UAL In Talks For Up To 200 New Narrowbodies

EPA001 · Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:37 pm

Quoting The777Man (Reply 99):
Just dreaming.........

Why would you dream of them dumping a state of the art plane to keep "the old bunch?"

par13del · Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:45 pm

Quoting ghifty (Reply 98):
but I'm sure the notion that the A320NEO is superior to the 737NG, and "equal" to the 737MAX (IIRC), had something to do with the order too.

So AA was privy to Boeing's response to the A320-NEO ( did it have a name at that point? ) and decided based on what they saw ( were technical specs even ready at that time? ) that the NEO was a better frame so they ordered more of them, OK.
I guess if one has to defend Boeing not getting the full order that as good as any.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 98):
I over-simplified the situation. Yes, the split was because AA can't receive such a large amount of frames in x time, by just one manufacturer..

AA has a contract with Boeing which ensures that they have preferred slots, right out of the gate, Boeing can push new frames to AA faster than Airbus.
I still think they should have front loaded their Boeing order with existing frames and increase their NEO order, by the time they get to the MAX delivery who knows what the MAX will be, and since they are getting original frames in addition to NEO's the Boeing a/c would have been on property earlier to speed the retirement of the Mad Dogs and increase capacity.

ytz · Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:55 pm

To me it depends on timing and what they want to replace. It would seem to me that the A321NEO is a better replacement (by virtue of being slightly larger) for the 752 than the 739MAX. But if they want to replace the aging Airbus fleet, than it might make sense to go Boeing, since they are more likely to get more slots from Boeing.

Throwing all these timings in the pot I see an Airbus/Bombardier split (150 A320/A321s and 50 CS300ERs) or an all Boeing order for more 739ERs immediately, with 737 MAX orders to follow. Airbus/Bombardier offers an opporunity for some engine commonality.

One crazy idea I've been toying with is a Boeing/Bombardier split with a 73G trade-in. UA/CO orders 90-100 738s or 739s for immediate delivery and they trade-in all their 737 options and their 73G fleet. Simultaneously UA/CO orders 100-120 CSeries/E-Jets. And they defer the decision on the 752 fleet. This would greatly simplify the fleet (getting rid of all narrowobody airbus aircraft), increase fuel efficiency and drastically reduce the age of the fleet. But they would have to put a huge order shortly thereafter to then replace the 752 fleet.

The777Man · Fri Sep 23, 2011 7:56 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 100):
Why would you dream of them dumping a state of the art plane to keep "the old bunch?"

The 777-300?ER is hardly the old bunch and the A359 is basically a 777-200/ER but almost 20 years later

Wondering who's late to the party ?

It's a big step down in capacity from the 744 to the 359 so, in my opinion, the 77W would be better for UA to replace the 744s.

The777Man

EPA001 · Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:03 pm

Quoting The777Man (Reply 103):
The 777-300?ER is hardly the old bunch and the A359 is basically a 777-200/ER but almost 20 years later

Yes, but as the A380 and B787 are showing, technology (including passenger comfort) has moved on quite considerably.

.

Quoting The777Man (Reply 103):
It's a big step down in capacity from the 744 to the 359 so, in my opinion, the 77W would be better for UA to replace the 744s.

That it is a very big step is correct. Also to me it sounds like a very big decrease in capacity. Maybe they should/will go A350-1000 and/or B777-9X?

.

[Edited 2011-09-23 13:06:20]

ytz · Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:21 pm

I have never understood the rationale behind UA's decision to order the A359. And that too, to replace the 744. Why didn't they get A380s? Or A3510s at least.

In the long run, I would think that for long haul it would make sense for them to centre on the 787 family with 788s, 789s and 7810s and have one outlier fleet above that of 779x, 3510 or 388.

The777Man · Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:34 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 104):
technology (including passenger comfort) has moved on quite considerably.

Not really.

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 104):
Maybe they should/will go A350-1000 and/or B777-9X? .

Perhaps the 777-9X but no A350 please.

The777Man

STT757 · Fri Sep 23, 2011 9:23 pm

Quoting ual777 (Reply 96):
Less 50 seat jets
40 Q-400s

If the 70 seat jet fleet stays frozen where it is currently, which is quite probable, then the key is to acquire more Q400s which is not limited by scope. Currently there are 29 Q400s operating for CO/UA, I believe CO/UA has with Pinnacle the option to acquire an additional 45 Q400s from Bombardier. Q400s can take over many routes operated by CR7s, ERJ-170s on routes of up to 500 miles from ORD, DEN, LAX and SFO, such as DEN-COS and ORD-STL. That would free up 70 seat regional jets to replace 50 seat regional jets on the longer routes like EWR-MCI and IAH-YYZ.

Also the 50 seat Q300s are perfect for replacing 50 seat CRJ and ERJs on routes of up to 500 miles from the hubs.

Rdh3e · Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:03 pm

Quoting YTZ (Reply 105):
I have never understood the rationale behind UA's decision to order the A359. And that too, to replace the 744. Why didn't they get A380s? Or A3510s at least

I believe there are options for upguaging to the 351 no? Also, perhaps they are actually planning on getting other, larger aircraft, but the time slots for the 388/748 are not exactly hotly contested, so you can wait longer to order said aircraft.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 107):
Also the 50 seat Q300s are perfect for replacing 50 seat CRJ and ERJs on routes of up to 500 miles from the hubs.

CO has 5 Q3's in fleet, and I believe 30 now Q4's. Word on the street is that it's nearly impossible to get your hands on a Q3 because they are such a hot and limited commodity.

[Edited 2011-09-23 15:08:17]

ual777 · Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:10 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 107):
If the 70 seat jet fleet stays frozen where it is currently, which is quite probable, then the key is to acquire more Q400s which is not limited by scope. Currently there are 29 Q400s operating for CO/UA, I believe CO/UA has with Pinnacle the option to acquire an additional 45 Q400s from Bombardier. Q400s can take over many routes operated by CR7s, ERJ-170s on routes of up to 500 miles from ORD, DEN, LAX and SFO, such as DEN-COS and ORD-STL. That would free up 70 seat regional jets to replace 50 seat regional jets on the longer routes like EWR-MCI and IAH-YYZ.

I agree. However the problem with the Qs at the moment is that their dispatch reliability is not very good and neither is Colgan's performance. I think CO also has an agreement for 209 aircraft with XJT that runs through 2019. The 145 XRs especially fill many markets to Mexico and out of DEN very nicely. ExpressJet has the most capable 145 fleet in the industry. They even have higher T/O and landing weights than any other carrier and custom W&B that leads to VERY few flights leaving weight restricted (save some flights on the very old EPs out of Houston).

displane · Fri Sep 23, 2011 10:11 pm

Quoting flyorski (Reply 35):

Quoting flyorski (Reply 35):
You have a link for that? Sounds to me like its a bunch of BS you pulled out of a hat. Politics have nothing to do with it.

I also expect UA to split the order. It will be interesting to see how the actual order ends up looking.

Quoting United1 (Reply 42):
Doubt it was politics...UA wanted a transcon capable aircraft capable of replacing the 727-200A. Boeing offered the 737-400 and Airbus offered the 320-200...there really wasn't much of a contest as the 737-400 isn't really capable of transcon without a heavy weight penalty. If anything UAs A320 order has been credited with convincing Boeing to develop the 737NG.

My thought is this order will probably be a race between the 321-200NEO and the 737-900MAX to replace the domestic 757-200s on the larger end of the scale and between the C-Series and EMB-190/5 to replace the 737-500s and back fill some of the routes that lost 737-300/500 service when UA retired the PMUA 737 fleet. There are plenty of 737s already on order for growth or to replace some of the older A320s in 5 or 6 years.

How about "a form of diplomacy"? If you don't think politics doesn't play a role in orders, you are naive. All carriers do it. It helps for landing slots, code shares, building reputation/attracting international customers etc.

