them back in 2-3 years, they are in for a shock.

An influx of credit does next to no good if it only adds to UA's long-term cost structure. Thinking in terms of short-term gain is what landed UA in this fiasco, and they will only get out through careful and controlled planning.... good for Airbus in supporting one of their customers, but this is the wrong approach.

Why are the A340s being attached to the deal? It's a scam... they don't need new long-haulers they need a simplified domestic fleet. We know their long-haul fleet is opperating profitably and we know the domestic fleet is holding them down like a cancer. This is where they need to focus. They need to simplify their fleet and improve yields.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3257
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:46 am

Whats the point of UA serving Manchester? They already have codeshare with British Midland, and are in the same Alliance, so whats the point of competing with them. Unless they plan to fly from New York - Manchester (Continental, Pakistan and British Airways already fly this), or San Fran/Los Angeles - Manchester (No real market for either). Or Denver - Manchester (There's not that much demand for DEN-LON so i doubt Manchester is going to have much).

The only way that i can see UA flying to Manchester, is if they take over the two routes from Bmi, that fly to two of their hubs, which i can't see happening, baring in mind that BMI are in a better financial situation than UA, and are making decent profits on the two routes.

As for the A340's? I think there's about as much chance of UA getting A340's as there is Northwest getting rid of their DC-9's in the next decade  Big grin

-Stephen
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:52 am

I doubt whether Airbus would take on a single cent of UA financing.

Manufacturers act as BROKERS for finance, bringing in syndicates of banks and institutions with a lead partner to fund deals. Occasionally a manufacturer will self-finance (such as Boeing do) where there is a cherry-picking deal to be done. The majority of aircraft sales are done with third party money.

Otherwise how could the aircraft manufacturers build more aircraft? Their working capital would be exhausted!

Back to UA new routes. MAN would be worth watching, but the BD service to ORD is regularly over 90% loaded and a 763 would be insufficient for both seats and cargo. BMI wouldn't want to give anyone that route as it's a good performer. IAD is a possible and perhaps a good 763 fit, as is United swooping on MAN-PHL if it became a casualty of the US troubles. PHL would be a 777 candidate due to freight and loads.

United metal is no stranger to MAN. It regularly took 747 diversions for many years, especially early morning arrivals diverted up from LHR due to winter fog. The big U was often seen lit up over Shadowmoss Road at 6am.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
hoya
Posts: 547
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 2:25 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:04 am

To remind everyone, Airbus is playing a major role in UA's bankruptcy proceedings and restructuring of UA's business strategy. Airbus is at the head of the unsecured creditors committee, which gives it a lot of power. UA, as of this Jan 2003 article, has over 40 planes on order with Airbus, compared to one 777 with Boeing. UA already owes Airbus a ton of money, which explains Airbus' current position. The article linked below is a good description of Airbus' true role in all of this. These rumors with the A340 may seem ridiculous, but they are entirely possible. I honestly believe that this rumor probably involves more A320s and A319s to replace the 737s, but weirder things have happened in this industry.

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/article.pl?article_id=19464
Hoya Saxa!!
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14179
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:05 am

"Actually, they are getting rid of some 777s and replacing them with 744s."

Those are their own 747s though, they are not growing their fleet they are shrinking their widebody fleet.

The main reason why I say the A340 rumor is bogus is because UAL and Airbus have no say in what happens to the 747s and 777s UAL leases, UAL would love to get rid of alot of their fleet but they have contractual obligations through leases to pay for those aircraft over a certain period of time. The courts have to take into account UAL's debtors, they are not going to let UAL out of many of those leases.

And even if Airbus offered to pay off those leases (HIGHLY UNLIKELY!) it's unlikely that leasing companies like GE would accept the offer, even if the leases are paid off what are GE going to do with the aircraft then?.. It's not like there's a huge market right now, GE would rather UAL to continue to operate their (GE's) aircraft.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
United Airline
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:45 am

I doubt UA wants to further downsize
 
Korg747
Posts: 502
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2003 5:18 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:13 am

The only way IMHO the A340 would work with UA is if Airbus bought all UA owned 747 and 777 and trade them with A340s and even A380s. I do know that airbus can also make the deal where once they manufacture an A340 or an A380 and deliver it, they can take back one 747 or one 777, that way no capacity loss at all. Plus add no payment for 3 years and some help with UA'S debt, That would help United big time and airbus. However it will be a huge blow to Boeing(of course) and PW(Unless UA demands PW engines on the A340NG and pick the GP7200 on the A380). UA already operates the A320 family so pilot training should not be a problem at all too. I think if UA gets such an offer. They would be dumb not to take it and I'm a Boeing fan my self. It's not about pride anymore, it's about survival.

[Edited 2004-11-14 19:14:55]

[Edited 2004-11-14 19:18:26]
Please excuse my English!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9307
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:30 am

The only way IMHO the A340 would work with UA is if Airbus bought all UA owned 747 and 777 and trade them with A340s and even A380s. I do know that airbus can also make the deal where once they manufacture an A340 or an A380 and deliver it, they can take back one 747 or one 777, that way no capacity loss at all

You're talking about 50 772A/772ER and 40 744 to be replaced with 70-90 A343/A346/A388. Airbus would have to buy back billions of dollars in second-hand equipment, manufacture a completly equal amount of aircraft, find buyers for the ex-UA equipment, then wait 2-3 years for the first payments to begin!! Just roughly estimating... this would tie up 10 billion dollars of Airbus capital for over an extended period of time.

It's redicilous, it's not possible, it isn't going to happen. Airbus could build an entirely new A330/A340 replacement or extend credit to a flailing dynosaour of the 90s... let them die if they can't get out of Ch.11 by this time next year.
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
RRFan
Posts: 73
Joined: Thu Jul 29, 2004 12:03 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:25 am

Planesarecool,


I don't know where you got the info about LON-DEN not having good loads. That route is one of the most profitable on the network, as are any west coast US destinations from LON. If UA were to start LA Manchester, SFO Manchester, I can assure you they would fill them. Nobody serves the west coast US from Manchester and many of the pax going west from LON are from the Manchester area or Northern English cities!
Due to BMI struggling with Open Skies, this is an extremely logical potential step by UA as BMI's pax from the regions would fill those seats as part of a wider code share.
The UA A340 deal, ummmmmmmmmmm, too hard to say. The A340 is a good fit for those pacific runs, as to is the B744ER.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:44 am

UA parting with Boeing would be a disaster. They are a loyal customer, with a big Boeing fleet, and long history (remember they were Boeing's Airline). Not only that, it would be a nightmare for the airline, they would have to:
1) Sell ALL 480 of their Boeings (both active and stored a/c)
2) Retrain Boeing captains to airbus systems (and convince highly paid 777/744 captains to switch a/c)
3) Retrain all maintenence personnel
4) Retrain all gate/ground ops. employees
5) Redesign their training facilities
6) Probably adjust their terminals (depending on space)
7) Adjust their routes
8) DROP SFO/LAX-SYD!
And many other things...
I don't think passengers would like this either, as in a poll, most prefer the 744 or 772 to the A330/A340 in terms of COMFORT because it's more spacious in the cabin (and probably carries more cargo). Its' not gonna happen.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 8434
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:46 am

There is some nonsense flying around on this thread.

No way will you see an A340 in United Colors......

The 757's CANNOT get to/from Europe to/from ORD with any reasonable number of passengers, bags, and fuel. Maybe empty, sure, but not with necessary diversion and extra fuel.

The 733's and 735's, while not being brand new, are not exactly old either. They are not as inefficient as everyone on this board claims for them to be. In fact, when considering leases and all involved costs, they are likely cheaper than the Airbuses to operate. The lessors know, that if United drops them all, no one else is really looking to pick them up.
 
airbus3801
Posts: 1050
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 12:49 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 4:56 am

Noooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!! Airbus is JUNK!!! But if they're the ones writing the check to ensure UA's survival, and Boeing isn't willing to do a thing, then I guess UA can't really be choosy about what they fly. Sad, very sad.


Thanks for ruining this perfect thread with that post....



On a side note,

Sure it would be great to see UAL get some a340's but the only question is will it happen. For me it is a 50/50 chance that they do not buy them or buy them. However, I think that Airbus is doing this to possibly boost long haul sales to american airlines. After all. USAIRWAYS is the only operator of airbus long haul but it is only the a330.
 
United4everDEN
Posts: 737
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:36 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 5:11 am

The thought of UA putting any new aircraft on order is rediculous. Tell me why an airline would spend millions on a new aircraft (even if you pay for it in 2 years) when they could pull ones out of the desert for practically free? Also, I have seen no advantage to this, other than UA can operate LAX-SYD with less weight restrcitions. Tell me why UA would spend millions to make ONE route less weight restricted?

