Nov 20, 2016, 11:21 am
Last edit by: Juventini
United to retire 747 by end of 2017
Current scheduled 747 routes
Currently 14 left, retirement plan as follows(updated Aug 2017):
N127UA Owned - Exit 15-Aug-17 Age 18.0
N181UA Lease -01-Nov-17 -Exit 15-Oct-17 Lease return Age 26.0
N117UA Owned - Exit 30-Oct-17 Age 18.8
N174UA Lease- 09-Dec-17 Exit 30-Oct-17 Lease return Age 27.8
N105UA Lease- 09-Dec-17 Exit 01-Nov-17 Lease return Age 23.4
N107UA Lease- 01-Jun-18 Exit 01-Nov-17 Lease return Age 19.2
N175UA Owned - Exit 01-Nov-17 Age 27.2
N116UA Owned - Exit 10-Nov-17 Age 18.9
N118UA Owned - Exit 10-Nov-17 Age 18.7
N128UA Owned - Exit 10-Nov-17 Age 17.5
N119UA Owned - Exit 20-Nov-17 Age 18.7
N121UA Owned - Exit 20-Nov-17 Age 18.6
N178UA Lease - 01-May-18 Exit 20-Nov-17 Lease return Age 27.1
N180UA Owned - 20-Nov-17 Age 26.3
See details at United Fleet Site.
Current scheduled 747 routes
Currently 14 left, retirement plan as follows(updated Aug 2017):
N127UA Owned - Exit 15-Aug-17 Age 18.0
N181UA Lease -01-Nov-17 -Exit 15-Oct-17 Lease return Age 26.0
N117UA Owned - Exit 30-Oct-17 Age 18.8
N174UA Lease- 09-Dec-17 Exit 30-Oct-17 Lease return Age 27.8
N105UA Lease- 09-Dec-17 Exit 01-Nov-17 Lease return Age 23.4
N107UA Lease- 01-Jun-18 Exit 01-Nov-17 Lease return Age 19.2
N175UA Owned - Exit 01-Nov-17 Age 27.2
N116UA Owned - Exit 10-Nov-17 Age 18.9
N118UA Owned - Exit 10-Nov-17 Age 18.7
N128UA Owned - Exit 10-Nov-17 Age 17.5
N119UA Owned - Exit 20-Nov-17 Age 18.7
N121UA Owned - Exit 20-Nov-17 Age 18.6
N178UA Lease - 01-May-18 Exit 20-Nov-17 Lease return Age 27.1
N180UA Owned - 20-Nov-17 Age 26.3
See details at United Fleet Site.
UA to pilots: We're considering retiring all 747s by end of 2018 (Phaseout EOY 2017).
Feb 20, 2016, 7:57 pm
#46
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: DSM, BKK or anywhere with an airport
Programs: UA 2P, HH Gold
Posts: 1,018
I'll never forget my first ride in the UD of a 744; I had a stupid grin on my face the entire time. I'll never, ever forget it.
Feb 20, 2016, 8:05 pm
#47
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Telluride, CO
Posts: 180
I like shiny new aircraft just as much as the next consumer, but as a management decision, why would placing orders earlier for an aircraft like the 77W been a "good" idea?
They are getting incredible pricing on new metal by waiting, and they're still servicing routes effectively and relatively (mechanically) reliably in that period. That is starting to change, so they're responding.
I don't think the *economics* of early 77W orders would have made sense.
Now, I can't argue from a PaxEx perspective, but that has less to do with aircraft that how they're outfitted insofar as they have similar range and can service the route (pressurization levels, humidity, and window size being things you can't change and are a/c specific, but, those aren't huge variables on PaxEs typically).
They are getting incredible pricing on new metal by waiting, and they're still servicing routes effectively and relatively (mechanically) reliably in that period. That is starting to change, so they're responding.
I don't think the *economics* of early 77W orders would have made sense.
Now, I can't argue from a PaxEx perspective, but that has less to do with aircraft that how they're outfitted insofar as they have similar range and can service the route (pressurization levels, humidity, and window size being things you can't change and are a/c specific, but, those aren't huge variables on PaxEs typically).
http://www.briansumers.com/home/2016...g-747s-by-2018
Thought this topic deserved a thread of its own. So much for keeping them around until 2020. One word: Maintenance. Despite cheap oil, the maintenance of keeping four holers until many of them turn thirty is just too expensive for UA to justify the cost. DL is dumping them as fast they as can although the Yen devaluation is much more of a factor. Initially they planned to retire them in 2018 as well.
I suspect we'll soon here of a top off order of either the 77W or 787-9 to cover the replacement of the extra planes as the first A35J isn't supposed to arrive until October 2018. One of the dumbest fleet decisions UA made since exiting bankruptcy was not ordering the 77W sooner and waiting until they became cheap relatively speaking.
