Newer aircraft?

[Ukridge]

Naturally this would not be the place where United announces any purchasing plans but are there any guesses as to when United will start to gussy up its fleet a bit? I ask this only because aircraft orders seem to be at least moderately strong across the world. Because I do not know the margins on the various routes, it would seem that at some point United (and the other American carriers) would find the 767 uncompetative for the North Atlantic market. I have flown (albeit not recently) on the early morning 767 from Washington to London and found the airplane entirely disagreeable - much better to wait until later in the day and fly on a 777 or BA's 400. Is simply putting new seats in an aircraft with that old of engine technology and 15+ years of wear and tear really a good move? It seems the rest of the world has moved to the 777, A330, and A340 as the aircraft of choice (it goes without mentioning the 747-400 which has been in saddle awhile).
Now, before one thinks that I am digging at United, BA has a fleet of 757s and 767s that seem to be just as old and grotty - one of the reasons I prefer LH to the continent.
So, enough complaining, when is a fleet upgrade in order?
I think Cosmo and I already discussed that a large A380 order is not in the works
Cheers

 

[JungleClone]

It's no secret that UA needs a replacement for its very aging fleet of B737's. And some of the B757's and B767's are getting long in the tooth as well.

But given the fact that Glenn Tilton has done everything but put UA up for sale on EBay, I'd imagine that UA won't be making any aircraft purchases until they figure out who they are going to merge with or be acquired by. You also need a long-term strategy when discussing fleet purchases. Do Tilton and The Boys even think any further out than the next 6-12 months? That's a rhetorical question, of course and I'm soure the answer is "yes". But they sure don't ever act like they do any long-term strategic planning.

 

[The Gopher]

Because I do not know the margins on the various routes, it would seem that at some point United (and the other American carriers) would find the 767 uncompetative for the North Atlantic market.
[...]
It seems the rest of the world has moved to the 777, A330, and A340 as the aircraft of choice (it goes without mentioning the 747-400 which has been in saddle awhile).

UA is now the ONLY MAJOR US carrier to NOT fly 757s across the Atlantic. AA, CO, US, DL,and now NW have announced 757s to places like Aberdeen, Scotland and Pisa, Italy. Is UA planning a 757 deployment over the Atlantic? Not likely, as that would mean taking ETOPS 757s (57X) from Hawaii and placing them on European routes. Plus, we don't have that many 57X aircraft anyway.

But given the fact that Glenn Tilton has done everything but put UA up for sale on EBay, I'd imagine that UA won't be making any aircraft purchases until they figure out who they are going to merge with or be acquired by. You also need a long-term strategy when discussing fleet purchases. Do Tilton and The Boys even think any further out than the next 6-12 months? That's a rhetorical question, of course and I'm soure the answer is "yes". But they sure don't ever act like they do any long-term strategic planning.

Yes, long term planning is alive and well. I have personally seen a powerpoint presentation of fleet costs using various scenarios out to 2040.

One of the big hangups on 737/A320 replacement in the Boeing "Y3" program, which is the next-gen 120-170 seat airliner, basically a 737 replacement although I hear it'll be nothing like a 737. Southwest apparently wants a dual-aisle aircraft that can be deplaned quickly. Google "Boeing Y3" and you'll see.

Anyway, UA and almost all other airlines don't want to order a bunch of 737 or Airbus aircraft, only to find that in ten years we're taking deliveries of an outdated airplane. The Y3 will be an all-composite 787-style fuse with super critical wings and next-gen engines. Basically a 10-20% operating cost savings over current tech. No airline can ignore that, thus no large-scale orders.

