787fan

The fact that Airbus has this A321neoLR in development means UA's entire 757 strategy has to be re-evaluated.

They can slow down their retirements but should still have a replacement strategy. I'm okay flying 20-year frames but I get nervous when I board a 30-year one.

spin88

{non-relevant content deleted after move}

I was not going to mention the announcement a few days about about the A321neoLR (with a range 100 nm longer than the 757, and with a 6" wider cabin able to have 18" wide seats in Y, and an announced fuel burn that is 25% less than the 757W), but since it was brought up, its a great deal. Expect these to be used on current 757W routes, but also to be used to expand service to Hawaii, and to add direct flights to mid-South America secondary cities.

What is interesting is that AAL and DAL (both of which have modern Airbus fleets) will be able to take advantage of this. B6/VX could also do so. UAL though is not well suited. I don't see it making any sense for UAL to have a sub-fleet they buy new and then have to have a sub-group of pilots for, nor to have to stock parts for this A/C. Yet, I expect both AAL and DAL to jump on this, and be able to undercut United on certain routes (think BOS-Europe, NYC-secondary Europe, Mid-Con to Hawaii, West Coast to Hawaii, ATL/DFW/MIA mid-south America, LAX-mid-South America). And Boeing has nothing that they can even remotely offer United to compete with this A/C in the foreseeable future.

787fan

UA has decades of experience operating the 319 and 320. What's the issue with adding the NEO ? Just because they haven't ordered it ?

And DL doesn't *have* a modern narrowbody airbus fleet - those are still the ancient frames inherited from NW. They only *will* have one after the NEOs start arriving.

sbm12

UA does not need the A321neoLR for Hawaii or mid-South America. The plane will be a smidgen smaller than the 752W and those markets can be similarly met by the 737MAX which UA has on the order books.

Where UA is still struggling for a fleet replacement is in the thin TATL markets. The A321neoLR can meet those needs (though it is not clear if the Y cabin seat count includes allowance for E+ or not; that could swing things a lot in the profitability calculations) but UA also still has a bit of time before it must commit to a replacement solution. There is still a window in which Boeing can do something to win that business.

Every new type starts as a subfleet. No doubt that it will be a bit cheaper for the other two, but UA could do it if that's what the route network demands.

As for routes where the neoLR matters versus the neo, I don't actually think there are a ton which will matter to the legacy carriers.
LAX:


ATL:


Not a lot of real solid markets which matter in those lightly shaded areas.

I have a bunch more similar maps in a blog post I wrote this morning looking at the future of the A321neoLR as a 752 replacement. The short version is that AA might go for it but others can take a few years to decide based on current order books, route networks and fleet makeup.
n.b. The link above is to my blog or to one which I am a regular contributor. FT rules require that I disclose that in the post.

EWR764

The "modern" Airbus models operated by AA and (soon) DL have the same avionics, engines (AA, save for some PIP options) and type rating of UA's 152 in-service A319/320s. A prospective NEO fleet would not require a 'sub-group' of pilots as it would share the same type rating as the existing Airbus fleet and incoming A350s.

Lastly, an order for a 757 replacement at UA would run close to 100 frames, which is large enough to have the critical mass to offset the increased costs associated with inducting a new engine type into the fleet. If the CFM LEAP engine is available on the long-range A321, it could conceivably be the same engine as the 737MAX.

The bottom line is that the 737MAX order does not foreclose the possibility of a next-gen A321 order as a 757 replacement if it is far-and-away the best option.

FlyWorld

There have been conversations in this forum earlier about passengers denied boarding on flights to/from Hawaii because mainland/Hawaii pushes the 737MAX to its maximum capacity, so much so that the plane is incapable of operating the route when it's full and facing unusual headwinds. In other words, the conclusion I drew from that dialog was that 737MAX is only capable of performing Hawaii/Mainland under optimal conditions but it fails under sub-optimal conditions whereas sUA 757s can perform under a much wider range of conditions (wind and weight).