On another note, the 10 new cities I bet will include some expanded DEN service to int'l markets.
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:44 am

You're talking about 50 772A/772ER and 40 744

No you're not. Your talking about 10-20 744s, so try and by a little more realistic about what could possibly happen here. Crying louder to us isn't going to make potential financing dissapear.

Think of it like this. Say I can sell 744s for $40 Million each. So, if I sell 20 of them, thats $800 Million. $800 million dollars freed up that is needed extremely badly. They continue making money on those same routes with A346s, and then in several years time, start making payments. Hopefully that money they can make in that period is enough for them to fix up their problems. Thats it. 777s wont be invloved because they're leased and can't be sold to recover immediatly needed cash.

UA772IAD
At least post realistic things.
A340s can use any 747 gate, A340s can fly LAX/SFO-SYD nonstop as they ALL have a longer range than they 747 etc.

If you guys really are that sickend by the Idea of a few Airbus widebodies at UA, why dont u go and picked boeing and try and get them to help. Oh wait, thats right... they don't love United enough to do it. Something to do with 7e7 sales perhaps? Come on...what do you love more guys? United still flying or no United? This could be their last hope!!!!

 
N1120A
Posts: 26615
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 9:57 am

>USAIRWAYS is the only operator of airbus long haul but it is only the a330.<

I wonder if NW knows that their A330s have up and disappeared

>No you're not. Your talking about 10-20 744s, so try and by a little more realistic about what could possibly happen here. Crying louder to us isn't going to make potential financing dissapear.<

No you are talking about 34 747-400s on their certificate. 32 747-422s and 2 747-451s

>Think of it like this. Say I can sell 744s for $40 Million each. So, if I sell 20 of them, thats $800 Million. $800 million dollars freed up that is needed extremely badly. They continue making money on those same routes with A346s, and then in several years time, start making payments. Hopefully that money they can make in that period is enough for them to fix up their problems. Thats it. 777s wont be invloved because they're leased and can't be sold to recover immediatly needed cash.<

Not all of the 777s are leased, in fact, a great deal are owned. Also, there are more than 20 744s, and UA would have to take a massive (I mean over 1 billion dollar) charge to dump that many aircraft. Not to mention that they will make more money with the 744s

>UA772IAD
At least post realistic things.
A340s can use any 747 gate, A340s can fly LAX/SFO-SYD nonstop as they ALL have a longer range than they 747 etc.<

Well, an A340 can use a 747 gate from a wing span stand point, but the A346 may be too long to fit in the Terminal 6-7 Alley at LAX. Still, I don't doubt their ability to park.

Also, they don't ALL have longer range than the 744. The A343 has shorter range than the 744. The A342 has the same range as the 744 and is much, much smaller. The A345 has ultra long range, but would be way too small and drop profits way too far. The A346 had lift problems on LAX-HKG, and CX pulled them in favor of 744s, so why not on LAX-SYD? Also, the stated range of the plane is less than 500 nm longer than the 744 that UA has, and they fly with 100 fewer passengers. Again, higher seat mile costs.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 10:45 am

The A343 has shorter range than the 744?

Straight from Airbus:
276.5T MTOW version of A343 has a range of 13,700km with 296 passengers + baggage.

(for all intents and purposes the original lower gross weight version isn't exactly being produced anymore so this is the correct figure to look at. The original birds, such as those going into service at LH haven't been produced for quite some time now, all operators being offered excellent deals on this version. There is no reason to suggest, given 100% of recent deliveries for past few years have all been for HGW, this would differ for UA)

A346:
380T MTOW
range with 380 PAX plus baggage: 14, 700km.

Straight from Boeing:
B744 :
875, 000lb MTOW
range with 415 PAX plus baggage : 13, 450km

Seriously, that all speaks for itself.
I personally quite like seeing the 747 in UA colours, ditto the 777. However i want you lot to have the emotional maturity to realise that this IS a real option, and quit the BS about how an Airbus "couldn't do it".

It was the same crap with Virgin Atlantic. Apparently their A346s were "nothing but trouble" etc etc etc...and then they went and ordered a shitload more of the things. Suddenly all of these ppl making all these claims had nothing to say.
What I am pointing out here, is not a "pro A346" thing, but rather, for you to all realise that this could work for UA, and in their current state they may not have too many options.

As for lost passengers. The A346 is 90% of the size of the 744. therefore in UA's configuration it would carry about 312 (based on UA's configuration of 347) How many days does everybody think that those planes fly out with all 347 seats filled? If they average even a very high 79% load factor, that is 274 seats filled. I really doubt they would be loosing very much money.
 