 

[Ukridge]

Of course if he does decide to float the company on EBay I would trust that he would be savvy enough to precede it with a few YouTube videos to generate a little buzz first. I mean seriously, just posting it on EBay straightaway is SO 2004. I am not sure if Virgin showed the commercial in the FCs of the gent sitting on the bench as a clay/marble Cherubic statuary falls toward him. His life starts to flash before his eyes as the grim reaper sits down as well. Well, it had a good catch and is back on YouTube. It is that sort of thing that generates a lot of talk. How boring it would be just to see the airline listed with bids closing in x number of days or hours - some young oligarch in Moscow could be owning the lot in a matter of hours!
Gopher - A single aisle aircarft on a flight across the North Atlantic? Are the passangers on board doing pennance for sins in their lives? I would prefer to sign on to work passage on a container ship instead!
Cheers

 

[DCT JVL]

Here's what Wikipedia has to say about the Y3 project. No mention of a narrowbody aircraft:

Y3 is a Boeing Commercial Airplanes project to replace the 777-300 and 747 product lines, and may be used to compete with Airbus' A380 product range, as well as the A350, and seat a minimum of 300-350 passengers. New technologies to be introduced include composite aerostructures and more fuel-efficient turbofan engines. Y3 is part of Boeing's Yellowstone project.

According to this Wikipedia entry. The narrowbody project is the Y1 component of the Yellowstone Project.

Yellowstone is a Boeing Commercial Airplanes project to replace its entire civil aircraft portfolio with advanced technology aircraft. New technologies to be introduced include composite aerostructures, more electrical systems (reduction of hydraulic systems), and more fuel-efficient turbofan engines (such as the GEnx and Trent 1000). The term "Yellowstone" refers to the technologies, while "Y1" through "Y3" refer to the actual aircraft.

Yellowstone is divided into three projects:

* Y1, to replace the 717, 737, and 757-200 product lines. Y1 will cover the 100 to 200-passenger space.
* Y2, to replace the 757-300 and 767 product lines. It may also replace the 777-200. Y2, which initially referred to the Sonic Cruiser is now in development as the 787. Y2 will cover the 200 to 300-passenger space.
* Y3, to replace the 777-300 and 747 product lines. Y3 will cover 300 passengers and beyond

A cursory search revealed nothing on the Boeing site with regard to a "Yellowstone Project".

 

[spacewaitress]

the 747Bs are rustbuckets and need to be replaced. never mind what goes wrong in the cabin...I was working one a month or so ago and the "number 4 bus" went out halfway over the pacific to sydney. the captain was woken up and said they were trying to figure out where they could land (presumably if the problem became worse). we had to shut down power to a the business class galley (lower deck) which was no big deal. But...we had a happy ending...still, no happy feelings were had as we flew over the pacific from the northern to southern hemisphere where there is NOTHING but water forever (almost).

thanks to the captain who kept all the crew informed!

 

[coolflyingfool]

I think that UAL could be caught between rocks very soon. The A320 line and the B737 are pretty full and a large order would take a while to start and complete. SWA has excercised options that they will not get for over 2 years and the A320 line is booked through 2008 I believe. I cannot guess which way they are leaning, but they need to figure something out soon, IMO. I am not sure how long they are going to push the B757/767 in the fleet now. I think the leasing companies may be getting a call soon. just my thoughts............

 

[TechBoy]

I think that UAL could be caught between rocks very soon. The A320 line and the B737 are pretty full and a large order would take a while to start and complete. SWA has excercised options that they will not get for over 2 years and the A320 line is booked through 2008 I believe. I cannot guess which way they are leaning, but they need to figure something out soon, IMO. I am not sure how long they are going to push the B757/767 in the fleet now. I think the leasing companies may be getting a call soon. just my thoughts............

Nonsense. UA does not need to replace any aircraft in the short run. The 737s have another 5-10 years on them and the 320s even more. If UA needs some incremental capacity, I suspect that it will come from more EMB-170s or 190s in ExPlus configuration.

Of course, UA will have to decide on a future narrowbody fleet and whether to go with the 787 at some point. But I think that they will wait and see if the merger game plays out.

 

[ualdriver]

Guesses.......

1) If just the economics of the 787 work out to be as good as Boeing advertises, I imagine we would be at a pretty bad competitive disadvantage if we do not operate them as well.

