US Airways Dividend Miles (Pre-FlightFund Merger) - Future of the A330

According to folks(usually employees) in the United and USAirways AOL boards - Assuming the merger passes, the A330s will likely go to Air Canada who has some sort of agreement with United. Maybe PHL will start seeing more 777s at Terminal A??

Oh hell no!
I hope your source is wrong. I instead would really hope that the A 330 fleet would be increased because it is the best two engine transatlantic plane I have been on and the sony entertainment system is top of the world and available for coach people as well!!!!!!! If that is a sign of what is to come combine the worst of two airlines instead of the best than it will be a tough ride.

I would sure hate to see the A330's go, but it's not standard with the UA fleet. So I wouldn't be surprised if it went away if the merger goes through.

One other rumor (I think was on this board as a matter of fact) was selling 'em to SAS (of course another Star Alliance partner). And as British Midland (soon to be BMI - not sure if they'll use British Midland International, or just the acronym) has ordered 330s and wishes to start transatlantic service - they could end up with the planes, depending on how Airbus feels about it all.

eurousair: I feel your pain. But they don't fit in UA's fleet - while the 320 family of planes and the Boeings ('cept the 757 apparently) do. Enjoy 'em while we can.

From the passenger perspective, from people who have flown both-- which do you prefer, the A330 or the B777?

I am a UAL Flight Attendant and have never been on an A330, but I fly the B777 almost exclusively and passengers seem to love them. So does the F/A crew, while I have heard that the A330 may not be so F/A friendly (though I can't say from first-hand experience-- but I CAN say I LOVE the B777!).

I'd be indifferent between the A330( and 340) and 777 if seat comfort and spacing was equal. I don't like the Envoy seats in the A-330 (or its cousin, the Dreamtime seat on QF) as I find the seat back too curved to sleep well. Give me the Club Empress seats on CP 767s and 747s any day. I've only flown the 777 in the back (NH domestic flight) so it's unfair for me to compare it against the 330 (4 times, all in US Envoy) and A-340 (AC Super Executive though I dislike the BE Aerospace seats more than the Dreamtime/Envoy) ones, and CX/Air China ones (CX-leased Chinese-owned a/c)).

What I don't like about the A-330 washroom is that the sinks seem to take forever to drain (for those who do wipe the basin for the next pax).

The bad thing about 777s (and 747s) is that they're typically arranged 2-3-2 in business while the A330/340s are 2-2-2.

FWIW --

1) I live the A330 and the B777 about the same. Both superior equipment, good ride, comfortable, safe, etc.

2) Not sure if UA will keep the A330. My guess is that they will not for the reasons mentioned, and the large fleet of B777 at IAD.

3) the B757 -- not sure what the comment meant. UA and US both have 757s in their fleet.

4) I am not sure about the future of US hubs. Look at the UA hubs -- large and few. Now look at US hubs -- small and plenty. How can the combined UA-US entity carry hubs in CLT, IAD, PHL, and PIT on the East Coast ? I suspect that PHL or PIT will not survive. Along that line, US also has large-scale operations (although not really hub) at BOS and LGA that may scale-back.

------------------

Originally posted by JGill:
3) the B757 -- not sure what the comment meant. UA and US both have 757s in their fleet.


Different engines. US uses Rolls-Royce engines (as does AA IIRC which is why AA wants them). The airlines also use different engines on their respective 320 family a/c. The US 757 fleet is relatively small so it makes no sense to maintain different engines. The US A320 fleet will be large enough to keep. However, I could see UA trying to swap the a/c with another airline which has 320s of the same engine type UA's A-320s use.

[This message has been edited by terenz (edited 01-17-2001).]

Originally posted by JGill:
FWIW --

1) I live the A330 and the B777 about the same. Both superior equipment, good ride, comfortable, safe, etc.

2) Not sure if UA will keep the A330. My guess is that they will not for the reasons mentioned, and the large fleet of B777 at IAD.

I think it is safe to say that the A-330 will be gone if the merger goes through. US will have only 9 - a number which pales in comparison to the 777. I'm actually surprised that NW did not make a bid for them. Logical in that NW just ordered A-330s to replace their DC-10s.

