Fleet Discussion and News
08-22-2017, 12:42 PM
#301
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 771
After the C Series discussion got going again, I went back and did some math on the back of a napkin after looking at the UAL Mainline Fleet page. Management has said more than once 25 years is about the viable lifetime of an aircraft purchased new.
What I've realized is that swapping all those 700s for Max 9s and 10s makes a fair amount of sense (well, setting aside the wisdom of buying a fifty year old design). Our oldest 73Gs and 319s are about 20 years old (about 100 aircraft with 118-128 seats). They've got a fair amount of life left on them and thus there is not a rush to augment with more of the same (or C Series/E-2).
Meanwhile, our oldest 320s with 150 seats are actually 24 years old. Of 97 frames, about 40 are over twenty years old. Of 56 757-200s - 24 are older than 22 years (a few are in the neighborhood of thirtysomething). Of our 35 767-300s - 21 are over 24 years old. Our 777-200s are getting up there too, out of 19 aircraft 13 are over twenty years old and our oldest 777-200ERs are starting to turn 20 now as well (a dozen as of this year).
So, in the next five years or so there is definitely a more pressing need to replace larger mainline aircraft than add smaller ones. At the same time we don't have a lot more gate space coming soon at our most congested hubs (EWR/SFO/ORD/LAX). So up-gauging from 320s to slightly bigger aircraft (800s/900ERs/MAX, etc) is a way to ultimately replace older aircraft while increasing capacity within our existing airspace/infrastructure constraints (and avoid growing pilot numbers too much as well I'm afraid, ">15k" pilots? Not.). The five more 798-9s we have coming in the next six months plus the 14 787-10s we have arriving starting next year will allow our oldest 756s and 777s to continue being moved from international to domestic p.s. type service where they can receive more care and feeding from maintenance... or be parted out if the economy tanks.
I think this general trend of removing our oldest larger jets from international services will continue until a MoM aircraft enters service. I think the MoM will be used primarily for transcons and TATL services, allowing the hodgepodge of geriatric jets being used for p.s. service to be retired en masse.
As for the small end of our fleet, I'm not holding my breath. Previous management seemed much more disposed to buy a NSNB. Kirby's maneuvering so far has clearly been aimed at maximizing what he can do with RJs under current scope and it appears we are set for a while. I pre-assume we won't give an inch on scope when our contract talks open. Once Kirby has run out of ideas he might then bite the bullet and buy a NSNB, but he has a few years before he absolutely has to chuck a rock (long enough to get a new contract signed - anyone want to guess what the MAX-10 will pay?).
If anyone has better insight or fill ins - I am all ears.
What I've realized is that swapping all those 700s for Max 9s and 10s makes a fair amount of sense (well, setting aside the wisdom of buying a fifty year old design). Our oldest 73Gs and 319s are about 20 years old (about 100 aircraft with 118-128 seats). They've got a fair amount of life left on them and thus there is not a rush to augment with more of the same (or C Series/E-2).
Meanwhile, our oldest 320s with 150 seats are actually 24 years old. Of 97 frames, about 40 are over twenty years old. Of 56 757-200s - 24 are older than 22 years (a few are in the neighborhood of thirtysomething). Of our 35 767-300s - 21 are over 24 years old. Our 777-200s are getting up there too, out of 19 aircraft 13 are over twenty years old and our oldest 777-200ERs are starting to turn 20 now as well (a dozen as of this year).
So, in the next five years or so there is definitely a more pressing need to replace larger mainline aircraft than add smaller ones. At the same time we don't have a lot more gate space coming soon at our most congested hubs (EWR/SFO/ORD/LAX). So up-gauging from 320s to slightly bigger aircraft (800s/900ERs/MAX, etc) is a way to ultimately replace older aircraft while increasing capacity within our existing airspace/infrastructure constraints (and avoid growing pilot numbers too much as well I'm afraid, ">15k" pilots? Not.). The five more 798-9s we have coming in the next six months plus the 14 787-10s we have arriving starting next year will allow our oldest 756s and 777s to continue being moved from international to domestic p.s. type service where they can receive more care and feeding from maintenance... or be parted out if the economy tanks.
I think this general trend of removing our oldest larger jets from international services will continue until a MoM aircraft enters service. I think the MoM will be used primarily for transcons and TATL services, allowing the hodgepodge of geriatric jets being used for p.s. service to be retired en masse.
As for the small end of our fleet, I'm not holding my breath. Previous management seemed much more disposed to buy a NSNB. Kirby's maneuvering so far has clearly been aimed at maximizing what he can do with RJs under current scope and it appears we are set for a while. I pre-assume we won't give an inch on scope when our contract talks open. Once Kirby has run out of ideas he might then bite the bullet and buy a NSNB, but he has a few years before he absolutely has to chuck a rock (long enough to get a new contract signed - anyone want to guess what the MAX-10 will pay?).
If anyone has better insight or fill ins - I am all ears.
08-22-2017, 05:36 PM
#302
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,823
After the C Series discussion got going again, I went back and did some math on the back of a napkin after looking at the UAL Mainline Fleet page. Management has said more than once 25 years is about the viable lifetime of an aircraft purchased new.
What I've realized is that swapping all those 700s for Max 9s and 10s makes a fair amount of sense (well, setting aside the wisdom of buying a fifty year old design). Our oldest 73Gs and 319s are about 20 years old (about 100 aircraft with 118-128 seats). They've got a fair amount of life left on them and thus there is not a rush to augment with more of the same (or C Series/E-2).
Meanwhile, our oldest 320s with 150 seats are actually 24 years old. Of 97 frames, about 40 are over twenty years old. Of 56 757-200s - 24 are older than 22 years (a few are in the neighborhood of thirtysomething). Of our 35 767-300s - 21 are over 24 years old. Our 777-200s are getting up there too, out of 19 aircraft 13 are over twenty years old and our oldest 777-200ERs are starting to turn 20 now as well (a dozen as of this year).
So, in the next five years or so there is definitely a more pressing need to replace larger mainline aircraft than add smaller ones. At the same time we don't have a lot more gate space coming soon at our most congested hubs (EWR/SFO/ORD/LAX). So up-gauging from 320s to slightly bigger aircraft (800s/900ERs/MAX, etc) is a way to ultimately replace older aircraft while increasing capacity within our existing airspace/infrastructure constraints (and avoid growing pilot numbers too much as well I'm afraid, ">15k" pilots? Not.). The five more 798-9s we have coming in the next six months plus the 14 787-10s we have arriving starting next year will allow our oldest 756s and 777s to continue being moved from international to domestic p.s. type service where they can receive more care and feeding from maintenance... or be parted out if the economy tanks.
I think this general trend of removing our oldest larger jets from international services will continue until a MoM aircraft enters service. I think the MoM will be used primarily for transcons and TATL services, allowing the hodgepodge of geriatric jets being used for p.s. service to be retired en masse.
As for the small end of our fleet, I'm not holding my breath. Previous management seemed much more disposed to buy a NSNB. Kirby's maneuvering so far has clearly been aimed at maximizing what he can do with RJs under current scope and it appears we are set for a while. I pre-assume we won't give an inch on scope when our contract talks open. Once Kirby has run out of ideas he might then bite the bullet and buy a NSNB, but he has a few years before he absolutely has to chuck a rock (long enough to get a new contract signed - anyone want to guess what the MAX-10 will pay?).
If anyone has better insight or fill ins - I am all ears.
What I've realized is that swapping all those 700s for Max 9s and 10s makes a fair amount of sense (well, setting aside the wisdom of buying a fifty year old design). Our oldest 73Gs and 319s are about 20 years old (about 100 aircraft with 118-128 seats). They've got a fair amount of life left on them and thus there is not a rush to augment with more of the same (or C Series/E-2).
Meanwhile, our oldest 320s with 150 seats are actually 24 years old. Of 97 frames, about 40 are over twenty years old. Of 56 757-200s - 24 are older than 22 years (a few are in the neighborhood of thirtysomething). Of our 35 767-300s - 21 are over 24 years old. Our 777-200s are getting up there too, out of 19 aircraft 13 are over twenty years old and our oldest 777-200ERs are starting to turn 20 now as well (a dozen as of this year).
So, in the next five years or so there is definitely a more pressing need to replace larger mainline aircraft than add smaller ones. At the same time we don't have a lot more gate space coming soon at our most congested hubs (EWR/SFO/ORD/LAX). So up-gauging from 320s to slightly bigger aircraft (800s/900ERs/MAX, etc) is a way to ultimately replace older aircraft while increasing capacity within our existing airspace/infrastructure constraints (and avoid growing pilot numbers too much as well I'm afraid, ">15k" pilots? Not.). The five more 798-9s we have coming in the next six months plus the 14 787-10s we have arriving starting next year will allow our oldest 756s and 777s to continue being moved from international to domestic p.s. type service where they can receive more care and feeding from maintenance... or be parted out if the economy tanks.
I think this general trend of removing our oldest larger jets from international services will continue until a MoM aircraft enters service. I think the MoM will be used primarily for transcons and TATL services, allowing the hodgepodge of geriatric jets being used for p.s. service to be retired en masse.
As for the small end of our fleet, I'm not holding my breath. Previous management seemed much more disposed to buy a NSNB. Kirby's maneuvering so far has clearly been aimed at maximizing what he can do with RJs under current scope and it appears we are set for a while. I pre-assume we won't give an inch on scope when our contract talks open. Once Kirby has run out of ideas he might then bite the bullet and buy a NSNB, but he has a few years before he absolutely has to chuck a rock (long enough to get a new contract signed - anyone want to guess what the MAX-10 will pay?).
If anyone has better insight or fill ins - I am all ears.
Here's a recent video showing a European passenger's viewpoint when comparing the 737-700 to the new CS100:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sthoNr81QlI
True, economics (purchase price and ongoing operating costs) are very, very important. But ergonomics are also an important buying factor and both Delta and Air Canada will be able to market the CSeries as a far more comfortable airplane than competing narrowbodies.
08-22-2017, 06:56 PM
#303
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 771
Here's a recent video showing a European passenger's viewpoint when comparing the 737-700 to the new CS100:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sthoNr81QlI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sthoNr81QlI
08-22-2017, 07:10 PM
#304
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2015
Position: Left
Posts: 1,823
Believe it or not, I like the C Series and hope it is ultimately successful. It is tough to be sympathetic towards BA as it continues to stretch the 737 while simultaneously taking Bombardier to court for having the cojones to start from scratch (without any upfront subsidies or defense research seedcorn - the "subsidies" BA and Embraer are up in arms about only came at endgame when development was complete and Bombardier was at risk of bankruptcy). I've already seen the video, as you've previously posted it in the DAL C Series Info thread. Sadly, I don't get a vote on what we buy. I enjoy connecting dots and seeing what emerges. Right now, I don't think I see a picture developing of a UA sale in the short/medium term. I could be wrong. Long term, I think it is still possible.
Ultimately, this airplane provides any airline CEO with OPTIONS. There are many ways to use this airplane and to make money with the gas-efficient engines. And from the lowly pilot's perspective (yeah, I know management couldn't give a shiznit about what pilots care about), the CSeries will be a phenomenal office to work in. I've jumpsat in plenty of 737s - and that cockpit can't be much tighter and archaic (nice 1960s overhead panel). But the CSeries is different. Big windows, more sensitive sidesticks, plenty of room and the latest avionics (same Collins ProLine Fusion system found in the latest Global Express bizjets) and ergonomic features. It will be a great place to work and the CSeries will perform well with great short field and takeoff performance (good enough for London City).
Who knows if United will order the CSeries. I am hopeful, but you never know considering Boeing's influence and Embraer's desperation.... I guess time will tell...
08-22-2017, 07:47 PM
#305
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 771
08-22-2017, 08:44 PM
#306
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
When most people buy a ticket on line, the vast majority of the time they click on the cheapest fare. There is no option to sort the price results with respect to seat pitch or width.
'The CS is way too expensive, and nobody pays extra money for the extra coach seat width. Bombardier built an S-CLass mercedes, and is trying to sell it to airlines looking for a Hyundai.
It will, and should, fail. "Better" in our industry isn't better range, or wider seats, or a single economic metric like fuel efficiency. It is how many cents it costs to fly one seat mile. The CS loses, period, because its purchase price is so high, the 25% fuel savings doesn't make a dent in it.
A Boeing clean sheet MOM will have the same problem against the 330.
'The CS is way too expensive, and nobody pays extra money for the extra coach seat width. Bombardier built an S-CLass mercedes, and is trying to sell it to airlines looking for a Hyundai.
It will, and should, fail. "Better" in our industry isn't better range, or wider seats, or a single economic metric like fuel efficiency. It is how many cents it costs to fly one seat mile. The CS loses, period, because its purchase price is so high, the 25% fuel savings doesn't make a dent in it.
A Boeing clean sheet MOM will have the same problem against the 330.
08-23-2017, 07:35 AM
#307
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Feb 2015
Position: 777FO
Posts: 771
Anyways, I'm not really interested in this thread becoming a dedicated C Series thread. Good ol' David Puddy kinda hijacked it a bit. I'm a lot more interested in the bigger picture, and am eagerly awaiting some constructive feedback on my big post yesterday (#301).
08-23-2017, 08:37 AM
#308
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2012
Position: 777
Posts: 2,171
After the C Series discussion got going again, I went back and did some math on the back of a napkin after looking at the UAL Mainline Fleet page. Management has said more than once 25 years is about the viable lifetime of an aircraft purchased new.
What I've realized is that swapping all those 700s for Max 9s and 10s makes a fair amount of sense (well, setting aside the wisdom of buying a fifty year old design). Our oldest 73Gs and 319s are about 20 years old (about 100 aircraft with 118-128 seats). They've got a fair amount of life left on them and thus there is not a rush to augment with more of the same (or C Series/E-2).
Meanwhile, our oldest 320s with 150 seats are actually 24 years old. Of 97 frames, about 40 are over twenty years old. Of 56 757-200s - 24 are older than 22 years (a few are in the neighborhood of thirtysomething). Of our 35 767-300s - 21 are over 24 years old. Our 777-200s are getting up there too, out of 19 aircraft 13 are over twenty years old and our oldest 777-200ERs are starting to turn 20 now as well (a dozen as of this year).
So, in the next five years or so there is definitely a more pressing need to replace larger mainline aircraft than add smaller ones. At the same time we don't have a lot more gate space coming soon at our most congested hubs (EWR/SFO/ORD/LAX). So up-gauging from 320s to slightly bigger aircraft (800s/900ERs/MAX, etc) is a way to ultimately replace older aircraft while increasing capacity within our existing airspace/infrastructure constraints (and avoid growing pilot numbers too much as well I'm afraid, ">15k" pilots? Not.). The five more 798-9s we have coming in the next six months plus the 14 787-10s we have arriving starting next year will allow our oldest 756s and 777s to continue being moved from international to domestic p.s. type service where they can receive more care and feeding from maintenance... or be parted out if the economy tanks.
I think this general trend of removing our oldest larger jets from international services will continue until a MoM aircraft enters service. I think the MoM will be used primarily for transcons and TATL services, allowing the hodgepodge of geriatric jets being used for p.s. service to be retired en masse.
As for the small end of our fleet, I'm not holding my breath. Previous management seemed much more disposed to buy a NSNB. Kirby's maneuvering so far has clearly been aimed at maximizing what he can do with RJs under current scope and it appears we are set for a while. I pre-assume we won't give an inch on scope when our contract talks open. Once Kirby has run out of ideas he might then bite the bullet and buy a NSNB, but he has a few years before he absolutely has to chuck a rock (long enough to get a new contract signed - anyone want to guess what the MAX-10 will pay?).
If anyone has better insight or fill ins - I am all ears.
What I've realized is that swapping all those 700s for Max 9s and 10s makes a fair amount of sense (well, setting aside the wisdom of buying a fifty year old design). Our oldest 73Gs and 319s are about 20 years old (about 100 aircraft with 118-128 seats). They've got a fair amount of life left on them and thus there is not a rush to augment with more of the same (or C Series/E-2).
Meanwhile, our oldest 320s with 150 seats are actually 24 years old. Of 97 frames, about 40 are over twenty years old. Of 56 757-200s - 24 are older than 22 years (a few are in the neighborhood of thirtysomething). Of our 35 767-300s - 21 are over 24 years old. Our 777-200s are getting up there too, out of 19 aircraft 13 are over twenty years old and our oldest 777-200ERs are starting to turn 20 now as well (a dozen as of this year).
So, in the next five years or so there is definitely a more pressing need to replace larger mainline aircraft than add smaller ones. At the same time we don't have a lot more gate space coming soon at our most congested hubs (EWR/SFO/ORD/LAX). So up-gauging from 320s to slightly bigger aircraft (800s/900ERs/MAX, etc) is a way to ultimately replace older aircraft while increasing capacity within our existing airspace/infrastructure constraints (and avoid growing pilot numbers too much as well I'm afraid, ">15k" pilots? Not.). The five more 798-9s we have coming in the next six months plus the 14 787-10s we have arriving starting next year will allow our oldest 756s and 777s to continue being moved from international to domestic p.s. type service where they can receive more care and feeding from maintenance... or be parted out if the economy tanks.
I think this general trend of removing our oldest larger jets from international services will continue until a MoM aircraft enters service. I think the MoM will be used primarily for transcons and TATL services, allowing the hodgepodge of geriatric jets being used for p.s. service to be retired en masse.
As for the small end of our fleet, I'm not holding my breath. Previous management seemed much more disposed to buy a NSNB. Kirby's maneuvering so far has clearly been aimed at maximizing what he can do with RJs under current scope and it appears we are set for a while. I pre-assume we won't give an inch on scope when our contract talks open. Once Kirby has run out of ideas he might then bite the bullet and buy a NSNB, but he has a few years before he absolutely has to chuck a rock (long enough to get a new contract signed - anyone want to guess what the MAX-10 will pay?).
If anyone has better insight or fill ins - I am all ears.
Our 777's will start aging out about the time the 777X becomes available. Similar story with the 757's and 767's. MOM plane timing might be a little long, but could still work. I really think UAL should be the launch customer for the MOM plane, and convert all the Max-10 orders to MOM.
08-23-2017, 09:55 AM
#309
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2014
Position: 787 right
Posts: 504
Max-10 pay? 737 of course. If the 767-400 gets 747 pay, why not?
Our 777's will start aging out about the time the 777X becomes available. Similar story with the 757's and 767's. MOM plane timing might be a little long, but could still work. I really think UAL should be the launch customer for the MOM plane, and convert all the Max-10 orders to MOM.
Our 777's will start aging out about the time the 777X becomes available. Similar story with the 757's and 767's. MOM plane timing might be a little long, but could still work. I really think UAL should be the launch customer for the MOM plane, and convert all the Max-10 orders to MOM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
