I've been further studying UA and their narrow body fleet, and It got me thinking.

As more 757s begin to leave service, and with the constant addition of 737-900ERs and the introduction of the 737 MAX 9 in a few years, why did UA invest so much in the 737?

Yes, the 737 is one of my favorite types. I love the plane and I especially love riding in it.

But let's face it, UA is going to eventually have a combined fleet of over 230 737-900ER and 737 MAX 9s. 739s can't expected to pull flights that the 757 could do (can they?)

Would it be smart if UA converted a portion of the MAX 9 order to MAX 8s and then ordered perhaps 50 or so A321neo's?

737-700
737-800
737 MAX 8
737-900
737-900ER
737 MAX 9
A321neo

Or would the rumors of a coming 757 replacement (797? As discussed in a recent thread) catch UA's attention instead?

Why would you buy another aircraft that has the same capabilities of an aircraft on order. Should WN take the Airbus family as well?

The 739MAX and 321NEO carry basically the same pax, have the same cargo space, 737 is lighter and has a slightly longer range.
Is it that the NEO might be in the skies earlier??

I'm sure UA has at least looked at it. But is it really going to have TATL range to replace the 757? The consensus, despite all the hype, says no. And since UA has the MAX9 on order, and are taking 900ER deliveries to this day, the 737NG fleet isn't going to be replacing soon. So keep the status-quo and stay with the 737.

Slightly OT, but I was wondering why pmUA never ordered the A321 CEO. Anyone know why?

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1): The 739MAX and 321NEO carry basically the same pax, have the same cargo space, 737 is lighter and has a slightly longer range. Is it that the NEO might be in the skies earlier?

I'm certainly not smacking down the MAX 9, but I was under the impression that the A321neo had a higher payload capacity and also a better hot n' high performance?

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 2): But is it really going to have TATL range to replace the 757? The consensus, despite all the hype, says no. And since UA has the MAX9 on order, and are taking 900ER deliveries to this day, the 737NG fleet isn't going to be replacing soon. So keep the status-quo and stay with the 737.

I mean, HA has the A321neo on order. I'm assuming those will be used for, at the most, West Coast --> Hawaii.
That appears to be around the same distance as some TATL flights.

And another question, why so many MAX 9s and -900ERs, and not additional -800s and MAX 8s?

[Edited 2014-07-01 21:46:07]

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 3): mean, HA has the A321neo on order. I'm assuming those will be used for, at the most, West Coast --> Hawaii.

True, but AS and UA also use 737s for west coast to Hawaii. I've flown LAX-OGG and OGG-SNA on 737s. The flight times were around 5 hours. I recently flew FRA-EWR. Flight time was 9 hours. So the distance is not even comparable.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 3): And another question, why so many MAX 9s and -900ERs, and not additional -800s and MAX 8s

I would assume better CASM and fuel burn per seat. It seems to be UA is liking larger aircraft for narrow bodies. If only they would adopt the same strategy for the RJs.

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter): 739s can't expected to pull flights that the 757 could do (can they?)

For the most part, yes. It's possible that future A321-NEO and 737-9MAX variants in another 10 or 15 years will even be able to do TATL flights.

But for >95% of the missions that the 757 currently flies, the 737-9MAX will do the job nicely. Perhaps not with quite the same cargo payload and perhaps not with quite the same takeoff performance, but it will do the job almost all the time. For the time being, the few youngest 757s in the fleet can be retained for missions that only a 757 can do.

Perhaps by 2025, the 737-9MAX or A321 with all the PIPs will be able to do TATL.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 4): True, but AS and UA also use 737s for west coast to Hawaii. I've flown LAX-OGG and OGG-SNA on 737s. The flight times were around 5 hours. I recently flew FRA-EWR. Flight time was 9 hours. So the distance is not even comparable.

Fair enough.
But how about from, say, IAH --> Andean South America, speciafically Quito. How do 737s perform in that region compared to it's Airbus rivals?

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 4): I would assume better CASM and fuel burn per seat. It seems to be UA is liking larger aircraft for narrow bodies. If only they would adopt the same strategy for the RJs.

Some CS300s and E2s would be nice.
Someone even portrayed a CRJ-1000 in UAEX colors. It actually looked pretty good  

Fun aside, it makes sense that the larger model of any family would be more efficient than the shorter models, exactly what the A321neo and MAX 9 are.

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 6): But how about from, say, IAH --> Andean South America, speciafically Quito. How do 737s perform in that region compared to it's Airbus rivals?

Pretty well. UA uses the 73G for IAH-UIO. The 73G has the best take off performance in the 73' family. Same engines as the 800, but on a lighter body. That's what makes it a favorite in hot-and-high airports like DEN, MEX, and ADD, as well as airports with smaller runways, such as SNA and EGE, where 73Gs and 757s rule. An A32X on a similar route would have to take a sizable hit in capacity to perform but the NEO should take it just fine.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): Perhaps by 2025, the 737-9MAX or A321 with all the PIPs will be able to do TATL.