N1120A
Posts: 26615
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:02 am

>A346:
380T MTOW
range with 380 PAX plus baggage: 14, 700km.<

You know full well that the carriers that fly the A346 in a 3 class configuration fly it with 270-290 pax, not 380 pax. And UA flies with Y+ as well, which would likely lower it to 260-270. Also, 14,700 km? Surrrre, with still air, at sea level, with a 13,000 foot runway at 15 degrees C. Also, I did not say 500 km, I said less than 500 nm, which would actually be true
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Lufthansa
Posts: 2639
Joined: Thu May 20, 1999 6:04 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:06 pm

You know full well that the carriers that fly the A346 in a 3 class configuration fly it with 270-290 pax, not 380 pax. And UA flies with Y+ as well, which would likely lower it to 260-270

Cathay flies theres in a 286 seat three class configuration. One of the main reasons that Cathay do this is due to the fact that Cathay, UNLIKE united, have full flat beds in business class. Those seats happen to take up a tad more room.

Lufthansa, on the other hand, flies theirs in a TWO class configuration of 345. Why then is it so hard to believe that UA could do a 3 class configuration (especially given they use traditional business class seating and not flat beds) of 314? Its only slight more than Cathay's? If you simple took Cathay's seating plan, and put standard UA business class seats in that area, you should have room for around 90!!!!! (vs CX's 60), which is more than in a UA 744. There is your buiness class and there is your room for Premium Econonomy.

I'm not going to argue this point any longer, as it has been easily proven. Any arguement is purely based on an emotional response, based on a sense of Alligence to the 777, 747 and the Boeing/UA relationship. That was never my point, (one which i would like to see continue incidentally). My point is, this is technically possible.

[Edited 2004-11-15 05:36:07]
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 1:08 pm

Oh come on now. The 380t 346 has a SIGNIFICANT range advantage over a standard 744, not "less than 500nm". The 7260 nm range of a 744 is nothing compared to the 7900 nm range of a 380t 346, and UA's 744s aren't even in that range class.

I might also add that the 744ER enjoys a "less than 500nm" range advantage over a standard 744, and QF operates them quite comfortably between SYD and LAX.

Bottom line is that both a 346 and a 345 could comfortably operate the route.

N
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7612
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:19 pm

Philsquares

1) There are no payload restrictions on the MEL-LAX segment for UA with the PW powered 400s.

UA no longer fly MEL-LAX non-stop, service lasted less than 18 months from 1999-2001.

2) There is a payload restriction on the LAX-SYD segment when an alternate is required. (UA PW powered 400)

3) Again, on the LAX-MEL segment, when an alternate is required, again there is a payload restriction. (UA PW powered 400)

There were quite severe restrictions on this route like usually 100 seats blocked, pretty sure it was the same both ways.

I agree there is alot of rubbish posted on this thread. The A342 has longer range than the 343, both have more range than the 744!

UA would use the 346 but I seriously doubt that it will happen, 480 Boeings is quite a few to replace in total.
 
ORD Boy 2
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 12:25 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 2:41 pm

ORD-TLV, MIA-TLV, LAX-TLV, JFK/EWR-TLV WOULD BE A CASH COW
 
SoBe
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:11 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:11 pm

Currently,
El Al serves ORD twice a week.
MIA twice a week.

If the demand was so great wouldn't El Al already have more frequencies?

Michael
 
wdleiser
Posts: 865
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 9:32 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:24 pm

Don't get me wrong, but from what I read Airbus would provide UAL with funding to get out of Bankruptcy if they went with the A340. Why would UAL not take that deal then?
 
ORD Boy 2
Posts: 323
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2000 12:25 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:26 pm

Michael
Who said a little competition aint healthy? HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT EL AL CHARGES TO FLY TO ISRAEL
 
N1120A
Posts: 26615
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:27 pm

>The A342 has longer range than the 343, both have more range than the 744!<

Not according to Lufthansa, who fly both types (was all three). The 343 has less range than the 744 and the 342 is equal to it (carrying far less).

>Bottom line is that both a 346 and a 345 could comfortably operate the route.<

Of course they can, I did not argue that. I am saying that 150 million or so for an airplane that will make less money on every trip, and less money per passenger for UA is not what they should do.