CALTECH · Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:51 am

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 53):
A really, really good source tells me that 26 757 ships have been identified as "worth keeping" and will be held on to for the intermediate future. As for the other 70 frames, they will be removed from service as leases expire and replacements are sourced.

Between the old 757s and 737-500s, that's 100 ships to replace right off the top. Add in expansion, new capacity in the 70-130 seat category, and long-term replacements for the oldest A320s on property, and you could achieve 200 orders quite easily.

Yeah, it will be sad to see the 757-200s go. It will be a while though, unless unforseen circumstances come up.

Quoting MX757 (Reply 64):
Confirmed. It's in the intial planning stages now. 13 A/C to be upgraded with Flat-bed seats, AVOD, and inseat power. Target start date 9/12, completion date 9/13. Target A/C already have winglets installed. I don't know the which tail numbers will be upgraded or where the work will be accomplished. I would expect MCO since we upgraded most of the PMCO 757 fleet.

Already working on Legacy United 757s in MCO, might just get these upgrades.

Quoting MX757 (Reply 64):
29 are scheduled with 18 complete. Project is on hold due to fleet plan changes.

How is Aircraft #0134 doing with it's ATC for the NGS ?

STT757 · Sat Sep 24, 2011 11:59 am

Quoting MX757 (Reply 64):
Confirmed. It's in the intial planning stages now. 13 A/C to be upgraded with Flat-bed seats, AVOD, and inseat power. Target start date 9/12, completion date 9/13. Target A/C already have winglets installed. I don't know the which tail numbers will be upgraded or where the work will be accomplished. I would expect MCO since we upgraded most of the PMCO 757 fleet.

The current 757s in PS don't neccessarily have to be the ones to get the new configurations correct? They could pull other 757s from PMUA's fleet for the new PS configurations. I would think that if the 13 PS 757s will continue on past the rest of the PMUA 757s they would want to pick out the aircraft with the lowest cycles and best dispatch rates.

United1 · Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:03 pm

Quoting displane (Reply 110):
How about "a form of diplomacy"? If you don't think politics doesn't play a role in orders, you are naive. All carriers do it. It helps for landing slots, code shares, building reputation/attracting international customers etc.

Again while that does occur it's doubtful that politics/diplomacy played a role in UA selecting the A320...as I said earlier UA wanted a transcon capable aircraft something that the 737-400 Boeing offered UA, as the 737NG hadn't been conceived of yet, wasn't capable of without substantial weight penalties year round. More than likely UAs decision was based on the capabilities of the aircraft and of course cost.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 112):
The current 757s in PS don't neccessarily have to be the ones to get the new configurations correct?

They don't necessarily have to be the same aircraft however the current P.S. aircraft have already had a significant amount of investments made to them (ie winglets/wifi ect) and in terms of cycles the P.S. and ETOPS fleets are probably already the lowest cycled part of the 757 fleet.

abibus · Sat Sep 24, 2011 6:24 pm

United has no need to order the 738 or 739, they can replace all the old 737 and 757 with 321neo and 320 neo same for the old 320 in the fleet. they know the aircraft, pilots know how to fly this birds, mx also know airbus very well and the union will not make any trouble, also airbus will give them for sure a very sweet deal... right now even with some changes the 737 is a bird from the 60s and the airbus from the 80s so i bet united will order airbus, perhaps a few boeing so boeing and that only for not let them be like the looser but really with the airbus family of 319,320 and 321 in this moment how really needs the 737???
boeing can only win this one if the same will happen like in the 90s where everybody in united said to buy the 330 but the ceo finally decide for the 777... ( finaly it was good for the entire market because the 777 is a very nice plane )

boilerla · Sat Sep 24, 2011 8:29 pm

Quoting abibus (Reply 114):
United has no need to order the 738 or 739, they can replace all the old 737 and 757 with 321neo and 320 neo same for the old 320 in the fleet. they know the aircraft, pilots know how to fly this birds, mx also know airbus very well and the union will not make any trouble, also airbus will give them for sure a very sweet deal... right now even with some changes the 737 is a bird from the 60s and the airbus from the 80s so i bet united will order airbus, perhaps a few boeing so boeing and that only for not let them be like the looser but really with the airbus family of 319,320 and 321 in this moment how really needs the 737???

