Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Investor call and fleet speculation >

Investor call and fleet speculation

Notices

Investor call and fleet speculation

Old 01-22-2017, 07:18 PM
  #71  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Slats Extend's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Posts: 393
Default

The uber guppy max-10 is the 767 replacement... Just like the 900 Extra Runway IS the 757 replacement... (snark face emoji here)
Slats Extend is offline  
Old 01-22-2017, 08:08 PM
  #72  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,169
Default

Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald View Post
Short term memory can be problems. You may have forgotten, the 787 is a direct replacement for the 767. Same seating capacity, but more range. The age of the 767's isn't really the question. The driving factor is how long do you want to keep paying for a higher seat mile cost? And....the seat mile cost of a paid for airplane, with cheap fuel isn't all that different than a brand new 787. So, at least for the time being, I'd say we will continue to keep the 767's. Just like Delta, hmmm.....

If you really wanted to, I bet Boeing would sell you a bunch of new 767's. Still building them. I'll bet you could even get the new 787 style glass that the KC-46 and FedEx planes are going to have. In fact Boeing is increasing the production rate because of these orders. The plane hasn't had this much of a backlog in decades.

So, no, the A330 is not the only option.
The 787 was never designed to replace the 767, not even remotely close. It was derived from the Sonic Cruiser, and was designed to completely change the paradigm. Long haul, thinner lower demand routes. Sure, you can use a 787 to fly 767 routes. Complete waste of $300+m airplane... what then flies the legs only the 787 can fly when your 787's are doing EWR-LHR? With a 30% fuel burn advantage over the 767 it would take the life limit of the airplane to recoup that purchase price in fuel savings. Meanwhile you get your ass handed to you while your competitors stretch out their 78's on routes you can't fly, because you're in the ballpark waiting for deice for a leg that's 1/3 of the airplanes capability. Like using a 757 for CLE-CMH runs.

And what are we going to do with a 767 freighter? They don't build the pax variant anymore.

Don't even get me started on what a sht show the KC-46 program is, and has been, for decades.
Grumble is offline  
Old 01-22-2017, 08:34 PM
  #73  
Gets Weekends Off
 
CLazarus's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 697
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
The 787 was never designed to replace the 767, not even close. It was designed to change the paradigm. Long haul, thinner lower demand routes.
Ugh, I don't think anything you said was incorrect, hence why we aren't tracking towards replacing our entire 767 fleet with 787s. And I tend to agree with the humorous/uncomfortable sentiment that a 10Max would be the closest thing Boeing could produce in the next decade as a near replacement for the original 757/767 (transcons).

However, I think in terms of seating capacity/aisles it is completely understandable to compare the 767 with the 787. All that extra range of the 787 is a happy byproduct of more efficient engines/design. But it definitely comes at a premium price. That's why I've been wondering about picking up some used 767s and keeping our Capex down.

If the A330CEO or NEO is the best combo of price/range/capacity for us, so be it. Biggest drawback I see is the addition of yet another fleet type when we just managed to eliminate one.
CLazarus is offline  
Old 01-22-2017, 09:44 PM
  #74  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

[QUOTE=Regularguy;2286411]
Originally Posted by Dave Fitzgerald View Post
Short term memory can be problems. You may have forgotten, the 787 is a direct replacement for the 767. Same seating capacity, but more range.

Not really

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_787_Dreamliner
787-8 seating 242 max 359 range 7,355
787-9 seating 290 max 401 range 7,635
787-10 seating 298 max 440range 6,430
Cabin width 18'


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
767-400 seating 296 max 375 range 5,625
Cabin width 15.5'
The -200 and -300 not even worthwhile comparing

Let's be true about the facts, the 787 was never a 767 replacement.

UAL was the kickoff customer for the 767 in 1981 and it was meant to be a coast to coast jet. Dick Ferris used to advertise the airplane would change how people flew.
Let's try again. Wikipedia is fine but doesn't necessarily apply. If we are to talk about UAL planes, lets do that.

