Why or why not the 220 is a fair question, but everything from the company up to this point says that they’re not interested. It is a modern and efficient type, but it would also bring the significant cost of adding a type. I’d suspect that the max7 could cover the same markets without the expense of adding a new type, but they don’t seem interested in that either. It’s all about max9/10’s, 321’s, and upgauging. I thought that they would have added the 220, 190/195 E2, or max7 since the pandemic but they haven’t really expressed interest in altering the current plan.

agreed. But sometimes no means never and sometimes no means not yet. The new small narrow body provision in the contract is not there for nothing.

the why 220 over max7 is scope. The 450/550 casmmaxxing expeditions are where i see the jetblue 223 (requiring a 221 order) pencilling different

I don’t see the benefit for a small Narrowbody what’s so ever today… With the increases of crew costs over the last 10 years, they see the value of spreading those increased costs over more seats in quite a bit of the domestic market.

The other segment of the market (premium), larger aircraft provides more floor space to offer more premium seats (domestic lie-flats, Higher number of FC seats, Premium Econ, more Econ+ seats, etc).

The primary reason why Delta took on the A220 to begin with is because Bombardier offered them at a steep discount to become a US launch customer. Just like how Delta acquired the 717s from Southwest after the Southwest/AirTran merger, very very cheap….

United isn’t going to get that kind of deal for the A220 from Airbus

Flew with a guy who was hired as engineer on 1011. Wonder how many are left these days? Later when UAL got LHR flying from Pan Am ALPA made it clear no more lifeboats for PAL guys.

That is incorrect.

PAA1 to United (2/86 Pacific): .431 Pan Am pilots
PAA2 to United (5/91 LHR): ......42 Pan Am pilots
PAA3 to United (?/92 Lat Am): ..16 Pan Am pilots
PAA4 to United (9/92 Lat Am): 215 Pan Am pilots
PAAn (off street): ..................123 Pan Am pilots
PAA Total: .............................827 Pan Am pilots

Evidently they don’t view the potential benefits to be worth the costs.

But was that all DOH excluding street hires? I stand corrected if it was.

I don't know, but 827 PAA pilots got jobs with United and I flew with a lot of them who got DOH. I also flew with a lot of rEAL, Midway and Spirit pilots among others who United ALPA worked to get preferential interviews/hiring, and they made our pilot group better. United ALPA has a strong culture of helping fellow ALPA pilots who need a 'lifeboat' as you say.

Lifeboat was a term used by Pan Am guys trying to get to Delta. Didn’t mean it disparaging. Well before my time, but I know a few rEAL guys that appreciated UAL ALPA making them a hiring priority. Might be wrong, but I was told CAL getting sued over Frank’s A-300 steal lead to EAL guys who got hired there (including our youngest scab unfort)…

That explains him, I always wondered, now it makes sense. I remember the settlement of interviews.

The 319s, 737-700 and 320s at United are not getting any younger. The A220-300 and the (most likely forthcoming) A220-500 replaces everything up to a 737-800, but at a much lower operating cost.

Up-gauging does not work out of smaller markets if you can't sell more than 130 (A223) or 150 (A225) seats profitably.

The opportunity cost of more domestic First class on these planes is also very low at one seat per row. And some markets just don't call for premium lie-flat seating.

Even if United doesn't get Delta's kind of A220 deal from Airbus, they might from JetBlue as part of a divided sale. It would also stop Delta from getting more of a very comfortable and competitive aircraft at a cheap price. Further, United's legacy birds cannot financially compete with the A220, they're just not in the same league for operating costs.

Isn’t 40% of the worldwide 220 fleet grounded because of Pratt engine issues? Thought I saw a headline about that.

Maybe some of the older birds...

But only (just a guess) 2 of JB's 60+ are parked.

I am not sold on the math for a small narrow body aircraft with crew today’s crew costs. I don’t think management agrees with this take either…. This isn’t the aviation industry of the 90s/early 2000s.

its not like there’s a significant savings costs wise operating a smaller Narrowbody like a A220-300, A319/320, 737-7/8 vs a Max-9, A321. Also you are limiting and capping revenue potential across the network introducing a small narrowbody unless there’s a intention of using them to replace RJ flying….

They want more seats to spread those higher costs around and have the opportunity to grab higher revenue across the network vs matching capacity to select few markets…

There’s a reason why A321, Max-9, Max-10 have sold and are selling like hot cakes and A220-100/300, A319, A320, 737-7,-8 sales have stalled out….

I won't argue low 220 sales is good for the 220

But short-body 73X and 32x don't sell because longer versions on the same wing are lower cost

If you fundamentally decide you need a 100-150 seat airplane ... something designed for that makes sense. If you're looking at a 150-200 seat airplane, all 200's make sense.

I think that’s the issue. They have decided that they really don’t want anything for the 100-150 seat market.

Clearly that was true in the past. But it's an accounting decision which could change based on external circumstances or internal priorities. The 450 and 550 are good examples of how United is chasing revenue and flexibility now in ways they have not in the past.

United hasn’t ordered a plane with less than 166 seats in decades. That’s not going to change now. The MAX 8 will be the smallest A/C in the mainline fleet once the 319/320 -700 are retired.

They've only talked about "upgauging". The CASM cost on those planes have to be pretty high.