You do realize that every statement you made above about A319/320/321 could apply to the 737? The new United has more 737s in the fleet than A320s (240 737NGs vs 152 A319/A320s) and has over 70 737s still on order (compared to none for the A320). They're taking delivery of 19 739s in 2012 alone and they recently added 11 more orders to the order.

Not that any of this says anything either way, but neither do your statements either. All we know is that we don't know anything.

codc10 · Sat Sep 24, 2011 10:32 pm

I'm not sure you understand the situation. The CO pilots and UA pilots are not negotiating separately.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 86):
The CO pilot group is being extremely stubborn about the scope which in the long run is not beneficial to anyone except themselves. Could you imagine if UA had to relinquish all the E170s and squeeze everyone into E145s on 2-2.5 hour business markets? Why do you think UAEX is now flying out of EWR? It's because CO's strategy of flying regionals with frequency to business markets is just not working.

BOTH CO and UA are adamant about reeling scope back in. Management would prefer to increase outsourcing. The UA pilot group made a concession in bankruptcy to save the company, but I can assure you with 100% certainty that United pilots are decidedly NOT in favor of increased outsourced flying. In fact, the UA pilots group would love to have CO's scope.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 88):
Is it though? I feel at this point since it's not resolved and management is dead silent on this issue it's not as simple and you would think.

Exactly.

fpetrutiu · Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:03 am

Quoting abibus (Reply 114):
United has no need to order the 738 or 739, they can replace all the old 737 and 757 with 321neo and 320 neo same for the old 320 in the fleet. they know the aircraft, pilots know how to fly this birds, mx also know airbus very well and the union will not make any trouble, also airbus will give them for sure a very sweet deal... right now even with some changes the 737 is a bird from the 60s and the airbus from the 80s so i bet united will order airbus, perhaps a few boeing so boeing and that only for not let them be like the looser but really with the airbus family of 319,320 and 321 in this moment how really needs the 737???
boeing can only win this one if the same will happen like in the 90s where everybody in united said to buy the 330 but the ceo finally decide for the 777... ( finaly it was good for the entire market because the 777 is a very nice plane )

Except that they have a ton of 737's already on firm order and have cancelled all remaining A320's and even forefeighted their deposit on them. Now what does that say about their needs?

seabosdca · Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:28 am

Quoting abibus (Reply 114):
right now even with some changes the 737 is a bird from the 60s and the airbus from the 80s

One of these days, we'll get past this... the 737NG was essentially an all-new aircraft.

UA may well order Airbus. But if they do, I can guarantee you that the reason why has nothing at all to do with the 737 being "from the 60s."

United1 · Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:35 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 117):
cancelled all remaining A320's and even forefeighted their deposit on them.

They still hold options for 42 A320/A319 aircraft per the last 10K....

fpetrutiu · Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:41 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 119):
They still hold options for 42 A320/A319 aircraft per the last 10K....

Kept the options, cancelled all firms. They also have 125 options for the 737's if I remember correctly and 57 firms.

United1 · Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:45 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 120):
Quoting United1 (Reply 119):
They still hold options for 42 A320/A319 aircraft per the last 10K....

Kept the options, cancelled all firms.

There were no "firms" on order post bankruptcy and they did not forfeit any deposits they wrote off the value of the options but they certainly did not forfeit anything to Airbus. Quite frankly I don't think there is a front runner between the A321NEO and the 739MAX..both would be fantastic additions to the fleet.

fpetrutiu · Sun Sep 25, 2011 1:50 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 121):
There were no "firms" on order post bankruptcy and they did not forfeit any deposits they wrote off the value of the options but they certainly did not forfeit anything to Airbus. Quite frankly I don't think there is a front runner between the A321NEO and the 739MAX..both would be fantastic additions to the fleet.