2) I wonder if the money factor is coming into play? Will money to obtain aircraft be cheaper once we establish some sort of post-bankruptcy track record (if we can establish one)? Will money be cheaper if laws change and we can use a cash infusion from another (foreign) carrier buying a stake in UAL vs. more traditional means of obtaining money to purchase aircraft?

3) I think a "E-190" type aircraft is in our future simply because it's a "lightweight" 100 seat aircraft that is cheaper to operate than a 737. I've seen some direct operating cost data here and there (sorry don't have a link) and it seems like it could be a player, even though it would be a new fleet. They'd probably be able to negotiate a lower rate for a "E-190" type aircraft than they're paying the narrowbody pilots now.

 

[jbguppy]

Guesses.......

1) If just the economics of the 787 work out to be as good as Boeing advertises, I imagine we would be at a pretty bad competitive disadvantage if we do not operate them as well.

2) I wonder if the money factor is coming into play? Will money to obtain aircraft be cheaper once we establish some sort of post-bankruptcy track record (if we can establish one)? Will money be cheaper if laws change and we can use a cash infusion from another (foreign) carrier buying a stake in UAL vs. more traditional means of obtaining money to purchase aircraft?

3) I think a "E-190" type aircraft is in our future simply because it's a "lightweight" 100 seat aircraft that is cheaper to operate than a 737. I've seen some direct operating cost data here and there (sorry don't have a link) and it seems like it could be a player, even though it would be a new fleet. They'd probably be able to negotiate a lower rate for a "E-190" type aircraft than they're paying the narrowbody pilots now.

Really depends on how the E-190 is utilized for stage length. Stage length adjusted numbers show it very close to Guppy with respect to operating costs right now.

That being said, I know of no one who I fly with that is willing to acccept a lower pay rate for anything - what contract have you been working under?

JBG

 

[ualdriver]

Really depends on how the E-190 is utilized for stage length. Stage length adjusted numbers show it very close to Guppy with respect to operating costs right now.

I don't agree. I can find the article I was looking for, but I do have a comparison chart. Unfortunately it is in my personal papers and I can't post a graph without a URL, so I'll summarize using some ratios. The data is for a representative 500nm trip and includes only operating costs. The Embraer 175 with a 31" pitch was the "baseline" cost comparator and represents the origin of the graph I'm looking at:

Cost per 500nm trip:

E175 (31" pitch)- 0% baseline
CRJ900 (31"pitch) +5%
E190 (32" pitch) + 18%
B717 (32" pitch) + 32%
B737-600 (32" pitch) + 37%
A318 (32" pitch) +38%

I realize that with a longer stange length the differences would narrow somewhat but not enough where a 737 or A318/319/320 would outshine the E190. I think there might be a compelling argument for a E190-type aircraft at UAL, maybe as a 737 replacement someday?

That being said, I know of no one who I fly with that is willing to acccept a lower pay rate for anything - what contract have you been working under?

I haven't flown with anyone who's going to fly a lower rate for anything we currently have either. However, I think as a pilot group we have to be realistic. The pilot pay bar has been significantly lowered by the LCC's of the world, and the E190 rates were ridiculously reduced even further by the introduction of the E190 aircraft by JetBlue. We're all flying narrowbody aircraft at the greatly reduced Frontier/AirTran/JetBlue rates now anyway, so I would imagine we'd have a choice of flying the E190 at these low market rates or we simply won't be competitive when compared to airlines like JetBlue. I guess that's a choice our pilot group will have to make if/when the time comes. Obviously, the JetBlue group isn't going to get their payrates up any, the US Air got those E190 rates up a little bit over JetBlue's rates. Maybe we can up them more?

 

[jbguppy]

Really depends on how the E-190 is utilized for stage length. Stage length adjusted numbers show it very close to Guppy with respect to operating costs right now.

