jacroweORD

i AM talking about F....seats are awful...pretty much just like all of CO was

EXACTLY...

WTH? have always had a couple big planes...

CALMSP

morons? how so?

ElNegro

I demand 744 service between ORD and MDW/RFD!

sxf24

Of course fleet and network planners can make mistakes - they're human just like everyone else. However, we should remember they have oodles of actual data, statistical models, and years of experiences to support their decision. It is understandable to feel disappointed in having a smaller aircraft placed on a route you fly frequently, but it makes no sense to imply the network planners are stupid, emotional, or retaliatory in their actions.

Oh, CO was 78% of the size of UA (91% if looking at the number of aircraft) prior to the merger. Not sure where the 40% came from.

star_world

pmCO had less widebody aircraft than UA. I don't think anyone is disputing that - unless there's a post I've missed?

Do you have any evidence that they had a shortage, let alone a severe shortage?

WN has lots more 737s than UA. Does UA have a severe shortage as a result? Can you explain the logic here?

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is a cheerleader? Right.

Again - explain the logic here. CO had less widebody aircraft than UA, and now that the combined airline is using its combined widebody fleet more efficiently (fitting eligible aircraft with winglets, adding light weight IFE on the 744s, switching the aircraft used on specific routes) that means that it is "nonsense" because... CO had less widebody aircraft before. Have I got that right?

They should be put in the desert if they have too many. That's not a difficult concept. If you have excess fleet capacity to the extent that you're sending 747s and 777s on a material number of domestic trips then yes, you probably (a) have too many or (b) should be finding new international routes where they can be used and actually make money for the airline.

Do you know what fleet planning is? It doesn't mean using the aircraft that you want to have on a specific route for you as a passenger. It is an exercise in extracting the most $ out of a set of aircraft. Just because you didn't like the change of aircraft on a few route does not make them debacles by any stretch of the imagination.

How does the "current operational performance" have anything to do with switching aircraft on CDG and HKG routes? I didn't get the connection.

Wow - nice to see we can have a civilized, adult conversation here without anyone resorting to calling people "morons" - oh, wait a minute...

It is a generally accepted fact in the US airline industry that CO fleet planners were the best in the industry, and that the airline made much more progress than its peers in the areas of analytics, business intelligence, and fuel efficiency programs. Nobody has said anything more than that - but yet you take such dislike to this comment that you resort to calling them "morons" and then try to describe the otherwise civilized, rational discussion as "get[ting] on [o]ur knees and servic[ing] them with praise".

If you don't like that your aircraft got changed on a specific route then write a letter and complain - I'm sure it will be taken care of

exerda

I don't believe the widebodies on domestic routes were a result of improper utilization by PMUA at all. They were positioning flights in some cases, and in others, allowed the a/c to have higher utilization (rather than just sitting for hours at one of the international gateways).

COdbaUA has a different utilization strategy. So far, it does not appear to me to be working out better than PMUA's.

It's not a question of whether or not I as a pax get to fly them domestically, have a better shot at the u/g, etc., but of the awful delays propagating through the system at the drop of a hat these days due to the way aircraft are being utilized (and this is not limited at all to widebodies).

star_world

As you say yourself, one issue has nothing to do with the other. As you can read above in this thread, for some people it really is because they don't like their aircraft being changed.

Regarding the reliability issue - there has been a huge increase in mx-related cancellations and other issues in the past few months; much more than existed on either pre-merger entity. Partly this is because of increased utilization, part of it is because of more deferred maintenance, part of it is the inefficiency of having two maintenance operations. All of these seem fixable, so hopefully we see an improvement in this area.

villox

Well, if CO was 78% of the size UA, then the people working on CO were working on an airline that was 44% of the size of the two when combined.

J.Edward

With respects, is this a fact or is this an opinion?

I ask as what was efficient for pmCO might not be efficient (or even practical) for pmUA and vice-versa. Also what other peers (AA? DL? WN? etc.) did place a greater emphasis on fleet efficiency and how did the unique aspects of their operations serve to define their concept of efficiency?

Again, is this a fact or is this an opinion?

I myself I don't know either way as I've never worked in the industry nor had any formal training w/r/t to fleet planning, but I'd very curious as to the metrics your aware of used by the industry that suggest pmCO planners are the best.

How exactly is it inefficient? Based on what metrics? (For example is the fuel burn on a 319 with IAE's materially higher than on a 73G with CFM's? or do other factors outside the the mechanics of the plane, such as ALPA or AFA contracts, impede UA's 319's efficiency?)

Are you sure this was their business logic and we're you present or privy to pmUA information that confirmed route planning guidelines were largely driven by FF feedback and upgrade percentages?

FWIW I'm inclined to agree with sbm12's comment:...and echo it in that the reason pmUA and pmCO had widebodies operating between the hubs was mainly due to operational reasons related to maximizing the efficiency of the operation (such as positioning aircraft, scheduled MX, cargo, crews, and whatever factors we as customers don't see) and *not* because of the ignorance or inefficiency of the pmUA route planners or to pander to FFers.

To be clear, I too doubt UA is cherry picking A/C on select routes to annoy FF members, but again I'm not sure you can draw as strong a correlation here as your post implies.

And speaking of IAH widebodies, actually *more* are scheduled to be rotated through domestically in order support international services. For example looking at the newly uploaded Q4 flight schedule (specifically 11/8) they're two 76 services to EWR, 1 76 service to ORD, 1 76 service to SFO from IAH. This is *not* to say they're doing domestic turns, rather this is the optimum plan based on positioning aircraft/crews/cargo/etc. based primarily on international demand and very similar to the philosophy pmUA followed prior to the merger.

And that's the point I was trying to make in my earlier post: UA did not do domestic turns with widebody A/C -- that is to say they did not assign widebodies to just bounce back and forth between domestic city pairs with two notable exceptions (more on that in a bit) but rather the regular widebody rotation through the pmUA network was the optimal use of the aircraft considering the route planning/aircraft positioning/cargo/whatever considerations of the airline and not due to the ignorance or pmUA route planners which is what I hear you hinting at in your posts (and if I'm mistaken, please correct me.)

If you have the gate capacity, the crew capacity, the runway slots, and whatever else are needed on a per flight basis, then yes, you can certainly run two flights vis-a-vis one large one. However if you're constrained (e.g. does EWR or ORD have that many spare gates or runway space in the evenings) on any of these then you run the risk of leaving fare paying passengers behind as you'll either have to cannibalize an existing flight's resources or fly the route with an aircraft too small to meet paid demand.

And to follow up with widebodies exclusively used for domestic turns: the only two instances I know of pmUA widebodies being assigned exclusively to domestic routes are the 763 subfleet (aka ghetto-birds) and an old 744 UA pulled out of the desert to shuttle between SFO and ORD. To that end, I think retooling the domestic 763s for international service makes sense (especially if they can go to the pmCO side an open up new routes) and bounce onto HA service when the 77As/753s/752s/73's can't cover the demand. I am not sure what happened to the 744 but I don't think it's still flying domestic turns (guessing it went back to the desert, was converted to the new international product, or sold.)

Also w/r/t to the size of pmCO and pmUA - here's the data from the 2009 10k (if someone wants to dig up the non-consolidated 2010 or 2011 10k and post those numbers please do so) but here's how the to airlines stood at the end of 2009:56m mainline passengers
123m ASMs
82% Load Factor
11.81� yield/RSM
46m mainline passengers
97m ASMs
82% Load Factor
11.58� yield/RSM

...also for comparison:

Delta Mainline
230m ASMs
82% Load Factor
12.60� yield/RSM

AA Mainline
152m ASMs
81% Load Factor
12.28� yield/RSM

CMK10

From a purely nostalgic and novelty factor I enjoy a nice wideobdy. However, I flew RDU-IAD-ORD-RDU last weekend with IAD-ORD on a 767-300 (3-class) and ORD-RDU on an A-319. Naturally, I was in Y on both flights. Was the 767-300 that much of an upgrade over the 319? No. Especially as I had seat 21F on the 319 with no seat in front of me.

shortkidd

Does ghetto variety mean the cattle cars that they fly to HNL?

exerda

Spot on.

oldsmoboi

This is how I feel too. I actually feel like I get better service with Amtrak even if it isn't faster. I build up segments domestically by not taking direct flights on work (or any) trips and then use those miles for flights to Europe where I can stay for free with friends.

If I'm choosing a carrier based on quality of service rather than building segments/miles for European trips, I'm picking Amtrak and getting a room.

Mike Jacoubowsky

That's more likely aircraft positioning that "efficiency." One way or another, those birds have to fly back home.

Regarding the 2-class 767 "Ghetto birds", I don't think any of those are in use TATL are they? The 2-class 767 PMCO plane I recently flew ORD-CDG was actually a very nice plane! Far cry from the old, thoroughly-worn-at-thje-edges PMUA 2-class 767s. I will even be so bold as to say that my seat in Y on the PMCO 767 was more comfortable than the "F" seat in the 2-class PMUA Ghetto Bird. Food? Not much different.

CALMSP

that was the former "ghetto bird" that you were on. There are I think 3 newly configured / retrofit PMUA 767-300's in service now.