True, except that the firms are from CO not UA, and yes they are still firm. Those are not affected by the bankruptcy. The latest order was early this year if I remember correctly. Yes both NEO and the MAX would be great additions, but with CO's addition, and the flood of 737's and 50 787's coming in, I think they will give it a fair consideration.

Quite honestly, I do not see the need for UA to order more narrowbodies period. At least not for the next 5-10 years with this economy.

[Edited 2011-09-24 18:51:38]

United1 · Sun Sep 25, 2011 2:36 am

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 122):
True, except that the firms are from CO not UA, and yes they are still firm.

???? I dont think anyone is disputing that I was refering to UAs Airbus narrowbody order...not UAs PMCO Boeing narrowbody order.

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 122):
Quite honestly, I do not see the need for UA to order more narrowbodies period. At least not for the next 5-10 years with this economy.

Now is the perfect time to order...and its due to this economy. UA is in the position where they can afford to place an order to cover their replacement/expansion needs for the next 5 to 7 years and by placing an order at this time they should be able to take advantage of some rock bottom pricing (just as UA was able to get a substantial discount with the A350/B787 order last year.)

displane · Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:23 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 123):
Now is the perfect time to order...and its due to this economy. UA is in the position where they can afford to place an order to cover their replacement/expansion needs for the next 5 to 7 years and by placing an order at this time they should be able to take advantage of some rock bottom pricing (just as UA was able to get a substantial discount with the A350/B787 order last year.

If I remember correctly, UA also recevied a sweet, sweet deal on its A319s years ago.

masseybrown · Sun Sep 25, 2011 4:47 am

Quoting laca773 (Reply 61):
It seems many on here think CO (UA) is unhappy with the 739ERs with all this talk about buying/leasing A321s ...

I believe it is the basic 900 model that disappointed CO over range limits, not the ER version. IIRC they have fewer than 20 of the basic 900's.

United1 · Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:15 am

Quoting displane (Reply 124):
If I remember correctly, UA also recevied a sweet, sweet deal on its A319s years ago.

I'm sure they did...they also ordered 6 752s and 2 772s the week before the A319 order and reportedly received a very good deal from Boeing.

United1 · Sun Sep 25, 2011 5:26 am

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 125):
IIRC they have fewer than 20 of the basic 900's.

12 to be exact...

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 125):
I believe it is the basic 900 model that disappointed CO over range limits, not the ER version.

The ER is usually OK but from what has been discussed on this board once in a while has some range issues. That's mainly because the aircraft are not equipped with all of the optional fuel tanks...of course if they were equipped with them the economics of the aircraft become a bit off.

boilerla · Sun Sep 25, 2011 7:25 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 122):
Quite honestly, I do not see the need for UA to order more narrowbodies period. At least not for the next 5-10 years with this economy

This.

If they order anything, I'm guessing the order will be on the small end of the quoted number (100 instead of 200) and will mainly be a replacement to the 735s and highest cycle 752s. I can see them ordering 25-50 CSeries/73Gs to replace the 735s, another 50-100 739[Max] to replace the oldest and highest cycle 757s, and then just waiting for a new narrow body for the rest of the fleet, which is relatively new.

That'd let them ride out the uncertain economic times with minimal capital outlay, and let Boeing/Airbus come up with a true TATL 752 replacement which they'll need later but not right now.

ukoverlander · Mon Sep 26, 2011 7:28 pm

Quoting displane (Reply 110):
How about "a form of diplomacy"? If you don't think politics doesn't play a role in orders, you are naive. All carriers do it.

Again we appear to have a rash (or convenient) generalization based upon opinion and assertion dressed up as fact.

Continental Airlines ''all Boeing" policy certainly didn't seem to damage their ability to compete and win new overseas routes. Just look at the considerable number of thinner routes they established into some of the secondary cities in major European countries in the last 10 -15 years - Not an Airbus in sight. And what about the 'pre-Northwest' Delta ? Again not an Airbus in sight and yet expansive operations in to Europe.

