Airline Pilot Central Forums

Airline Pilot Central Forums (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/)

- Major (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/)

- - AAL or UAL ?? (https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/major/137396-aal-ual.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thrust (Post 3414443)

In terms of narrowbody to widebody ratios, every major airline is “primarily narrowbody”. Emirates and other Middle Eastern/Asian airlines that are state subsidized (yes, the US airlines are subsidized too) are the exception, not the rule. UAL certainly has more narrowbodies than widebodies. How many of UAL’s 777s are still grounded due to the engine failure over Denver? How many Group 4 equivalent airframes does UAL have if you subtract the grounded, ancient 777 non-ERs? Probably still more than AA, but much closer. UAL is going to retire their massive fleet of 772s, both ER and non, about the same time AA will… will they replace them 1:1 with the 777X or 787 variants?

In short… go where you can drive to work.

I should have said “almost exclusively” narrow body airline. UAL has a much higher percentage of widebody flying. AAL and UAL are not close when it comes to international network and widebody fleets. I think my original statement is correct. If a future newhire has widebody aspirations they are much better off going to United. If they want a quick upgrade then AAL is probably the better choice. Yes I expect United will replace group 4 acft 1:1 with 787s or 777x. https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/u...expansion/amp/

UAL has 200 widebody acft out of 610 total or 33% (according to APC)
AAL has 112 widebody acft out of 835 or 13%.
United also has a lot more 4 Pilot routes which drives higher staffing on group 4 acft.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AAL24 (Post 3414458)

Isom was just asked a week ago if f he was going to park the 777s. He said it will depend on future market dynamics. 787s are supposed to replace the older 777s. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch to just park the whole fleet and use 321xlrs for thin European routes, 787s for the longer stuff, and joint venture partners for everything we can’t operate at an easy profit.

I have little doubt the 777 will be replaced. The 321 is not a replacement. I would expect the 777 to be replaced by the 787.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Czervik (Post 3414465)

I have little doubt the 777 will be replaced. The 321 is not a replacement. I would expect the 777 to be replaced by the 787.

So you are expecting an additional 67 787 orders? Of course it’s not a good replacement. But AAL could easily use 321XLRs to fly South America and Europe. Shrink the international ASMs. How many 767s and A330s did we have?
Pre-Covid we were projecting a Group IV fleet of over 140 acft. Seems highly unlikely now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AAL24 (Post 3414468)

Who knows how many more 787’s we’ll order. As far as metrics the 321 isn’t a replacement. I’d guess we’ll see more/smaller European and SA cities served by the 321. We may have more WB than previously planned. Who knows.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Czervik (Post 3414469)

As far as metrics the 321 isn’t a replacement.

Stating the obvious there. It would be great to see an additional 70+ 787s ordered. But it seems highly unlikely with the stated goal of reducing debt by 15 billion over the next few years. “Watch every dollar” Isom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AAL24 (Post 3414471)

I felt like that was eluded to stating the 777’s would be parked with the 321xlrs coming. I agree with you about the Isom mindset but AC purchases are out the window with budget plans. If there’s flying to be done the AC will come….
If the manufacturer can deliver them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Al Czervik (Post 3414472)

Having thousands of hours on both types I understand that the 777 is not equivalent to the A321. The point I was trying to make is that the addition of the 321Xlr places the 777 fleet at risk. A lot of the close in European cities and South American cities could be picked up by the 321 and the 787s could operate Asia and the heavily trafficked Euro and S American destinations. What we couldn’t operate could just be farmed out to any of our Joint Venture partners. Isom likes to go cheap and that would be the cheapest path to follow. Of course this is all just opinion and guesses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AAL24 (Post 3414477)

Isom likes to go cheap and that would be the cheapest path to follow.

Just curious, is there a current CEO who doesn't "like to go cheap"? I'm wondering who is going the opposite direction

Yes there are CEOs who make the investments to drive revenue premiums and there are CEOs who primarily just focus on costs.

AA’s seniority advancement and pending large order of 787s make it a no brained if you live in an AA base.