Would that be on a good weather day or would it be year round?

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 1): The 739MAX and 321NEO carry basically the same pax, have the same cargo space, 737 is lighter and has a slightly longer range.

The feeling I get is that the industry considers the A321NEO to be a fair bit more capable than the 737-9MAX - more so than the difference between the 737-900 and A321.
The 737-9MAx appears to be pushing the limits of the airframe more so than the A321NEO does

Quoting Boeing778X, reply=3: I'm certainly not smacking down the MAX 9, but I was under the impression that the A321neo had a higher payload capacity and also a better hot n' high performance?

That was my impression too

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8): The feeling I get is that the industry considers the A321NEO to be a fair bit more capable than the 737-9MAX - more so than the difference between the 737-900 and A321. The 737-9MAx appears to be pushing the limits of the airframe more so than the A321NEO does

Yep. The NEO is also available with the PW GTF, which is looking to be a real game changer and "leap" the competition  

They made a huge mistake being overly reliant on the 737, IMHO. I find it also short-sighted to take current generations jets that will be obsolete in short order. Like ordering DC-10s when the MD-11 is right around the corner.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 9): They made a huge mistake being overly reliant on the 737, IMHO. I find it also short-sighted to take current generations jets that will be obsolete in short order. Like ordering DC-10s when the MD-11 is right around the corner

But they have stated publicly that the 1 for 1 swap of 757's for 737-900ER's is going to save the $2M+ per aircraft. That is a lot of money.
If you look at the chart on slide 72 of the 2013 Investor Day presentation (available on UA's investor website) you will see that they have modeled the ROIC for both the 737-900ER and 737-9MAX.They both have similar ROICs for the most of period, but at the later years the 900ER actually has a higher ROIC than the MAX. If I was to make a guess the reason is that they have more years of usage from 900ER and that means fewer years of higher cost, the MAX just can't make up the difference in the delivery timeframe.
Now you can argue that UA's math is flawed, frankly I didn't do it so I can't defend it just say that is what UA's math says.

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter): As more 757s begin to leave service, and with the constant addition of 737-900ERs and the introduction of the 737 MAX 9 in a few years, why did UA invest so much in the 737?

Because they, CO, already had 737-900ERs before the merger. And having more of a single type is not a bad thing, look at WN. It provides a great deal more flexibility for a carrier like UA to match the right aircraft with demand. UA can sub a 73G, 738 or 739 on any given day on any given flight without having to change crews based on fluxiations of demand or during IRROPs. A crew could be scheduled to fly a 73G to Denver from EWR, and show up and be switched to a 738 or 739. Doesn't matter, they can fly any 737.

Quoting Boeing778X (Thread starter): But let's face it, UA is going to eventually have a combined fleet of over 230 737-900ER and 737 MAX 9s. 739s can't expected to pull flights that the 757 could do (can they?)

The existing 737-900ER order is replacing sUA's, non PS, 757s on a one for one basis. UA did not use their 757s for long hauls other than Saturday only service to Hawaii from Denver. The 737-900ERs are perfect for the former UA 757 missions.

The debate is when it comes to replacing the sCO 757s and 753s. The sCO 757s are all ETOPS and in International configurations that fly routes such as EWR-HAM, OSL, ARN, STR, BCN etc.. Those are too far for both the 737-9MAX and A321 NEO. And the 737-9MAX and A321 NEO are both significantly smaller than the 753. Something other than a 737-9MAX or A321 NEO will replace the sCO 757s and 753s, the sCO 757s are probably going to be flying into the end of the next decade. However UA will probably want to identify a replacement by 2020, right now though it doesn't exist.

The 737-9MAX will probably be used to replace the 15 sUA PS 757s, and the A320s. The last A320s will probably leave the fleet around 2022.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 9): Yep. The NEO is also available with the PW GTF, which is looking to be a real game changer and "leap" the competition

Again since the A321 NEO is no better able to replace the sCO 757s Trans-Atlantic routes than the 737-9MAX I don't see an order. However I agree the GTF looks promising, however I would rather see UA order the CS100 and CS300s. It was negotiated in the new UA contract to add a new mainline aircraft, the CSeries is the best option.

The CS100s could replace CRJ-700 and ERJ-145 flights, and the CS300 could replace the A319s.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11): The 737-9MAX will probably be used to replace the 15 sUA PS 757s, and the A320s. The last A320s will probably leave the fleet around 2022.

Makes one wonder what will replace all those sCO 738s and 73Gs then...a good chunk of the 738s at least are the same age as sUA's A320s.

The A321-200neo is more capable than the 737-9, but if the 737-9 can meet the mission requirements, I see no reason not to choose it - especially if you have other 737NG or 737 MAX airframes in the fleet / on order.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 9): I find it also short-sighted to take current generations jets that will be obsolete in short order. Like ordering DC-10s when the MD-11 is right around the corner.