>Lufthansa, on the other hand, flies theirs in a TWO class configuration of 345. Why then is it so hard to believe that UA could do a 3 class configuration (especially given they use traditional business class seating and not flat beds) of 314? Its only slight more than Cathay's? If you simple took Cathay's seating plan, and put standard UA business class seats in that area, you should have room for around 90!!!!! (vs CX's 60), which is more than in a UA 744. There is your buiness class and there is your room for Premium Econonomy.<

First, if UA were to get the A346, they would likely fly with flat J seats. Also, having a Y+ section with a 36-38 inch seat pitch would take out about 1.5 rows of Y for every row of Y+. They would definately not fly with 314 seats. Also, if you want to talk about 2 class A/C (actually 3), VS flies most of their 744s with more than 450 seats.

>I'm not going to argue this point any longer, as it has been easily proven. Any arguement is purely based on an emotional response, based on a sense of Alligence to the 777, 747 and the Boeing/UA relationship. That was never my point, (one which i would like to see continue incidentally). My point is, this is technically possible.<

While I personally prefer the 747 to anything and the 777 to the A340 (which I prefer to the 767), I could give a damn about the Boeing/UA relationship. Sure this is technically possible, but it is also less profitable for UA who are sending out full planes that are fully paid for, that have lower seat-mile cost, with trained crews and passenger recognition that far surpasses anything, let alone the A340.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
SoBe
Posts: 184
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:11 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 15, 2004 11:36 pm

ORD Boy 2,

Competition is good if the market is there.

I'm sure El Al charges what they can. If they added more flights would they fill it? Would they fill the planes by dropping the fares? I don't know. I'm sure they have looked at this.

I could be wrong but I don't see the benefit of beginning a new service to chase after a route that only is getting maybe 600 pax a week.

Cheers,
Michael
 
IslipWN
Posts: 1082
Joined: Mon May 10, 2004 1:05 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Tue Nov 16, 2004 5:56 am

Maybe they will come to ISP.



Joe
 
united4ever
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 8:34 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 22, 2004 1:24 pm

"GOD FORBID UA to buy that Airbus long haul trash!!! GO BOEING!!!"

I'm sure such a high quality post as this will single handedly persuade United to steer well clear of Airbus  Insane

Just a few things to throw into the equation.

Firstly, wasn't it United that said not too long ago that they needed to spend a load of money on the 744 interiors to bring them up to long haul standards?

Secondly, a full A340 can be more profitable than a full 744. Depends on the average yield, and it's easier to fill the former with high yield passengers than the latter.

Thirdly, nothing was said in the rumour (and it is only a rumour) about Airbus taking the 744s. Also, to become an all-Airbus airline surely means that United would only buy Airbus in future, not that United would have to drop their entire Boeing fleet immediately. This would be ridiculous for both parties.

Fourthly, there is no suggestion of Airbus foregoing 2 years worth of payments, only of deferring them. Am I right in saying that JetBlue is a precedent for this?

Fifthly, The A340s in the rumour would only be an additional type until the departure of the 744s which they replaced. This applies to any fleet replacement.

Sixthly (is that a word?), United have regularly repeated how happy they are with their Airbus fleet.

If such a deal was on the table there would certainly have to be much bigger advantages for both parties. This would obviously not be the case for United if they had to lose their entire widebody fleet immediately as the price for exit financing, nor for Airbus if they had that many aircraft to get rid of.

However, if the deal was that United got their exit financing and deferred payments on A346s (presumably), in swap for going all Airbus, both parties would see the following benefits among others:

United:
Exit financing (not easy at all to get from what I'm hearing).
2 years breathing space on payments on a chunk of their long haul fleet.
No need to pay money for 744 cabin refurbishment.
Reduced total costs on some long haul routes.

Airbus:
A substantial (?) A34x order
A commitment that, when necessary, the large 733/735/752/763 fleet, and a long time in the future, the 772 fleet will be replaced with Airbuses (not 737s and 7E7s).
Another major inroad into the USA market

I have to say, I'm beginning to think this could be attractive for both parties, and not as ridiculous as first appears.

Comments / corrections please?

Mike

[Edited 2004-11-22 05:36:03]
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 22, 2004 2:34 pm

I would like to see: the return of service to India, More South America, SXM, MXP, KUL, Perth, Manila, nonstop from SFO or IAD.
 