UAL 767-300, we have 35. Seats 183 in 3 class, Seats 214 in 2 class
UAL 767-400, we have 16. Seats 242
UAL 787-8, we have 12, seats 219
UAL 787-9, we will have 21 by 2018, seats 252

Boeing originally designed the 787-8 as a replacement for the 767-300. The 767-400 was only built in small numbers and not many sold. The 767-300 is still in production. As you know, the 787 suffered quite severe production and flight test delays, not to mention the battery issues. The original design work started back in 2005. So, you may not have been in the industry when these decisions were made, or the plane purchased for UAL. "Let's be true about the facts, the 787 was never a 767 replacement." Maybe not.

To quote Wikipedia, your source, "The 787 was designed to be 20% more fuel efficient than the Boeing 767, which it was intended to replace." You can also search Aviation Week for the original work on the 787. I can point you in the direction of a few friends of mine that worked the program for Boeing. PM me if you want those references.

In our configurations, the 767-300 is pretty close to the 787-8, 214 to 219. The 787-9 is pretty close to the seating capacity of our 767-400's, 242 to 252. Now, what the airplanes were designed for and how UAL uses them may not be exactly as intended. That's another discussion for the fleet planners. I reiterate, as long as fuel is cheap, a paid for 767 looks pretty good compared to a new car payment on the 787.

Last edited by Dave Fitzgerald; 01-22-2017 at 10:04 PM.
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-22-2017, 09:57 PM
  #75  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble View Post
The 787 was never designed to replace the 767, not even remotely close. It was derived from the Sonic Cruiser, and was designed to completely change the paradigm. Long haul, thinner lower demand routes. Sure, you can use a 787 to fly 767 routes. Complete waste of $300+m airplane... what then flies the legs only the 787 can fly when your 787's are doing EWR-LHR? With a 30% fuel burn advantage over the 767 it would take the life limit of the airplane to recoup that purchase price in fuel savings. Meanwhile you get your ass handed to you while your competitors stretch out their 78's on routes you can't fly, because you're in the ballpark waiting for deice for a leg that's 1/3 of the airplanes capability. Like using a 757 for CLE-CMH runs.

And what are we going to do with a 767 freighter? They don't build the pax variant anymore.

Don't even get me started on what a sht show the KC-46 program is, and has been, for decades.
See my post above. Yes is was, directly. I'd love to be flying freight again. UAL used to do a lot of that using dedicated freighters.

And, yes, if UAL bought a large order, Boeing would sell the passenger version again in whatever numbers we wanted, but I'm sure they would prefer we bought new 787's instead. Maybe as a condition we would have to buy something else in another deal, say some 747-8's.

The cockpit and updated systems of the KC-46 is what FedEx is getting. They didn't buy any of the refueling systems, which is a large part of the acquisition delays for the KC version.
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-22-2017, 10:01 PM
  #76  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Dave Fitzgerald's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,155
Default

Originally Posted by CLazarus View Post
Ugh, I don't think anything you said was incorrect, hence why we aren't tracking towards replacing our entire 767 fleet with 787s. And I tend to agree with the humorous/uncomfortable sentiment that a 10Max would be the closest thing Boeing could produce in the next decade as a near replacement for the original 757/767 (transcons).

However, I think in terms of seating capacity/aisles it is completely understandable to compare the 767 with the 787. All that extra range of the 787 is a happy byproduct of more efficient engines/design. But it definitely comes at a premium price. That's why I've been wondering about picking up some used 767s and keeping our Capex down.

If the A330CEO or NEO is the best combo of price/range/capacity for us, so be it. Biggest drawback I see is the addition of yet another fleet type when we just managed to eliminate one.
Agreed. Well put. Cheap used planes can be great or a lemon. Delta seems to be kicking everyone's buts using cheap used planes. However, UAL did at one time buy 5 used 747-100's. Original American 747's from the very first batch. It took UAL 3 times the hours to rebuild them, than it took Boeing to build them in the first place. And...directly led to a single engine landing in NRT. Their nick names were the lemon sisters.

Buyer beware. I don't know how the Chinese A319's are working out. Anyone?
Dave Fitzgerald is offline  
Old 01-23-2017, 02:33 AM
  #77  
Moderate Moderator
 
UAL T38 Phlyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Default

.....And...directly led to a single engine landing in NRT. Their nick names were the lemon sisters.


I briefly flew Ropes at Evergreen and the 747-400 at United. Have never heard of this.....short synopsis?
UAL T38 Phlyer is offline  
Old 01-23-2017, 03:58 AM
  #78  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,071
Default

Originally Posted by UAL T38 Phlyer View Post


I briefly flew Ropes at Evergreen and the 747-400 at United. Have never heard of this.....short synopsis?
I had heard of them but not the detailed history. The following is from another forum years ago. I'm sure others have more information.
.................