If you need the capacity now, you need it now. Also, both OEMs are willing to make excellent deals on current generation airframes to keep the lines full until they switch over. DL is said to have received a 51% discount off list on their 100 frame 737-900ER order and I imagine UA received a similar deal for their 50 frame 737-900ER order. And AA certainly received excellent pricing from Airbus on their A320 family classic order from 2011.

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 2): Slightly OT, but I was wondering why pmUA never ordered the A321 CEO. Anyone know why?

At the time of the merger UA was looking at options from Airbus, Boeing, Embraer and Canadair both as a 757 replacement and as replacement aircraft for the 737s that they had retired a few years earlier. The widebody order for 787/350s was simply the start...

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11): The 737-9MAX will probably be used to replace the 15 sUA PS 757s, and the A320s. The last A320s will probably leave the fleet around 2022.

The last update I saw from UA regarding Airbii exits shows only about 20 of them leaving the fleet by the end of 2020. I believe that was at the 2013 investor day back in November. I think they will be around a bit longer then 2022....

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 13): Makes one wonder what will replace all those sCO 738s and 73Gs then...a good chunk of the 738s at least are the same age as sUA's A320s.

UA's oldest 738 is from 1998, their newest from 2011. UA's oldest A320 is from 1993, their newest from 2002. The 738 fleet is much newer than the A320s. I would imagine the 737-9MAX will replace the A320s at the beginning of the next decade, 2019 onwards , while the NGs (700, 800, non ER 900s) will not need to be replaced until the end of the next decade (2028 onwards). What replaces those is just speculation at this point, could be anything (A320 NEO, C Series, Boeing 737 MAX or a new Boeing narrow body).

Quoting United1 (Reply 14): The last update I saw from UA regarding Airbii exits shows only about 20 of them leaving the fleet by the end of 2020. I believe that was at the 2013 investor day back in November. I think they will be around a bit longer then 2022....

Absolutely. I meant the process of their retirement would probably start around 2019. Depending on how aggressive they are it could take up to five years, 2025, until the last A320 leaves the fleet.

Look,
I work for United and I'm an Airbus A319/A320 Maintenance controller. I Love the A350 order but the A321Neo?
Man that's a non starter. We could handle the airplane No Problem but to replace the 757?? Unless that airplane
gets a bigger wing and some more speed and range? It is Now and is going to BE a Poor Man's 757.
Better to go with the Max-9 and at least stay with the Fine girl we brought to the party.
The efficiencies we need will NOT be found fooling with the A321 Neo.
It is NOT a superior plane t the 737 series, and I'm qualified on the 737.757 and the Airbus...
And that's Not any Denigration of the A321.
It's not demonstrably superior in technology, reliability or performance to the coming 737-9 Max and I HAVE seen the specs on
the 9Max and I'm /VERY impressed with the airplane as I'm impressed with the
A350-1000 and the 787-10's. The A321? Not at ALL!

I'm going to add 1 more thing. My boys over at American? Have NO Idea in the World what they're getting themselves
In for with the A319 and A321. When they're NEW?!? "Cool Beans"
When FiFi isn't feeling well (which happens on a regular basis) or when Fifi is too cold or too Hot??
Fifi turns into a raving Lunatic !! And they Will Feel her wrath. Like a High Maintenance Woman !!
Don't Say I didn't tell you..

Quoting STT757 (Reply 16): Quoting United1 (Reply 14): The last update I saw from UA regarding Airbii exits shows only about 20 of them leaving the fleet by the end of 2020. I believe that was at the 2013 investor day back in November. I think they will be around a bit longer then 2022.... Absolutely. I meant the process of their retirement would probably start around 2019. Depending on how aggressive they are it could take up to five years, 2025, until the last A320 leaves the fleet.

Looks like the process starts in 2016 with one or two Airbii (assuming 320s) leaving the fleet. I picked 25 years as an average for retiring aircraft but it looks like UA is pulling some out of service earlier then that and keeping some longer. Hours and Cycles are much more important...

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...NoaWxkSUQ9MjEyMzA5fFR5cGU9MQ==&t=1

Slide 73

There are definitely going to be a lot of aircraft hitting 25 years old in the fleet....

2018 5 320
2019 16 320
2020 8 320
2021 7 320
2022 5 320, 4 319
2023 9 320, 16 319, 19 73G, 20 738
2024 5 320, 8 319, 17 73G, 22 738
2025 12 320, 4 319, 16 738
2026 18 320, 15 319, 15 738, 10 739
2027 12 320, 8 319, 4 738, 2 739
2028 4 738
2029 11 738
2030 7 738

Quoting UA444 (Reply 9): real game changer

Here we go again with that over-used word.


Okay, in what way does the GTF "change the game"? Seriously....