Thought this topic deserved a thread of its own. So much for keeping them around until 2020. One word: Maintenance. Despite cheap oil, the maintenance of keeping four holers until many of them turn thirty is just too expensive for UA to justify the cost. DL is dumping them as fast they as can although the Yen devaluation is much more of a factor. Initially they planned to retire them in 2018 as well.
I suspect we'll soon here of a top off order of either the 77W or 787-9 to cover the replacement of the extra planes as the first A35J isn't supposed to arrive until October 2018. One of the dumbest fleet decisions UA made since exiting bankruptcy was not ordering the 77W sooner and waiting until they became cheap relatively speaking.
Feb 20, 2016, 10:25 pm
#48
Original Poster
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: UA Gold Marriott Gold AA Gold Choice Gold Wyndham PLAT IHG PLAT Avis President's Club Amtrak Select
Posts: 2,263
I like shiny new aircraft just as much as the next consumer, but as a management decision, why would placing orders earlier for an aircraft like the 77W been a "good" idea?
They are getting incredible pricing on new metal by waiting, and they're still servicing routes effectively and relatively (mechanically) reliably in that period. That is starting to change, so they're responding.
I don't think the *economics* of early 77W orders would have made sense.
Now, I can't argue from a PaxEx perspective, but that has less to do with aircraft that how they're outfitted insofar as they have similar range and can service the route (pressurization levels, humidity, and window size being things you can't change and are a/c specific, but, those aren't huge variables on PaxEs typically).
They are getting incredible pricing on new metal by waiting, and they're still servicing routes effectively and relatively (mechanically) reliably in that period. That is starting to change, so they're responding.
I don't think the *economics* of early 77W orders would have made sense.
Now, I can't argue from a PaxEx perspective, but that has less to do with aircraft that how they're outfitted insofar as they have similar range and can service the route (pressurization levels, humidity, and window size being things you can't change and are a/c specific, but, those aren't huge variables on PaxEs typically).
I believe UA ordered the A350 with the assumption that the airline would be merging with US, thus having a fleet of nearly 50 A350s. I don't believe for a second US needed 22 A350s to start Pacific operations as it would have more than doubled their international long haul fleet.
The 77W was one the few airplanes that actually exceeded performance expectations. When it was first launched, the plane was going to have slightly less range than the 747, hence the reason why CX grabbed a few A346s as it was the only plane offered at the time that could fly JFK-HKG nonstop profitably. With fuel burn beating Boeing's expectations, the A346 became obsolete and high fuel prices encouraged several airlines to start dumping the 747s. The retirements have accelerated big time in the past few years with continued improvements made to the 77W and 747s no longer worth the expense to keep around.
Had UA started to receive 77Ws about five years ago, it would have made a significant difference in not just maintenance costs but much better economic and operational performance on Trans-Pacs out of ORD/SFO.
While its great UA will be receiving these planes at rock bottom prices, a la DL, I wonder why they still have the A35J on order. The final performance improvement package to the 77W brings its much closer to matching the A35Js expected economics. I am not sure how UA can justify the cost difference between the A35J and the 77W with the planes economics much closer than one would have expected five years ago.
Ok, I know I'm being armchair CEO here and I admit I believe the 77W is the best widebody aircraft ever built. I think different aircraft decisions would have been made if Tilton was planning on merging with CO instead of US from the get go.
Feb 20, 2016, 10:26 pm
#49
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
If this is true, I really wish UA orders some 748's. LH/KE seem to really like them, and I think UA needs to keep up the available seat numbers on a lot of the routes the 744's operate. Along with this, a 748 order would really please Boeing and they could definitely get a few favors from the company.
UA ordered 35 A350-1000's to possibly replace the 22 744's, but that may not work out too well. With the vast majority of the 744's being used on Asian routes, and the problems with acquiring slots at Asian airports (especially China), more frequencies will not work in some cases. Just for comparison, in a 3 class configuration, Airbus/Boeing say that the 744 can hold 416 pax, A350-100 can hold 366 pax, 779 can hold 406 pax, and the 748 can hold 410. Of the two aircraft with very similar pax counts to the 744 (779 and 748), UA would be able to receive the 748 sooner and for less money, as they have a difference of about $20 million in list pricing not including the fact that Boeing will heavily discount any 748 order.
Along with all of this, there are many people (including me) who love flying this plane, and it would be great if UA enabled us flyers to continue enjoying the 747 in the future.
UA ordered 35 A350-1000's to possibly replace the 22 744's, but that may not work out too well. With the vast majority of the 744's being used on Asian routes, and the problems with acquiring slots at Asian airports (especially China), more frequencies will not work in some cases. Just for comparison, in a 3 class configuration, Airbus/Boeing say that the 744 can hold 416 pax, A350-100 can hold 366 pax, 779 can hold 406 pax, and the 748 can hold 410. Of the two aircraft with very similar pax counts to the 744 (779 and 748), UA would be able to receive the 748 sooner and for less money, as they have a difference of about $20 million in list pricing not including the fact that Boeing will heavily discount any 748 order.
Along with all of this, there are many people (including me) who love flying this plane, and it would be great if UA enabled us flyers to continue enjoying the 747 in the future.
Feb 20, 2016, 10:59 pm
#50
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Coast NSW, Australia
Programs: UA and SQ; Hilton, Fairmont, Marriott, Rydges Priority
Posts: 290
My first ride in a 747 was in the early 70s from Frankfurt to Hong Kong with many stops including a few places not many want to land at today.
Was either Pan Am 1 or 2, cant remember.
Being used to 707s the sight of that big nose pulling into the gate at FRA will stay with me for ever.
And I really miss the old girls between Sydney and LAX/SFO. Sure they were a bit shabby at the end but there was always a good feel about them.
The current 777s on those routes are certainly more wizz bang however for me it's the end of an era.
Was either Pan Am 1 or 2, cant remember.
Being used to 707s the sight of that big nose pulling into the gate at FRA will stay with me for ever.
And I really miss the old girls between Sydney and LAX/SFO. Sure they were a bit shabby at the end but there was always a good feel about them.
The current 777s on those routes are certainly more wizz bang however for me it's the end of an era.
Feb 21, 2016, 4:58 am
#51
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 12,331
If my schedule permits, I will always look out for 744 as my choice flying over the Pacifics. It often require making a connection in SFO/NRT/ORD from the East Coast. Often instead of taking a midflight, I have to get up at 4 am to take the 6 am transcon to the West Coast.
747 is just that special to me dated back to my flying from the Pan Am date.
When I first started flying United, UA still had a large 741/742 fleet, and 744 just started taking delivery of the 744. I feel I know each one of the 744 as I accumulated over 3+ MM BIS over the Pacifics including the two birds from Northwest (N105UA and N106UA). I crossed the my 1st MM BIS on N105UA.
I also crossed 2 MM and 3 MM on the 744, and it provides me the incentive to make 4 MM on the 744 before it retires.
747 is just that special to me dated back to my flying from the Pan Am date.
When I first started flying United, UA still had a large 741/742 fleet, and 744 just started taking delivery of the 744. I feel I know each one of the 744 as I accumulated over 3+ MM BIS over the Pacifics including the two birds from Northwest (N105UA and N106UA). I crossed the my 1st MM BIS on N105UA.
I also crossed 2 MM and 3 MM on the 744, and it provides me the incentive to make 4 MM on the 744 before it retires.
Feb 21, 2016, 5:52 am
#52
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Morris County, NJ
Programs: UA 1K/*G, Avis Pres, Marriott Plat
Posts: 2,305
Just for comparison, in a 3 class configuration, Airbus/Boeing say that the 744 can hold 416 pax, A350-100 can hold 366 pax, 779 can hold 406 pax, and the 748 can hold 410. Of the two aircraft with very similar pax counts to the 744 (779 and 748), UA would be able to receive the 748 sooner and for less money, as they have a difference of about $20 million in list pricing not including the fact that Boeing will heavily discount any 748 order.
Along with all of this, there are many people (including me) who love flying this plane, and it would be great if UA enabled us flyers to continue enjoying the 747 in the future.
Along with all of this, there are many people (including me) who love flying this plane, and it would be great if UA enabled us flyers to continue enjoying the 747 in the future.
I love the look of the 747 too - it's certainly iconic - but the economics don't make sense. The only reason for UA to buy one would be some sentimentality, and that's a terrible way to build an airline. Might as well pull some L-1011's out of the desert then, too.
Feb 21, 2016, 7:37 am
#53
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Programs: National EE, Hyatt Discoverist, Hilton Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 508
Are there any domestic 747 flights I could catch before they retire? I don't suppose there's an SFO-ORD flight, is there?
Never mind, I just answered my own question. Flight 1570 on 3/3/16 is a 744.
Never mind, I just answered my own question. Flight 1570 on 3/3/16 is a 744.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Feb 21, 2016 at 10:53 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member
Feb 21, 2016, 8:11 am
#54
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Programs: UA GS, AS MVP 100K, DL Diamond, Marriot Lifetime Titanium, AmEx Centurion
Posts: 5,525
When a 747 goes by at the airport, everybody notices. Nobody looks when a 777 goes by, because it looks like a 737, only larger…nothing to see. When I travel with companions at SFO and they see the row of United 747s all lined up at the international terminal, they are always impressed and inspired. They want to fly!
Feb 21, 2016, 8:34 am
#55
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: SRQ, PDX
Programs: UA 1 MM, AA, DL
Posts: 930
UA is probably looking forward to the last flight of this AC. Not me.