Straight from the founder of B6: UA is not interested
https://viewfromthewing.com/jetblue-...y-will-buy-it/

Which just means that the probability of it actually happening are now very high! ;)

takeaway from that is many parties might be interested after bankruptcy

...Oh that guy. He's never lied before

He is just angry that B6 can't acquire Breeze, which was his whole intention of starting Breeze just so he could come back and control what he founded. "Neeleman never fails"...some Blue Juicers (Jetblue company cool aid guys) say.......which is only true if you don't count his failures.

His whole "success" formula only works with cheap, at-will labor.

UA not interested in JBs debt. There are ways to remedy that, mainly a prepackaged Ch11 filing with UA as a DIP provider and post-BK merger partner. The process would take 4-6mo allowing enough time for DOJ/DOT review under this current administration. I think the biggest hurdle to this plan would be Icahn/Galkin who own a combined ~18% of JBLU stock and would be wiped out during a Ch11 scenario.

B6 has around $9B in debt. Optimistically, they can maybe wipe out $3B, maybe $4B? That’s still $5-6B of debt. Add up all the M&A costs UA would have to shell of their own pocket to integrate every single part of B6 over multiple years (that could otherwise be done organically). Onboarding a whole new fleet of A220’s alone is a costly endeavor. Re-painting & re-configuring too. How many times now has SK openly put down the idea of a merger? Several times now.

SK wants very certain B6 assets that cannot be achieved through a merger. Spirit likely to liquidate this year and best case scenario for UA or any other major would be B6 going Ch7 asap to divvy up the assets.

I agree. I think Bastion largely pointed to the consolidation to come largely being focused among the smaller players, I don't think any legacies will be outright merging with or acquiring any of the distressed or smaller players. I think it's more likely that one or more of Southwest, B6, F9, and AS are involved in mergers or acquisitions with each other or with carriers like Breeze. The leisure/VFR/economy stuff is beyond saturated, and that's where my unintelligent guess would be as for where consolidation is focused.

Can’t see anything happening in the high fuel environment. I am curious, if some acquisition were to happen, what would make sense and why?

While in an acquisition of B6 by UAL, I will most likely have depression and suicidal thoughts or actions…..so I’ll talk to my doctor before taking Cymbalta……but one silver lining is we may actually start flying the Airbus…….the way an Airbus is supposed to be flown and not making up our own way ……which not only is annoying but kind of borderline unprofessional

Welcome to United. So flying the Airbus like the FM states is unprofessional? When an airline has multiple type aircraft call outs get morphed. The Boeing fleets weren’t happy either.

By the way are you from Missouri?

Your response is the classic knee jerk response that anyone old and senior says when an improvement and/or enhancement either operational or contractual exists in the industry pointed out by someone less senior. I mean I get it, it will hurt your ego too much to admit there might be validity to it.
I've been at United long enough to get used to it. Doesn't mean it's the best way. I love when an FM revision comes out, and during the town hall, where the genesis of the changes is referenced. Recommendations from the manufacturer (Airbus) is like always the last.....I think that says it all.

I will not reveal where I am from, but know that it is not Missouri.

i realized it was knee jerk so I deleted it.

I didn’t like it when they started making us fly Boeings like the Airbus, but it’s much easier when you transition to another fleet.

The major problem I have with your post is calling it unprofessional to fly the Airbus the way the United FM states. I hate flying with old people that always say “this isn’t how we did it at”

My ego gets left at home when I’m flying.

Right, well certainly we (line pilots) flying it the way the FM states is not unprofessional, it’s what we are supposed to do.
My criticism mainly is with the fact our policies are so unique and exceptional compared to almost all Airbus operators.

My hypothesis for this is that I think this stems from at some time (potentially still) a lot of people high up in TK and in maintenance are of the “if it’s not Boeing, I’m not going” faith, and are also likely to think that all Airbus is all garbage and “stupid French”, “freakin Metric system” types…which is an ok opinion to have but that bias has found its way into official company policy.

apologies for coming across as a jacka$$.

just talked to a friend at Delta. He said they are slowly transitioning back to flying the Airbus like an Airbus.

Fleet harmonization. It’s not hypothetical.

It’s stupid, and Airbus makes a fantastic airplane.

lol gross... if anyone from TK reads this please keep these people out of the Airbus training dept.

Please, give us some examples on how to fly the Airbus "professionally"...

Airbus FCOM

I'm looking super hard at FOM chapter 1 section 20 and I don't see anything about "Airbus FICOM" ... so, if we are flying the plane per UAs standards, how is that "borderline unprofessional"? Give some examples...

Since all the hiring after covid I have flown with a lot of Airbus folks formally at JB, Spirit, Frontier, Allegiant and International and it's been great for the most part. I've even learned some stuff from those folks. The hardest to fly with have your mindset... "UA flies the Airbus wrong" ... na dude, I'm flying it per UA standards, I'm good.

If you see above, flying per policy is what I do and presumably you do.......my criticism is with the actual policies (see prev posts).....again I think most objectionable industry opinions would classify our policies as most unique and exceptional compared to all other operators of the type. Would that be the case for our Boeing operation? I'm not sure but I highly doubt it.

Do you really NOT know what the Airbus FCOM is?......it's ok if you don't but it would surprise me.
Have you ever wondered why all that inhibition logic is based on 80 knots?.......It's ok if you haven't

Again I know my lines in the script so I can produce a great performance with the other actors in our theatre company..........but I think the adaption of our play might just be a little different than what the original playwright had in mind. Sorry if pointing this out makes people feel uncomfortable.

Tell me about it. The velocity of changes for the purposes of it drive me nuts.