United to buy more NEW 763/4? [Rumor]
Oct 20, 2017, 12:51 pm
#46
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: JZRO
Posts: 9,169
As long as they keep the 2-seat sides I don't care how many seats they cram into the middle. I'm still irked with CO-dba-UA modifying the UA 777s from 2-5-2 to 3-3-3.
Oct 20, 2017, 1:15 pm
#47
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,648
If it's all about acceleration of the AF order why is there talk about 50+ new frames? "Acceleration" and 50+ new frames seems like two different things to me unless it's the AF who al the sudden needs 50 additional tankers. Of course, since it is all rumors, who knows what is "fake news" and what is not...
Thankfully my UA pilot friends and I agree that they know nothing more than internal rumors. Much like a college dorm, nobody will know until announced. That said, the AF rumor was one I didn't expect, so who knows.
Oct 20, 2017, 2:09 pm
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,157
I'm simply relating what he told me today. Who knows what is real and what is fake. Didn't we have a day or two a few years ago that said UA was on the cusp of buying A380's? I tried to search but didn't find it.
Thankfully my UA pilot friends and I agree that they know nothing more than internal rumors. Much like a college dorm, nobody will know until announced. That said, the AF rumor was one I didn't expect, so who knows.
Thankfully my UA pilot friends and I agree that they know nothing more than internal rumors. Much like a college dorm, nobody will know until announced. That said, the AF rumor was one I didn't expect, so who knows.
Rumor: UA may buy A380 {UA CFO says "just doesnt really work for us"}
Oct 20, 2017, 2:33 pm
#49
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold (.85 MM), HH Diamond, SPG Platinum (LT Gold), Hertz PC, National EE
Posts: 5,648
Oct 20, 2017, 2:47 pm
#50
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,418
Surely there is, involving an 1-1.5" less per seat (partly from narrower armrests) combined with narrower aisles.
Oct 20, 2017, 2:54 pm
#51
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: In between IAD and DCA
Programs: UA Plat 1.1MM , Marriott Gold Elite, Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,262
Apparently, the planes would replace the oldest 763s and be in the fleet until UA receives enough 797s in the late 2020s. UA would then sell the planes to cargo airlines, who are buying every 767 available right now. Honestly, a 767 with slightly better wings/engine would be great in today's fuel environment.
Oct 20, 2017, 2:59 pm
#52
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Denver, CO, USA
Programs: Sometimes known as [ARG:6 UNDEFINED]
Posts: 26,673
Oct 20, 2017, 3:03 pm
#53
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Tahoe
Programs: Delta DM for now
Posts: 474
Cargo simply doesn't need a bright and shiny new fuel efficient plane. It just has to get from point A to point B in a reasonable amount of time.
Oct 20, 2017, 8:31 pm
#54
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
Cargo doesn't care about the age of the plane (or average fleet age);
Cargo doesn't care about the amenities of the new planes like higher pressurization (lower effective cabin altitude) or higher cabin humidity;
Cargo doesn't require ultra-longhaul nonstop flights;
etc.
Cargo shippers don't mind if the plane stops for fuel and pilot change - and many FedEx and UPS flights do just that at ANC each day. Fuel efficiency that 787s and A350 can deliver on ultra-longhaul flights isn't an issue on 6-8 hour flights. With a few exceptions, cargo doesn't fly 16-18 hour flights and no cargo shipper would pay a premium for a nonstop the way some business travelers do.
On a very long passenger flight, the plane burns a lot of fuel carrying the fuel necessary for the long flight. That requires a very efficient plane. Not so much on those 6-8 hour cargo flights. So a slightly less efficient cargo plane does not impose the same penalty as it would if flown by a passenger airline.
Cargo doesn't care about the amenities of the new planes like higher pressurization (lower effective cabin altitude) or higher cabin humidity;
Cargo doesn't require ultra-longhaul nonstop flights;
etc.
Cargo shippers don't mind if the plane stops for fuel and pilot change - and many FedEx and UPS flights do just that at ANC each day. Fuel efficiency that 787s and A350 can deliver on ultra-longhaul flights isn't an issue on 6-8 hour flights. With a few exceptions, cargo doesn't fly 16-18 hour flights and no cargo shipper would pay a premium for a nonstop the way some business travelers do.
