Originally Posted by
Zappity
...
United has a large and flexible fleet. They do not replace aircraft on a one-for-one basis. They instead build a fleet that has a range of capabilities and capacities for the routes they want to fly. They don't go out and say "we need to replace the 744's, let's find an aircraft with those same capabilities". They instead find the best aircraft for the missions that are most profitable for the company.
This.
The announcement that 3-class 777s would be taking over the SYD routes put to rest the old argument about whether United
needed 747s -- no, and they don't even need the sCO 777s with uprated engines for that route. I will miss the 747s, and I wish that another jumbo was in the cards, but it isn't. UA has already evolved, and the 747s aren't mission-relevant any more. In at least one sense, it's clear that UA does intend to be the international WN: they will have a fleet of aircraft that are as close to interchangeable as possible, so that they can adjust to capacity as fast and efficiently as possible. If the only thing Scheduling really has to know is "How many seats do I need on this route?" rather than all the details of an A319 vs a 752 vs a 744, it makes things easier.
And, by and large, it's a loss for travel hackers, because we like to arbitrage the system. Ya can't really do that on WN. But, that said, there
are advantages to multiple hubs, flexible equipment, and a uniform standard of service. Does anybody miss the days when your IPTE 777 could be abruptly swapped for the old recliner J? And when LAX-SYD goes 777, it will probably be possible to hot-swap in case of MX, rather than waiting 24 hours for a new aircraft.