LAX -400 Rumors of Changes
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2009
Posts: 168
In 2011 I was on a four hour sit and was sifting around the company website and hit the webpage that lists the top Officers of United Airlines. Out of 27 only 7 were former United. So I'm unsure who the "they" is you refer to but it's not former United management. Not that they were any good, or old Continental was bad.
#32
In 2011 I was on a four hour sit and was sifting around the company website and hit the webpage that lists the top Officers of United Airlines. Out of 27 only 7 were former United. So I'm unsure who the "they" is you refer to but it's not former United management. Not that they were any good, or old Continental was bad.
#33
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2010
Position: A320/A319/B737 Sys Acft Maint Controller
Posts: 303
-400 to Syd
What?!?!? You are seriously suggesting flying nonstop with full pax and full cargo at the same time and with a smaller per-seat fuel burn?
That's crazy talk to the folks inside Willis Tower.
(You know, the ones that took the 400 out of ORD and thought a 757 was a fine aircraft for CDG-IAD.)
That's crazy talk to the folks inside Willis Tower.
(You know, the ones that took the 400 out of ORD and thought a 757 was a fine aircraft for CDG-IAD.)
I can't speak to the Pilot base as I don't know but there's a LOT of consternation at Willis because some would like to retire the -400 and some would like to keep it, as of NOW? The A350-1000 will be 4 years out with no real guarantee that it will meet the present mission OF the -400. And there are NO alternatives immediately to be had on the marketplace.. to be short? We're in a Pickle!! what are the Alternatives?? the 747-8i, the A380-800 or the 777-300ER/LR of which NONE can be had in the short term. So I guess we fly the 777's we already have?? or we mix the 777 and 747 missions.
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2009
Position: 73 CA EWR
Posts: 514
Yes the old CAL management in charge of the New United Airlines knows exactly how to run International Operations??? Will the house of cards fail before we get real airline people in place to fix it and succeed?
I don't care if you're UAL or CAL start saving a little for hard times ahead.
I don't care if you're UAL or CAL start saving a little for hard times ahead.
#35
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2011
Position: A Nobody
Posts: 1,559
Well I started this thread with no real knowledge of the closing of LAX and essentially moving it to ORD, but it seemed logical.
The truth is UAL -400 are nearing the end of their useful life and UAL mgmt gambled on not needing a replacement airplane for another 4+ years. So here they are moving metal around to fill the holes.
Oh and for some reason no one seems to remember sCAL mgmt had planned on using the 787 from IAH - AKL, but lo and behold Boeing over promised and under delivered with the more capable next gen version of the 787 years away. What a pickle UAL has grown into.
I'm sure people are happier flying "guppies" to DSM and OMA anyway. ;(
The truth is UAL -400 are nearing the end of their useful life and UAL mgmt gambled on not needing a replacement airplane for another 4+ years. So here they are moving metal around to fill the holes.
Oh and for some reason no one seems to remember sCAL mgmt had planned on using the 787 from IAH - AKL, but lo and behold Boeing over promised and under delivered with the more capable next gen version of the 787 years away. What a pickle UAL has grown into.
I'm sure people are happier flying "guppies" to DSM and OMA anyway. ;(
#36
Weird.
For example, the 747-400 didn't have the extreme "reliability" problem in ORD until after the new post-merger management team found an ingenious way to save $$$ by not duplicating the stocked spare parts in ORD with the ones in SFO.
Just imagine the savings!
(The problem was any pre-depatrure MX delay in ORD could cause the FAs to go illegal without sufficient international FA RSVs to cover an entire crew---which is itself yet another example of the imaginary savings providing by tight staffing.)
For example, the 747-400 didn't have the extreme "reliability" problem in ORD until after the new post-merger management team found an ingenious way to save $$$ by not duplicating the stocked spare parts in ORD with the ones in SFO.
Just imagine the savings!
(The problem was any pre-depatrure MX delay in ORD could cause the FAs to go illegal without sufficient international FA RSVs to cover an entire crew---which is itself yet another example of the imaginary savings providing by tight staffing.)
Last edited by cadetdrivr; 08-17-2013 at 10:11 AM.
#37
Weird.
For example, the 747-400 didn't have the extreme "reliability" problem in ORD until after the new post-merger management team found an ingenious way to save $$$ by not duplicating the stocked spare parts in ORD with the ones in SFO.
Just imagine the savings!
(The problem was any pre-depatrure MX delay in ORD could cause the FAs to go illegal without sufficient international FA RSVs to cover an entire crew---which is itself yet another example of the imaginary savings providing by tight staffing.)
For example, the 747-400 didn't have the extreme "reliability" problem in ORD until after the new post-merger management team found an ingenious way to save $$$ by not duplicating the stocked spare parts in ORD with the ones in SFO.
Just imagine the savings!
(The problem was any pre-depatrure MX delay in ORD could cause the FAs to go illegal without sufficient international FA RSVs to cover an entire crew---which is itself yet another example of the imaginary savings providing by tight staffing.)
Bingo! This bears repeating. Unfortunately, many are too obtuse to grasp the not so obvious. We watch the pennies while the twenties go down the toilet!
Other than the idiotic idea to close the ORD 400 base, Cal's Mgmt of UAL has been fantastic! One need look no further than the Shares debacle, the gutting of first and business class service and the loss of a huge chunk of premium pax to DAL.
I used to have high hopes for this merger given the mass of the combined companies and the resulting route network. But the last two years have done zero to inspire my confidence. We used to work for much better companies than we do now.
#39
I disagree, the 747-8 can be had on relatively short notice. It hasn't been selling well, and there is only a very small backlog. If UAL were to order the -8, I think we'd have planes before TK could spool up training and get a sim.
In general, the 400's have too much life left, (Not ours) and it is an expensive plane for a small increace in productivity/efficiency. Worth the investment? My opinion, yes. CO managers have something against the 747. I have no idea what. The Airbus A350 is a huge gamble, and with the stretched out/delayed deliveries, might not work for our timelines. Again, the -8's would.
777-300ER while a fantastic plane, can't haul the cargo, and deliveries are too far out with a big backlog. I do have a friend that sells new Boeing planes at Boeing, if Jeff wants, I can do the introductions.
In general, the 400's have too much life left, (Not ours) and it is an expensive plane for a small increace in productivity/efficiency. Worth the investment? My opinion, yes. CO managers have something against the 747. I have no idea what. The Airbus A350 is a huge gamble, and with the stretched out/delayed deliveries, might not work for our timelines. Again, the -8's would.
777-300ER while a fantastic plane, can't haul the cargo, and deliveries are too far out with a big backlog. I do have a friend that sells new Boeing planes at Boeing, if Jeff wants, I can do the introductions.
#40
UAL international operations was a well oiled machine. But hey, the new United managements wisdom is to put the "smallest equipment" that can complete the operation with JUST ONE fuel stop.
Meantime we send our PREMIUM INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS running to Delta and American. Remember the 757 fiasco with flights over the North Atlantic? We sent premium passengers to other carriers to avoid the fuel stop to make connections. Guess who those guys book travel on now - not United.
You can defend them all you want but START SAVING. It can't last very long until it breaks.
Meantime we send our PREMIUM INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS running to Delta and American. Remember the 757 fiasco with flights over the North Atlantic? We sent premium passengers to other carriers to avoid the fuel stop to make connections. Guess who those guys book travel on now - not United.
You can defend them all you want but START SAVING. It can't last very long until it breaks.
The times they have to make a fuel stop are few and far between. I did these runs for 12 years and I'm not making this up.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post