|
Originally Posted by flyalear
(Post 3759952)
Was told a while back that the cost of conformity checks on used airplanes can be prohibited. Thus, getting used ones in small number or ones that have different engines/interior configuartions can be more expensive than getting new ones.
|
Originally Posted by GPullR
(Post 3759681)
we can't even get the 34 321s we were supposed to have this year. We are getting 14. Airbus can't deliver either for different reasons.
Last week UAL published an investor update that showed 31 total 321's by end of year. https://ir.united.com/static-files/f...6-bc3ce7cd684d |
Originally Posted by C11DCA
(Post 3760193)
Where are you getting only 14 for this year?
Last week UAL published an investor update that showed 31 total 321's by end of year. https://ir.united.com/static-files/f...6-bc3ce7cd684d |
United is slow on the used airplane market .... AA just purchased 10 321neos from Alaska - plus i believe a another half dozen 319s from the same , and then a few from Frontier as well. AA has the LXR orders locked up for the next few years ahead of the others - like the first 75 or so. United seems behind, they'll eventually catch up over the next 6-8 years or so.
|
Originally Posted by GPullR
(Post 3760197)
From the person in charge of the airbus. It's changed.
I guess we shall see. The next 321 delivery is comng up. |
|
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3760018)
The same could be said for us replacing 50 seat jets with the CRJ-550, but for some reason we used a bunch of negotiating capital to basically knee cap these airplanes. This is the worst part of our otherwise really good contract.
"This is why I will never work for a union carrier. Too much BS to put up with." |
I did not say those words.
I support a good scope clause. I support us having a 76 seat limit and a limit on the number of aircraft that have 76 seats or less at regionals. The issue I have is that our union intentionally kneecapped the performance of these CRJ-550’s. The CRJ-550 is a replacement for our 50 seat jets that have no replacement. 50 seat feed is good when used correctly. It brings in lots of premium revenue on routes that have no competition. A passenger pays significantly more for a flight like SBA-LAX-HNL than just LAX-HNL. There is no competition for SBA-LAX-HNL, so United charges a lot more, whereas LAX-HNL has a ton of competition and fares are extremely low. These are typically business travelers who don’t care about the extra cost. Instead we are making them drive 2 hours to a primary hub instead of flying, and we lose hundreds and hundreds of dollars of revenue and profit on the SBA-LAX leg, and often lose their business on the LAX-HNL leg. Customers do not hate smaller jets, JSX has no problem filling up 50 seat sized planes (with 30 seats), and with very premium customers. They hate 70 people crammed into a 70 seat sized jet. They like 50 people/seats in a 70 seat sized jet. JSX is already poaching our customers on routes like LA-Vegas, LA-SF Bay Area, etc… They will keep expanding both on the regional routes we give up and eventually more of our actual mainline routes. We need a competitive product in the 50 seat market, and the CRJ-550 without those restrictions is the answer. It doesn’t take away mainline jobs but actually creates mainline jobs. Less 50 seat feed = less mainline jobs needed. Oh well. Too many “they took ‘er jobs” people who can’t see the forest through the trees. I cannot stand that our union intentionally hurt our product, our revenue, our feed, our PS... |
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3760398)
I did not say those words.
I support a good scope clause. I support us having a 76 seat limit and a limit on the number of aircraft that have 76 seats or less at regionals. The issue I have is that our union intentionally kneecapped the performance of these CRJ-550’s. The CRJ-550 is a replacement for our 50 seat jets that have no replacement. 50 seat feed is good when used correctly. It brings in lots of premium revenue on routes that have no competition. A passenger pays significantly more for a flight like SBA-LAX-HNL than just LAX-HNL. There is no competition for SBA-LAX-HNL, so United charges a lot more, whereas LAX-HNL has a ton of competition and fares are extremely low. These are typically business travelers who don’t care about the extra cost. Instead we are making them drive 2 hours to a primary hub instead of flying, and we lose hundreds and hundreds of dollars of revenue and profit on the SBA-LAX leg, and often lose their business on the LAX-HNL leg. Customers do not hate smaller jets, JSX has no problem filling up 50 seat sized planes (with 30 seats), and with very premium customers. They hate 70 people crammed into a 70 seat sized jet. They like 50 people/seats in a 70 seat sized jet. JSX is already poaching our customers on routes like LA-Vegas, LA-SF Bay Area, etc… They will keep expanding both on the regional routes we give up and eventually more of our actual mainline routes. We need a competitive product in the 50 seat market, and the CRJ-550 without those restrictions is the answer. It doesn’t take away mainline jobs but actually creates mainline jobs. Less 50 seat feed = less mainline jobs needed. Oh well. Too many “they took ‘er jobs” people who can’t see the forest through the trees. I cannot stand that our union intentionally hurt our product, our revenue, our feed, our PS... |
Originally Posted by iahflyr
(Post 3760398)
I did not say those words.
I support a good scope clause. I support us having a 76 seat limit and a limit on the number of aircraft that have 76 seats or less at regionals. The issue I have is that our union intentionally kneecapped the performance of these CRJ-550’s. The CRJ-550 is a replacement for our 50 seat jets that have no replacement. 50 seat feed is good when used correctly. It brings in lots of premium revenue on routes that have no competition. A passenger pays significantly more for a flight like SBA-LAX-HNL than just LAX-HNL. There is no competition for SBA-LAX-HNL, so United charges a lot more, whereas LAX-HNL has a ton of competition and fares are extremely low. These are typically business travelers who don’t care about the extra cost. Instead we are making them drive 2 hours to a primary hub instead of flying, and we lose hundreds and hundreds of dollars of revenue and profit on the SBA-LAX leg, and often lose their business on the LAX-HNL leg. Customers do not hate smaller jets, JSX has no problem filling up 50 seat sized planes (with 30 seats), and with very premium customers. They hate 70 people crammed into a 70 seat sized jet. They like 50 people/seats in a 70 seat sized jet. JSX is already poaching our customers on routes like LA-Vegas, LA-SF Bay Area, etc… They will keep expanding both on the regional routes we give up and eventually more of our actual mainline routes. We need a competitive product in the 50 seat market, and the CRJ-550 without those restrictions is the answer. It doesn’t take away mainline jobs but actually creates mainline jobs. Less 50 seat feed = less mainline jobs needed. Oh well. Too many “they took ‘er jobs” people who can’t see the forest through the trees. I cannot stand that our union intentionally hurt our product, our revenue, our feed, our PS... |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:50 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands