Notices

747 Retired early

Old 01-11-2017, 09:15 AM
  #11  
Need More Callouts
 
757Driver's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
Default

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 View Post
Yeah it is prob management's fault (yes CAL management) but at end of day 400 Mx woes are a massive problem on primo int routes. As a non rev, I avoid it unless absolutely forced to take one even to the point of buying zed business tickets. Been burned too many times.
Thought Kirby was from AA not CAL?
757Driver is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:20 AM
  #12  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

Originally Posted by intrepidcv11 View Post
Yeah it is prob management's fault (yes CAL management) but at end of day 400 Mx woes are a massive problem on primo int routes. As a non rev, I avoid it unless absolutely forced to take one even to the point of buying zed business tickets. Been burned too many times.
This is not the first time management has decided to reduce spending on the 400. Every time they do, the reliability goes way down. Put more money back into it, then it becomes reliable again. Probably won't be brought back this time.

British Airways, and our Star Alliance partner, Lufthansa don't seem to have problems with the same age and type planes....
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:25 AM
  #13  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Sunvox's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2010
Position: EWR 777 Captain
Posts: 1,715
Default

Really not surprising to me. What is surprising is that they waited as long as they did. As soon as they announced the 14 777-300s that was my first question. If they didn't retire the 747 then the 777-300s would have been all new capacity, plus as the article said the 777-300 has 20% less fuel costs per seat mile. That is a HUGE difference and makes so it seems to me to make good sense to get rid of the 747s and replace them with 777-300s. Sounds like a pending announcement soon, and I bet it will include a couple more 777-300s! (Or at least I hope so )

As to the 350, I'll take the other side of that bet. Posters on the other forum say TK already has a pilot or two in training for the 350. That alone isn't proof positive since we all know how well Network Planning keeps TK informed of pending changes but it does offer some hope that the 350 hasn't yet been scrapped from future plans.
Sunvox is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:25 AM
  #14  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

Originally Posted by 757Driver View Post
Thought Kirby was from AA not CAL?
Yes Kirby was from AA. APA was glad to be rid of him.

Jeff was the one who decided to close ORD, then reopen it, and most likely were the ones to stop the maintenance spending and was most likely the influence behind the A350 orders. In fact, I think I remember, those were a LUAL order right before the merger closed, along with the announced 787 orders, and the parking of the 767's. How's that working?
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:27 AM
  #15  
Gets Weekends Off
 
awax's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,799
Default

Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald View Post
Reliability? Remember, UAL decided to stop maintaining the 400's when they announced the retirements for 2018. Whenever that happens, the reliability plummets. Not the aircraft's fault. Cheap management decides what kind of reliability they want to pay for. Just hope it doesn't bit us in the form of an incident or accident.

Reliability is directly proportional to how much money you spend on future maintenance and parts, so drawing this conclusion is a false assumption and directly attributable to flt ops decisions on spending.
Nice rant but what's your point?

UAL is replacing expensive unreliable ASMs with cheaper reliable ASMs.

No doubt that if the company wanted to throw unlimited money at the fleet, they could keep it going. But, corporate boards are fickle like that, they want to know how management will spent (and then want them to spend as little as possible).

Every renew/replace fleet modernization cycle follows the same logic, UALs 747 fleet isn't any different.
awax is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:27 AM
  #16  
Not retiring avatar
 
Monkeyfly's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 767
Default

Parking 20 wide bodies in one year and cancelling 65 rj replacements? Sounds like shrinking to increase profitability...

The latest union update states that we won the hostile-takeover war. I would argue that we did not.
Monkeyfly is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:28 AM
  #17  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

Originally Posted by Sunvox View Post
As to the 350, I'll take the other side of that bet. Posters on the other forum say TK already has a pilot or two in training for the 350. That alone isn't proof positive since we all know how well Network Planning keeps TK informed of pending changes but it does offer some hope that the 350 hasn't yet been scrapped from future plans.
The non compliant bunks still have to be sorted out. I think, like Embraer, Airbus is planning on the union caving and getting a waiver to get shiny new planes. I don't think there is much chance of that.
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:31 AM
  #18  
Gets Weekends Off
 
awax's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,799
Default

Originally Posted by RJDio View Post
So does this make the 350 more or less likely?
My bet is that UAL will never see the A350. Instead look for A350 orders to to be rebooked to the A321 NEO as a 757 replacement.
awax is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:35 AM
  #19  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

Originally Posted by awax View Post
Nice rant but what's your point?
My point is that using an unreliable stat/rant is misleading since management decided to stop spending money on the fleet. Old or not, no plane survives that.

When employees say that it's a horrible plane and needs to go they have no idea what it takes to keep something flying. Bottom line, you get what you pay for. I'm not saying there aren't better alternatives, just be realistic about the product management decides to put out there.
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-11-2017, 09:38 AM
  #20  
Gets Weekends Off
 
MasterOfPuppets's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2012
Position: 787
Posts: 3,078
Default

Originally Posted by Monkeyfly View Post
Parking 20 wide bodies in one year and cancelling 65 rj replacements? Sounds like shrinking to increase profitability...

The latest union update states that we won the hostile-takeover war. I would argue that we did not.
Ill give you the 65 737s, but parking 20 wide bodies come on. Were taking delivery of 19 this year, most likely more. I'm sorry your 747 is going away but the sky is far from falling.
MasterOfPuppets is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Boogie Nights
Union Talk
22
04-14-2009 09:10 PM
joel payne
Hangar Talk
2
12-13-2008 06:31 PM
Beagle_Lover
Atlas/Polar
10
06-03-2008 07:53 AM
Freight Dog
Major
0
11-27-2006 10:38 AM
Freight Dog
Hiring News
0
08-05-2005 11:12 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices