Now United looking at CSeries & E2
04-21-2018, 03:02 PM
#91
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
As are your comments. But your comparison to DAL's older airplanes is simply erroneous as they didn't buy 717s when they were new like United was about to do with the 737-700s. Again, airliners have a 25 year lifespan. Having 40 20-year old 737-700s and 65 new 737-700s is not advisable. United is smartly buying up to 50 mid-life A319s like DAL's 717s.
04-21-2018, 03:06 PM
#92
Need More Callouts
Joined APC: Dec 2005
Position: Unbridled Enthusiasm
Posts: 2,143
As are your comments. But your comparison to DAL's older airplanes is simply erroneous as they didn't buy 717s when they were new like United was about to do. Again, airliners have a 25 year lifespan. Having 40 20-year old 737-700s and 65 new 737-700s is not advisable.
Adding 65 air frames in a 2 year period would have been incredibly good for our Pilot group but again, don't let that get in the way of your analysis. All you salivating over the CS-100's might want to take a peak at the rates they pay and compare them to the 737-700's that you would have been flying.
04-21-2018, 03:20 PM
#93
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 666
The delta plan started many years ago, either by luck in timing, or their mgmt was simply just smarter than everyone else. I always say delta got the best German scientists so there's my take...
When your #1 cost is highly variable and susceptible to significant short term fluctuations, you live and die by your risk decisions. Cheap, old, inefficient airframes during an extended period of low oil---smart. 14% fuel savings on 35/barrel is nothing. 100/barrel obviously a different story. Additionally, those 717s were genius for opening and/or upgauging mkts. If they stick with this gameplan and oil is sustained above 80 for an extended period, I bet their margin decline exceeds ours without a doubt. Of course, their German scientists already signaled the call with their c series order and impending Maddog retirements.
The oil increase has just taken off the last year or so... Nothing happens overnight, pal.
I am glad we deferred the 700s, with one exception if true, and that would be if we gave away markets because we didn't have lift available to compete. Can anyone validate that to be true though?
04-21-2018, 05:17 PM
#94
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,244
Not if the original price was simply too good to pass up on and rumor has it, they were.
Adding 65 air frames in a 2 year period would have been incredibly good for our Pilot group but again, don't let that get in the way of your analysis. All you salivating over the CS-100's might want to take a peak at the rates they pay and compare them to the 737-700's that you would have been flying.
Adding 65 air frames in a 2 year period would have been incredibly good for our Pilot group but again, don't let that get in the way of your analysis. All you salivating over the CS-100's might want to take a peak at the rates they pay and compare them to the 737-700's that you would have been flying.
04-21-2018, 06:19 PM
#95
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,785
The people who made the deal were the same ones who bought 737-900s and wanted to dehub LAX, IAD and DEN not to mention pulling out of JFK. Just to name a few. Kirby's moves and rationale for those moves makes infinitely more sense than the gross mismanagement of the prior misfits..
Just say no to weakening scope. Pretty simple.
04-21-2018, 06:22 PM
#96
Banned
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
Not if the original price was simply too good to pass up on and rumor has it, they were.
Adding 65 air frames in a 2 year period would have been incredibly good for our Pilot group but again, don't let that get in the way of your analysis. All you salivating over the CS-100's might want to take a peak at the rates they pay and compare them to the 737-700's that you would have been flying.
Adding 65 air frames in a 2 year period would have been incredibly good for our Pilot group but again, don't let that get in the way of your analysis. All you salivating over the CS-100's might want to take a peak at the rates they pay and compare them to the 737-700's that you would have been flying.
As far as not getting the 65 -700’s when we could, would getting 65 max 7’s or 319 neo instead be ok? Being that those planes would most likely do a bunch of up and down flying that the rj’s are doing now, I hope they don’t pick the max. I’m on the 737 and would rather that type of flying be done by someone else. Pairings with 4 legs a day are unproductive and hard to commute on both ends.
04-21-2018, 06:25 PM
#97
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2006
Position: guppy CA
Posts: 5,171
“We haven't had increased utilization of aircraft. If we did, block hours and pilot staffing would go up”
Zoomie,
We have had/are having increased utilization in aircraft. In non-peak months. Pilot staffing doesn’t go up unless peak period pilot block hours goes up. Source: March 16th crew resources update.
Zoomie,
We have had/are having increased utilization in aircraft. In non-peak months. Pilot staffing doesn’t go up unless peak period pilot block hours goes up. Source: March 16th crew resources update.
In 2016, the number of mainline aircraft increased by 22 aircraft.
In 2017 (in spite of retiring the 747), the number of mainline aircraft increased by 7 aircraft.
2018 is projected to have an additional 24 mainline aircraft.
Source: united.com / investor relations / investor update
04-21-2018, 06:38 PM
#98
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2015
Posts: 267
If anything, please vote to tighten scope so these scenarios don’t happen again.
04-21-2018, 06:59 PM
#99
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2008
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 163
Then he is doing a really bad job because he has ****ed off Wall Street by completely violating their holy grail of capacity constraint.
All evidence to the contrary. Smisek was shrinking the airline while Kirby is growing UA and the mid-continent hubs.
Just say no to scope relaxation. Simple.
All evidence to the contrary. Smisek was shrinking the airline while Kirby is growing UA and the mid-continent hubs.
Just say no to scope relaxation. Simple.
04-21-2018, 07:08 PM
#100
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2006
Position: 737 FO
Posts: 2,370
Wow, that seems like an incredibly naive statement. Care to share where you pulled this nugget from?
The point behind the original 737-700 deal was because Boeing needed a "stop-gap" in their production line between 737 NG and the MAX. They needed time to retool their assembly line to accept the MAX and the -700 order was basically funding the "down time" while still keeping people at Boeing working. This was also why the -700 order was supposed to be all those aircraft in a 1 year period. There is no possible way we are getting the MAX's for the same price as those discounted -700s.
The point behind the original 737-700 deal was because Boeing needed a "stop-gap" in their production line between 737 NG and the MAX. They needed time to retool their assembly line to accept the MAX and the -700 order was basically funding the "down time" while still keeping people at Boeing working. This was also why the -700 order was supposed to be all those aircraft in a 1 year period. There is no possible way we are getting the MAX's for the same price as those discounted -700s.
We're still receiving new 737-900s (NGs not maxes).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