I don't agree. I can find the article I was looking for, but I do have a comparison chart. Unfortunately it is in my personal papers and I can't post a graph without a URL, so I'll summarize using some ratios. The data is for a representative 500nm trip and includes only operating costs. The Embraer 175 with a 31" pitch was the "baseline" cost comparator and represents the origin of the graph I'm looking at:

Cost per 500nm trip:

E175 (31" pitch)- 0% baseline
CRJ900 (31"pitch) +5%
E190 (32" pitch) + 18%
B717 (32" pitch) + 32%
B737-600 (32" pitch) + 37%
A318 (32" pitch) +38%

I realize that with a longer stange length the differences would narrow somewhat but not enough where a 737 or A318/319/320 would outshine the E190. I think there might be a compelling argument for a E190-type aircraft at UAL, maybe as a 737 replacement someday?

That being said, I know of no one who I fly with that is willing to acccept a lower pay rate for anything - what contract have you been working under?

I haven't flown with anyone who's going to fly a lower rate for anything we currently have either. However, I think as a pilot group we have to be realistic. The pilot pay bar has been significantly lowered by the LCC's of the world, and the E190 rates were ridiculously reduced even further by the introduction of the E190 aircraft by JetBlue. We're all flying narrowbody aircraft at the greatly reduced Frontier/AirTran/JetBlue rates now anyway, so I would imagine we'd have a choice of flying the E190 at these low market rates or we simply won't be competitive when compared to airlines like JetBlue. I guess that's a choice our pilot group will have to make if/when the time comes. Obviously, the JetBlue group isn't going to get their payrates up any, the US Air got those E190 rates up a little bit over JetBlue's rates. Maybe we can up them more?

A lot of assumptions in there, I will just address one thing, we are not flying for Frontier and JB wages, we are flying well below them.

I have seen many graphs and presentations that fly in the face of your numbers. It all depends on labor rates, utilization rates, capitalization of aircraft, and how revenue generated in allocated.

Good Luck, I will not be voting to negotiate anything to replace our guppies that are smaller and less paying. This is a show stopper and one of many, time to start drawing some lines in the sand and getting some more back than two RDO's...

Glen got a 40 percent raise a year early, that would work for me and all my ALPA brothers and sisters!!!

JBG

 

[Ukridge]

I certainly appreciate the sentiments expressed by Cool and Ualdriver. It is not a decision I would wish to make about what new aircraft to buy and when although it seems that some of United's competition is adding international capacity (in lieu of merely shifting it e.g., Rome and calling it new service. Technically perhaps new but only a balance of the teeter-totter and certainly not an expansion). Again, I would not wish to have to make the decision and knowing that at some point the airline is "right-sized," but did not United used to serve Dehli and such places (the answer is yes)? Now, the competitors have taken over. Other than Asia, not sure if United has a clear vision of where it wants to go.

 

[Bizman]

The pilot pay bar has been significantly lowered by the LCC's of the world,

I think you got this statement wrong. Most of the LCC's with the exception of Allegiant, ATA, and Midwest, which aren't the LCC that anyone is really worring about, earn more than UA pilots on the same size equipment. I think your statement should have been " The pilot pay bar has been significantly lowered by the UA's and USAir's of the world". If the LCC your refer to is USAir, you have it wrong because the AWA pilots were not and are not the ones to lower the bar. They also make more than the UA pilots. Point your finger where it should go............at yourself.

 

[WorldTraveler]

one point of clarification. DL's Pisa service will be operated w/ a 763ER. They have indicated no routes for their 757 service which probably won't begin until the summer of 2008 since the ex-TW 757s are not currently maintained to ETOPS standards and the planes arrive too late in 2007 for them to be of benefit over the Atlantic in 2007 except perhaps to substitute on 767 routes during the winter of 07-08.

The 100 seat versions of the 737 and A320 familes cannot and do not compete with the 190 on cost. UA will be vulnerable to competitors with low cost 100 seat fleets - which to UA's benefit is not many carriers right now.