Bonehead

If you look at the Removed Mainline Aircraft (2011-2014) page you'll note that there is essentially an equal number of pmCO aircraft that have been removed from service, and most of those are newer than the pmUA 52s.

hookthem

I have nothing against 752's, I just think they're awful to fly to OGG and LIH It is all about the config. There's a reason why I do my best to always route SAT-IAH-HNL-OGG/LIH vs SAT-LAX/SFO-OGG/LIH

golfingboy

Many of the sUA 757s are ETOPs capable, but that is not the issue. The issue is how the particular 757s were built and certified. The CO 757s are certified to fly with 15K more pounds at MTOW which permits them to carry more fuel and the engines are rated for several thousand more pounds of thrust.

Yes, they could uprate the sUA engines, pay millions to revamp the cabin interior up to international standards, pull the plane out of commission to go through several different phases of re-certification [a bunch for interiors, to uprate engines, to receive approval to increase MTOW, and several other certifications for TATL flying]. Does it make business sense to pour in all that money and give up 3-4 months of revenue generation per bird to undergo the process so they can fly sUA 757s TATL when they already have over 40 sCO ones that are good to go?

Again, nothing to do with sUA or sCO here.

LASUA1K

Let's talk about facts, sCO made some bad decisions with airplane orders. They went with the 767-200 and the 737-500's when other more fuel efficient aircraft were available. Why oh why did they purchase the 767-200?

As far as comfort, give me a 1991 sUA 757 anyday over a shinny underpowered, rock hard seats 739. The sUA 57's are being retired a bit early.

fly18725

The 767-200 and 737-500 were the most fuel efficient aircraft of that capability and capacity on the market at the time of purchase.

Fleet management is complicated, with small mistakes potentially adding enormous costs. While the large F cabin on the 757 is nice, the reality is the decision to park the airplanes is made based on indisputable facts with big dollar implications.

LASUA1K

They were not the most fuel efficient at time of purchase. sCO wouldn't look at anything other than Boeing.

fly18725

What Airbus planes of that size and efficiency were available at that time, or better yet are available today?

The answer is none.

LASUA1K

Seriously? Why do you think the NG was created? Boeing lost a big order from UA and other airlines who historically ordered Boeing products. The 320 series is why Boeing came out with the 700. UA opened Boeings eyes. CO continued with its buy Boeing nonsense, even though better aircraft were available.

The 767-200 was ordered in 2001. Do you really believe that was the right decision? Really? Soooo many airlines ordered the 767-200 in 2001.

redtailshark

Because, in 1994, when Gordo assumed the role of Supreme Leader, he discovered the multiple-Ch.11 CO was about to go under for a final time...so he called his old buddy at Boeing and requested a tens-of-millions-of-$ wire as a refund on some airframe orders he cancelled... but Boeing extracted more than their pound of flesh by holding CO to a sole-airframe-supplier contract for the lifetime of the CO entity. That's one prime reason why the UA shell had to prevail with the 2009 merger....CO is defunct, so no sole-source supplier agreement continues, A350s are coming....

COs 762ERs were among the last off the line and with high MTOWs were capable of operating EWR-PEK for example. Not very economically, but their late-90s frames weren't your grandfather's 762.

No, the 333 offered miles better CASM than the mid-90s 762 and was not much different even wrt DOC. 735 was bad from DOC perspective from the getgo. Shrunk frames - like 735 - are never economically competitive with stretched ones of same generation (734) but they can fill specific operating niches. CO was locked into a sole-source airframe supply agreement with Boeing for other reasons.

Totoro

As a condition for European approval for Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger, Boeing agreed not to enforce the sole-supplier contract. UA didn't need any legal maneuvers to release themselves from that contract.

united4

The 762 was definitely not efficient, even at the time. Most airlines had long since stopped ordering it and were ordering the 767-300, which ironically CO had ordered and some were built, but were not taken up before delivery. And while the 767-400 is a great aircraft, the A332 is much more efficient and a better performer and it was CO's "Boeing or not going" blind loyalty that got them a plane that could not do what the competitions could.

And the 737 classic was very outdated at that time, with the 735 being the least efficient model, since it had the same operating costs as a 300, but couldn't carry as many passengers or bags. UA stopped taking them in 1993 and their Airbus A320 order was the blow to Boeing's ego that led to the 737 NG in the first place.

kevanyalowitz

At least the 739 has plenty of recline in the last row (5) of first class...

EWR764

If the sCO 757-200s were still in a domestic configuration, they'd be on the way out too. The truth of the matter is that the 752 in a ~180-seat domestic configuration is markedly less efficient and more costly to operate than a 737-900ER or A321 in a similar layout.

CO invested millions in a mid-life reconfiguration program that allowed their 752s to competitively operate in higher-revenue, more profitable markets (TATL/SA) than the domestic sector. Not only does the company need to recoup some of that investment made 5-10 years ago, but the 757-224 also still has a profitable mission in this network for which it is well-suited and, presently, the only viable solution. To bring the sUA birds to that standard now would be impractical, as the airplanes are older than they were in 2004-2006 (when CO carried out its domestic-int'l reconfiguration) and that network segment is already filled by the sCO fleet. Plus the resale market for 752s is strong, driven mostly by FedEx.

fly18725

The last 737-500 was ordered in 1994. At that time, the A319 was a larger, heavier, and probably more expensive airplane. If you didn't need the capabilities and capacity of the A319, it didn't make sense. Since fuel was cheaper, the improved efficiency of the newer airplanes didn't really make a big difference until the late 2000s, particularly if you didn't need the improved capability.

United's decision to purchase the A320 made sense for it, based on the capabilities it required. The strategy of UAL A320 vs. CAL 737NG is a topic for another venue, where facts can play a more prominent role than emotion.

At the time, yes. There was no other sub 200 seat airplane capable of doing the mission of the 767-200ER. The 767-300ER wasn't even capable of flying all the missions and had the risk of more seats (and A330-200 to a greater degree). If CAL knew what would happen to oil prices and traffic growth at EWR and IAH, it might have made a different decision.

The DOC delta of A330s vs. 767-200ER, particularly at early 2000s fuel prices, is quite different. While larger airplanes always offer lower CASM, the additional seats present more risk. If you can't fill up the additional seats, you shouldn't buy the bigger airplane.

The benefit of being able to operate a family of airplanes of a variety offers compelling economic benefits, which is many airlines operate(d) fleets of 737s, A320 families, 767s, A330s, etc. The ultimate selection comes down to the overall value of the aircraft, taking capability, capacity, operating costs, and price into consideration.

United needed the capability of the A320 and bought them because another alternative didn't exist at the time. Continental needed aircraft the size and capability of the 737-500 and 767-200ER and there was no other alternative.

The industry has dramatically changed since both purchase decisions were made.

EWR764

Close. The last 762 delivery was actually in late 2001. CO ordered 10 762s in 1998, with the highest gross weight and thrust options available on that airplane. The 762 was part of CO's strategy to have international equipment in capacity increments of roughly 50 seats: 175 (762); 235 (764); 285 (772). The spike of fuel in 2003 almost made the airplane impossible to make money with overnight.