Gotta agree with the Trib on this. A couple of key items from the article:
Even so, analyst say United's 1990s-era aircraft will be at a disadvantage to the newer aircraft, which will have lower fuel and maintenance costs if they perform as the planemakers have promised.
When other airlines are operating flights at significantly lower costs than UA, what will that do to fares, and passengers' perceptions of UA? Who wants to fly old beat up planes when newer planes are available for the same fare?
United's planes had an average age of 12 years as of the end of 2006, making its fleet newer than those of most U.S. carriers. But United's toughest overseas competitors are upgrading aircraft holdings that are younger than United's: Singapore Airlines' planes are 6 years old, on average; ANA's average age is 9 years.
Analysts say that aircraft age is especially important to well-heeled travelers, and United doesn't match up favorably with its overseas competitors.
5 years from now those numbers will look even worse. And the domestic planes won't do any better. People will not only be looking at age, which for the 737 and 757 are getting up there, but the cycles. The wear and tear, both inside and out, will impact the decisions of passengers. Who will stick with an airline that won't be improving until near 2020? I got my million miles in. Recent decisions, like taking 5+ years apparently to upgrade F & C, are making it easier to justify moving to other airlines, especially for international flights.