3) the B757 -- not sure what the comment meant. UA and US both have 757s in their fleet.

Both airlines have them, but UA's are powered by Pratts whereas US's are Rolls powered. That is the reason why AA would get them.

4) I am not sure about the future of US hubs. Look at the UA hubs -- large and few. Now look at US hubs -- small and plenty. How can the combined UA-US entity carry hubs in CLT, IAD, PHL, and PIT on the East Coast ? I suspect that PHL or PIT will not survive. Along that line, US also has large-scale operations (although not really hub) at BOS and LGA that may scale-back.

You can read my analysis of this topic on the planebusiness board. Suffice it to say, I think that CLT is fine. As I've said before, I think it would be sheer insanity for UA to get rid of PHL - we're talking about a top 5 or 10 market, loads of O/D, and new terminals coming on line. No healthy major has ever walked away from a O/D city of this size. It simply invites a competitor to come in - namely AA, NW, or DL.

Hopefully UA will not pull out of PHL, however PIT may join the ranks of such cities like RDU, BNA, & MCI that have been shut down. Although I would hate to see such a beautiful hub closed, PIT doesn't get much in the way of O/D traffic, as PHL gets lots. Hopefully, UA will keep PIT-LGW, as AA has kept RDU-LGW, but some routes may see the end.

O&D traffic for all city pairs with 10 or more O&D travellers a day:

PIT: 17,567
PHL: 36,730
CLT: 15,286

Source: DOT 2Q00 DATA

O&D traffic...

Ok, I'll expose my ignorance -- what's O&D?

O&D = origination and destination. i.e. passengers either beginning or ending travel at the mentioned airports.

Originally posted by ITRADE:
No healthy major has ever walked away from a O/D city of this size. It simply invites a competitor to come in - namely AA, NW, or DL.

And with AA pledging to serve DEN, LAX, and SJC/SFO from PHL, guess which competitor is going to be..?

For what I've seen AA will have a sizable presence in the big (read good yields) cities of the East -at LGA, BOS, and DCA, courtesy of UA and their blind focus on eliminating US. Slowly, but surely, AA will then pull a fast one on UA, and move into PHL big, as UA retrenches to IAD. I'm willing to bet they'll start by serving those western cities I mentioned earlier; then the European routes for which the EU asked United to "find" a competitor...

I guess I now know whom to steer my FF business...

Just a thought.

RZ

O&D -- glad someone asked. I read, and thought, OVERSEAS and DOMESTIC ?

Now, my wife really thinks I am a FF nerd, knowing who flies where, when, how often, the connecting hub, etc.

You guys have me beat! Who ever notices the engine manufacturer for goodness sakes ? Someone has too much time on their hands http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

------------------

The cost of the engines and the spares for a new aircraft is the subject of a separate, often bitter, negotiation between the airline and the engine manufacturers.

It is a surprising proportion of the cost of an overall aircraft acquisition.

Commonality of spares for engines of different aircraft gives a large cost benefit to airlines with different types of aircraft in their fleet.

Greg

ps: some of us do have a bit too much time on our hands.

[edited to correct typo]

[This message has been edited by greg99 (edited 01-20-2001).]

Some 25% of the aircraft acquistion cost is for engines, I hear.

Yes, engine types are hard to identify unless you know what to look for. U.S. airlines have the tendency to paint over the manufacturer logos. You see Rolls-Royce Double-R proudly displayed on BA, CX and QF 747s (except for a few GE ones for the later), P&W eagle on CP 767s, but I don't think I have noticed any on U.S. airliners.

UA has also asked US to slow its deliveries of the A-330, and to not exercise any new options. A few more are on their way, but will indeed not stay with UA post merger. The A-321's are on their way and begin flying in April..starting with all PIT/CLT/PHL-West Coast service.

As for hubs,I wouldn't expect too much change according to some inside sources. CLT is too important as a SE hub to compete with DL in ATL. PIT isn't going anywhere as UA is intent on winning over US loyalists. PHL is WAY too important to lose.

If you want to see the death of a US hub, look to BWI. It's a former full hub, and now the hub for Metrojet, and features some great west coast service. The opening scene of "Gladiator" is an accurate metaphor for what WN did to US in BWI, and US never really fought back. With IAD and PHL, UA is pretty well covered. I'd look to UA to completely hand the ball in BWI to WN, with the exception of a few feeders.

Going back to the topic - US will only take the 9 A330s it has firm orders for (up to 6 now). Now if the merger were not to go through, they could exercise their options (of course, depends on how long they have to exercise the options. And remember, one of the reasons UA wanted this merger is that the Wolfman got the 320-family planes at a steal - and with superior delivery positions than UA could get (remember, they're big into the 319s and 320s - interestingly enough, acquired on Wolf's watch). So, the new planes alone apparently make this deal closer to being worth the $60 per share.

But if UA slows their 777 deliveries, they're going to need something to fill the gap as they retire DC10s and old 747s. After all, the 330 is a good fill in - which can then be transferred to *A carriers like British Midland, LH, SAS, Thai, or AC. They'll have a home somewhere, even if US/UA decided to exercise some options.

And back to BWI idea - maybe it becomes the East Coast home for United Shuttle - not IAD. We'll see. As BWI has the gates, it can serve as a replacement for lost service at DCA, and a reliever for IAD, if UA cannot expand it as quickly as they like pending the construction of the new concourses.

As for the fate of CLT, PIT, and PHL, I agree with shinbal. US/UA wouldn't be crazy enough to walk away from PHL, especially, with the new Int'l and Commuter terminals coming online. Just doesn't make sense. PIT will remain, but it will be a bit downsized. CLT will not be affected much since UA needs to compete with DL in ATL.

There will be a period of time when USAirways pilots will probably be "fenced off". That is, while they will get their seniority at either UA or AA, they will be kept flying the equipment they came with. In effect, you will have an "airline within an airline", though it won't be especially obvious to the customer. This is to keep them out of larger planes (like the 777 and 747) which current employees of those carriers are now flying (or on track to fly), until they figure out how to handle integration. Since there are many Airbus planes still to come, and UA will certainly want them at the prices US negotiated, these can easily be traded in. The 330 is a popular seller these days.

Further comment on the engine issue mentioned above. In addition to performance considerations (and stocking of spares), the decision as to what to buy is influenced by the fact that engine manufacturers often contribute to the financing of the total aircraft. This is especially true of GE.

with regards to hubs, PIT will also be getting a new Airbus maintenance facility. not to mention that it is one of the most efficient facilities to transit through in teh NE/Midwest of the US. compare the ATC/WX delays out of PIT with those in PHL, LGA, ORD, EWR, etc and you can see some good reasons for transfering more connex traffic through PIT even w/o having the O/D traffic. from a pure cost basis, PIT is lower than the other hubs and airlines only make money when their a/c are in the air! and from a revenue standpoint US makes a lot of its operating profit from those high cost short segments out of PIT.

finally, Pennsylvania in general has a few powerful politicians who will play an important part in this merger going through or not. specifically, Shuster, Specter, and Santorum - all influential and active in transportation issues.

as pitflyer will probably agree a few less flights to Ithaca and Morgantown wont be a big deal http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Originally posted by indogulf:
finally, Pennsylvania in general has a few powerful politicians who will play an important part in this merger going through or not. specifically, Shuster, Specter, and Santorum - all influential and active in transportation issues.



Let's remember, it's just going to be Specter and Santorum as Shuster is resigning - and may already be gone.

Originally posted by shinbal:
The A-321's are on their way and begin flying in April..starting with all PIT/CLT/PHL-West Coast service.

Actually, the first service is next month - Feb. 4 PHL-LAX IIRC.

Originally posted by shinbal:
As for hubs,I wouldn't expect too much change according to some inside sources. CLT is too important as a SE hub to compete with DL in ATL. PIT isn't going anywhere as UA is intent on winning over US loyalists. PHL is WAY too important to lose.

