tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:25 pm

Quoting airzim (Reply 48):
t's really not nearly the big deal you make it out to be.

So you say (opinion)

Quoting airzim (Reply 48):
You're opinions are your opinions, but your facts are wrong.

Where are your facts? What makes your opinion so superior? You have presented NO FACTS.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Thu Dec 04, 2014 11:40 pm

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 49):

UA flies much more transcon flights than DL does, they have 2 hubs on each coast while DL only has JFK and LAX.

To be fair, they also have SEA, which feels more like a focus city than a hub at this point.
 
b747400erf
Posts: 3135
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 4:33 am

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:26 am

150+ knot winds crossing the Atlantic this week.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1419
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:42 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 50):
Quoting airzim (Reply 48):
You're opinions are your opinions, but your facts are wrong.

Where are your facts? What makes your opinion so superior? You have presented NO FACTS.

Facts

Quoting airzim (Reply 36):
The PS birds are some of the lower cycled 757 fleet, have been reconfigured for a premium configuration and will remain for the most part on the JFK transcons (low cycle longer stage length). However, the sUA 757 that does BOS-SFO, will often go down to LAX, up to SEA, DEN etc. Whatever incremental gain you have in carrying capacity on a single longer segment, BOS-SFO, will be more than offset by the shorter legs where the 757 just destroys the cost model. This is true for all airlines, not just UA.

I'm not bashing sUAs fleet. The fact is they have significantly higher cycles over the sCO planes and don't have ETOPS (except for the PS birds) which make their flexibility less a significant contributing factor. Juxtapose that with the all of the 737-800s and close to 100% of the 737-900s which are all ETOPS the 737 has lots of flexibility.

As for service, the 737s are hardly dark. 90% of the 737-900s and 50% of the 737-800s have Wifi with free on demand entertainment on a PDA, 85% of the 737-800 and 100% of the 737-7/900 have DTV, with a large portion of the fleet with power enabled.

Opinion

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 41):
Well I highly doubt you'd ever consider flying DL anyway. Personally I don't mind the connections or going to JFK.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 37):
Don't care for the PDA or the DTV product, so I avoid.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 34):
Oh geez. Overhead screens. Let's cry about it  
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 34):
Let's agree to disagree. You don't like DL and I don't like UA. The one thing I appreciate is how DL doesn't fly the 739 on premium transcons and while digging around flightaware (correct me if I'm wrong) I'm not finding any diversions for yesterday.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 30):
I'll gladly take a 30 year old DL 757 with AVOD than a new UA 739 with nothing.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 26):
As do I. If you leave cargo behind, block seats off, and have 2x the take off and landing cycles, then I don't see how the 739ER can handle the route any better.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 22):
If the sUA birds were such a problem there would have been no way in hell that 15 of them were reconfigured in the refreshed PS configuration.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 19):
As I said before, it was a very shortsighted decision to dump the 757s when the 739s are diverting on EWR-SFO -- and it's only early December. It's just a miserable experience for passengers all around.
 
mm320cap
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:35 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:44 am

The best airplane I've ever flown... by a country mile.... is the B757. The B767-300ER next, followed by the A320. Far down is the B737. It flew fine, but the cockpit is cramped, the windows are tiny, it's loud, and as we are talking about the range, I think we all understand the 900ER is a bit short for some of the routes that UAL flies them on.

So is UAL "shortsighted" for parking the LUAL 757's and bringing in the B737-900ER's? Well, there is MUCH more to the answer than an few fuel stops and blocked seats. The LUAL 757's need a SIGNIFICANT investment to bring them up to the level of avionics etc. required by the FAA to operate them as a common fleet with the LCAL 757's. Without that investment, the fleets will have to be operated separately as they are now, which drives your costs up and reduces merger synergies. It's a big number. On top of that, all in, each B737-900ER saves $2 million per year over the B757 it replaces. UAL got a screaming deal on these airplanes from Boeing with the Max on the horizon, which definitely helped drive the decision. Recently UAL announced it was keeping additional LUAL 757's and B767-300's that had been slated to be parked because they need the lift. They will do the upgrades on those airplanes (I THINK the number was north of $1 million per frame, but I can't remember exactly what I was told in the standards meeting) and add them to the PS airplanes that they've kept for the premium routes LAX/SFO-JFK. So is this a smart strategy? Should UAL have kept more old planes ala DAL? Well, first of all the decision was made when oil was literally double what it is now, so you have to keep that frame of reference in mind. UAL is now actively shopping for used airplanes for the first time in recent memory due to the changing landscape of the domestic operation. It's a dynamic game. But here's the thing, all the forum jockeys on here that are proclaiming that it was "shortsighted" of UAL to park the 757's are doing so with maybe 1/10th of the information that the UAL execs have. How can you make such a claim if you don't have all the numbers to pencil? It's silly, really. It's like making a judgement about the Ferguson decision without reading all the transcripts the grand jury read.

Nobody wishes more than me that they had kept all the LUAL 757's. I would have flown that bird happily until I retired. But even I will admit that $2 million a year is worth a few fuel stops here and there.
 
User avatar
777Jet
Posts: 6977
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 7:29 am

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:39 am

Quoting Max Q (Reply 2):
That's what happens when you send a boy's aircraft to do a man's work.


We never had a problem with the 757.
Quoting aviatorcraig (Reply 3):
No, you just hauled all that additional structural weight around for the other 363 days of the year!
Quoting Bgm (Reply 6):
That's what the WB operators crossing the Atlantic say about the 757...
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 7):
When was it, sometime last week, where every single UA 757 coming back from Europe stopped in YYR for some fuel.

Those comments are gold! All of them...

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 54):
The best airplane I've ever flown... by a country mile.... is the B757. The B767-300ER next, followed by the A320. Far down is the B737. It flew fine, but the cockpit is cramped, the windows are tiny, it's loud, and as we are talking about the range, I think we all understand the 900ER is a bit short for some of the routes that UAL flies them on.

So is UAL "shortsighted" for parking the LUAL 757's and bringing in the B737-900ER's? Well, there is MUCH more to the answer than an few fuel stops and blocked seats. The LUAL 757's need a SIGNIFICANT investment to bring them up to the level of avionics etc. required by the FAA to operate them as a common fleet with the LCAL 757's. Without that investment, the fleets will have to be operated separately as they are now, which drives your costs up and reduces merger synergies. It's a big number. On top of that, all in, each B737-900ER saves $2 million per year over the B757 it replaces. UAL got a screaming deal on these airplanes from Boeing with the Max on the horizon, which definitely helped drive the decision. Recently UAL announced it was keeping additional LUAL 757's and B767-300's that had been slated to be parked because they need the lift. They will do the upgrades on those airplanes (I THINK the number was north of $1 million per frame, but I can't remember exactly what I was told in the standards meeting) and add them to the PS airplanes that they've kept for the premium routes LAX/SFO-JFK. So is this a smart strategy? Should UAL have kept more old planes ala DAL? Well, first of all the decision was made when oil was literally double what it is now, so you have to keep that frame of reference in mind. UAL is now actively shopping for used airplanes for the first time in recent memory due to the changing landscape of the domestic operation. It's a dynamic game. But here's the thing, all the forum jockeys on here that are proclaiming that it was "shortsighted" of UAL to park the 757's are doing so with maybe 1/10th of the information that the UAL execs have. How can you make such a claim if you don't have all the numbers to pencil? It's silly, really. It's like making a judgement about the Ferguson decision without reading all the transcripts the grand jury read.

Nobody wishes more than me that they had kept all the LUAL 757's. I would have flown that bird happily until I retired. But even I will admit that $2 million a year is worth a few fuel stops here and there.

Excellent summary!

Some very informative and useful insights...  
DC10-10/30,MD82/88/90, 717,727,732/3/4/5/7/8/9ER,742/4,752/3,763/ER,772/E/L/3/W,788/9, 306,320,321,332/3,346,359,388
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:09 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 55):
Those comments are gold! All of them...

Actually when you take out the sarcasm and read them as text, there is some truth to them.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 54):
Recently UAL announced it was keeping additional LUAL 757's and B767-300's that had been slated to be parked because they need the lift. They will do the upgrades on those airplanes (I THINK the number was north of $1 million per frame, but I can't remember exactly what I was told in the standards meeting)

Thanks for your comments. Is it true that more of the sUA 757s are getting upgraded? I thought that was just a rumor on here and FT? If they are keeping them, would you happen to know how many?

Also with the whole avionics upgrade what is really needed for extra avionics if they are only operating between LAX/SFO and JFK or (assuming the additional 757s are upgraded) Hawaii? It's exactly what they are using right now.

Quoting airzim (Reply 53):
Opinion

Wrong. All you have said are forum fallacies that have been recited over and over again. Just admit Airzim, you love to be a contrarian with my words -- you really do creep on my posts.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 54):
AL is now actively shopping for used airplanes for the first time in recent memory due to the changing landscape of the domestic operation.

Which they totally need. The plethora of ERJ need to go.