777ER
Head Moderator
Posts: 10124
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 5:04 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:15 pm

The airbus rumor has been flying around for at least a year now. They want UA to dump all Boeing products and be a complete airbus operator for preferential financing. Boeing would put up a massive fight to keep Boeing planes in UAs fleet, ie offer better deals on financing etc. If Airbus did win then Boeing would have a field day with their fight againts Airbus in the WTO......Don't think Airbus would risk it.
Head Forum Moderator
[email protected]
Flown: 1900D,S340,Q300,AT72-5/6,DC3,CR2/7,E145,E70/75/90,A319/20/21,A332/3,A359,A380,F100,B717,B733/4/8/9,B742/4,B752/3,B763,B772/3, B789
With: NZ,SJ,QF,JQ,EK,VA,AA,UA,DL,FL,AC,FJ,SQ,TG,PR
 
N1120A
Posts: 26615
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 22, 2004 6:30 pm

>Firstly, wasn't it United that said not too long ago that they needed to spend a load of money on the 744 interiors to bring them up to long haul standards?<

The 744s have the same interior as all other 3 class (actually 4) long haul aircraft, minus PTVs in the back. They have the First Suite "Pod" seats that everyone loves, the same Biz class seats that a lot of people harp on, and the same Y class seats, just without PTVs. It would actually not cost them that much to put in the PTVs, but they don't have to at this point to keep people in their planes. Buying new J class seats would be expensive, but that would be true of ordering them for the A340 as well

>Secondly, a full A340 can be more profitable than a full 744. Depends on the average yield, and it's easier to fill the former with high yield passengers than the latter.<

This makes no sense. The 744 holds more F seats and more J seats, the seat price here does not vary that much from passenger to passenger, hence the yield will be higher on the plane with better seat-mile. In the back, they will still charge the same fares, just not be able to sell as many of each. The fewer full fare travelers will sit in the smaller Y+ section, the fewer discounted travelers will sit in the smaller steerage. Also, given the lower seat mile of the 747, you could still have a couple of Y passengers paying less and still make more money. Actually, every passenger could pay slightly less and you would still make more money. I don't know if you have looked at UA ticket prices lately for long hauls, but they are far from the cheapest on most routes they run.

You are telling me that business travelers will more likely fly an A340 than a 747? Especially Japanese business travelers who would likely be the first to have to make the switch? Come on now. I know some people prefer Airbus, but this is pure economics and efficiencies here. If a 747 is flying full, then it will make more money and have a better yield than any other plane.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
united4ever
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 8:34 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:21 pm

You are telling me that business travelers will more likely fly an A340 than a 747? Especially Japanese business travelers who would likely be the first to have to make the switch?

No, the business travelers don't care what a/f it is - they care about the standard of the service and the comfort of the accommodation. What I'm saying is that you need fewer pax to fill an A340 than a 744 and do not need to take as many low yield passengers. The total cost / mile (not the seat cost) has to be lower for the A340, or no-one would use it at all. The number of First,Business and E+ seats depends on the airline not the aircraft.

The PTVs are not that cheap to add to an aircraft that was not configured with them in mind, and are you sure the Y seats are the same anyway? IME the backs are thinner than those on the international 763s and the 777s and the seats are not as comfortable.

Mike
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2620
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:03 am

The problem with the A346 is ground handling at many of UA's hub airports particularly ORD. This needs to be solved before an order goes through.
I wonder even if the City of Chicago would put forth the money to widen ALL the taxiways at ORD.
I am sure SFO and LAX would need an upgrade as well.
 
UnitedTristar
Posts: 863
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 6:45 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:06 am


You know every one is assuming the 340 but...noone even considered the 380 as a 747 replacement.

Food for thought!

-m

 Big thumbs up

 
N1120A
Posts: 26615
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:41 am

>No, the business travelers don't care what a/f it is - they care about the standard of the service and the comfort of the accommodation. What I'm saying is that you need fewer pax to fill an A340 than a 744 and do not need to take as many low yield passengers. The total cost / mile (not the seat cost) has to be lower for the A340, or no-one would use it at all. The number of First,Business and E+ seats depends on the airline not the aircraft.<

Of course it depends on the airline, but if an aircraft is larger, there is more potential for more premium seats. In UA's configuration, the 747 would most definately hold more premium seats, as they have some of the least densly configured aircraft in the world. The reason people use the A340 and 777 (and A330, 767 and 757) is because not all routes can handle the capacity of a 747. It is the same reason why the DC-10 and L-1011 were built. Still, the 747 represents the most profitable option if you can consistantly send the plane out full, which the airlines that fly them do. I understand you are pro-Airbus, but this is the reality. Otherwise, noone would use the 747 at all.