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 7): Pretty well. UA uses the 73G for IAH-UIO. The 73G has the best take off performance in the 73' family. Same engines as the 800, but on a lighter body. That's what makes it a favorite in hot-and-high airports like DEN, MEX, and ADD, as well as airports with smaller runways, such as SNA and EGE, where 73Gs and 757s rule. An A32X on a similar route would have to take a sizable hit in capacity to perform but the NEO should take it just fine.

Is the 73G really that much better than a 319 in H/H? AA seems to be quite happy flying the 319 into Aspen and other markets...

Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 3): I'm certainly not smacking down the MAX 9, but I was under the impression that the A321neo had a higher payload capacity and also a better hot n' high performance?

As I understand it, the 739 has an issue in that its angle of rotation on takeoff is limited by the short MLG and its fuselage length. This creates some lift issues with the low AOA at the initial portion of the climb and impacts takeoff performance.

So for very long flights out of H/H airports, short runway airports, or airports with stringent climb gradients (like DCA or SNA) the 739/Max might present some challenges. But for most applications, the later-build 739MAX will probably be able to fly 752 missions.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13): find it also short-sighted to take current generations jets that will be obsolete in short order. Like ordering DC-10s when the MD-11 is right around the corner

While fuel efficiency definitely counts, so much more goes into consideration of purchasing an aircraft than it's CASM/fuel efficiency.

It's silly to rail against the airlines that are not first in line to buy the next new airplane. Look at DL, LH, etc. Yes, from time to time orders are made, and it's always nice to talk about the new things, but the efficiency arguments are overblown. Airlines worry about the final purchase price, financing options, delivery schedule, warranties (both express and implied), projected maintenance and lifetime running costs, projected depreciation, projected parts costs (the more exotic, the more expensive), crew training requirements, etc.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 18): I'm going to add 1 more thing. My boys over at American? Have NO Idea in the World what they're getting themselves In for with the A319 and A321. When they're NEW?!? "Cool Beans" When FiFi isn't feeling well (which happens on a regular basis) or when Fifi is too cold or too Hot?? Fifi turns into a raving Lunatic !! And they Will Feel her wrath. Like a High Maintenance Woman !! Don't Say I didn't tell you..

I'm glad that someone mentioned this. According to my sources, the UA A320s/319s have a lower dispatch reliability rate than their 73Gs/738s/739s/739ERs.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 17): I work for United and I'm an Airbus A319/A320 Maintenance controller.

Can you offer a comparison of the dispatch reliability between the UA Airbus' and the 737s? In other words, are my sources correct?

Or, if you don't have access to that information - how many of each are out of service each day?

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 18): I'm going to add 1 more thing. My boys over at American? Have NO Idea in the World what they're getting themselves In for with the A319 and A321. When they're NEW?!? "Cool Beans" When FiFi isn't feeling well (which happens on a regular basis) or when Fifi is too cold or too Hot?? Fifi turns into a raving Lunatic !! And they Will Feel her wrath. Like a High Maintenance Woman !! Don't Say I didn't tell you..

Dispatch reliability numbers from an airline I'm familiar with:

737 BBJ 99.8%
A320/1 99.3%
E 175 98.4%

The BBJ have a utilization average of 4 hours whereas the A32x and E jets are 10+ hours daily.

Last time I looked at the maintenance tech reports, according to OEM figures, A320 was 99.5% and the 737NG 99.8% for the worldwide fleet.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22): Quoting Boeing778X (Reply 3): I'm certainly not smacking down the MAX 9, but I was under the impression that the A321neo had a higher payload capacity and also a better hot n' high performance? As I understand it, the 739 has an issue in that its angle of rotation on takeoff is limited by the short MLG and its fuselage length. This creates some lift issues with the low AOA at the initial portion of the climb and impacts takeoff performance. So for very long flights out of H/H airports, short runway airports, or airports with stringent climb gradients (like DCA or SNA) the 739/Max might present some challenges. But for most applications, the later-build 739MAX will probably be able to fly 752 missions.

Ask pilots their opinion about the 739ER in terms of performance. I have and have yet to find a pilot who was really impressed with how the plane operates.

It is a flat-out dog in performance compared to the 752 it replaces; the differences are magnified in hot/high airport environments.

The short MLG and fuselage length present challenges regarding take offs as you describe. It means they have a narrower margin when you consider wind/weather issues on takeoff. They face similar challenges on landing. They deal with weight restrictions at times operating into DEN in the winter depending again on weather.

Keep in mind the MAX a/c is based on a design far older than the 320. It doesn't make it bad but the air frame is about as optimized as possible.

The 739MAX will sell ok not because its a great performer but because its cheaper to operate than the plane it replaces. It won't do well at places like EGE and likely won't operate from there. Unfortunately, big performers like the 752 (at least for domestic flying) are going away.

