Fate of the 757-222 ETOPS fleet
Aug 31, 2014, 5:13 pm
#121
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
A lot changed in the world since the 735 came into the fleet. The price of fuel increased dramatically. Just look at the 50 seaters. When they showed up, they were a huge improvement over the props etc. Now everyone hates them. This in United's case because they took a plane that was designed for 90 min or less and flew it nearly 4hrs without any comforts.
Aug 31, 2014, 5:57 pm
#122
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,529
The more sUA aircraft they retire, the easier it is to lay off sUA FAs. And before you say "but 739's" I don't believe they are replacing the 757s one for one.
Aug 31, 2014, 7:51 pm
#123
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 261
Then you'd better tell UA that, since on the United Services website before the merger they clearly listed that they do in-house C-checks at SFOMX. And disregarding component and engine shops as "so what"
. And all of those hangars CO has in EWR, MCO, HNL just do line maintenance, that's not "heavy maintenance". And yet no mention of CO 777s going to HKG for heavy checks from you, or is that a "so what", too?And what do hangars in EWR, MCO, or HNL have to do with anything related to heavy maintenance? CO did heavy maintenance in MCO, IAH, and HOU on all their narrow body fleet. 22 777 and 16 767 were outsourced to HAECO, not the entire fleet. The results of the two decisions regarding heavy maintenance are obvious when you look at utilization, and OOS rates.
Once again this isn't another UA vs CO emotional rant so PLEASE leave it out, and look at the facts and oblivious results.
Aug 31, 2014, 9:36 pm
#124
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto YYZ UA-1K 1MM,QFgold
Programs: Royal Ambassador/ SPG Platinum 75/Marriott gold
Posts: 14,283
someone should tell Delta that. They seem to love old planes and make lots of money!
Aug 31, 2014, 10:12 pm
#126
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL 290 through FL390
Posts: 1,687
FAB
But launch a 737 DEN HNL, and when it lands somewhere short of Runway 8L, or makes it there albeit with half the seats blocked, ask a passenger what they think.
FAB
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Sep 2, 2014 at 5:07 am
Sep 1, 2014, 1:11 pm
#127
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Australia
Programs: SQ & QF
Posts: 1,302
The work rules are not the issue since all 757 pilots from both sides work under the same rules at the same rates. It's more about the perception that most of the 757-200s on the UA side are not cost effective. They would need more cockpit and avionics upgrading in the near future than the CO planes. Those that would remain would be reconfigured such that the pilots on the newly combined fleet of 757s would be able to fly any 757 or 767 any time. This is not a bad thing given that ideally every pilot could legally fly every plane, so we'd all be qualified in 757-200, -300, 767-300, -400. A lot more versatility.
FAB
FAB
Sep 1, 2014, 7:10 pm
#129
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
He was referring to direct replacement, as in the capability of the 757 compared to the 747-900ER. From that perspective, the 737 will not replace the 757 in UAL's network.
However, retired 757s are being replaced on a 1:1 basis with new 737s, although the schedules do not perfectly match up. With minimum crews, the number of FAs does not change. So, you were incorrect when stating the 757 retirement was a way to get rid of sUA FAs.
However, retired 757s are being replaced on a 1:1 basis with new 737s, although the schedules do not perfectly match up. With minimum crews, the number of FAs does not change. So, you were incorrect when stating the 757 retirement was a way to get rid of sUA FAs.
Sep 1, 2014, 7:32 pm
#130
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,907
He was referring to direct replacement, as in the capability of the 757 compared to the 747-900ER. From that perspective, the 737 will not replace the 757 in UAL's network.
However, retired 757s are being replaced on a 1:1 basis with new 737s, although the schedules do not perfectly match up. With minimum crews, the number of FAs does not change. So, you were incorrect when stating the 757 retirement was a way to get rid of sUA FAs.
However, retired 757s are being replaced on a 1:1 basis with new 737s, although the schedules do not perfectly match up. With minimum crews, the number of FAs does not change. So, you were incorrect when stating the 757 retirement was a way to get rid of sUA FAs.
Sep 1, 2014, 7:35 pm
#131
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....irol-fleetInfo
Sep 1, 2014, 7:39 pm
#132
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
In the 2014 calendar year UA is scheduled to take delivery of 29 73Es and retire 38 752s. That is not a 1:1 ratio. @:-)
http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....irol-fleetInfo
http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....irol-fleetInfo
Sep 1, 2014, 8:50 pm
#134
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
He was referring to direct replacement, as in the capability of the 757 compared to the 747-900ER. From that perspective, the 737 will not replace the 757 in UAL's network.
However, retired 757s are being replaced on a 1:1 basis with new 737s, although the schedules do not perfectly match up. With minimum crews, the number of FAs does not change. So, you were incorrect when stating the 757 retirement was a way to get rid of sUA FAs.
However, retired 757s are being replaced on a 1:1 basis with new 737s, although the schedules do not perfectly match up. With minimum crews, the number of FAs does not change. So, you were incorrect when stating the 757 retirement was a way to get rid of sUA FAs.
Sep 1, 2014, 9:42 pm
#135
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
In the 2014 calendar year UA is scheduled to take delivery of 29 73Es and retire 38 752s. That is not a 1:1 ratio. @:-)
http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....irol-fleetInfo
http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....irol-fleetInfo
I stand by my position. Do you have facts, analysis, or intelligent discourse to counterbalance what I've said?
Overstaffing?