I'm not saying politics doesn't play a role in fleet purchases (just look at the Air Force Tanker contract and you can see that it plainly does) but it's flat out wrong to say "all carriers do it". It's simply not true.

calpsafltskeds · Mon Sep 26, 2011 8:48 pm

Quoting United1 (Reply 127):
Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 125):
I believe it is the basic 900 model that disappointed CO over range limits, not the ER version.

The ER is usually OK but from what has been discussed on this board once in a while has some range issues. That's mainly because the aircraft are not equipped with all of the optional fuel tanks...of course if they were equipped with them the economics of the aircraft become a bit off.

In a previous thread months ago, I concluded that the 739ER would be best suited with one of the two aux tanks installed. One tank's extra fuel plus the added extra empty aircraft weight plus extra passengers (more seats) would be roughly equal to the MGTOW upgrade of the 739ER vs. 738 and most likely at least equal the range of the 738.

The 900 has issues as it has the extra weight of the aircraft and passengers, but no increase TOW vs. the 738. That being said, on CO's current domestic market, the 739 works fine out of IAH, but the 739 would not work on EWR or IAD- West coast. With the merger, the few 739s can easily be placed on IAH/ORD/DEN hub-to-hub routes of the merged carrier and just needs to avoid EWR-LAX/SFO, IAD-LAX-SFO, CLE-LAX-SFO

flyorski · Mon Sep 26, 2011 9:06 pm

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 129):
I'm not saying politics doesn't play a role in fleet purchases (just look at the Air Force Tanker contract and you can see that it plainly does) but it's flat out wrong to say "all carriers do it". It's simply not true.

I agree with most of what you say, however I would go farther and say that in the United States, politics plays NO role in fleet purchases for private airlines. Your example of the U.S. Air Force is irrelevant in this discussion, because it is something that is not a private business.

gigneil · Mon Sep 26, 2011 10:25 pm

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 130):
With the merger, the few 739s can easily be placed on IAH/ORD/DEN hub-to-hub routes of the merged carrier and just needs to avoid EWR-LAX/SFO, IAD-LAX-SFO, CLE-LAX-SFO

There are plenty of non hub-hub routes that can be easily served from those three hubs that, in many cases, are even shorter.

NS

laca773 · Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:08 am

Quoting MX757 (Reply 64):
29 are scheduled with 18 complete. Project is on hold due to fleet plan changes

Thanks for the information, MX757.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 66):
Where on Earth did you read that? They just ordered an additional 737-900ERs this past Spring, they're taking delivery of 19 737-900ERs in 2012 with 50 more on order.

I didn't think they were unhappy but if you had read through posting 65 and under, it seemed many are under the impression, CO was unhappy with the 739ER with so much attention being placed on the A321.. I didn't think they were at all. Why else would they order more?

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 67):

CO isn't unhappy with the 739s at all. If they were wise, they would put the 739s on routes that are the most beneficial to them throughout the UA network. I think it's only a matter of time before the 739s hit up ORD and DEN in full swing, and bring the PMUA 757s and A32X to IAH and EWR.

Gotcha, Tommy767. I hope the upgrade those Airbus cabins to be on par with CO a/c.

Quoting MasseyBrown (Reply 125):

I believe it is the basic 900 model that disappointed CO over range limits, not the ER version. IIRC they have fewer than 20 of the basic 900's.

There's little mention of the E90/95 in this thread compared to the C-Series. How soon could UA get a C-series (C100) on property compared to the E90/95?

Why are the pilots so against a 100 seat narrowbody flying mainline? They for sure must know, the business environment has changed markedly for the airlines and they need to move with the changes, not sit there and live in 2002. When UA retired their 733/735s it really put a huge dent in their fleet and a lot of mainline flights went express or away. For one, I never thought UA would downgauge LAX-SEA-LAX to UAEX CR7s! UA should be flying this route with A319/A320s and now with the merger, add 73G/73Hs to this combination as well as an occasional upgrade to a 739.

kgaiflyer · Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:00 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 133):
I never thought UA would downgauge LAX-SEA-LAX to UAEX CR7s! UA should be flying this route with A319/A320s and now with the merger, add 73G/73Hs to this combination as well as an occasional upgrade to a 739.