[Edited 2014-07-02 12:20:14]

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8): The feeling I get is that the industry considers the A321NEO to be a fair bit more capable than the 737-9MAX - more so than the difference between the 737-900 and A321. The 737-9MAx appears to be pushing the limits of the airframe more so than the A321NEO does

What does that mean? I don't think I know what push the limits of the airframe means and what more capable means. The A321NEO has more seats than the 737-9 It also has a higher MTOW. It seems to have about 8-16 more seats in a typical configuration. It's a bit bigger of an airplane. If United wants an airplane as close in size to the 757, then yes the A321 is it, but I'm not sure what you mean by capability. There seems to be a claim that the A321NEO has more range than the 737-9 yet Boeing has produced charts that indicate that the 737-9 has more range than the A321NEO. The claims seem rather dependent on the exact configuration chosen. In my mind, the airplanes look extremely similar on a seat mile cost basis and typical load range, which also in my opinion are the most important factors.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 8): Quoting Boeing778X, reply=3: I'm certainly not smacking down the MAX 9, but I was under the impression that the A321neo had a higher payload capacity and also a better hot n' high performance? That was my impression too

I believe that is correct. The runway performance of the A321 NEO likely will be better than the 737-9MAX. Isn't that also true on the 739ER vs A321? The 737-900 series requires a lot of runway. Also the A321 NEO has a higher payload and carries more seats. However, I have seen conflicting reports on useful payload range. I think it is more than an impression that the A321NEO has higher payload capacity since it is a bigger plane by about 8 feet and has higher MTOW by about 10,000lbs.

Back to the original post, in my opinion it makes no sense to order the 737-9MAX and the A321NEO. Some airlines like Delta like mixed fleets, but in my opinion the 8-16 seats that the A321 add are not worth the investment in a different fleet. The two airplanes are very very close in cost per seat mile and range which are two measurable numbers that an airline like United would look at. I don't know how pushing the limits of the airplane or capability mean anything with fleet planning. The 737MAX-8 may be good addition later on, but right now UA is working on replacing 757s and getting the most efficient fleet that it can. It has no shortage of planes in the 144-162 seat range with the existing A320s and 737-800s. the 737MAX-9 and 900ER do a great job of replacing the 752 domestic fleet on all but a few routes to Hawaii. The big question out there is what they will use to Europe. I don't think either the MAX-8/9 or A320/A321NEO in their current form can do routes from EWR/IAD to Germany/France or ORD to the UK. EWR-UK is an option, but there are still questions out there and I don't think the A321NEO is the answer for an airline that already decided on the MAX. The A321NEO is a great airplane, but rather unnecessary based on UA's fleet strategy.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 26): Ask pilots their opinion about the 739ER in terms of performance. I have and have yet to find a pilot who was really impressed with how the plane operates. It is a flat-out dog in performance compared to the 752 it replaces; the differences are magnified in hot/high airport environments.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 26): The 739MAX will sell ok not because its a great performer but because its cheaper to operate than the plane it replaces. It won't do well at places like EGE and likely won't operate from there. Unfortunately, big performers like the 752 (at least for domestic flying) are going away.

Nice post, that's a good summary.

The 739ER is not the performer that the 752 is, but it doesn't need to be. Pre-merger UA used their 752s on a lot of domestic 2 to 3 hour flights that weren't anywhere near the maximum capability of the aircraft. The 739ERs can do the same task for less fuel. As United has frequently stated, each 739ER saves them $2,000,000 per year compared to the 752 - given UAL's recent financial performance, it seems like they need this and more (savings).

Having flown both, if money was no object, I'd chose to fly the 752. But money is THE object, isn't it?

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 7): Pretty well. UA uses the 73G for IAH-UIO. The 73G has the best take off performance in the 73' family. Same engines as the 800, but on a lighter body. That's what makes it a favorite in hot-and-high airports like DEN, MEX, and ADD, as well as airports with smaller runways, such as SNA and EGE, where 73Gs and 757s rule. An A32X on a similar route would have to take a sizable hit in capacity to perform but the NEO should take it just fine.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 22): As I understand it, the 739 has an issue in that its angle of rotation on takeoff is limited by the short MLG and its fuselage length. This creates some lift issues with the low AOA at the initial portion of the climb and impacts takeoff performance. So for very long flights out of H/H airports, short runway airports, or airports with stringent climb gradients (like DCA or SNA) the 739/Max might present some challenges. But for most applications, the later-build 739MAX will probably be able to fly 752 missions.

You guys nailed my questions perfectly!    Makes a lot more sense.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 27): The 737MAX-8 may be good addition later on, but right now UA is working on replacing 757s and getting the most efficient fleet that it can. It has no shortage of planes in the 144-162 seat range with the existing A320s and 737-800s.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 15): The 738 fleet is much newer than the A320s. I would imagine the 737-9MAX will replace the A320s at the beginning of the next decade, 2019 onwards , while the NGs (700, 800, non ER 900s) will not need to be replaced until the end of the next decade (2028 onwards). What replaces those is just speculation at this point, could be anything (A320 NEO, C Series, Boeing 737 MAX or a new Boeing narrow body).

