Go Back  Airline Pilot Central Forums > Airline Pilot Forums > Major > United
Max 7/319 neo vs CS, etc. >

Max 7/319 neo vs CS, etc.

Search

Notices

Max 7/319 neo vs CS, etc.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 03-23-2018, 08:32 AM
  #1  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
Default Max 7/319 neo vs CS, etc.

Any idea where the break even cost would be between adding either the max 7 or 319 neo to the fleet versus buying a new type such as the CS series? The larger jets would cost more initially but would also have efficiency savings over time.
Max/neo:
common fleet, fewer crews required, less training cost for pilots, flight attendants, and mechanics, common parts inventory, more seats to allow for growth, etc.

CS or similar:
Clean sheet modern plane, lower purchase price, very efficient, 100-130 seat, would give the company additional large RJ’s according to the current contract, etc

Something like the CS is very efficient but brings added cost. Adding an additional fleet type requires more pilots than adding the same number of planes to an existing fleet type, more training for all employees, parts inventory, etc. Both the Max 7 and 319 neo are band-aid solutions to older models. I really don’t care what we want to fly or what may be better for seniority and career progression. That doesn’t matter since we are all just cogs on the wheel from a business prospective. This is a math question regarding where the breakeven point may be.
Itsajob is offline  
Old 03-23-2018, 08:48 AM
  #2  
Number Last
 
PowderFinger's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Sep 2017
Position: Boeing voice activated systems and ACARS commander
Posts: 442
Default

I imagine the company is waiting on the development of the MAX 7 RCC and the MAX 10 RCC.

Development should be announced in the next week or so.

Who knows when deliveries would start.
PowderFinger is offline  
Old 03-23-2018, 09:37 AM
  #3  
ORD Prisoner
 
ChalupaBatman's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Feb 2017
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 113
Default

I’d hazard a guess the number is around 100. Where it would knock it out of the park is IF Bombardier stretches it to seat a 150-ish. Now economies of scale are outta sight because you have 100-150 seat segment locked up in the most advanced and efficient narrow body of the last 30 years. We could replace all 737-7&8 plus A319/320 with the CS. But as the days go by I have less and less optimism we’ll ever see the CS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ChalupaBatman is offline  
Old 03-23-2018, 12:31 PM
  #4  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2014
Posts: 804
Default

Throw a geared turbofan on the 73 or bus and the c series doesn't make sense. With parts commonality, pilot/maintenance training, and spare plane costs ... The "not competition" really doesn't make financial sense when they enter the largest market share segment. Another boeing to us is just one more while a whole new fleet is the whole show.
Aquaticus is offline  
Old 03-23-2018, 12:35 PM
  #5  
Banned
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,358
Default

A significant order of either type would allow us to get rid of a ton of 50 seat jets. I avoid them in my commute and I have had customers say that they avoid them too. The consumer wants big rj’s and mainline aircraft. It’s now up to the company and the MEC/negotiating committee to make it work. Either way I don’t expect any serious discussion, much less an announcement by the company until the next contract is voted in and they know the actual cost associated with operating different aircraft. That could be by the end of the year, or it could be a while. Should be interesting.
Itsajob is offline  
Old 03-23-2018, 02:33 PM
  #6  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,243
Default

Originally Posted by Itsajob
A significant order of either type would allow us to get rid of a ton of 50 seat jets. I avoid them in my commute and I have had customers say that they avoid them too. The consumer wants big rj’s and mainline aircraft. It’s now up to the company and the MEC/negotiating committee to make it work. Either way I don’t expect any serious discussion, much less an announcement by the company until the next contract is voted in and they know the actual cost associated with operating different aircraft. That could be by the end of the year, or it could be a while. Should be interesting.
MEC doesn’t need to negotiate anything, the company is well within the current contract to buy all the large RJs they want.
Grumble is offline  
Old 03-30-2018, 08:00 PM
  #7  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,108
Default

Originally Posted by Grumble
MEC doesn’t need to negotiate anything, the company is well within the current contract to buy all the large RJs they want.

Bingo. This needs to be repeated as necessary every time someone repeats kirby’s crapola about needing relief. He already has the means. And we can do it more cost effectively in house.
Guppydriver95 is offline  
Old 03-31-2018, 06:17 AM
  #8  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Default

Originally Posted by Itsajob
Any idea where the break even cost would be between adding either the max 7 or 319 neo to the fleet versus buying a new type such as the CS series? The larger jets would cost more initially but would also have efficiency savings over time.

This is a math question regarding where the breakeven point may be.
You really need to quit trying to come up with some logic about why management should or shouldn’t do something.

In the end it’s about deal making, who will make money, and the egos/personalities of those involved.

Ultimately I believe the goal of UAL Management is to own less, but control more.
Regularguy is offline  
Old 03-31-2018, 07:06 AM
  #9  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jan 2007
Posts: 401
Default

Here's what a A321 NEO (CFM Leap 1A 35K thrust) can do on LAX JFK. At the mid point we were burning 2700/hr per side, slightly more than a regular A319. My only gripe is the same as the old 321, not enough wing = down in the low to mid 30s the whole way. We stayed at FL350 the whole way as I was not willing to endure the east coast chop this week with a 20 knot margin at 370. After the usual tour of NYC we landed with 9K fuel. We had every seat full, 185 pax.

A NEO 319/320 would be hard to beat on trip fuel.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg
321 plan.jpg (113.3 KB, 462 views)

Last edited by Fred Flintstone; 03-31-2018 at 07:20 AM. Reason: typo & addnl info.
Fred Flintstone is offline  
Old 03-31-2018, 07:16 AM
  #10  
Gets Weekends Off
 
joepilot's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jul 2008
Position: 747 Captain (Ret,)
Posts: 805
Default

Will any of the CS models be able to replace the MAX or NEO on the west coast to HNL or east coast to Europe routes?

Joe
joepilot is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TheFly
Southwest
1
01-04-2018 09:33 AM
Scoop
Delta
34
12-18-2017 03:54 AM
Sunvox
United
45
03-17-2017 05:56 AM
essw
Regional
7
06-27-2009 12:00 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



Your Privacy Choices