Be grateful it's not a CR2.

I've done that route, but I also do LAX-ELP-LAX more often in an OO CR2. The difference--I guess--is LAX-SEA (954 sm) is mainly O&D while LAX-ELP (712 sm) is mainly tagged on for connecting traffic.

Nevertheless, it's a looong, looong ride in a CR2.

2travel2know2 · Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:33 pm

The way the economy is in the States righnow, some folks in D.C., and Seattle will do whatever is possible to get a U.S. company to assemble a big number of those 200 narrowbodies.

lhcvg · Tue Sep 27, 2011 2:42 pm

Quoting flyorski (Reply 131):
Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 129):
I'm not saying politics doesn't play a role in fleet purchases (just look at the Air Force Tanker contract and you can see that it plainly does) but it's flat out wrong to say "all carriers do it". It's simply not true.

I agree with most of what you say, however I would go farther and say that in the United States, politics plays NO role in fleet purchases for private airlines. Your example of the U.S. Air Force is irrelevant in this discussion, because it is something that is not a private business.

Flyorski makes a good point there - here the most important consideration is the right plane for the job (leaving open the question of "right"). If A or B proves to be far superior for what that airline wants to do (of course taking into account pricing and availability), they will go with that, even if it betrays their previous loyalties.

UAL777UK · Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:05 pm

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 135):
The way the economy is in the States righnow, some folks in D.C., and Seattle will do whatever is possible to get a U.S. company to assemble a big number of those 200 narrowbodies.

And on the flip side the economy is pretty dire in Europe as well at moment which means if UA plays its cards right it could play A & B off against the other and strike a very favourable deal.

gigneil · Tue Sep 27, 2011 3:50 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 133):
Gotcha, Tommy767. I hope the upgrade those Airbus cabins to be on par with CO a/c.

The Airbus cabins are way, way nicer already except for the AVOD.

NS

tommy767 · Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:25 pm

Quoting laca773 (Reply 133):

Quoting gigneil (Reply 138):

I think we forget that aside the directv aspect and TATL 757s, CO's aircraft are really no better than UA's. UA agruably has more comfortable Y seats than CO's, there is Y+, and all aircraft have video and audio (on mainline, for those who care enough to use it.) Plus that CO Directv product is a true shame because unlike Delta no channels are offered free of charge to lure customers in to buy more of the product. It's just a $6 dollar flat rate, a complete waste of money on shorter flights.

Quoting ual777 (Reply 109):
I agree. However the problem with the Qs at the moment is that their dispatch reliability is not very good and neither is Colgan's performance. I think CO also has an agreement for 209 aircraft with XJT that runs through 2019. The 145 XRs especially fill many markets to Mexico and out of DEN very nicely.

The ordering of the Q400s was a rash order decision as a result of too much gas eating short haul RJ flying within the CO network. I'm not surprised about the dispatch problems at all.

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 116):
BOTH CO and UA are adamant about reeling scope back in. Management would prefer to increase outsourcing. The UA pilot group made a concession in bankruptcy to save the company, but I can assure you with 100% certainty that United pilots are decidedly NOT in favor of increased outsourced flying. In fact, the UA pilots group would love to have CO's scope.

But all of the COEX E145 flying is done by expressjet. How is this not outsourced flying?

gigneil · Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:30 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 139):
It's just a $6 dollar flat rate, a complete waste of money on shorter flights.

To be fair... it is prorated for shorter and longer flights.

NS

fpetrutiu · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:07 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 138):
The Airbus cabins are way, way nicer already except for the AVOD.

Except if you are 6 foot tall, you cannot see the row numbers without bending down. To me it feels like the cabin was build for midgets. Particularly speaking of A320 cabins.

seabosdca · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:10 pm

Quoting flyorski (Reply 131):
I would go farther and say that in the United States, politics plays NO role in fleet purchases for private airlines.