I had asked the question of potential UA A320 replacements in a previous thread.

New 737-900ERs and 737 MAX 9s can certainly replace the A319/20s, but the MAX 8 seems like a good addition for some missions as well.
As you put it Roseflyer, UA is focusing on replacing the 757s in the most efficient way possible, but I imagine they will turn there attention towards the A320s once the 757 replacing process is well underway.

It's my opinion that the A320s can be replaced by additional 737 MAX models, specifically the MAX 8, but the 737NGs will be good well into the 2020s, maybe even to 2030. Wonder what could replace those at that time.

[Edited 2014-07-02 14:19:30]

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 26): Ask pilots their opinion about the 739ER in terms of performance. I have and have yet to find a pilot who was really impressed with how the plane operates.

And when pilots buy airliners then I'm sure their input will be relevant.  

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 26): The 739MAX will sell ok not because its a great performer but because its cheaper to operate than the plane it replaces.

Bingo. But it is not a stunt aircraft or a fighter. It doesn't need to rocket off the runway and impress the passengers. It needs to carry them to their destination efficiently and safely.

For markets like EGE and SNA, the 738 and A320 (or 73G/M and A319) can do takeoff acrobatics.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 24): I'm glad that someone mentioned this. According to my sources, the UA A320s/319s have a lower dispatch reliability rate than their 73Gs/738s/739s/739ERs.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 24): Can you offer a comparison of the dispatch reliability between the UA Airbus' and the 737s? In other words, are my sources correct?

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 24): Or, if you don't have access to that information - how many of each are out of service each day?

There are many days when the amount of A-319/320s OOS exceeds all the OOS of the entire sCAL fleet. OOS runs about 18-25 aircraft usually. The rampers even say the 737s come and go, but the A-320s like to take extended vacations.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11): The existing 737-900ER order is replacing sUA's, non PS, 757s on a one for one basis. UA did not use their 757s for long hauls other than Saturday only service to Hawaii from Denver. The 737-900ERs are perfect for the former UA 757 missions. The debate is when it comes to replacing the sCO 757s and 753s. The sCO 757s are all ETOPS and in International configurations that fly routes such as EWR-HAM, OSL, ARN, STR, BCN etc.. Those are too far for both the 737-9MAX and A321 NEO. And the 737-9MAX and A321 NEO are both significantly smaller than the 753. Something other than a 737-9MAX or A321 NEO will replace the sCO 757s and 753s, the sCO 757s are probably going to be flying into the end of the next decade. However UA will probably want to identify a replacement by 2020, right now though it doesn't exist.

I think you are absolutely correct. I think people are now confusing sUA 757's with sCO 757, and like you said right now UA is in the mist of replacing sUA's non PS 757's and the 739ER can cover most of the missions sUA used their 757 for. Of course at certain times of the year the 739ER is pushed to its limit on West Coast to Hawaii flights due to strong head winds but other than that the 739 can cover any other domestic mission that sUA's 757 used to cover and still cover.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 24): Can you offer a comparison of the dispatch reliability between the UA Airbus' and the 737s? In other words, are my sources correct? Or, if you don't have access to that information - how many of each are out of service each day?

that information is not for public disclosure.
but I will tell you this, It's a matter of knowing the airplane and we've sent that airplane to IAH and EWR
where they Didn't know the airplane and didn't like it when they got it,
They also didn't like the 747-422 or the 767-322 so I don't think it's the airplane.
the S UA stations didn't and don't care one way or the other. If it flew in and Broke?? we fix it.
The IAH and EWR guys are getting better as they realize that We're NOT getting rid of the airplane
and they'd better get with the program because we're getting MORE of them with the A350 and the
architecture is going to be similar So of they don't get with THIS?? Then they need to throw in the towel
on the A350..

Quoting ORDBOSEWR (Reply 10): that is what UA's math says.

Is this the same math that resulted in half a billion dollars of losses in 1Q2014?

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 30): For markets like EGE and SNA, the 738 and A320 (or 73G/M and A319) can do takeoff acrobatics.

The 738 is not much better than the 739 regarding this side of takeoff performance - it still has to sit there and basically float off the runway in ground effect until there's enough altitude to rotate fully.

Quoting captainstefan (Reply 34): The 738 is not much better than the 739 regarding this side of takeoff performance - it still has to sit there and basically float off the runway in ground effect until there's enough altitude to rotate fully.

How much experience do you have flying a 737-800? If we are to believe your profile's age, then the answer is likely none.

The 738 is a good compromise and performs very well on most routes. However, the 737-700 has better performance - but that's at a higher cost per seat mile.

Just to be clear, I have over 10 years of captain experience on 737s, most of it in 737NGs. Some of what passes for "common knowledge" on this board about those aircraft is not correct.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 11): Again since the A321 NEO is no better able to replace the sCO 757s Trans-Atlantic routes than the 737-9MAX I don't see an order. However I agree the GTF looks promising, however I would rather see UA order the CS100 and CS300s. It was negotiated in the new UA contract to add a new mainline aircraft, the CSeries is the best option. The CS100s could replace CRJ-700 and ERJ-145 flights, and the CS300 could replace the A319s.

