That’s a case by case basis DPE dependent on a frames age/cycles/condition. The used Southwest tails that United picked up pre-Covid became parts birds. But I will 100 percent bet if United had an opportunity to pick up relatively young NEO or Max frames, I believed they will send them through conformity check.

 

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

 

From the person in charge of the airbus. It's changed.

 

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.

 

I mean I guess it could be possible that things change in just one week, but that would be highly suspect since its a material change to what they just published.

I guess we shall see.

The next 321 delivery is comng up.

 

ACN is not a reliable source. It is the closest thing to a Russian media propaganda website that we have

 

I am curious, do you work for UAL? Was this a correct post made by you?

"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...

 

IF there is that much revenue associated with them, why not bring them on to mainline? The argument against RJ's is not against the equipment, it's against the contracting outside of the contract.

 

Our 50 seat scope hasn't changed in decades. Kudos to the company for coming up with the 550 solution that complies with our scope. So where is the union intentionally hurting our product etc? The company could replace all CRJ-200/Emb-145 with the 550 if they wanted to. And if they did, there would still be markets cut due to financial performace or due to a lack of pilots to fly those airframes.