Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
United And The Sharklet
United has a large fleet of A319s and A320s. With the Sharklet now being available for retrofit, and UA having just purchased additional A319s as well as doing cabin mods for the rest of the Airbus fleet, will they choose to have the fleet retrofitted with Sharklets?
When wasn't America great?
The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
-
- INFINITI329
- Posts: 2545
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
The average age of UA A319s is 16 years and 17.7 years for the A320. I may not be worth it to UA to do the conversion. The sharklets on older Airbuses are not plug and play. They require a good bit of wing modification. I don't see it being worth the hassle for UA
-
- jetmatt777
- Posts: 4368
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
I'm sure they have ran the numbers, the things I can think of that work against it:
Fuel is cheaper and will remain cheaper for a few more years at least.
Age of the fleet is getting older, there are less years and thus less cycles left to spread the cost over.
The cost to install on older models is greater as there are more modification to undergo to the wing.
United is aggressively trying to add mainline capacity. The opportunity cost to park airplanes for a week or two at a time to undergo the modifications will mean less ability to upgrade markets to mainline.
If United had some recent builds I'm sure they would install them.
Fuel is cheaper and will remain cheaper for a few more years at least.
Age of the fleet is getting older, there are less years and thus less cycles left to spread the cost over.
The cost to install on older models is greater as there are more modification to undergo to the wing.
United is aggressively trying to add mainline capacity. The opportunity cost to park airplanes for a week or two at a time to undergo the modifications will mean less ability to upgrade markets to mainline.
If United had some recent builds I'm sure they would install them.
RE: United And The Sharklet
Jetmatt touched on the big reason, but allow me to amplify it:
The line numbers of United's old birds are too early for the sharklet mod to be sensible. While I'd like to see it done, it simply requires too much work to the wing and wingbox structure to have a decent ROI with oil at $40, $50, or $60.
I don't expect to see it happen to these birds, unless oil skyrockets unexpectedly.
The line numbers of United's old birds are too early for the sharklet mod to be sensible. While I'd like to see it done, it simply requires too much work to the wing and wingbox structure to have a decent ROI with oil at $40, $50, or $60.
I don't expect to see it happen to these birds, unless oil skyrockets unexpectedly.
RE: United And The Sharklet
What about DL and AA and even B6 and NK? Will they retrofit their non-sharklet A320/319 fleet with sharklets? Does it make sense for them to do it or is it the same as UA's being too old for modifications?
A388
A388
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting A388 (Reply 4): What about DL and AA and even B6 and NK? Will they retrofit their non-sharklet A320/319 fleet with sharklets? Does it make sense for them to do it or is it the same as UA's being too old for modifications? |
I think DL is in much the same boat as UA with the 320's. IIRC only frames >LN1200 are even eligible for the retrofit, and that's with significant wing work. It was only a few years ago that Airbus included the necessary structure to make the sharklets a true plug and play installation.
In DL's case, they only have something like 8 320's above LN1200
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting diverted (Reply 6): Quoting A388 (Reply 4): What about DL and AA and even B6 and NK? Will they retrofit their non-sharklet A320/319 fleet with sharklets? Does it make sense for them to do it or is it the same as UA's being too old for modifications? I think DL is in much the same boat as UA with the 320's. IIRC only frames >LN1200 are even eligible for the retrofit, and that's with significant wing work. It was only a few years ago that Airbus included the necessary structure to make the sharklets a true plug and play installation. |
About a third of UAs Airbus fleet could get sharklets (later than ln 1200) with some wing rework but none of them are plug and play....39 A320 and 27 A319s.
Any of the "new" ex NK/CZ ones should be eligible as well.
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
RE: United And The Sharklet
Exactly how much SFC can be saved with the sharklets ? 4%? 7%?
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting A388 (Reply 8): I can imagine since those are ex-NW aircraft of which a few are one of the early built models. Please correct me on this. |
Oh yeah, some of them are amongst the oldest still flying. In North America, I'd imagine only AC has older ones. DL's oldest is cn 118, N309US. The majority of DL's 320s seem to be under cn 500. AC has 4 older frames, cn 59, 68, 73, 84
DL's 319 fleet is newer on the whole, oldest frame delivered 1999, and only 4 frames appear to be under the cn 1200 threshold. Then of course they have a handful of 321s which are brand new.
-
- cageyjames
- Posts: 672
- Joined:
-
- prebennorholm
- Posts: 7126
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting a380787 (Reply 9): Exactly how much SFC can be saved with the sharklets ? 4%? 7%? |
Airbus claims "up to" 4%. That type of wording is the salesman's way of writing "less than 4%" in everyday ops.
That seems less than claims on other plane types. That is likely due to the old wingtip fences doing a rather good job.
It is not possible for Airbus to be more specific than that without delivering very detailed performance charts for every flight regime.
To be "perfect" at all times winglets would need to have variable toe-out angle depending on wing angle of attack, and also the slight twist of the winglets themselves should be variable. Such features are hardly technically possible, and if they are, they will add unrealistic weight and costs.
Winglets are therefore fixed and designed to optimal effect at most average flight regime (weight, altitude, center of gravity position, etc.). When diverting from that, effect goes down, and can in extreme cases be negative.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
RE: United And The Sharklet
They're "winglets". Let's not make up words for existing nouns.
RE: United And The Sharklet
The technical name of it, despite Airbus marketing team effords, is winglet.
The name they choose to market it, does not change that fact.
The name they choose to market it, does not change that fact.
"ad astra per aspera"
-
- jetmatt777
- Posts: 4368
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting s.p.a.s. (Reply 18): The technical name of it, despite Airbus marketing team effords, is winglet. The name they choose to market it, does not change that fact. |
Technical name or not, it's okay to refer to a product by a brand name. A good example that comes to mind is Kleenex. People say "Hand me a Kleenex" more often than "hand me a tissue". Neither is wrong unless you are only interested in splitting hairs.
RE: United And The Sharklet
If United's purchases of used A319s include newer ones, I'd imagine sharklets will be on the table.
They both go up. You are thinking of the split scimitar on the 737.
That is for a genericized trademark. The name winglet has been used for decades, including on Airbus planes.
| Quoting jolau1701 (Reply 15): Winglets go up, Sharklets go down. That's how I tell them apart (unless I'm wrong) |
They both go up. You are thinking of the split scimitar on the 737.
| Quoting jetmatt777 (Reply 19): Technical name or not, it's okay to refer to a product by a brand name. A good example that comes to mind is Kleenex. People say "Hand me a Kleenex" more often than "hand me a tissue". Neither is wrong unless you are only interested in splitting hairs. |
That is for a genericized trademark. The name winglet has been used for decades, including on Airbus planes.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
-
- DocLightning
- Posts: 21962
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting N1120A (Reply 20): That is for a genericized trademark. The name winglet has been used for decades, including on Airbus planes. |
If you want to be really pedantic, it is a non-planar wingtip device consisting of an upward wing-like element.
Airbus calls them "Sharklets."
In any event, most of UA's A320s are not in any way eligible for the modification. The few that are would require the wingtip to be sawed off, extensive strengthening applied, and then the new Sharklet to be attached. Given the age of these aircraft and given that UA has just made a huge narrowbody order, I can't imagine that they consider this to be worth 1) the aircraft downtime and 2) the cost of the modification.
[Edited 2016-05-28 11:16:09]
-Doc Lightning-
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
-
- prebennorholm
- Posts: 7126
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting DocLightning (Reply 21): Airbus calls them "Sharklets." |
Not entirely correct. They call them "Sharklets (TM)", but only when they sit on an A320 family plane, not on A330 and A340.
Funny thing is that the web site, where Airbus explains their introduction of Sharklets, has the headline "Winglets": http://www.airbus.com/innovation/proven-concepts/in-design/winglets/
They are all winglets, never mind if they sit on a Boeing, Bombardier, Embraer, MDD, Mitsubishi, Tupolev or Airbus plane.
A Sharklet is a winglet, just like a Coca Cola is a soft drink and a Budweiser is a beer. Well, the latter has often been questioned.
Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs
RE: United And The Sharklet
Ah, what might have been. Another potential interesting thread derailed by "I'm the smartest guy in the room" pissing matches.
There's no known cure for stupid
-
- intotheair
- Posts: 1907
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting DualQual (Reply 25): Ah, what might have been. Another potential interesting thread derailed by "I'm the smartest guy in the room" pissing matches. |
At least (surprisingly!) it hasn't turned into a tulip vs. globe food fight like every other UA thread does!
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
RE: United And The Sharklet
I guess that's progress!There's no known cure for stupid
-
- antoniemey
- Posts: 1419
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 3): I don't expect to see it happen to these birds, unless oil skyrockets unexpectedly. |
In which case we have another round of flight and route cuts, the older birds get parked in favor of the new birds that they're committed to leasing or buying for efficiency, and the question becomes a moot point anyway.