Would absolutely love to see the C-series with United. There's a plane in a size category they so desperately need. Doesn't the new pilot contract stipulate that in order to buy the 75 seaters they needed to buy 100 seaters for mainline? Or that they had to grow the mainline fleet or something to that degree? Seeing a new UA order with PW engines would be a huge win.

Quoting UA444 (Reply 37): There's a plane in a size category they so desperately need. Doesn't the new pilot contract stipulate that in order to buy the 75 seaters they needed to buy 100 seaters for mainline?

It's complicated, but UA can have up to 325 70-76 seat aircraft (currently have 189 ) if they add 88 new mainline aircraft (C Series, ERJ-190 etc..). They currently have 28 Q400s, 115 CR-7s, 38 ERJ-170s and 10 ERJ-175s. They can go up to 225 ERJ-175s which are the larger 76 seat aircraft.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 28): The 739ER is not the performer that the 752 is, but it doesn't need to be.

And if the 752 was more like the 737-900ER, it would probably still be in production as the 757-200NG (or rather 757-8 MAX). Always a bit unfair to compare an airplane that died a silent death because of its poor economics resulting from capabilites only needed for niche applications with an airplane that can do everything else more economically - with the exception of the niche application. Airlines have voted with their feet. The 737-900 has survived, the 757-200 not.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 18): When FiFi isn't feeling well (which happens on a regular basis) or when Fifi is too cold or too Hot?? Fifi turns into a raving Lunatic !! And they Will Feel her wrath. Like a High Maintenance Woman !! Don't Say I didn't tell you..

From a maintenance controller I would have expected a more technical analysis. Are you sure you don't have an axe to grind here? Just saying your post doesn't read as entirely balanced.

Quoting ukoverlander (Reply 40): From a maintenance controller I would have expected a more technical analysis. Are you sure you don't have an axe to grind here? Just saying your post doesn't read as entirely balanced.

why would YOU need a more technical analysis??, What are You going to do with it even id you Had the information?
the Guys at American will soon know what I'm talking about. I came over to the Airbus FROM the 737, So I've seen the shortcomings in almost real time.
when she's flying? There is not a nicer airplane TO fly. But when the time comes to fix it?? There's a LOT of information
Airbus is loathe to tell you unless you get nasty with them and that's how we get in depth information that Boeing gives out like Candy.
It's like they're scared Boeing will find out something about their airplanes they don't already KNOW.
Hell ! The engineers at Boeing read the SDR's (Service Difficulty Reports) just like We do.
They know exactly where the Airbus shortcomings are.
They can walk down to the Hangar at SFO and look at the airframe or any system.
Airbus doesn't need to hide information .. They've built 15000+ airplanes !!
They Know what's wrong with their systems and How to fix it !! And having to PAY for technical information??
That's BS on it's face!! We've given THEM far more info than they've given US.
I've stated before now that if you go to Airbus with a Technical issue they take their sweet time about getting back to you
(up to 10 Days) while Boeing will have an answer for you in a matter of Hours. It's Not the airplane it's the Company!!
They need to get on the ball . Analyze data and be quick about it!!

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 41): why would YOU need a more technical analysis??, What are You going to do with it even id you Had the information?

Hmm, a bit defensive aren't we?? It rather lends weight to the sense that your views may not be entirely impartial. As Daysleeper suggests in more detail, if we were to take your opinions as hard facts it would be hard to imagine how Airbus could be in business?

Perhaps others in the industry might have a very different opinion to your own - perhaps that explains it?

Just sayin.....

Quoting vfw614 (Reply 39): And if the 752 was more like the 737-900ER, it would probably still be in production as the 757-200NG (or rather 757-8 MAX). Always a bit unfair to compare an airplane that died a silent death because of its poor economics resulting from capabilites only needed for niche applications with an airplane that can do everything else more economically - with the exception of the niche application. Airlines have voted with their feet. The 737-900 has survived, the 757-200 not.

And that's the funny thing about a niche performer -- ironically they can last quite a while as those who need that capability keep doubling down where it's needed (cannibalizing frames, optimizing utilization to only where it's explicitly necessary, etc.) until they simply become completely uneconomical. The point at which they will NEED to replace the 757s for what only the 757 can do is still a ways off. For instance, UA may eventually follow the AA example and swap in 739s for PS and convert those frames to int'l, but the int'l 757s will stick around as an active type for a while yet.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 18): I'm going to add 1 more thing. My boys over at American? Have NO Idea in the World what they're getting themselvesIn for with the A319 and A321. When they're NEW?!? "Cool Beans" When FiFi isn't feeling well (which happens on a regular basis) or when Fifi is too cold or too Hot?? Fifi turns into a raving Lunatic !! And they Will Feel her wrath. Like a High Maintenance Woman !!Don't Say I didn't tell you..

