Legacy Fleet Comparison
 

Where might one look for a current, apples-to-apples fleet comparison between the legacy passenger airlines? A mid-30s military friend who is willing to live in any domicile is trying to decide whom to prioritize. He wants to fly international and it seems like Chicago with United would be pretty ideal. They appear to have almost 100 777s including orders (APC profile, but I don't know if it's accurate), and FOs with 2 years can hold it? 787 options in HOU and SFO look good too. He has zero interest in cargo.

I think APC is a pretty good place to start. Other than that, maybe the ALPA scope committee report and I think there are government filings by each airline that provide fleet information.

Wikipedia has a nice breakdown of airline fleets and orders

SEC 10-K filings have end of year fleet, orders and options numbers.

From UAL:

NOTE 15 - COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
Commitments. As of December 31, 2016, United had firm commitments and options to purchase aircraft from The Boeing Company (“Boeing”), Embraer and Airbus presented in the table below:

Aircraft Type

Number of Firm
Commitments (a)

Airbus A350-1000
35

Boeing 737NG/737MAX
165

Boeing 777-300ER
12

Boeing 787-8/-9/-10
21

Embraer E175
24

(a) United also has options and purchase rights for additional aircraft.

The aircraft listed in the table above are scheduled for delivery from 2017 through 2027. To the extent the Company and the aircraft manufacturers with whom the Company has existing orders for new aircraft agree to modify the contracts governing those orders, the amount and timing of the Company’s future capital commitments could change.


Table of Contents
The table below summarizes United’s commitments as of December 31, 2016, which primarily relate to the acquisition of aircraft and related spare engines, aircraft improvements and include other capital purchase commitments for the years ended December 31 (in billions). Any new firm aircraft orders, including through the exercise of purchase options and purchase rights, will increase the total future capital commitments of the Company.

In the first quarter of 2017, the Company announced that it will retire its fleet of Boeing 747 aircraft from scheduled service by the end of 2017. The Company does not expect there to be a material impact to depreciation and amortization expense.
As of December 31, 2016, United had $1.3 billion in financing available through EETC transactions for the financing of all of its aircraft deliveries scheduled in the first half of 2017. See Note 11 of this report for additional information on aircraft financing. The Company has also secured backstop financing commitments from certain of its aircraft manufacturers for a limited number of its future aircraft deliveries, subject to certain customary conditions. Financing may be necessary to satisfy the Company’s capital commitments for its firm order aircraft and other related capital expenditures.

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/d...htm#tx300268_5

Thanks folks. Lots of ways to skin this cat. With one methodology, UAL is the clear winner in wide bodies. Of course, other approaches will yield different results. I just added up active and ordered true wide bodies (ignored 757 and ignored retirement plans), primarily because I can't guarantee the pay methodologies will be similar across brands for the next two decades.

UAL: 26% widebody
DL: 17% widebody
AA: 15% widebody

Houston 787 is closing in October. Two years to WB. Eh I doubt it. Maybe SFO, but eternal reserve and that base does a lot of domestic. United is gonna be stagnant until the parking of the 747 and cascading effects shake out.

Not sure if this matters to him but take a look at the quarterly profits for each carrier as well. Delta is conservative but made 600M or so last quarter compared to United's 130M and American at 308M. I love new airplanes but after the last 15 years I love a company that knows how to make money more.

Today's fleets won't necessarily correlate to future results. If he truly doesn't mind being based in any city to get to WB the quickest, then I'd argue he seems to have a very myopic view of the industry. He seems to have what the regional guys call "shiny jet syndrome." Essentially, chasing the biggest, newest, baddest thing in the air some times at the expense of wiser career decisions. What if he wants to have a family some day? There's so much more involved than picking from the current crop of WB fleets.

Step 1 is applying and getting the interviews and CJOs.

Step 2: the "Decision" only comes if he gets more than one choice of CJOs.

What if his ideal legacy never calls? I'd encourage him not to put the cart before the horse and expand his list of haves and have nots when pursuing a legacy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This...

Plus Delta has less debt than AA and UAL. When a economic downturn hits, we have more chances to survive.

Where does the 777 fly out of SFO? I've heard reserve isn't bad if you live in base.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk

All good inputs, and stuff he's thinking about already. A good friend of his family with decades in the airlines got his ear about WB international, so that's where some of that appetite came from. Frankly, I've heard the same thing from captains I've flown with and look forward to doing some myself with the right seniority.

I'm not sure this is shiny jet syndrome... he's just more interested in layovers abroad with lots of traveling in his background. And he may not have a choice, but resumes that look like his get calls at all the majors pretty quickly. Truth be told, I can't completely understand anyone who chose to fly Navy, so who really knows... :)

Last bid Delta was around 1.5 years to DTW330B

what he might want to examine is the stats on what a career of only international flying does to health and longevity prospects.

Future post bankruptcy WB rates may not be as nice as profitable airline NB rates. Not to mention guaranteed loss of soft money.

Consider also that legacy UAL was "the" launch customer for the 777 dating back to 1995. All those P&W birds are not going to be flying much longer, hence the 787 and 350 orders. Yes, they and AA have many more 777s than we do but they dont use them in the same way. Delta typically only uses 777s for missions that require it's range and cargo capabilities. We will have 67 A330s when all is said and done and all of ours are newer than their 777s. The 330 may not be an ultra long haul bird and I too was disappointed that we passed on the 787s but the A330 still pays well at Delta. And as has been mentioned, we are profit leaders compared to our counterparts.

Right on target. Those initial base 777's at UA are kind of useless especially if fuel goes up. I believe they were meant to replace dc10 (10 series) flying in the past. As for running 777 across the pond unless you are hauling a lot of cargo it is not plane for the mission.
Way too much plane for capacity and range (from eastern US gateways). I'm not DAL but the 767/332 and 333 are ideal for that. If you are going long range the 787 is hard to beat. Perhaps the 359 or 10 would be the best bet for longer heavier routes, but that is what the 777-200er and LR do hence delivery postponements. Bottom line with carriers right sizing their fleets you might not see a increase in WB flying for awhile IMO and hard to see who will have the most based on today's numbers.

I may be mistaken but at AA you can change bases monthly and chase the flying you want if you are senior enough and are willing to commute anyway. I know some guys live in FL and are out of MIA but change bases as the seasons and flying changes.

You can do that for now. However, our JCBA we signed in 15 says a minimum of three a year. That's what LUS had and I'd imagine we will get back to that eventually.

I think you should also ignore the 767s as they do not pay widebody rates.

The American number seems low.

Couple thoughts about UA.

SFO is by far the most junior wb base. The 777 there is getting 5 of the 7 747 destinations. The 787 is only getting 2 of the 747 cities. However, the 787 is a much larger category with something like 12 international destinations already. Junior guys on both planes have been here about 2 years however that may stagnate a bit as we close IAH 787 and SFO 747. The 757 and 767 in Ewr occasionally goes to new hires and mostly does Europe flying if your friend is into that. One last thing about debt. UA and Delta are pretty close on debt. Different types of debt however. American has massive debt. Like you guys said before, Delta is killing it in profits. UA not so much....and the media hates us!

UAL domestic feed is 40% smaller than Delta's and AA, and that' not combined. That's kind of scary for UAL and sustaining international feed. And international markets are where the current cute throat competition is with subsidized airlines.

Don't forget the killer of the 777 is the price. $150,000,000 a frame. Ouch and the 787 is not cheap either.

I know the original poster leaned toward long-haul type operations. But, considering the metrics we are talking about ($, profits, downturn, etc), they should consider SWA. 40+ consecutive quarters of profit. Paid a profit sharing check during both 9-11, and the 08-09 meltdown. Never declared bankruptcy, never furloughed a pilot. Great culture. Something to consider.

Too bad...FedEx and UPS have a ton of international flying opportunities. We are buying larger airplanes, not smaller...

Too bad. A career in cargo is more compatible with international widebody flying than any passenger airline. He really should rethink FedEx and UPS.

Ten percent of captains at AA flying WB. That even includes group 3 flying that is both 757/767. generally on long haul we will fly either two or three FOs. Only our longest DFW HKG have two captains and two fo's. So while I am not positive about the WB % it seems sensible.

Where might one find said stats?

I wouldn't count the 75/76 for pay purposes. They only pay a few dollars more than the 73/320 series.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Except

You will be a first officer forever.

You can only fly the 1960s cockpit 737 Guppy

The cockpit is Loud!

And extremely Small!

Other than that, you make great points.

25% of AA CA's are on w/b's. Includes 757's. 'Crew age by fleet' as source.

G4% is 16%.

If you're only interested in n/b flying legacy n/b advancement will be faster than at SW.

OK, more recent source one month forecast August 2017, 24apr17:
And yes our 767 groups include the 757, so the percentage would be even lower. APC figure 51 757s.

777/787/330/767/76T CAPT 1389

TTL CAPT. 5888
TTL FO. 7165
______________

TTL PILOTS 13053

WB CA TO TTL = .106 or 10 %

This should be the most accurate data FWIW unless my math is wrong

Wait till he has a year or two dealing with pax, especially post-Dao.

Don't forget dealing with co workers who think they're musicians/comedians and a safety culture that encourages rushing.

And an upgrade time that is measured by the decade.

I am surprised more legacies haven't yet ordered the C-Series besides Delta and Air Canada. Given its efficiency, range versatility and enhanced passenger comfort, I believe it will be a game changer...

Its still very much a risk. UA passed on them recently because BA/AB came hard to the paint and looked the other way while they shoplifted some 73s and 320s. Its hard for smaller companies to compete with mega companies and their devastating loss leaders. Canadair had to make a VERY lucrative deal, which is great because everyone loves a deal, but let's not fool ourselves. Its still unproven (Swiss and Baltic aren't close to enough) and we could end up with some orphaned hyper electronic Fokkers not far down the road.

Or it could do everything it promised and they stick around. If that's the case, everyone else will order it as well, so any advantage is minor and temporary. There is no magic airplane. Anyone remember when JB was going to dominate the industry by launching the mighty E190? :rolleyes:

I agree that Bombardier needs to get more airframes out there. Swiss will get its first CS300 soon to add to its CS100s and Korean will get the first of seven CS300s due this year shortly.

Not seeing them fly in North America currently does not help marketing efforts...

Well if it is a game changer and we lock up the order book for a few years we can easily get a 5 year "minor and temporary" advantage. I'll take that.

I am looking forward to see some of the new long and thin routes we can make work out of LAX - any guesses?

LAX - BDL
LAX- PVD

Probably make some of the seasonal/Past flights LAX into year round

LAX-PHL
LAX-IND
LAX-Anywhere in FL.

The possibilities are numerous.

Scoop :)