Here's some info/corrections if you will. These 2 747-222B's were actually not the "Lemon Sisters". That honor goes to 2 ex-AA 747s that UA acquired. I know this because I worked in operations during the early 90's and that's what those hangar queens were called. Of course these 2 747-222Bs could have been tagged the "Lemon Sisters" after the originals were retired.

These 2 orphans in UA's fleet were acquired in about 1987 for the sole purpose of replacing the 747-sp on the JFK-Tokyo route. This was before the 747-400 was available. For years these twins were routed exclusively on the JFK-AA), Japan">NRT route, with maintaining being performed at JFK. The JFK mechanics did a terrific job with these airplanes, party because they got to intimately know the machines like mechanics rarely do. By the time UA had enough 747-400's to cover the JFK-AA), Japan">NRT route, UA was also operating a Newak-AA), Japan">NRT non stop with a 747-sp. The decision was made to operate EWR-AA), Japan">NRT with the 747-222B five times a week. Two days EWR-AA), Japan">NRT operated with the 747-400 so the 747-222Bs could be routed through JFK for non-routine maintaining and checks. Of course JFK-AA), Japan">NRT operated in the opposite equipment, 747-400 5x a week and the 747-222B 2x a week. If I'm not mistaken the reg numbers for the 747-222Bs were N151UA and N152UA. I don't know why I know that after all of these years though!! (If I am correct!!). They were sold to NWA for freighter conversion. Hope my perspective sheds some light on these ex-UA airplanes (from a soon to be ex-UA Cargo employee).
SpecialTracking is offline  
Old 01-23-2017, 06:13 AM
  #79  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Default

Dave I know you have a superior knowledge of many things, but to say your insiders at Boeing foresaw the 787 as a 767 replacement just doesn't match the design of the new airplane. While true it is capable of doing the 767 flying the times, routes and design are entirely different. And you forget it is almost as fast as the 747 (slightly faster than the 777) which is an international/global feature, not domestic.

When the 767 was built the market needed a smaller two aisle two engine transcon, and major business market airplane. Boeing built the newest tech airplane of the day, the 767.

Today's 787 cabin is wider 18' compared to 15.5" (777 and 747 19+') and hasthe range to fly the expanded ETOPS circles. From the beginning CAL (and who really knows what Tilton was planning, besides his cash out when the merger was complete) bought the airplane to fly these long routes.

To say the improved fuel efficiency was a "bonus" really again is on the verge of either "alternative facts" or just down right grabbing ideas from the sky.

The biggest problem with the 787 is the difficulties Boeing had(s) with the design and new tech it has incorporated.

The real question you all should be asking is does United, or any airline, need a smaller two aisle airplane (ie nearly three feet smaller)like the 767 in its fleet. However, the main thing we need as pilots is more seats up front (number of cockpits not jump seats) for us to get paid to staff and fly.
Regularguy is offline  
Old 01-23-2017, 07:14 AM
  #80  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Posts: 693
Default

The discussions here seem to often revolve around what Boeing did or did not create and how we can shoehorn whatever they do have into our operations as if our allegiance is to Boeing more so than UAL. Our 757/767s aren't getting any younger and there's no direct replacements available from Boeing. The small side 737Max is inadequate and the large side 787 is overkill for their respective replacement intentions. I wonder if we'll see new fleet plan directions w/ Kirby in the mix now, as has been suggested by others, for 321 and 330 NEOs since they seem like pretty logical choices if we could ever get into the production schedule in a reasonable timeframe.

If there is overlap and too many fleets for a little bit, that would go away as soon as the last of the 756 were retired. I think any generational change has those costs to consider. Switch 350s to 777 as has also been suggested and that would simply the large/long side of things for fleet commonality as well.

Hey just my useless 2c from the peanut gallery.
Chuck D is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Bucking Bar
Major
180
07-18-2011 06:49 PM
jetBlueRod
Major
80
06-11-2008 07:27 AM
Diesel 10
Cargo
0
10-05-2005 06:19 PM
Sr. Barco
Major
0
07-23-2005 01:37 PM

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