LOL..........Its been awhile since I have read the "FiFi" references..........too funny. Are you sure you are Joe Patroni ?............LOL.

UA put out an RFP for narrowbodies and went with the 737. They could have split the order like AA did and UA did prior to the merger with the widebodies, so they could have ordered the A321neo but they did not. While I would have preferred the A320neo series, including the A321 because I find the seating more comfortable, current management seems to prefer going to an all 737 narrowbody fleet.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 26): Ask pilots their opinion about the 739ER in terms of performance. I have and have yet to find a pilot who was really impressed with how the plane operates. It is a flat-out dog in performance compared to the 752 it replaces; the differences are magnified in hot/high airport environments.

Sure it is a dog in comparison. The reason orders for the 757 dried up because it had performance that was not needed most of the time and the fuel cost for that performance killed it. The 739 works but it is not as much fun and that is not good enough a reason to keep the 757.

Quoting FlyHossD (Reply 35): How much experience do you have flying a 737-800? If we are to believe your profile's age, then the answer is likely none.

Good deduction. I have only about an hour in the 738 sim over at Delta's OC buildings. However, I watch them take off all day while at work and the theme is constant - elongated takeoff rolls, very very minimal rotation and an equally shallow climb until they're out of ground effect. So if I'm mistaken - and I'm not being snarky, I honestly do want to know - I apologize. Remember I'm not talking about range or efficiency or anything, just the takeoff tendencies I (and others apparently) have noticed. Is it just an optical illusion that the 738s and 739s roll farther and pitch up less at Vr?

Speaking from a passenger prospective, I'd say your observations are correct. I shall try to remember to ask 73 pilots about this at work tomorrow   

Quoting captainstefan (Reply 46):

Your perceptions aren't entirely wrong. That is, the 738 and 739 do have relatively long take off distances (the V speeds are generally high - again, relative to other airliners). However, I can't remember another airliner where the same basic take off technique wasn't used. I flew 727s to 767s and we rotated to about 7 degrees pitch up on all of them and waited for the main gear to come off before increasing the pitch. So to describe this technique as unique to the 738s and 739s isn't correct.

At my former carrier, I don't recall any tail-strikes on take off for a 738 or 739. IIRC, there were two bounced landings that resulted in tail strikes, both in 738s.

Quoting LH707330 (Reply 21): Is the 73G really that much better than a 319 in H/H? AA seems to be quite happy flying the 319 into Aspen and other markets...

That really depends on the engine thrust and performance options. Delta has the highest performance 73Gs out there and they are the best short field performance jets in their fleet. Comparing an A319 vs 73G will all depend on the thrust performance chosen. The 737-900ER doesn't have that great of performance, but I don't think that is enough of a reason for UA to purchase the A321NEO.

Quoting captainstefan (Reply 46): Good deduction. I have only about an hour in the 738 sim over at Delta's OC buildings. However, I watch them take off all day while at work and the theme is constant - elongated takeoff rolls, very very minimal rotation and an equally shallow climb until they're out of ground effect. So if I'm mistaken - and I'm not being snarky, I honestly do want to know - I apologize. Remember I'm not talking about range or efficiency or anything, just the takeoff tendencies I (and others apparently) have noticed. Is it just an optical illusion that the 738s and 739s roll farther and pitch up less at Vr?

I think you are just watching derated takeoffs. Atlanta's runways are all 9,000ft or more. There's no need for a full power takeoff. Derating saves fuel and reduces engine maintenance. Watching airplanes takeoff slowly doesn't really mean that they have poor performance, although the 737-900 does have the longest takeoff roll of any narrowbody, it also has arguably the lowest seat mile costs which is what really matters.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 41): why would YOU need a more technical analysis??, What are You going to do with it even id you Had the information? the Guys at American will soon know what I'm talking about. I came over to the Airbus FROM the 737, So I've seen the shortcomings in almost real time.

And who are YOU to decide that he doesn't?

I have to admit I have not dedicated a great deal of time researching the issues you raise as I suspect there is no basis to them other than your pro-Boeing bias which to your credit you make no secret of.

Where is the data backing up your claims that the A320 series are unreliable? Givem the 1000;s already in service all over the world with 100's of operators if there any basis to this then surely there would be more than one disgruntled Boeing fan raising the issue.

Sp I ask again, where is the data backing up your claims? Such as terrible dispatch reliability, complaints by other engineers about just how hard it is to work on these airframes? As I cannot find anything.

And what is stopping you getting more technical? there are plenty of members here with an incredible skillset and a vast amount of experience, perhaps even more than yourself.

As it stands all I get from your posts is a sense of bitterness that Boeing have not only lost the number one spot to Airbus but many US based carriers are more than happy to replace thier aging Boeing fleets with Airbus frames.