On a very long passenger flight, the plane burns a lot of fuel carrying the fuel necessary for the long flight. That requires a very efficient plane. Not so much on those 6-8 hour cargo flights. So a slightly less efficient cargo plane does not impose the same penalty as it would if flown by a passenger airline.
Oct 20, 2017, 8:40 pm
#55
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,443
Similarly, maintenance intervals (determined by flight hours, mostly, or cycles) are stretched out longer; therefore, maintenance costs per airplane, per year (all other things being equal) are reduced vis-a-vis passenger airlines.
Oct 20, 2017, 9:37 pm
#56
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 27
I'm simply relating what he told me today. Who knows what is real and what is fake. Didn't we have a day or two a few years ago that said UA was on the cusp of buying A380's? I tried to search but didn't find it.
Thankfully my UA pilot friends and I agree that they know nothing more than internal rumors. Much like a college dorm, nobody will know until announced. That said, the AF rumor was one I didn't expect, so who knows.
Thankfully my UA pilot friends and I agree that they know nothing more than internal rumors. Much like a college dorm, nobody will know until announced. That said, the AF rumor was one I didn't expect, so who knows.
Personally, I do think that this is indeed United looking to buy new 767s. I think that these will be sold to them at rock-bottom prices as a hold-over until the 797 is launched to replace it. At that point, United could sell these then relatively new airplanes to a cargo carrier. This way, they replace their aging current 767s with newer/more reliable 767s, and Boeing can then also keep them from purchasing the A330 Neo from Airbus.
Oct 20, 2017, 9:53 pm
#57
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Tx
Programs: AA, UA, WN
Posts: 812
Why do some folks think new 767s would allow polaris to speed up. I guarantee at minimum a 24 month lead time for restart of the pax line including spool up of boeing suppliers. A decision for new 767s will only delay polaris and give UA another excuse, but its not like UA was hitting retrofit targets anyway.
What boeing should have done years ago was complete the backbone designs in the concept 787-3 and not ask customers if they wanted it but told them we have this ready to go. Fast forward to today and guess what...airlines want a similar aircraft to then 787-3 just now called 797 and coming in the mid 2020s...go figure
What boeing should have done years ago was complete the backbone designs in the concept 787-3 and not ask customers if they wanted it but told them we have this ready to go. Fast forward to today and guess what...airlines want a similar aircraft to then 787-3 just now called 797 and coming in the mid 2020s...go figure
Oct 20, 2017, 11:24 pm
#59
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
-777 (at 9x) has 21.3"/seat
-763 (at 7x) has 21.2/seat
-A320 (at 6x) has 21.2/seat
-A330/330neo (at 8x) has 20.8"/seat
- A350 (at 9x) has 20.3/seat
-747 (at 10x) has 20.2/seat
-737/757 (at 6x) has 20/seat
-787 (at 9x) has 19.8"/seat
-777x (at 10x) has 19.7/seat
-777 (at 10x, using 18 aisles as UA is, which is why they are so narrow) has 19.4/seat
You are talking a seat space (seat cushion + arm rest) that is 1.25" narrower than on a 737.
It would be .65" narrower than the ghastly seats on the 77W.Yup, UA would do it.
Personally, I do think that this is indeed United looking to buy new 767s. I think that these will be sold to them at rock-bottom prices as a hold-over until the 797 is launched to replace it. At that point, United could sell these then relatively new airplanes to a cargo carrier. This way, they replace their aging current 767s with newer/more reliable 767s, and Boeing can then also keep them from purchasing the A330 Neo from Airbus.
Again, from a passenger standpoint. ^ Nice in Y (assuming they don't do something ghastly) and not bad in J, although the Polaris seat is too narrow and short on this bird.
I just see themselfs really opening themselves up to get clobbered with higher fuel taxes/prices, plus not sure how the markets would react to new - even cheap - A/C given how their PRASM is so bad.
Oct 21, 2017, 7:33 am
#60
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,443
No, because the 767 is still very much in production. To say Boeing may be "restarting" 767 pax production is a bit of a misnomer as it never really formally ended; it was only that orders dried up in favor of other models.