jackal

IIRC, the flight deck door was open during one of the recent Star Mega Do charters. Is it possible that charter (and private) flights (as well as ferry flights) don't require the door to be closed?

(It's also possible that the flight in question was an intra-Europe flight or something, so perhaps it was open due to that.)

freshairborne

If it was a ferry flight, there would not be any passengers on it. Sometimes there are flight attendants on ferry flights but not always. I'm curious what event you are referring to, and if you were on the airplane.

FAB

SFO 1K

I wasn't on the plane. I sent details in a PM since it is very specific situation.

pdx1M

Not sure if any of you guys are interested but there is a thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...bad-storm.html

that is about a particularly rough weather flight that someone had where there is what I think is some misunderstanding of weather flight planning, turbulence levels, and the like. You might help ease a nervous flyer with a post in it. I did suggest that they poster head over here so maybe he will.

LASUA1K

Quick question, I've been flying US often lately and I'm very impressed with the A321's. The 739, just feel too cramped and feel a little "looser" in the air.

What benefits does the 739 have over the A321? Passenger standpoint the 321 is fantastic.

Also, are sUA pilots trained on the 739? How long does training take?

EmailKid

IIRC, per JOSECONLSCREW28 about half of the 739ERs are delivered to sUA side and are flown with sUA pilots (yes, standard PMCO N????? numbering).

doobierw

The answer is a bit more complicated, and involves two separate issues. I will attempt....

Aircraft: The 737-900ER aircraft that are now being delivered are being delivered to what some would describe as the 'United' side of the operation. That really only means they are staffed with sUA flight attendants. sCO aircraft are identified by tail numbers ending in 401-478....so there are around 78 of those aircraft (first twelve are non-ER aircraft). sUA aircraft start with tail number N68801 and I believe the most recent delivery is something around tail number 823 or 824....giving that side of the operation about 24 airframes.

Aircrew: As mentioned, due to the flight attendants working in two separate and parallel universes....the sUA flight attendants work only on 737 tail numbers that would be aircraft 801 and above. sCO flight attendants would work on all other 737s (737-700s tail numbers 7xx, 737-800s are 2xx and 5xx, 737-900s are 4xx).

With respect to the pilot side of things, all pilots are now eligible to bid to the 737, and you are now starting to see sUA pilots bid into the 737 in all of the bases (same with the 757/767, A320, etc. The 787s and 747s are still separated by a 'fence' and those airframes won't be eligible for cross-breeding until probably late next year....separate topic). If I had to guess, I would say that about 90-95% of the pilot group on the 737 comes from sCO, and the sUA guys are trickling in as they are able to bid into open positions. The Airbus would probably be about the same ratio, in the other direction with probably 95%+ of the guys from the sUA side of things.

Anyhow, hope that provides a bit more clarity....

DRW

wto605

It's been a couple days so I'll answer with what I remember, but IANAP.

It's been covered upthread a couple times, but the A320 types have notably better cockpits. Leaving aside the yoke/joystick debate (with the latter allowing for things like tray tables) there were comments about more room, less noise, etc. This can all be drawn back to the fact that while the 737-900ER is a modern (last 10 years) and efficient aircraft the base design (and therefore cockpit compatibility) of the 737 draws on a 50 year old design (and a much smaller aircraft originally).

As to why UAL is taking delivery of 739s, it all comes down to the fact that the 737-900/ER was first ordered by pmCO. *see tangent below as to why CO chose the 737-900/ER. By now I would guess we're into the 2012 orders that were placed when the decision was made to retire the domestic 752 fleet and add ~50 AC to the 739 fleet. This would have been the first chance for the new United to switch to the A321, but by this point the airline already had at least 40 737-900ERs in the fleet or arriving soon (with an average age of <10 years) and the other 737 next gen average fleet age was also a few years younger than the A320 type average fleet age. Switching to all A320 series would have required keeping two domestic narrow body fleets for another 10~15 years on top of what they were already looking at or finding buyers for a very large fleet of fairly new 737 aircraft; both of these are very expensive propositions for any airline, let alone one that's burning a bunch of cash merging operations.

From a comfort standpoint I find the actual airframes to be similar (321 is a bit quieter at cruise, but the extra few inches in height and width aren't noticeable to me) and it usually comes down to the airline's configuration. With the exception of the base-model Recaro on LH and it's subsidiaries' A320-type fleet just about anything beats the pmCO park bench.

*As promised, a tangent on why CO ordered the 737-900 over the A321:
pmCO, in addition to supposedly having an all-Boeing "gentleman's agreement" (ever since the actual contracts were busted by antitrust law), has always had 737s (most of which were relatively young) so the common type is attractive from a training/maintenance/etc. cost. Meanwhile efficiency has always been very close (usually resulting in lots of games of leapfrog). When CO first took delivery of ~20 737-900 AC it was definitely more efficient than the A321 (which didn't get sharklets or the stronger wings to support them until the mid/late aughties). I forget if/how many of the late-2000's 737-900ER deliveries were delayed deliveries from that original pre-9/11 737-900 order and how many were new orders (placed in the late aughties), but by that point the 737-900 wasn't even offered (sealing off the mid-cabin door makes them AC identical for almost every purpose) so everything was delivered as a 737-900ER.

DaviddesJ

The problem is that some take it that way (advisory, comply at your own risk) and others take it as mandatory (you're legally required to comply with crewmember instructions). I feel like maybe some pilots leave it on because they think it's good advice but it becomes a more serious problem for those who are affected and take it as more mandatory (whether for personal reasons or because the flight crew insists). It would be nice if there were three levels (normal conditions, warning, mandatory).

EmailKid

Sure, but unfortunately this is not the thread for that

arisaa

My apologies if this has been covered before. I had avoided the 787 as the "don't worry, the fire is in a strong box" philosophy worried me. But after a few domestic flights, I have taken a liking to it on my regular PVG=LAX runs especially since I always arrange an upgrade to BF (Y looks cramped). Coming back from PVG last week, a friend reported moderate turbulence TPAC on PVG to ORD while we had a pretty smooth flight. Does the 787 handle turbulence better than a 777 or 747 all other things being equal?

EmailKid

That is what Boeing claims. IIRC, with more wing flex plus some computer magic pax are supposed to experience less turbulence.

That said, you had different routes, so you may have had a less turbulent route

JVPhoto

They even print out the smoother ride on the brochures!

http://travelskills.com/wp-content/u...nfographic.jpg

freshairborne

There are some load alleviation functions built into this airplane. Under certain turbulent flight conditions, the flight controls can react instantaneously in response to G-loads sensed at points throughout the aircraft. Also, the composite structure can be more load-absorbing than more conventional materials.

I'm not familiar with the specifics of the 787, but having flown the A-319 & A-320s in the past, I'm familiar with the concept. I suspect that the 787 has much more advanced LAF systems than the Airbus' of their generation.

In the unlikely event that I ever train on and fly it, I'll fill y'all in with more detail.

FAB

DENviaLAX

Been curious how pilots feel about UA's attempt to "save" fuel with their Airbus fleet by leaving the engine running on the gate until the GPU is connected, rather than switch to the APU? As far as I know the procedure is still in the testing phase and only happening at DEN, but six weeks in it has still yet to be axed. Personally I still don't understand the logic, as I fail to see how the number one engine running at idle could possibly be burning less fuel than the APU does. Nevermind the safety concern of forcing ground personnel to work within feet of a running jet engine. But maybe I'm misinformed and it really does save on fuel?