Kirby's New Message
02-28-2017 | 11:57 AM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
02-28-2017 | 04:45 PM
#23
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Sep 2014
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
From: Airbus 320 Captain
Meh, the letter was to every United Employee, not just the pilots, so perhaps it was meant to add a certain "folksiness" to the message.
03-01-2017 | 04:21 AM
#25
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,750
Likes: 0
From: 737 CA
Bottom line.....
in the last 12 months.....
65- 737-700s were ordered to "replace 50 seat RJ flying"
of those orders, 4 were converted to 800s..61 were deferred indefinitely.
Now we just signed up for 65- 50 seat RJs
in the last 12 months.....
65- 737-700s were ordered to "replace 50 seat RJ flying"
of those orders, 4 were converted to 800s..61 were deferred indefinitely.
Now we just signed up for 65- 50 seat RJs
03-01-2017 | 04:28 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,639
Likes: 0
Until we see actual mainline growth all the talk is talk and Lucy is still holding the football.
I'm cautiously optimistic that UAL is actually trying be an airline for the first time in a long time but we've also all seen this movie before.
I'll be far more comfortable with the plan when we actually see what's gonna happen (or not) with the mainline fleet plan.
03-01-2017 | 09:09 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,213
Likes: 14
From: guppy CA
See page 10 (listed as page 9 on the slide) of this slide deck from a presentation 2/28/17 for 2017 forecast:
http://ir.united.com/~/media/Files/U...ation-2017.pdf
I don't expect to shrink on the RJ side as much as is listed and I hope that we'll have more mainline aircraft than the presentation indicates.
03-01-2017 | 09:15 AM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,508
Likes: 109
They're also going to finally start using them the way we're supposed to... on smaller cities that in no way support mainline flying. Yet. Finally ditching the stupidity of flying RJs and -8's between major hubs.
The sky isn't falling, I'm optimistic for the time being. Lot of smaller towns being added to pump passenger traffic into the system.
03-01-2017 | 10:25 AM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2014
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
I've talked to a number of LCA's fairly recently (two in the past three trips). Based on the recent standards meeting cliff notes it seems (new) management didn't want to commit to 65 737-700s that were already a decade old technology and not substantially fuel effecient when newer, much more effecient technology is right around the corner. Once those 737s were on property UCH would be stuck with them for a considerable length of time and didn't want that commitment. Seemed reasonable to me from a financial standpoint.
03-01-2017 | 12:19 PM
#30
Line Holder
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 671
Likes: 8
From: CRJ FO
I hope that's the true reason for the deferment. I wonder what the break even point is on a NG vs MAX though? I remember Dal years ago stating the break even point of a used MD90 (price tag +fuel) vs a new 737 NG (price tag+fuel) was something like 20 years. In other words it would take 20 years in added fuel costs from the MD to equal the bigger price tag of the new guppy. I wonder how many more millions of $ the MAX is than the last of the NG's.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
