UA to retire 22 757s in 2013 -- feelings on this action?
Jan 28, 2013, 1:37 pm
#61
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
Fuel and maintenance costs will over time save money in the long haul. So by your reasoning, United should never replace their planes. I guess you want the 742s and the DC-8s back in service, huh? Geez.
Jan 28, 2013, 1:44 pm
#63
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
Fortunately, there are contractual block-hour requirements in place that won't put sUA pilots out of work. A contingency plan was in place for sub-United to take delivery of a number of 739s to replace 757s if the company was unable to reach agreement with the pilots, but the JCBA reached late last year effectively moots the need to make this distinction.
Jan 28, 2013, 1:47 pm
#64
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
That you haven't read that it is happening doesn't mean that it isn't happening. It means you are uninformed. Nothing wrong with that, but there's a difference between claiming something as fact without any actual details to back it up and claiming a fact just because you don't know otherwise. In this case you are very much wrong and there are a number of sources which back that up, even if you don't know about them.
Jan 28, 2013, 1:56 pm
#65
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
Less comfortable seats - entirely subjective. Although, I do prefer the sUA F seats, but do find the sCO F seats to be fine when reclined.
Less F seats - also less Y seats if competition for upgrades is your main concern?
IFE - Again subjective, more customers are bringing their own IFE and once wifi is rolled out fleet wide, it will pretty much render the overhead screen IFEs obsolete. I'd rather have choices than being subject to watching the same thing over and over.
Lower Cruising Altitude - 757's maximum altitude is FL420 vs FL410 for the 737s and how often do they go north of FL400? Very rare. FL320 is not the maximum altitude for 737s.
Shorter Flight times - Well, the 757s can fly about .02 mach faster than the 737s, but they all usually fly at .78-.80 mach, so most of the time the flight time will be the same. The differences are usually attributed to strength of winds at the time of the trip.
Here is an example of two flights departing around the same time and you can see the flight time in the air is about the same:
B738
B752
Lousy Take-off Performance - As a customer, why do you care? As long as the plane gets into the air and gets you to your destination, why do you care that the 737s require 2-3K more feet of runway?
Range - 737s won't be flying TATL, so why worry?
One thing I like about the 757s over the 739s is the 2L boarding.
739s will bring DirecTV and power ports.
Less F seats - also less Y seats if competition for upgrades is your main concern?
IFE - Again subjective, more customers are bringing their own IFE and once wifi is rolled out fleet wide, it will pretty much render the overhead screen IFEs obsolete. I'd rather have choices than being subject to watching the same thing over and over.
Lower Cruising Altitude - 757's maximum altitude is FL420 vs FL410 for the 737s and how often do they go north of FL400? Very rare. FL320 is not the maximum altitude for 737s.
Shorter Flight times - Well, the 757s can fly about .02 mach faster than the 737s, but they all usually fly at .78-.80 mach, so most of the time the flight time will be the same. The differences are usually attributed to strength of winds at the time of the trip.
Here is an example of two flights departing around the same time and you can see the flight time in the air is about the same:
B738
B752
Lousy Take-off Performance - As a customer, why do you care? As long as the plane gets into the air and gets you to your destination, why do you care that the 737s require 2-3K more feet of runway?
Range - 737s won't be flying TATL, so why worry?
One thing I like about the 757s over the 739s is the 2L boarding.
739s will bring DirecTV and power ports.
Jan 28, 2013, 1:57 pm
#66
Moderator, Omni, Omni/PR, Omni/Games, FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Between DCA and IAD
Programs: UA 1K MM; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 67,136
And yes, I do feel you're deploying hyperbole. "Every passenger . . . squeezing . . . usually meant acrobatics or imposing oneself." I mean did you take a poll of 'every' passenger? Were you so intrigued by the acrobatic feats of others that you had your head turned around for the entire flight so that you in fact witnessed other acrobatic feats? Perhaps United's aspirations to fly a more fuel-efficient jet is all a cover-up to provide a space for future olympians to practice gymnastics on their aircraft.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:01 pm
#67
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
I do care about lousy performance. The 739's need much more runway and when they do get off the runway they are slower getting up to cruising. Which the 739 do cruise at 32K like the A321 does. Which for a customer, usually higher turbulence for a longer period of time. The 738 is a great aircraft but the 739 is a bit too much.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:02 pm
#69
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 843
My understanding is they have over 20 of them coming in, and only 5 or so 737-500s to replace.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:06 pm
#70
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
I do care about lousy performance. The 739's need much more runway and when they do get off the runway they are slower getting up to cruising. Which the 739 do cruise at 32K like the A321 does. Which for a customer, usually higher turbulence for a longer period of time. The 738 is a great aircraft but the 739 is a bit too much.
I concede that a 757 might be able to climb faster, but this seems immaterial to the consumer.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:09 pm
#71
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
Yes it is for the first few hours of a long flight. ORD-SFO flights seem to cruise at 32K for a long time then go up to 36K. Even on a recent ORD-BDL, pilot even announced, we can't go over 34K due to weight. This is on a less than 2 hour flight. 36K seems to be the maxed for any ORD-West Coast flight. I have never been above 36K on a 739 for a 2plus hour flight. I like the new interior but as far as performance, I do care. The 738 is a different animal. That baby has no problem up the 41K. The 739 is a dog just like the A321.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:09 pm
#72
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
I used the lav during a 5 hour transcon and stood in line 30+ minutes. And yes, every single pax trying to pass during that period had to squeeze through, often jostling the pax seated in the aisles in the rear third of the a/c. Sorry that strikes you as hyperbole, but tough.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:11 pm
#73
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,452
If you're suggesting that the 739's performance is somehow less safe than the 757, or even unsafe, due to a perceived lack of adequate takeoff capability, again that is dead wrong.
Which the 739 do cruise at 32K like the A321 does. Which for a customer, usually higher turbulence for a longer period of time. The 738 is a great aircraft but the 739 is a bit too much.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:11 pm
#74
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
According to multiple websites, the 739 is certified to fly up at 41,000 ft. I'm not sure where the 32,000 ft. reference is coming up. Take a look at the following link: http://www.topspeed.com/aviation/avi...0-ar85686.html
I concede that a 757 might be able to climb faster, but this seems immaterial to the consumer.
I concede that a 757 might be able to climb faster, but this seems immaterial to the consumer.
It's a safe aircraft no worries there, but the cruise is lower than the 738 and the 757 that it is replacing.
Jan 28, 2013, 2:12 pm
#75
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
Yes it is for the first few hours of a long flight. ORD-SFO flights seem to cruise at 32K for a long time then go up to 36K. Even on a recent ORD-BDL, pilot even announced, we can't go over 34K due to weight. This is on a less than 2 hour flight. 36K seems to be the maxed for any ORD-West Coast flight. I have never been above 36K on a 739 for a 2plus hour flight. I like the new interior but as far as performance, I do care. The 738 is a different animal. That baby has no problem up the 41K. The 739 is a dog just like the A321.