And someone would then, a year or two later, come along and ask "Why did UA dump their Airbuses for old generation 737s?"
| Quoting s.p.a.s. (Reply 18): The technical name of it, |
Is wingtip device.
| Quoting intotheair (Reply 26): At least (surprisingly!) it hasn't turned into a tulip vs. globe food fight like every other UA thread does! |
Give it a couple more days.
Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 24): A Sharklet is a winglet, just like a Coca Cola is a soft drink and a Budweiser is a beer |
Excuse me. It is now called America.
And it is still a crappy beer.
Peace (box)
"We've recently upped our standards, so up yours." - Federal Aviation Administration
-
- DocLightning
- Posts: 21962
- Joined:
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 24): Not entirely correct. They call them "Sharklets (TM)", but only when they sit on an A320 family plane, not on A330 and A340. |
Correct. The Sharklets are the trade name only for the A320 family winglets. On the A330/A340 they call them winglets. I haven't seen a name for the weird raked wingtip/winglet hybrid on the A350 and A330NEO.
-Doc Lightning-
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
RE: United And The Sharklet
A lot of back and forth about the term "Sharklet" vs. "Winglet". I get it, no need to reinvent the wheel on the name of a wingtip device that is similar to others out there. But, that is what Airbus has done.
When we see a commercial for a new medication, it has a name that is easy and catchy. But then you also see the technical name that is about 40 letters long and 15 syllables. The technical data will refer to the technical name. The same goes with aircraft parts. In this case:
As per Airbus IPC (A320/321) 57-31-23-01A & -02A, the technical nomenclature of the wingtip device assembly is a Sharklet. Part number D5735672000400 or 600 or 601 for the L/H, Part number D5735672000500 or 700 or 701 for the R/H.
As per the EASA FORM1, Airbus Serviceability Tag, FOLIOs/Constituent Assembly Inspection Reports, the documents used to certify them as airworthy and receive these items into airline inventory and deem them acceptable for use on my aircraft (I received 3 sets a week ago while in LCQ), all list the technical nomenclature as Sharklet, not once is the term Winglet used.
So on the technical side of the house, I have no option but to use the term Sharklet as that is the term used by the aircraft manufacturer, it's manuals, and it's airworthiness certificates and is therefore also the terminology and technical nomenclature used in our M&E system.
We may not like it, especially since the Sharklet design got watered down to its current design which looks much like what we have seen on other aircraft over the years, but that is the technical name we have.
~JKS
When we see a commercial for a new medication, it has a name that is easy and catchy. But then you also see the technical name that is about 40 letters long and 15 syllables. The technical data will refer to the technical name. The same goes with aircraft parts. In this case:
As per Airbus IPC (A320/321) 57-31-23-01A & -02A, the technical nomenclature of the wingtip device assembly is a Sharklet. Part number D5735672000400 or 600 or 601 for the L/H, Part number D5735672000500 or 700 or 701 for the R/H.
As per the EASA FORM1, Airbus Serviceability Tag, FOLIOs/Constituent Assembly Inspection Reports, the documents used to certify them as airworthy and receive these items into airline inventory and deem them acceptable for use on my aircraft (I received 3 sets a week ago while in LCQ), all list the technical nomenclature as Sharklet, not once is the term Winglet used.
So on the technical side of the house, I have no option but to use the term Sharklet as that is the term used by the aircraft manufacturer, it's manuals, and it's airworthiness certificates and is therefore also the terminology and technical nomenclature used in our M&E system.
We may not like it, especially since the Sharklet design got watered down to its current design which looks much like what we have seen on other aircraft over the years, but that is the technical name we have.
~JKS
"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
RE: United And The Sharklet
| Quoting DualQual (Reply 25): Ah, what might have been. Another potential interesting thread derailed by "I'm the smartest guy in the room" pissing matches. |
Kind of. Those who post links to various websites in a futile attempt to prove how smart they think they are only end up proving their foolishness and stupidity.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: A320B737NGCapt, airlittoralguy, CBRboy, codc10, DALCE, DaveMetroD, dstc47, fathernewman, Flaps, FlyingHollander, Google Adsense [Bot], hariacc, LHA320, LimaFoxTango, manilaflyer, nordify, panamair, PepperTaco, qf789, speedygonzales, Wf789 and 187 guests