Feb 21, 2016, 9:24 am
#56
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: ORD
Programs: United 100K, Etihad Gold, Marriot Platinum, Hilton Gold
Posts: 578
My only 747 upper deck experience was on a GPU, LAX to SYD and on to Melbourne. The Sydney to Melbourne was espicially cool as there was only one other guy up there so we had the private jet experience.
I have always wondered if it was possible for United to do a joint 747-8i with Lufthansa. I fly on the ORD to FRA route around every 2 months and the plane is always packed. What they could do is go FRA to ORD as LH, then ORD to Asia as UA. Maintenance and whatnot could be done at Frankfurt. This would have the added benefit of having a real premium economy product that yours truly is allowed to expense.
I have always wondered if it was possible for United to do a joint 747-8i with Lufthansa. I fly on the ORD to FRA route around every 2 months and the plane is always packed. What they could do is go FRA to ORD as LH, then ORD to Asia as UA. Maintenance and whatnot could be done at Frankfurt. This would have the added benefit of having a real premium economy product that yours truly is allowed to expense.
Feb 21, 2016, 9:31 am
#57
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SEA
Programs: UA SP, DL SM MM, AS 75K, SPG Platinum, Hyatt Diamond.
Posts: 2,596
My only 747 upper deck experience was on a GPU, LAX to SYD and on to Melbourne. The Sydney to Melbourne was espicially cool as there was only one other guy up there so we had the private jet experience.
I have always wondered if it was possible for United to do a joint 747-8i with Lufthansa. I fly on the ORD to FRA route around every 2 months and the plane is always packed. What they could do is go FRA to ORD as LH, then ORD to Asia as UA. Maintenance and whatnot could be done at Frankfurt. This would have the added benefit of having a real premium economy product that yours truly is allowed to expense.
I have always wondered if it was possible for United to do a joint 747-8i with Lufthansa. I fly on the ORD to FRA route around every 2 months and the plane is always packed. What they could do is go FRA to ORD as LH, then ORD to Asia as UA. Maintenance and whatnot could be done at Frankfurt. This would have the added benefit of having a real premium economy product that yours truly is allowed to expense.
Feb 21, 2016, 10:20 am
#58
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: East Coast, USA
Posts: 1,032
(HUMOR ALERT) If UA is serious about retiring its 744's quick, here's an idea. Make a new policy that 744 is absolutely non-upgradable (EXCEPT for non-revs and ToD for non-elites). To borrow (steal) from a DL forum term, WBFBBF/WGFBGF. No GPU, no miles/co-pay, no op-up, no nothing. And make the BF/GF only available on J/F fare bucket, or something like that.
Shortly after they implement this, they will undoubtedly say "because of low-premium yield and constant complaints about this particular aircraft, we have decided to hasten the pace of the 744 retirement."
Shortly after they implement this, they will undoubtedly say "because of low-premium yield and constant complaints about this particular aircraft, we have decided to hasten the pace of the 744 retirement."
Feb 21, 2016, 10:38 am
#59
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,581
I believe UA ordered the A350 with the assumption that the airline would be merging with US, thus having a fleet of nearly 50 A350s. I don't believe for a second US needed 22 A350s to start Pacific operations as it would have more than doubled their international long haul fleet.
Feb 21, 2016, 11:06 am
#60
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: DFW
Programs: UA peon (+decades 1K), AA Exec Plt
Posts: 1,117
For a flight:
If I had the choice for a flight of a 747 UD aisle seat and any other BF seat I would take the 747 UD aisle seat. Given an aisle seat elsewhere and a window seat on a 747 UD I would take the aisle seat. Given window or center seats elsewhere and a 747 UD seat I would take the UD seat.
I am in DFW and I connect in SFO or ORD or IAD or EWR for most of my TPACs and two hours more in BF trumps upper deck or any seat on a 747 out of SFO.
Lower bathroom to passenger density is a little of a problem especially before landing after the cockpit crew has had the two UD bathrooms blocked off for an hour plus.
I wish they would have committed to the 'Xs Airbuses and Boeings for the higher cabin pressure. I can feel the difference on the 787s.
If I had the choice for a flight of a 747 UD aisle seat and any other BF seat I would take the 747 UD aisle seat. Given an aisle seat elsewhere and a window seat on a 747 UD I would take the aisle seat. Given window or center seats elsewhere and a 747 UD seat I would take the UD seat.
I am in DFW and I connect in SFO or ORD or IAD or EWR for most of my TPACs and two hours more in BF trumps upper deck or any seat on a 747 out of SFO.
Lower bathroom to passenger density is a little of a problem especially before landing after the cockpit crew has had the two UD bathrooms blocked off for an hour plus.
I wish they would have committed to the 'Xs Airbuses and Boeings for the higher cabin pressure. I can feel the difference on the 787s.