In addition to the DL/CO in Europe counterexamples mentioned above, think about US. US is the biggest airline out of DCA, the most politically sensitive airport in the country. And US is politically active as airlines go, so they are "on the radar" all the time. Yet they have experienced precisely zero political ramifications from going effectively all-Airbus.

gigneil · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 141):
Except if you are 6 foot tall, you cannot see the row numbers without bending down.

Huh?

I'm 6'2" and they are clearly labeled on the side of the bins, just like they are on the CO 737s.

I'm starting to think you make stuff up to see if people will believe you. Smile

NS

[Edited 2011-09-27 10:22:37]

par13del · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:32 pm

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 137):
And on the flip side the economy is pretty dire in Europe as well at moment which means if UA plays its cards right it could play A & B off against the other and strike a very favourable deal.

Which means what to the actual economy, the jobs are just a side benefit of them getting the best deal possible, the airlines in the USA concern on the economy and jobs goes only so far as to how many pax travel and how much they are willing to pay. It has been said before and in some case you are confirming it, the pax and the airlines could care less where their a/c are made, they do not equate them to jobs or the overall economy.

kgaiflyer · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:36 pm

Quoting fpetrutiu (Reply 141):
Except if you are 6 foot tall, you cannot see the row numbers without bending down. To me it feels like the cabin was build for midgets. Particularly speaking of A320 cabins.

On UA and US planes, the row numbers are just below the bin door **in addition** to being on the edge of the lucite bar where the light switches are.

I observe that AC and NK Airbii don't have these additional tags.

codc10 · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:41 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 139):

The ordering of the Q400s was a rash order decision as a result of too much gas eating short haul RJ flying within the CO network. I'm not surprised about the dispatch problems at all.

Rash? Just because you don't like the airplane (or the operator) doesn't mean a multimillion-dollar aircraft order is "rash". In theory it is a wise move, unfortunately CO went for the rock-bottom bidder as the operator.

apodino · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:43 pm

Quoting kgaiflyer (Reply 145):

On UA and US planes, the row numbers are just below the bin door **in addition** to being on the edge of the lucite bar where the light switches are.

On DL planes too

drerx7 · Tue Sep 27, 2011 5:53 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 139):
Plus that CO Directv product is a true shame because unlike Delta no channels are offered free of charge to lure customers in to buy more of the product. It's just a $6 dollar flat rate, a complete waste of money on shorter flights.

Well, perhaps - but someone correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think CO takes the revenue from this. Didn't DirecTV or whoever pay to have the planes outfitted in return they get the revenue? Sort of a you take the door and we take the bar type of arrangement?

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 139):

The ordering of the Q400s was a rash order decision as a result of too much gas eating short haul RJ flying within the CO network. I'm not surprised about the dispatch problems at all.

Well, If it wasn't the Q400 it would have had to be an ATR72, I don't think those have too much of a better reputation in terms of dispatch reliability...ask AA.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 139):
But all of the COEX E145 flying is done by expressjet. How is this not outsourced flying?

Yea, but they were originally all in house, sort of a grandfathered in type of deal.

fpetrutiu · Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:35 pm

Quoting gigneil (Reply 143):
Huh?

I'm 6'2" and they are clearly labeled on the side of the bins, just like they are on the CO 737s.

I'm starting to think you make stuff up to see if people will believe you.

NS

I am just like you, 6'2" and I fly on DL A320's all the time on MCO-MEM. The row numbers are where the lights are, the only way for me to see them is to bend down and look under the bin, absolutely hate it.

OK here is a picture of a flight attendend who is not 6 ft. Note that the labels are below her eye level and the only way to see it would be to look under the bins. Now, think for me who is 6'2", it is a lot harder. Also hate the little midget's guts, the one with the screw driver in the cargo hold before and after the flight.

Bottom line, I will purposely avoid an A320 if I have a choice. I can be on an 737 or an MD80 anyday over an A320 product.

[Edited 2011-09-27 11:50:05]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net