Originally Posted by
spin88
What new destinations will they serve? At this point, the losses of destinations are greater than the gain of one (CTU). Where will these passengers come from?
What about MEL, HND, more European flights/frequencies from various hubs?
Originally Posted by
spin88
I just don't see the need for more widebody lift internationally, and certainly don't see that it makes sense to invest $15-20M in retrofiting the planes to try to improve the economics. The 763s can't replace the 747s, and downgrading further 747 routes and pulling those birds makes little sense. In any event, at some point United has to ask itself where the international passengers will come from, as it drops routes and capacity domestically and bleeds frequent fliers.
There's no real need to fly the 747 TATL. Shifting to 777s or 767s to better match capacity to demand or increase frequency makes sense, particularly when you consider the cost of operating 747s vs. other fleet types.
Originally Posted by
spin88
It strikes me that the CO management team is so scarred by their lack of widebody lift, and smaller network PM, that they just can't get beyond "we need more international lift" and realize they are in a different posture today.
When has UAL management ever said, "we need more international lift." If you're going to (try and) directly quote them, it might help to actually make it remotely related to something they've actually said.
Originally Posted by
spin88
But Delta has always told the markets that it is opportunity driven, was not interested in new planes. Look two-three years ago, and the UA defenders were telling everyone how Jeff was so smart, Delta would fall on its face, new planes were the way to go. The main point is that Delta, because it has many older, depreciated, planes, can adjust capacity in a way that UAL can not.
Again, Delta has not said that. Delta is very much interested in new airplanes - they've ordered 151 new mainline aircraft in the past 3-4 years. What Delta is not interested in is buying new airplanes early in the development cycle. They feel it is better to wait until new technology matures and acquisition price declines. The risk is that their competitors will have an advantage from buying airplanes with significantly better economics and capabilities (with the opposite risk existing from their competitors).
Originally Posted by
spin88
the 762s have horrible, horrible fuel burn. Its why United, and CO, and AA all dumped them. BTB, the 787-9 appears to be a much better A/C on a CASM basis than the 787-8, which is why UA cancelled the remaining 787-8 orders and is now only taking 787-9s.
UAL has not cancelled any 787-8 orders.
Originally Posted by
EWR764
The other point is that widebodies are simply too much airplane to fly on shorter domestic flights. An aircraft like a 777 is designed to carry a lot of fuel, a lot of cargo (not often found in the domestic market), a lot of bags and all the ancillary items needed to support a passenger trip for a long duration. Naturally, a domestic route does not require this kind of capability, so you're stuck flying a whole lot of airplane around and not using the asset to the extent of its capabilities.
Widebodies, particularly their engines, are also not designed for shorter flights with more take-off and landing cycles. Operating them in this way increases maintenance costs and shortens their economics lives.