>The PTVs are not that cheap to add to an aircraft that was not configured with them in mind, and are you sure the Y seats are the same anyway? IME the backs are thinner than those on the international 763s and the 777s and the seats are not as comfortable.<

If that is your logic, then it will be a pain for LH to add them to their A340s. The 744 is not that old of an aircraft, and PTVs existed then, and certainly through most of its production run. UA would likely have to replace the seats, but that is much, much cheaper to do than buying 40-50 180 million dollar aircraft. Also, as it is right now, UA does not need to have PTVs to fill their 747s. Again, UA is not an airline that charges cheap prices, and I rarely see a cheap ticket on any route their 747s fly


>You know every one is assuming the 340 but...noone even considered the 380 as a 747 replacement<

They definately could not park that at T7 at LAX and it would give LA Ground fits in the South complex
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
avek00
Posts: 3256
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Tue Nov 23, 2004 8:48 am

"You know every one is assuming the 340 but...noone even considered the 380 as a 747 replacement."

...because it has zero chance of joining the UAL fleet even under the best of circumstances? The need for such a massive aircraft diminishes with each NRT-bypass TPAC flight that UA announces.
Live life to the fullest.
 
united4ever
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 8:34 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:50 pm

" I understand you are pro-Airbus,"

No I'm not. I'm neutral and IMHO the 777 is a superior aircraft to the A330/340 series. Just trying to look at the facts without being clouded by the manufacturerdoes not make someone pro one or the other. Please don't say that I'm pro-Airbus because you think that that will ensure I lose credibility.

"The reason people use the A340 and 777 (and A330, 767 and 757) is because not all routes can handle the capacity of a 747."

...and because the total cost of flying the smaller aircraft is lower. You only pay the higher costs for the 747 if it's regularly full.

"Still, the 747 represents the most profitable option if you can consistantly send the plane out full, which the airlines that fly them do. "

This is not about all airlines. the four UAL 747s that I have travelled on in the last year have been around 40%-60% full (one was no more than 20%!  Sad ). Based on this very small sample, United could afford to lose some plain economy seats. And no, these were not IAD-ORD or anything like that.

" I understand you are pro-Airbus,"

No I'm not. I'm neutral and IMHO the 777 is a superior aircraft to the A330/340 series. Just trying to look at the facts without being clouded by the manufacturerdoes not make someone pro one or the other. Please don't try to dismiss me as pro-Airbus because you think that that will take credibility from my argument.

New seats are cheaper than new aircraft, but still expensive and United need the money now. To exit. New aircraft with 2-year deferred payments and lower overall operating costs help to release that money now.

I think you are missing a point here. This thread is not about the relative meritsa of different aircraft, it's about the United rumour.

Mike

[Edited 2004-11-23 13:59:53]
 
teahan
Posts: 4994
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:14 pm

Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1274
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:54 am

Couple things from the original post
10 new citiesin next year....mid december and on believe UA has announced already Saigon, St Maarten, Punta Cana, Montego Bay, plus 2 or 3 more in Mexico which would leave only 3 or so for future....just a count.

In regards to the 'airbus offer'....couple things I have not seen with all the expected boeing vs airbus....first there is some commonality with the existing airbus fleet. Second...what is Star buying mostly? Airbus? Ever since the first alliance went public one major goal was to reduce costs with joint/compatible aircraft purchases. Just a thought....
 
N1120A
Posts: 26615
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:01 am

>Just trying to look at the facts without being clouded by the manufacturerdoes not make someone pro one or the other. Please don't say that I'm pro-Airbus because you think that that will ensure I lose credibility.<

I was not trying to make you lose credibility, I was just stating what appeared to be your feeling. I was actually trying to figure out what you were saying.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
united4ever
Posts: 287
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 8:34 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:25 am

No, I'm neutral. What I was trying to say boils down to 'I can see how a deal like this could be attractive to both Airbus and UAL'.

Hope this helps.

It's also important though to remember that this is just a rumour.

Cheers
Mike
 
teahan
Posts: 4994
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:30 am

@hiflyer:

Second...what is Star buying mostly? Airbus? Ever since the first alliance went public one major goal was to reduce costs with joint/compatible aircraft purchases. Just a thought....

In theory yes but in practise I don’t think any of the Alliance joint fleet purchasing initiatives have gone very far, not yet anyway.