Furthermore, we had some UA pilots comment in that thread about how the 737MAX has significantly worse handling characteristics and more stringent takeoff requirements than the 757.

As a result of what I learned in the thread where these things were discussed, I left with the impression that UA's service to Hawaii is excellent and CO's future 737 based approach to Hawaii service is going to be a lot worse and a lot more unreliable than what UA flyers have historically experienced.

It therefore doesn't seem the replacement of UA 757's with CO style 737's is going to lead to better performance in that market. There will be more delays, more denied boarding, and therefore, greater costs, and that will put COdbaUA at a competitive disadvantage relative to any carrier serving the route with a more robust aircraft.

EWR764

You're correct about the 757 being a more robust platform than the 757, and you won't get much argument on the point that Hawaii service with 737s is about the very limit of the airplane's envelope in many respects. The 737MAX (which is not in service yet) should address some of the range concerns relative to the 739ERs and 738s currently operating to Hawaii at suboptimal payload/performance. The fact that UA is still deploying 737s to Hawaii in place of sUA ETOPS 757-200s in markets where 737 service is feasible should give some indication as to the cost advantage of a 737 vis-a-vis a 757, even with weight restrictions.

As more sUA 757s leave the fleet, sCO ETOPS 757-200s will be more frequently operating routes like DEN-HNL/OGG/LIH/KOA, SFO/LAX-LIH where the performance of the 757 is necessary.

sbm12

From a fuel burn perspective the 739s are about 25% lower than the 752s. It is a significant difference and allows for a decent weight penalty before you start to lose on the deal.

Yup, and while the range numbers on the A321neoLR suggest that it might have the legs for DEN to the islands we don't know what the high altitude take-off performance penalty will be. Lots of open questions still on that plane given that it really was only semi-announced this week without a full playout of specs.

soorox

I guess its never too late to turn back to Airbus, they can always cancel those Boeing orders and revert back to an all airbus fleet

If not for CO merger, pre UA would of been all airbus narrow body, was it not? TBH i prefer A320's, not sure why, but I just feel more 'safe' flying on them.

sbm12

Irrational and unfounded delusion??

halls120

I don't think the A320s are safer than the 737s, but before UA installed slimline seats, the A320 was a lot more comfortable than the 737.

As for the A321neo, I don't think UA ought to jump at them until the Airbus claims about range are actually verified.

united4

There is simply nothing Boeing can do to compete with this plane, unless they do an all-new design. The 737 is completely maxed out, stretched as much as it will, engines as big as you're going to be able to put on it. Airbus completely caught Boeing with their pants down and I'm glad. The 737 MAX sounds like a complete dud, especially the 9 that UA has on order. It was ordered out of blind loyalty than any competitive advantage, IMHO.

Would love to see the A321 LR in the fleet, with Pratt & Whitney engines. Perfect replacement for the ETOPS and ps 757-222s and the ex-CO birds.

A well-maintained 30 year old plane is safer than a 30 day old poorly maintained one. Look no further than NW and DL flying DC-9s well over 40 years ago.

And there isn't a single plane that UA has today that is over 30 or older. DL, AA, WN, and US all have 30 year old birds in some form or another.

harryhood

I much prefer the wider seats on most Airbus 319/320/321 aircraft. The 737 is too tight.

LASUA1K

Ill take the 321 any day over a 739. But, Smisek is not ordering Airbus narrowbody aircraft. Just isn't going to happen.

Too much travel

Let's see... okay - that includes:

London, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Manchester, Birmingham, actually pretty much everywhere in the UK of note other than perhaps Belfast. Yeah, not solid at all.

Paris. Not solid.

Brussels. Not solid.

Amsterdam. Not solid.

Stavanger, Oslo, Bergen.

Madrid. Maybe Bilbao. Lisbon. Perhaps Porto.

Casablanca / Marrakech? Not solid. Quite liquid actually - just gin joints in the former.

A whole swathe of Brazil: Brasilia, Recife, Belo Horizonte, Salvador, Fortaleza. Not solid.

Santiago.

Asuncion.

Hawaii. Definitely not solid.