Fleet Discussion and News
12-02-2016 | 05:11 AM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,042
Likes: 47
From: 767/757 CA
I've heard second hand that H Attarian was in Denver this past week and made the comment that A321s were on the way... my guess is more 777s to come also... we need more heavy lift to replace the 747s.
12-02-2016 | 08:42 AM
#94
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 709
Likes: 6
From: 320 Captain
This is pretty much what I've been talking about for months. This is fairly logical fleet plan with our system. The 777-300ER's will largely replace the 747's, with the additional orders. The 777x will start to address the age of our first batch of 777-200's. The 737Max 10 might finally be a decent replacement for the 757's. That's what it is aimed at, and what the airlines are asking for--and about the same time the rest of the 757 fleet will age out, so timing would be right.
My uneducated guess is that with the fast delivery of 300ER's, they will retire the 747's ahead of schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if the A350's got converted to A320's or A321NEO's, and we never see the A350. The 777-300's and X's are pretty much the same thing.
With the deferral of the 737-700's we still need to address the RJ conundrum. This proposal does that.
Co management and Jeffry have wanted to get rid of the PW 757's from day 1. The PS planes. The reason they hung around as long as they did was Glenn actually spent some money on winglets and some basic upgrades. They weren't that far out of compliance with the rest of the fleet. We still have plane #2, which is 1989. So with the small number of PW PS planes this move makes some sense, though I hate to see them go.
My uneducated guess is that with the fast delivery of 300ER's, they will retire the 747's ahead of schedule. I wouldn't be surprised if the A350's got converted to A320's or A321NEO's, and we never see the A350. The 777-300's and X's are pretty much the same thing.
With the deferral of the 737-700's we still need to address the RJ conundrum. This proposal does that.
Co management and Jeffry have wanted to get rid of the PW 757's from day 1. The PS planes. The reason they hung around as long as they did was Glenn actually spent some money on winglets and some basic upgrades. They weren't that far out of compliance with the rest of the fleet. We still have plane #2, which is 1989. So with the small number of PW PS planes this move makes some sense, though I hate to see them go.
The -8 is the same size as the 777-300er but significantly more long range. Think 777-200LR but in a 777-300 body. So way over built for majority of the missions UAL would fly it on. The -9 is even larger then that.
The A350-900 is a direct 777-200 replacement ( the 787-9 somewhat is as it's slightly smaller) for long haul. The 787-10 is for Europe ops, similar to the 777A models, with a limited range.
The A350-1000 is a direct 777-300er replacement. Same dimensions (the 777-300 will have more seats due to 10 across in coach in our configuration) but lighter, longer ranged, and more efficient due to newer technology.
If we aren't going to take the 737-700's due to them being old tech and thus not as efficient on the routes it would fly, why wouldn't the same apply for the widebody's? The benefit of the 777-300 is quick delivery at a good price in order to park the 747's sooner rather then later. The marginal hit in seats is more then offset by the operational cost savings I bet.
I'd also bet on some conversions of -1000's back to the -900's as originally ordered and hopefully some 321's. But we aren't going to outright cancel the order. Just swap the aircraft mix and timelines of deliveries.
My 2¢. Which isn't worth a lot.
Last edited by C11DCA; 12-02-2016 at 08:53 AM.
12-02-2016 | 08:55 AM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
I'm really looking forward to crawling in the bunk and taking my first compensated power-nap in the A350. I hope they don't cancel them. And, I hope we get a large whack of A320 & A321's as well.
12-02-2016 | 09:04 AM
#96
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 709
Likes: 6
From: 320 Captain
I've seen pics of the 350 bunk. There are issues with it from what I have been told/shown. The 787 bunk is better, and the new 777-300 is too. That being said I'm sure it beats the 767 or our current 777 setups.
12-02-2016 | 09:19 AM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 3,076
Likes: 3
From: The GF of FUPM
Yes, the bunk needs attention as a result of FAR 117. I figure that the bunk issue will be addressed prior to launch, hence my longing. I probably won't see the 777-300s, so that superior set up won't be an issue for me. My juniority won't come close to holding that for some time. Probably true on the A350 as well but its nice to dream.
When I started flying the triple, there were only a few things that I didn't like:
1. The Yoke
2. The Seat
3. The lack of a tray table (and of course, stick)
4. The relatively high level of ambient cockpit noise
5. The idiotic location of the AC outlet.
I figure that the A350 will have all of those licked and then some.
Don't get me wrong, the 777 is the nicest plane I've flown at UA and I really enjoy it. But they're getting a bit long in the tooth and could use a little help. I imaging that the 350 is going to be a fantastic machine.
Rumor has it that as the launch customer, Boeing gave UA the choice. They were happy to install a stick in lieu of a yoke but UA nixed it. After all, fly by wire doesn't care where the inputs come from.
When I started flying the triple, there were only a few things that I didn't like:
1. The Yoke
2. The Seat
3. The lack of a tray table (and of course, stick)
4. The relatively high level of ambient cockpit noise
5. The idiotic location of the AC outlet.
I figure that the A350 will have all of those licked and then some.
Don't get me wrong, the 777 is the nicest plane I've flown at UA and I really enjoy it. But they're getting a bit long in the tooth and could use a little help. I imaging that the 350 is going to be a fantastic machine.
Rumor has it that as the launch customer, Boeing gave UA the choice. They were happy to install a stick in lieu of a yoke but UA nixed it. After all, fly by wire doesn't care where the inputs come from.
12-02-2016 | 10:27 AM
#98
Line Holder
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 926
Likes: 19
From: B777 CA
Spoke to ALPA rep again. He said MEC's position is the A350 doesn't have appropriate crew rest facilities to comply with the contract and 117. Said ALPA's crew rest committee management counterparts also agree.
Airbus has no fixes, so we can't fly any augmented flying in the A350 (any version). Look for changes in the Airbus order eliminating any A350's. Just reporting what was told from a Rep.
Airbus has no fixes, so we can't fly any augmented flying in the A350 (any version). Look for changes in the Airbus order eliminating any A350's. Just reporting what was told from a Rep.
12-02-2016 | 10:40 AM
#99
Line Holder
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 516
Likes: 3
From: 787 right
The 777x is NOT the same plane as our existing 777's and especially for replacing our 777-200's.
The -8 is the same size as the 777-300er but significantly more long range. Think 777-200LR but in a 777-300 body. So way over built for majority of the missions UAL would fly it on. The -9 is even larger then that.
The A350-900 is a direct 777-200 replacement ( the 787-9 somewhat is as it's slightly smaller) for long haul. The 787-10 is for Europe ops, similar to the 777A models, with a limited range.
The A350-1000 is a direct 777-300er replacement. Same dimensions (the 777-300 will have more seats due to 10 across in coach in our configuration) but lighter, longer ranged, and more efficient due to newer technology.
If we aren't going to take the 737-700's due to them being old tech and thus not as efficient on the routes it would fly, why wouldn't the same apply for the widebody's? The benefit of the 777-300 is quick delivery at a good price in order to park the 747's sooner rather then later. The marginal hit in seats is more then offset by the operational cost savings I bet.
I'd also bet on some conversions of -1000's back to the -900's as originally ordered and hopefully some 321's. But we aren't going to outright cancel the order. Just swap the aircraft mix and timelines of deliveries.
My 2¢. Which isn't worth a lot.
The -8 is the same size as the 777-300er but significantly more long range. Think 777-200LR but in a 777-300 body. So way over built for majority of the missions UAL would fly it on. The -9 is even larger then that.
The A350-900 is a direct 777-200 replacement ( the 787-9 somewhat is as it's slightly smaller) for long haul. The 787-10 is for Europe ops, similar to the 777A models, with a limited range.
The A350-1000 is a direct 777-300er replacement. Same dimensions (the 777-300 will have more seats due to 10 across in coach in our configuration) but lighter, longer ranged, and more efficient due to newer technology.
If we aren't going to take the 737-700's due to them being old tech and thus not as efficient on the routes it would fly, why wouldn't the same apply for the widebody's? The benefit of the 777-300 is quick delivery at a good price in order to park the 747's sooner rather then later. The marginal hit in seats is more then offset by the operational cost savings I bet.
I'd also bet on some conversions of -1000's back to the -900's as originally ordered and hopefully some 321's. But we aren't going to outright cancel the order. Just swap the aircraft mix and timelines of deliveries.
My 2¢. Which isn't worth a lot.
12-02-2016 | 01:20 PM
#100
Banned
Joined: Aug 2015
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Spoke to ALPA rep again. He said MEC's position is the A350 doesn't have appropriate crew rest facilities to comply with the contract and 117. Said ALPA's crew rest committee management counterparts also agree.
Airbus has no fixes, so we can't fly any augmented flying in the A350 (any version). Look for changes in the Airbus order eliminating any A350's. Just reporting what was told from a Rep.
Airbus has no fixes, so we can't fly any augmented flying in the A350 (any version). Look for changes in the Airbus order eliminating any A350's. Just reporting what was told from a Rep.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
