am1108

How sad for PDX especially the PDX-IAD, I have flown this route for many years since the late 90s. But I guess with AS flying DCA-PDX and also (AS/QX) having a strong hold at PDX it shouldn't be surprising.

entropy

don't forget UA used to (in the past) employ MileagePlus as a carrot, by having promos that drove people with some urgency to fly UA.

spin88

I just find this hard to believe. United is going to have by YE2014 around 12 787-8s and 2 787-9s. They have 23 more 787-9s which are coming in the next few years, and I think they will get six next year (please someone correct me if my memory is wrong)

So what are they going to do with these planes? I think at this point, their aircraft usage (doing a rough back of the envelope calculation) is about what it was pre-merger, yet the only wide bodies to go were the sCO 762s and this year one 763 (so the loss of 7 frames in total?) So they currently have slack in the system.

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?

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.

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.

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.

see above, where might this growth come from? What routes, and what passengers are going to belly up to fly UAL? The airline is in a shrinkage mode.

We can agree to disagree that United does not have a domestic lift shortage, and on whether it makes more sense to fly a 763 or 777 in a domestic config (the pmUA approach) vs. two 737/A320s (the current UA approach)

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.

I 100% agree this is the smart thing to do, and is what Delta is doing. United though is not really in a good position to do this. Notably American is going more in the direction that United has been fleet wide, will be interesting to see what Parker does.

3Cforme

I don't believe the facts support that contention. Even ignoring the CO-origin aircraft (because of the way planespotters.net presents in-service dates), mainline UA has about 100 aircraft that are more than twenty years old. These covers a broad spectrum of passenger count and range: 747s, 757s, 767s, 777s, and A320s. There's plenty of planes fully-depreciated UA can park if it doesn't like average fares vs. variable expense.

jasonp622

Social experiment to see how long people can tolerate transcon slim lines

EWR764

There is a stage length threshold (dependent on baseline narrowbody and replacement widebody, of course) where this becomes more cost effective, but it's not a universal truism. Sort of like how CASM declines over stage length.

I would wager that, for most domestic segments, the economics of operating multiple narrowbody frequencies are more favorable than operating a single widebody with a similar number of seats.

The empirical evidence is that domestic widebody service is relatively scarce, and the biggest operator (DL) has plans to pull down their dedicated domestic 767 fleet.

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.

A simple illustration of this principle is a comparison of the operating empty weight (OEW) of the aircraft. For example, a 737-800 OEW is around 91,000 pounds, whereas a 777-200ER is roughly 300,000lbs. Even a 767-400ER is about 230k. That's before you install seats, galleys, lavs, interior fittings, etc. and long before pax, bags, cargo and fuel are boarded. So, for a 737-800 to haul 300 pax on a given sector, you're going to need about 185,000lb worth of airplane to do the job, before taking into account the other fixed and variable costs associated therewith.

With respect to overall fuel burn, the multiple is often 2.5x to 3.5x from narrowbody (current gen 737/A320) to widebody (A330/777). Of course, crew costs may be slightly higher with two aircraft as they require two full flight crews, but widebodies are often staffed with a higher crew : pax ratio.

I get it, as a passenger I far prefer widebodies to narrowbodies and will actively book that way if my itinerary permits, but the notion that multiple narrowbody flights are generally less favorable (economically) than fewer widebody frequencies is mostly a fallacy.

flyinbob

Maybe it's just that United has 25% fewer customers now than they used to. That is entirely realistic. @:-)

fly18725

What about MEL, HND, more European flights/frequencies from various hubs?

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.

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.

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).

UAL has not cancelled any 787-8 orders.

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.

riphamilton

LAX-BOS gets axed beginning january 6. gee whiz.

travelinmanS

The entire strategy of UA is puzzling. They reduce service and raise prices on routes where there is a compelling alternative (Jet Blue or Virgin). They destroy their one true advantage over international carriers, Mileage Plus, which was the only thing keeping many business travelers loyal to UA instead of flying CX, BA, SQ, ect.

I know many people who used to be loyal to a fault to United, including myself, thanks to the perks of Mileage Plus. Those perks aren't there anymore so I fly CX across the pacific in business class now instead of UA. I now realize a much better experience can be had on CX in business class than even UA in first and even if they gave all the MP benefits back I wouldn't go back to UA now. My story is the same as 4 or 5 other heavy transpac business travelers I know.

I'm not flying in the states much but there surely must be the same story going on domestically. If MP is no longer a carrot to attract business travelers then they will choose a better option which is basically every other airline flying domestically save for a few bottom feeders.

Cutting 25% of your schedule can be justified however you want to the financial press but it means you are losing customers. Anyone who has been following the UA debacle since 2010 should not be surprised.

kevanyalowitz

So much for BOS-MEL being 1 stop...

LASUA1K

As I've said in the past, LAX will be down to hub flights, Australia and Hawaii(for now).

LAX has no future as a hub. UA has killed it.

jasonp622

Mckenzie profit maximization, which imo is extremely shirt sighted, but it's what, they are paying for

fly18725

Temporary, for a few weeks.

BearX220

I'm flying a DL 767 today SEA-MSP. I don't know how the hell they do it. They have a broad menu of one-stop transcon options and widebodies sprinkled in there. It need not be an either-or question.