Quoting mm320cap (Reply 54):
But here's the thing, all the forum jockeys on here that are proclaiming that it was "shortsighted" of UAL to park the 757's are doing so with maybe 1/10th of the information that the UAL execs have

It's not that it's forum jockeys. It's general distrust of current management that really haven't proved themselves (a few quarters of profitability notwithstanding.)

When they say $2 million in upgrades it's kind of like -- gee really? Where did mgmt pull that number from? I wouldn't think replacing one 757 for one 739 is a magical 2 million saved. It just seems made up. Kind of like how they say that things are really getting better when we still have this sUA vs. sCO nonsense because the two sides haven't been merged in over 4 years.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
sulley
Posts: 395
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 6:55 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 4:01 am

Quoting tommy767:
When they say $2 million in upgrades it's kind of like -- gee really? Where did mgmt pull that number from?

At UAL family day this year, the costs were broken down extremely well by a team of sUA mechanics and representatives from FedEx at the SFO MOC. N569UA was undergoing fleet exit and everything was explained in full detail. Trust me, it's $2 million.

FedEx even had one of their ex-UAL 757's that had just been retrofitted on display. New avionics, cockpit upgrades, etc.
In thrust we trust!
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:46 am

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 56):
When they say $2 million in upgrades it's kind of like -- gee really? Where did mgmt pull that number from? I wouldn't think replacing one 757 for one 739 is a magical 2 million saved. It just seems made up.

UAL is an airline that employs 85,000 people. Of those, we have quite a few people who know what they are doing and have certain skills to calculate the effects of various things. I work for such a team. Too bad you have hard time accepting anything factual coming from UAL, so please enjoy flying Delta and write more about them. You are obviously lacking in many areas when writing about UAL.
Flying at the cruising altitude is (mostly) boring. I wish all flights were nothing but endless take offs and landings every 10 minutes or so.
 
Thomaas
Posts: 661
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2014 10:52 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:20 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 51):
Quoting Thomaas (Reply 49):

UA flies much more transcon flights than DL does, they have 2 hubs on each coast while DL only has JFK and LAX.

To be fair, they also have SEA, which feels more like a focus city than a hub at this point.

But DL doesn't fly any transcons from SEA except JFK. No BOS, IAD, PHL, MIA, FLL or CLT.
 
jetblue1965
Posts: 5050
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2014 1:28 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:16 pm

Quoting Thomaas (Reply 60):


But DL doesn't fly any transcons from SEA except JFK. No BOS, IAD, PHL, MIA, FLL or CLT.

That's why AS is still doing fine. And the back-stabbing two-timing way that DL is acting, AS may soon become exclusively in bed with AA, possibly even joining oneworld.

UA and WN are smart to leave that war at SEA. How many 3 million metros do you know that can support 3-4 airlines hubbing/focus-city-ing there ?
 
airbazar
Posts: 9952
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:28 pm

People are always too quick to knock on the airplane's range but it's not the range that's the issue here, it's time aloft after accounting for delays. Any one of these planes can fly for 7+ hours with no problems. But what if you get to SFO/LAX and there's a 1 hour hold due to weather? Now you're forced onto a reactive diversion. And a much more expensive one. And what if all airports in the area are suffering from the similar problems? Now you're really screwed. Instead they plan ahead and for a proactive diversion at an airport that's more convenient. It takes fuel to divert but you also take less fuel initially if you plan to divert before the departure. If you're flying EWR-DEN you need a lot less fuel than if you're flying EWR-SFO. You need fuel to carry fuel and that's money. My point is: there are a whole lot of variables involved, not just range. 752's and 762's were not diverting but they were probably not making a whole lot of money. They were also purchased and spent most of their life operating when oil was $20 or $30/bbl.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: UA Flts EWR-SFO Making Fuel Stops In DEN 03/04Dec

Fri Dec 05, 2014 2:53 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 62):

Those are really good points. I was on a fuel diversion on a 757 flying SEA-SFO. We got to near SFO and were issued a 40 minute hold. We circled and then it got extended by 20 more minutes. It then got extended another 20 minutes, which resulted in us diverting to SJC. They loaded 1 hour of holding fuel, which is a lot of time, but it still was not enough. With a transcontinental flight, since you are in the air so long it can be almost impossible to know how long you could end up holding. A 737 or A320 often will not have the capability to load an hour of extra fuel when flight time is already almost 7 hours due to wind. However a 757 could end up diverting too if the holds get really long due to erratic winds. SFO has been issuing 2 hour or more ground hold delays due to flow control this week but it still is not enough to stop holding with the weather that they have had.

I hope those having an off topic UA vs DL debate stop so that the thread does not get locked,
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!

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