I have to disagree about PIT to a large extent. If you look at a map, you would theoretically have PIT, PHL, IAD, and CLT all as UA hubs within about a 300 mile radius of IAD (I've excluded BWI for reasons stated below). That is simply too much overlap. People argued that US alone had too much overlap with PIT, PHL, and CLT. I see PIT as a MTC base, but being reduced to a regional operation hub a la BNA and RDU for AA. I think other airlines see the handwriting on the walls with PIT - AirTran seems intent on expanding PIT as a "focus city" or as a future hub (a perfect city for AirTran IMHO).

Originally posted by shinbal:
If you want to see the death of a US hub, look to BWI. It's a former full hub, and now the hub for Metrojet, and features some great west coast service. The opening scene of "Gladiator" is an accurate metaphor for what WN did to US in BWI, and US never really fought back.

Here again, I disagree. US began its BWI pulldown before WN really made any presence at BWI. PHL was the annointed successor.

Originally posted by CLTFLYER:
And back to BWI idea - maybe it becomes the East Coast home for United Shuttle - not IAD. We'll see. As BWI has the gates, it can serve as a replacement for lost service at DCA, and a reliever for IAD, if UA cannot expand it as quickly as they like pending the construction of the new concourses.


This would really be UA's only justification for keeping BWI. Since it doesn't want to kill its own yields at its IAD hub airport by introducing low fare service on its self to cities not already served by AirTran or DL Express, UA might consider BWI as Shuttle by United East.

Just try to connex in PHL. It's a nightmare. IAD is close by and a lot easier to connect in. No doubt that there's enough O&D traffic in PHL to support planes on its own but some of the flights to less popular destinations are gonna go, IMHO. No point in connecting people to a hub which can't handle it when you got another one a hundred miles or so away with an even larger O&D cachement.

As per PIT, if AA needs STL to relieve ORD, UA needs PIT to relieve ORD. Of course, both AA and UA could be lying out of their a$$es, that we'll see.

Originally posted by pitflyer:
Just try to connex in PHL. It's a nightmare. IAD is close by and a lot easier to connect in. No doubt that there's enough O&D traffic in PHL to support planes on its own but some of the flights to less popular destinations are gonna go, IMHO. No point in connecting people to a hub which can't handle it when you got another one a hundred miles or so away with an even larger O&D cachement.

I've never have had a busted connection at PHL; I've had lots of close calls, but never a busted one. I personally don't think the connection issues are any worse than at DFW or ATL. Certainly, UA would not simply abandon because of a perceived problem with connections.

You're one lucky SOB.. I've had 50% of my connections of PHL (most over an hour long) fail in PHL.

To each his own.

you must be cursed, then. Most of my travels originate or end in PHL - most of which are on time or within 15 minutes.

In an effort to push us even more off-topic, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif --

Every now and then, I use PHL instead of a NYC airport, since I can be at the PHL airport in 1-3/4 hours from Manhattan (1hr + Metroliner to 30th Street, Phil, and then 15 min R-1 train to airport. LGA and EWR are often delayed by 1-3 hours, and when you consider the 45 min car ride from Manhattan, all of a sudden PHL is a real competitor

So, PHL has even more value ! (My guess is still that PIT will downsize considerably).



------------------

Originally posted by JGill:
In an effort to push us even more off-topic, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif --

Every now and then, I use PHL instead of a NYC airport, since I can be at the PHL airport in 1-3/4 hours from Manhattan (1hr + Metroliner to 30th Street, Phil, and then 15 min R-1 train to airport. LGA and EWR are often delayed by 1-3 hours, and when you consider the 45 min car ride from Manhattan, all of a sudden PHL is a real competitor

So, PHL has even more value ! (My guess is still that PIT will downsize considerably).


Longest non-mechanical or far-end-ground-hold (eg, local) delay I've ever had at PIT:

10 minutes.

If I were U, I'd keep the express/RJ hub currently at PIT, and use it as relief for cx pax at ORD. One of the things I'll always maintain about PIT is that it is devilish to live here, since you are going to get stuck or mis a cx in a lesser airport...


------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.