Jeremiah
Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
 
avek00
Posts: 3256
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Wed Nov 24, 2004 7:05 am

Why would Star want to include United in a joint fleet purchase? I haven't taken Finance yet, but including a partner with a "D" credit rating is probably detrimental to obtaining good financing.
Live life to the fullest.
 
ual777contrail
Posts: 2914
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2002 11:33 am

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:29 am

Would love to know the 10 NEW routes UAL will fly. Hope some are in Scotland or Ireland. Put a 767 into EDI? Or DUB?

UAL 777 CONTRAIL
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Thu Nov 25, 2004 1:51 am

The Sunday Times had a piece on EI and Willie Walsh last week. It stated that one of Walshs' major gripes with the Irish Government was that for years the Government had always refused EI's request to eliminate the SNN stopover requirement and renegotiate the Bi-Lateral. However Walsh believes that the Irish Government has recently done an about turn after extensive lobbying by a major US carrier who are protected by "Chapter 11 Bankruptcy" promising new route(s) to DUB.
 
baw716
Posts: 1463
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: UA Intl Rumors And A/C Rumors

Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:45 am

I find the question of UA looking at A340s to be a little puzzling. I can see someone looking at it as an option as part of an overall analysis of potential fleet restructuring, but I don't see UA acquiring A340s. Here's why (opinion only):

1. UA is heavily invested in Boeing aircraft, especially long haul. As the launch customer for the 777, UA spent an enormous amount of resources to develop that aircraft, along with Boeing. The 777 is a very versatile aircraft which can fly virtually anywhere UA flies now with the 747-400.

2. UA would not go for the A346 for the same reason they did not consider the 777-300: Facilities. The airports to which they operate and the gate positioning they have cannot support an aircraft longer than a 747-400 without major reworking of those facilities. The cost of that, especially in UAs current financial situation, makes no sense whatsoever. The cost recovery alone would kill any profitability for the next several years.

3. I do agree that there is a problem with the 747-400 product. It is far behind competitors in all cabins and, on long haul services, one of the worst configured Economy Class cabins of any airline in the world. The cost of refitting the aircraft with the new seating products would be cost prohibitive, when they have aircraft now that are configured with a reasonable Economy product and that can be modified to be competitive with other Premium products with a change in the Business cabin.

4. The cost of spares, parts and training for A340 pilots would be extremely high. Given the current situation, UA would have to retrain pilots to fly the A340. The best flight officers for this switch would be those who are qualified on the A320. However, larger aircraft tend to go to the more senior pilots, and most of the UA international flight officers are trained on the 747/777/767 only.

5. Finally, if we are looking at fleet rationalization, it makes no sense whatsoever to introduce another aircraft type into the fleet. The better short term answer for UA is to park the 747-400s, use the 777s for long haul international, the 767 for medium haul international and the ps 757s for opportunity markets which can be flown within seven hours of UAs hubs. UAs pilot costs would be reduced, since pilot costs are predicated on aircraft weight and the lower weight 777 requires less salary dollars to be paid. Granted, it carries about 100 less passengers than the 747; however, I think that there are very few routes and time periods where a 747 is so overbooked as to leave people behind and in the cases that it does, then a second aircraft can be put on the run. This actually enhances the schedule product while keeping roughly the same number of seats in the market.

I have said before that UA needs to reduce to the following aircraft types:
777/767/757 and A319/A320. The 777/767 on long haul, 757s on opportunity markets or high density domestic markets, the A319/A320 on all domestic routes and some international routes (Central America/Mexico), in which a two cabin small aircraft makes better sense than a large one.

I recognize the problem that this will create for United with the large number of 737s it has in its fleet. However, this process will have to be done over time and as one 737 is removed from the fleet, an A319/20 is added until the fleet change over is complete.

A final thought: Some of you may be wondering, why Airbus for domestic? Won't the 737 do what the Airbus can? Short answer: NO. The 737s that UA possesses are not NG aircraft. Their max range is about 1800 miles (Chicago to West Coast). The A319/320 has the capacity to carry the same number of passengers transcon. This provides greater flexibility as the same aircraft can be used for short haul missions as well as medium haul and long haul domestic services without radical shifts in economics. The key is getting to one aircraft family domestic. Once this happens, then United would have a great deal of commonality, the passenger will have a more comfortable aircraft (a six inch wider cabin makes a big difference) and United will have greater efficiency.

If United is intending to fly to new destinations, then it needs to have the right aircraft to be able to fly the route and have it to be small enough to realize profitability within a shorter time frame. United will need this greater efficiency in any market it operates. This will give them a good start.

I would tend to trust more in route expansion rumors more than aircraft.
David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos