KVH68 wrote:

787-9

Looks like SEA will be doing the post delivery mod on N24972. There is no date or flight number at this time.

The aircraft shows “Ready for Delivery”.. so it’s just a matter of whenever UA is ready to hand over the check and picking up the keys.

VC10er wrote:

I am really, really hoping for ALL 767-300 & 400 ultimately get Polaris. There are hubs like EWR that are very 767 focused. The inconsistency if just 14 have Polaris will feel like a half baked measure. I totally get the expense involved and if it was to take another 2.5 years to do both the 767 and 772 fleets- ok.
Of course IF United were to buy new build 767s, I would assume they would replace some of the oldest birds and come delivered with Polaris.
If 14+ 767s were to be used for ps, then I think the old seat would be fine. But not to Europe and Deep South America— IMVVVHO!

Even if United were to Buy new build B767's I seriously doubt they'd park the older 767's just because they needed new interiors. The 767-322's are equipped with PW 4060's as are the new Airforce tankers which might give the B767's some commonality and a business case for work in the turbine shop so that is a good deal..
But to get rid of airplanes jut for cabin configuration?? Highly Unlikely.

The below depends on purchase of additional widebody aircraft that would come with Polaris installed. 763/789/7810/77W or MoM (depending on MoM configuration).

My guess would be that the current 2 class 763ERs would allow the retirement of the 15 sUA 752s. Being more versatile than the premium heavy sUA 752s, the 763ERs can also easily operate on hub to hub service, Hawaii service, and limited TATL services that are less competitive or shorter TATL flights like Ireland and secondary England services. The configuration is dense enough in Y while providing a good BF seat count. Use on several market types improves efficiency of routing possibilities.

Without the expense of Polaris reconfiguration, the same can be said for the current 764 fleet. UA could use the 14 763ERs and 16 764s in a fleet of 30 lie flat aircraft doing the same routes mentioned above for the 763s.

Using the 763/764 fleet in such a manner could reallocate several sCO 752s from TATL service to Transcon service. A split of sCO 752s and 763/764 on transcon routes would work just fine and maybe remove the 772A from limited transcon services.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The below depends on purchase of additional widebody aircraft that would come with Polaris installed. 763/789/7810/77W or MoM (depending on MoM configuration).

My guess would be that the current 2 class 763ERs would allow the retirement of the 15 sUA 752s. Being more versatile than the premium heavy sUA 752s, the 763ERs can also easily operate on hub to hub service, Hawaii service, and limited TATL services that are less competitive or shorter TATL flights like Ireland and secondary England services. The configuration is dense enough in Y while providing a good BF seat count. Use on several market types improves efficiency of routing possibilities.

Without the expense of Polaris reconfiguration, the same can be said for the current 764 fleet. UA could use the 14 763ERs and 16 764s in a fleet of 30 lie flat aircraft doing the same routes mentioned above for the 763s.

Using the 763/764 fleet in such a manner could reallocate several sCO 752s from TATL service to Transcon service. A split of sCO 752s and 763/764 on transcon routes would work just fine and maybe remove the 772A from limited transcon services.

Has United set a firm date for the retirement of the last 15 sUA 752?

While I understand what your are saying that UA could retire the sUA 752s and replace the transcon flying those aircraft do with sCO 752s/763s/764s the problem I see with this during the busy season many those 772As on transcon routes go out completely full and there is nothing in UA's fleet that can accommodate 336 passengers in coach. So if UA were to pull the 772As from transcon service UA would need a sCO 752 and a 763 to replace the capacity in coach on one 772A. I don't think UA management wants to go back to this strategy, the reason why we have 19 domestic configured 772As is to free up other aircraft while lowering cost. Flying one 772A completely full at 10am has to be cheaper than flying a 752 and a 763 at 10am and 1030am which is what it would take to move the same number of coach passengers in the same hour.

There is talk internally that the 757 nitrogen generating system mod will be done in house.

So for Summer 2018, what is the split between sUA and sCO crewed 789s? Are there going to be subsets of 789s that only operate certain routes due to the crew restrictions? I'm assuming in the fall when the two FA groups finally unite, the 789 operation will be able to become more efficient.

KVH68 wrote:

There is talk internally that the 757 nitrogen generating system mod will be done in house.

I think Boeing now does this on all new aircraft, so I would assume that 737's and 777's would be split depending on when they were manufactured. Do we have any list of how many of each aircraft type that UA has that have nitrogen vs not? Does UA intend to eventually modify all aircraft that don't? I thought CO said they intended to before the merger.

jayunited wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

(T)the problem I see with this during the busy season many those 772As on transcon routes go out completely full and there is nothing in UA's fleet that can accommodate 336 passengers in coach. So if UA were to pull the 772As from transcon service UA would need a sCO 752 and a 763 to replace the capacity in coach on one 772A.

I understand your point and believe 1 or 2 772As in peak summer might be just fine.

But, if you do look at a Thursday in July EWR-SFO is running with 7 sUA 752s, 5 sCO 752s and 2 772A flights. Total seats are 316BF, 2235Y = Ttl 2551.
If the 7 sUA 752s were replaced by 2 sCO 752s & 5 763ERs and the 2 772As became 763ERs, the seat totals would be 312BF and 2359Y = ttl 2671.
If the 2 772s stay in the sked and 764 was used vs. the 763, then most of the 752 flights could be removed.

I'm not advocating this, just showing its an option if additional Polaris new build aircraft are brought into the fleet to operate International flights. I believe a better option would be to positively rope off the 763s on short or less competitive TATL routes until the sUA 752 need to be retired, then move the 763s to cover for sUA 752 flying.

[quote="jayunited]
Has United set a firm date for the retirement of the last 15 sUA 752?[/quote]

They were scheduled to receive the NGS Mod by the end of this year, in fact it looked like one after another were scheduled. They were done on the subCAL side in MCO, will have to wait and see the next MX update what will be...

763:
N665UA exited SAT 2774/15Jan

For what its worth, below are UA aircraft that were delivered prior to 1997/1998, when the 319 and 73G fleet were delivered.
Could UA retire 4 to 9 of the oldest sUA 752s? and retain the newer units? Does operating a 6-11 sUA 752 fleet make sense?
1989 (2) 2 sUA 752s
1990 (3) 3 sUA 752s
1991 (5) 1 sUA 752, 4 sUA 763s
1992 (10) 1 sUA 752, 9 sUA 763s
1993 (15) 2 sUA 752, 8 sUA 763s, 5 sUA 320s
1994 (25) 16 sUA 320s, 11 sCO 752s
1995 (12) 8 sUA 320s, 4 sCO 752s
1996 (8) 7 sUA 320s, 1 sCO 752
That's a total of 80 aircraft (11% of the 745 active mainline aircraft).

In comparison, DL and AA operate scores of aircraft older than UAs (763s ,MD80s, 752s)

calpsafltskeds wrote:

763:
N665UA exited SAT 2774/15Jan

For what its worth, below are UA aircraft that were delivered prior to 1997/1998, when the 319 and 73G fleet were delivered.
Could UA retire 4 to 9 of the oldest sUA 752s? and retain the newer units? Does operating a 6-11 sUA 752 fleet make sense?
1989 (2) 2 sUA 752s
1990 (3) 3 sUA 752s
1991 (5) 1 sUA 752, 4 sUA 763s
1992 (10) 1 sUA 752, 9 sUA 763s
1993 (15) 2 sUA 752, 8 sUA 763s, 5 sUA 320s
1994 (25) 16 sUA 320s, 11 sCO 752s
1995 (12) 8 sUA 320s, 4 sCO 752s
1996 (8) 7 sUA 320s, 1 sCO 752
That's a total of 80 aircraft (11% of the 745 active mainline aircraft).

In comparison, DL and AA operate scores of aircraft older than UAs (763s ,MD80s, 752s)

I don't think age is the only factor. The 15 sUA 752's are already a pretty small subfleet for a unique engine type, and at this point I think the only reason it works is because they only fly into 3 airports, so parts are manageable. Any less than 15 just wouldn't make sense.

789
N24972 Delivery UA2687 18Jan CHSSEA
Only two more 789s to go. 973 should roll off the FAL any day now and 974 is literally right behind it. 974 is LN 663, first UA 78J LN 731, so it will be awhile on that.
Meanwhile it will be a race to see which is ready next, 15th UA 77W, or first 737Max9.

BTW
UA101 IAHSYD inauguration is today. 789 N35953 will start things going. Flight is booked almost full... or as full as allowed anyway. Flight is weight restricted 51 seats. won’t be a problem on this route I think.

747-422 N118UA Nose #8418 on its way to TUP from VCV. Flight 2689/18 To the chop block.....

cosyr wrote:

I would say there is next to no chance they would introduce Prem Y on the remaining 789's, since they won't even have Polaris. I just thought the remaining 77W's would make sense, because if they arrangement in Y isn't too different from the existing layout, they could retrofit the 14 on site relatively quickly, since Polaris is already in place on those planes. The 78J would make sense, except for how late they're coming this year. At this point it is likely UA will be 2 years behind the competition, kind of disgraceful. I don't really understand, the hard product doesn't need to be revolutionary. NZ tried to reinvent the wheel with W and it blew up in their face. If UA is undecided on the soft product (upgraded food, lounge access, priority boarding/check-in, etc.) they can figure that out later. Do some focus groups after it is announced, but W is not nearly as complicated as J/Polaris upgrades. What is the hold up UA?

NZ's SpaceSeat did last from from 2010 to 2016 on the 77W, while 2-2-2 in PE was an great idea the seat it self wasn't the best. The replacement seat is much more comfortable, while still providing an 42" seat pitch.



If anything I betting we will see PE on the UA 77W's, UA joint venture with NZ will probably help it coming to AKL pretty quickly.

Wow, those seats take up a ton of room. How can the word Economy be attached to it? Way better than Domestic First Class.
@ 42 inch pitch 4 rows of PE are within 2 inches of 5 rows of E+ @ 34" pitch
77W 4 rows X 6 across is 24 PE seats
77W 5 rows X 10 across is 50 E+ seats

That's only 48% of the E+ seats that would fit in the same space. Meaning revenue would have to be 2.08 times E+ revenue and that doesn't include additional extras PE might come with. Seat Guru says PE doesn't get double the regular Y fare, let alone a E+ fare.

UA's Polaris provides great seats in a really efficient manner. Not that UA's PE could come up with something so efficient, but I was thinking PE would be something like 8 or 9 across on the 77W with maybe 38" pitch. Aisle change can be an issue if windows sets go from 3 to 2 seats. Unless there's a natural break with exits or lavs, then more space could be lost ion the transition between classes.

Looking at Seat Guru's comparison of services, it looks like PE on a 777 is usually 8 across, not 6 across and 38" pitch, not 42" pitch. Even Air New Zealand is now at 8 across at 41" pitch.

zkncj wrote:

cosyr wrote:

I would say there is next to no chance they would introduce Prem Y on the remaining 789's, since they won't even have Polaris. I just thought the remaining 77W's would make sense, because if they arrangement in Y isn't too different from the existing layout, they could retrofit the 14 on site relatively quickly, since Polaris is already in place on those planes. The 78J would make sense, except for how late they're coming this year. At this point it is likely UA will be 2 years behind the competition, kind of disgraceful. I don't really understand, the hard product doesn't need to be revolutionary. NZ tried to reinvent the wheel with W and it blew up in their face. If UA is undecided on the soft product (upgraded food, lounge access, priority boarding/check-in, etc.) they can figure that out later. Do some focus groups after it is announced, but W is not nearly as complicated as J/Polaris upgrades. What is the hold up UA?

NZ's SpaceSeat did last from from 2010 to 2016 on the 77W, while 2-2-2 in PE was an great idea the seat it self wasn't the best. The replacement seat is much more comfortable, while still providing an 42" seat pitch.



If anything I betting we will see PE on the UA 77W's, UA joint venture with NZ will probably help it coming to AKL pretty quickly.

Well now that UA officially announced PremY for "later this year" that most definitely has to be either the 77W's or 78J's. If it's the 77W's, than it would most likely be both, and then retrofit on the other 14 77W's.

Ultimately, I expect it to end up on every widebody, after a few years. I expect it will be 8 across on the 777's, 7 on the 787's, don't know on the A350's (DL does 8), 767's could be tricky, but with Polaris, 6 across might not be as close to J anymore.

cosyr wrote:

If it's the 77W's, than it would most likely be both, and then retrofit on the other 14 77W's.

IMO, if the options for an economy seat on a long-haul 77W are 10-across economy, 10-across E+ or PE with domestic F space, the full-fare PE shouldn't be too hard to sell.

A319
N897UA 9th exCZ, test hopped UA2685 18Jan LCQLCQ. N4888U will likely do likewise in next day or two.

Who is the manufacturer of United’s newly unveiled Premium Economy Plus seat? Is it the same manufacturer as the Airbus First Class seat? Same as Polaris or different?
Has United revealed anything more than that one image in the email that went out yesterday?

VC10er wrote:

Who is the manufacturer of United’s newly unveiled Premium Economy Plus seat? Is it the same manufacturer as the Airbus First Class seat? Same as Polaris or different?
Has United revealed anything more than that one image in the email that went out yesterday?

They haven't, but that just makes me think later this year means fall. I'm curious about the 77W arrangement. There are 4 rows of Y+ in that forward cabin, behind Polaris, at 34" pitch. Most likely this Premium Plus is going to be about 38" pitch, so they can't also have 4 rows of that, but there would be a ton of extra space with only 3 rows. Would it be worth the work of also re-configuring lavs so they could fit at least a partial row in the section behind? Maybe only 8 across Y+ with 2 at each door? Though they wouldn't have a window, 2 seats would be highly coveted in UA's dense Y cabin.

It's really too bad that UA dragged their feet so long. No matter what their solution it is going to cost them money to retrofit Premium Plus, instead of just introducing it with the 77W all along.

789:
N29971 sked to exit IAD Induction 2792/20Jan, then first revenue flight 1840/20Jan DEN-SFO 

Fleet #...Type....Man#....MAN S/N....N #.........Fuselage #

0973..... 787-9...973.......40940.........N24973...0661
0974......787-9...974.......40941.........N24974...0663
TBD......787-10.TBD.......40936.........TBD........0731
TBD......787-10.TBD.......TBD............TBD........0763

# 3860 ETR 23 Jan SlimLine STC

I am an admitted United lover, but I can't ignore the fact they seem to always innovate last. I know there are strategic advantages to that...make sure the experiment is working on their competition before committing the dollars to do this. UA made the right call making only a section of E+ vs the whole cabin like AA and perhaps they are trying to repeat what's worked in the past (eg: let DL or AA be the guinea pigs). United seems to be very good at launching great new international destinations, utilizing their 787's well, but I do yearn for them to do something "industry leading" FIRST. I remember when legacy United did from time to time, like p.s. and being the first in the USA with lie flat seats in business...(only to be leapfrogged, and slowed by the merger me thinks). I can think of a few innovative things they could do- that if I mentioned would result in digital tomatoes being hurled at me

I do think they did live up to their "sleep is most important" promise with Polaris, it is "one of" the most sleep friendly business/first seats in the sky, the seat itself, and the extras such as the Saks duvet and their amazing eyeshades . IMHO it's also well branded too vs the zero branded experience. As a seasoned sky warrior, flying internationally for business (often as much as twice a month, year after year)...true Polaris satisfies. In fact after doing 6 long hauls on the 77W in Polaris, I am almost angry to pay the same price for the current (old) seat which is woefully behind their premier new hard product (IMHO)... I am anxiously looking forward to the 787J and getting refitted 767's. (I feel guilty whining)

VC10er wrote:

I am an admitted United lover, but I can't ignore the fact they seem to always innovate last. I know there are strategic advantages to that...make sure the experiment is working on their competition before committing the dollars to do this. UA made the right call making only a section of E+ vs the whole cabin like AA and perhaps they are trying to repeat what's worked in the past (eg: let DL or AA be the guinea pigs). United seems to be very good at launching great new international destinations, utilizing their 787's well, but I do yearn for them to do something "industry leading" FIRST. I remember when legacy United did from time to time, like p.s. and being the first in the USA with lie flat seats in business...(only to be leapfrogged, and slowed by the merger me thinks). I can think of a few innovative things they could do- that if I mentioned would result in digital tomatoes being hurled at me

I do think they did live up to their "sleep is most important" promise with Polaris, it is "one of" the most sleep friendly business/first seats in the sky, the seat itself, and the extras such as the Saks duvet and their amazing eyeshades . IMHO it's also well branded too vs the zero branded experience. As a seasoned sky warrior, flying internationally for business (often as much as twice a month, year after year)...true Polaris satisfies. In fact after doing 6 long hauls on the 77W in Polaris, I am almost angry to pay the same price for the current (old) seat which is woefully behind their premier new hard product (IMHO)... I am anxiously looking forward to the 787J and getting refitted 767's. (I feel guilty whining)

I don’t know what there is left to do to be innovative in this industry, seems like everything has been done. You just gotta be patient with those Polaris searts man, it’s the same story at every airline when they roll out a new seat. Takes a lot of time to roll out.

CALTECH wrote:

Fleet #...Type....Man#....MAN S/N....N #.........Fuselage #

0973..... 787-9...973.......40940.........N24973...0661
0974......787-9...974.......40941.........N24974...0663
TBD......787-10.TBD.......40936.........TBD........0731
TBD......787-10.TBD.......TBD............TBD........0763

Seems odd they haven’t sorted out the Ship/Reg #s for the 787-10 yet.

I did a search of N numbers and found N24980 is owned by UA. Didn't have the time to check numbers lower or higher than Nxx980

calpsafltskeds wrote:

I did a search of N numbers and found N24980 is owned by UA. Didn't have the time to check numbers lower or higher than Nxx980

That does limit space for future 789 orders. There is all that wasted space 920-949... see what the desk jockeys decide.

73G:
N24736 exited MIA 2695/19Jan with slimlines and ISP. Last 737NG to get ISP. Only aircraft in fleet w/o ISP is 753 N57858

763:
N656UA sked to exit HKG 2817/22Jan with Polaris/2 class and winglets. I don't see another unit replacing it in HKG yet.

764:
N76064 took a test hop at HKG

772:
N69020 entered HKG 2829/12Jan, could be a dupe report.

763: Reported on another thread
VQQ Cecil Airport Jacksonville FL,
N657UA - entered VQQ 2778/4Jan
N658UA - entered VQQ 2775/15Jan

calpsafltskeds wrote:

763:
N656UA sked to exit HKG 2817/22Jan with Polaris/2 class and winglets. I don't see another unit replacing it in HKG yet.

I'm showing N643UA should be going to HKG on tomorrow (January 23). Flight numbers will be UA 2819-23 ORD - HNL, and UA 2820-24 HNL-HKG. I'm not sure if it is going in for Polaris installation but they just loaded this in the system.

Observation; 763 N644UA was opperating UA71 AMSORD on 19Jan when it retured to AMS due sudden crew/passenger illness. FlightAware shows it been there ever since. This suggests the issue was caused by a problem with the aircraft. Any info on this?

iahcsr wrote:

Observation; 763 N644UA was opperating UA71 AMSORD on 19Jan when it retured to AMS due sudden crew/passenger illness. FlightAware shows it been there ever since. This suggests the issue was caused by a problem with the aircraft. Any info on this?

No aircraft related issues anyone can find. But safety investigators are involved, so they’ll probably overhaul half the plane until they are satisfied.

I don’t understand the PMUA fleet being retired as soon as they were. Of the planes that were retired 36 or so were snapped up by Fed Ex. These jets had 25-30k cycles with 55-65k hours. Delta recently parked some 752’s with 45K cycles 95k. The 752 has a LOV OF 75K cycles/150k hrs according to the FAA. I do t understand that move. They are needed.

cosyr wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

763:
N665UA exited SAT 2774/15Jan

For what its worth, below are UA aircraft that were delivered prior to 1997/1998, when the 319 and 73G fleet were delivered.
Could UA retire 4 to 9 of the oldest sUA 752s? and retain the newer units? Does operating a 6-11 sUA 752 fleet make sense?
1989 (2) 2 sUA 752s
1990 (3) 3 sUA 752s
1991 (5) 1 sUA 752, 4 sUA 763s
1992 (10) 1 sUA 752, 9 sUA 763s
1993 (15) 2 sUA 752, 8 sUA 763s, 5 sUA 320s
1994 (25) 16 sUA 320s, 11 sCO 752s
1995 (12) 8 sUA 320s, 4 sCO 752s
1996 (8) 7 sUA 320s, 1 sCO 752
That's a total of 80 aircraft (11% of the 745 active mainline aircraft).

In comparison, DL and AA operate scores of aircraft older than UAs (763s ,MD80s, 752s)

I don't think age is the only factor. The 15 sUA 752's are already a pretty small subfleet for a unique engine type, and at this point I think the only reason it works is because they only fly into 3 airports, so parts are manageable. Any less than 15 just wouldn't make sense.

cosyr wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

763:
N665UA exited SAT 2774/15Jan

For what its worth, below are UA aircraft that were delivered prior to 1997/1998, when the 319 and 73G fleet were delivered.
Could UA retire 4 to 9 of the oldest sUA 752s? and retain the newer units? Does operating a 6-11 sUA 752 fleet make sense?
1989 (2) 2 sUA 752s
1990 (3) 3 sUA 752s
1991 (5) 1 sUA 752, 4 sUA 763s
1992 (10) 1 sUA 752, 9 sUA 763s
1993 (15) 2 sUA 752, 8 sUA 763s, 5 sUA 320s
1994 (25) 16 sUA 320s, 11 sCO 752s
1995 (12) 8 sUA 320s, 4 sCO 752s
1996 (8) 7 sUA 320s, 1 sCO 752
That's a total of 80 aircraft (11% of the 745 active mainline aircraft).

In comparison, DL and AA operate scores of aircraft older than UAs (763s ,MD80s, 752s)

I don't think age is the only factor. The 15 sUA 752's are already a pretty small subfleet for a unique engine type, and at this point I think the only reason it works is because they only fly into 3 airports, so parts are manageable. Any less than 15 just wouldn't make sense.

Yes and no. AFAIK United still has a F117 (Pratt 2000 on the civil side) contract from the USAF. As long as they have that volume they shouldn't have much of an issue keeping the small Pratt 2000 757s going.

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t understand the PMUA fleet being retired as soon as they were. Of the planes that were retired 36 or so were snapped up by Fed Ex. These jets had 25-30k cycles with 55-65k hours. Delta recently parked some 752’s with 45K cycles 95k. The 752 has a LOV OF 75K cycles/150k hrs according to the FAA. I do t understand that move. They are needed.

Besides the fact that the PW 752 is more plane than UA needed for almost all the routes it flew, UA was in a cut routes mode at the time. Whether or not cutting routes at that time made sense, they were planning to get rid of some 752's, so the opted to get rid of some with resale value, rather than pay to park their oldest ones in the desert. I understand that justification.

cosyr wrote:

Besides the fact that the PW 752 is more plane than UA needed for almost all the routes it flew, UA was in a cut routes mode at the time. Whether or not cutting routes at that time made sense, they were planning to get rid of some 752's, so the opted to get rid of some with resale value, rather than pay to park their oldest ones in the desert. I understand that justification.

When you say the PW 752s was more plane than UA needed on almost all routes it flew what exactly do you mean?
You might mean something completely different but when I read that statement I'm a little confuse because if you look at the current seating configuration for UA's 739ERs you will notice that UA in fact has more seats on the 739ERs than we had on the non-premium service PW 752s. Before I started working at Willis Tower I spent over 18 years on the ramp at ORD and cargo loved those planes because in addition to holding 200+ bags they could also easily accommodate 6,000+ pounds of mail and freight something a 739ER can not do. These aircraft were extremely valuable on transcon routes back in the day because they had the legs to do cross country flights will a full load of passengers, bags and freight. A 739ER on a good day can't fly nonstop BOS-SFO fully loaded with passengers, baggage and freight even a 738 can't accommodate freight on this route if it is fully loaded with passenger and bags. The PW 752s were great on hub to hub routes and on our West Coast to Hawaii routes. It may have been to much for some of our smaller line stations but overall it was a great aircraft that was perfect for UA's operations and in my opinion UA still hasn't found the right aircraft to properly replace the 752s.
Perhaps I just misunderstood what you are trying to convey and if so my apologies.

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Besides the fact that the PW 752 is more plane than UA needed for almost all the routes it flew, UA was in a cut routes mode at the time. Whether or not cutting routes at that time made sense, they were planning to get rid of some 752's, so the opted to get rid of some with resale value, rather than pay to park their oldest ones in the desert. I understand that justification.

When you say the PW 752s was more plane than UA needed on almost all routes it flew what exactly do you mean?
You might mean something completely different but when I read that statement I'm a little confuse because if you look at the current seating configuration for UA's 739ERs you will notice that UA in fact has more seats on the 739ERs than we had on the non-premium service PW 752s. Before I started working at Willis Tower I spent over 18 years on the ramp at ORD and cargo loved those planes because in addition to holding 200+ bags they could also easily accommodate 6,000+ pounds of mail and freight something a 739ER can not do. These aircraft were extremely valuable on transcon routes back in the day because they had the legs to do cross country flights will a full load of passengers, bags and freight. A 739ER on a good day can't fly nonstop BOS-SFO fully loaded with passengers, baggage and freight even a 738 can't accommodate freight on this route if it is fully loaded with passenger and bags. The PW 752s were great on hub to hub routes and on our West Coast to Hawaii routes. It may have been to much for some of our smaller line stations but overall it was a great aircraft that was perfect for UA's operations and in my opinion UA still hasn't found the right aircraft to properly replace the 752s.
Perhaps I just misunderstood what you are trying to convey and if so my apologies.

What I mean is that now that almost all PW 752's are gone and the remaining only fly P.S., clearly UA has made routes work without them. I can't comment on the cargo hit. I don't have the numbers that UA may be missing out on cargo and mail, but the 738's and 739ER's were flying many of the same routes before the 752's were sold, so UA had all the data needed to make the decision that they could live without the frames.

jayunited wrote:

When you say the PW 752s was more plane than UA needed on almost all routes it flew what exactly do you mean?
You might mean something completely different but when I read that statement I'm a little confuse because if you look at the current seating configuration for UA's 739ERs you will notice that UA in fact has more seats on the 739ERs than we had on the non-premium service PW 752s.

The 757 is a great machine, probably my favorite, but for domestic operations it is indeed too much airplane for the vast majority of missions, when compared to the stretch 737s or A321. Empty, the 757 weighs about 13 tons more than a 739ER and 10t more than an A321, with significantly worse fuel burn. That's a lot of metal to haul around. Thus, to close the gap, you need to fly the airplane where the others can't go, or add seats to get it to a 200-seater rather than 180, like Delta did. The incremental (bulk) freight won't make up the difference, in most markets.

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Besides the fact that the PW 752 is more plane than UA needed for almost all the routes it flew, UA was in a cut routes mode at the time. Whether or not cutting routes at that time made sense, they were planning to get rid of some 752's, so the opted to get rid of some with resale value, rather than pay to park their oldest ones in the desert. I understand that justification.

When you say the PW 752s was more plane than UA needed on almost all routes it flew what exactly do you mean?
You might mean something completely different but when I read that statement I'm a little confuse because if you look at the current seating configuration for UA's 739ERs you will notice that UA in fact has more seats on the 739ERs than we had on the non-premium service PW 752s. Before I started working at Willis Tower I spent over 18 years on the ramp at ORD and cargo loved those planes because in addition to holding 200+ bags they could also easily accommodate 6,000+ pounds of mail and freight something a 739ER can not do. These aircraft were extremely valuable on transcon routes back in the day because they had the legs to do cross country flights will a full load of passengers, bags and freight. A 739ER on a good day can't fly nonstop BOS-SFO fully loaded with passengers, baggage and freight even a 738 can't accommodate freight on this route if it is fully loaded with passenger and bags. The PW 752s were great on hub to hub routes and on our West Coast to Hawaii routes. It may have been to much for some of our smaller line stations but overall it was a great aircraft that was perfect for UA's operations and in my opinion UA still hasn't found the right aircraft to properly replace the 752s.
Perhaps I just misunderstood what you are trying to convey and if so my apologies.

Non PS UAL 757’s were in a 24/158 configuration for 182 seats (non slim lined). The 737-900’s have 20/159 for 179 seats (with slim lines) so no, they don’t have more seats then the legacy non PS 757’s.

I’m sure if UAL had kept the 757’s they would have gotten the slim line treatment, and their lives at UAL extended. However it was not to be and adds another debatable Smisek and Co. long term decision to the list.

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t understand the PMUA fleet being retired as soon as they were. Of the planes that were retired 36 or so were snapped up by Fed Ex. These jets had 25-30k cycles with 55-65k hours. Delta recently parked some 752’s with 45K cycles 95k. The 752 has a LOV OF 75K cycles/150k hrs according to the FAA. I do t understand that move. They are needed.

I see three things that went into the decisions back around the 2012-2013 time frame.

1) Fleet age. The vast majority of UA's 757s were built between 1989-1993. Most were were 20-24 years old at the time, and inside they were in need of a new interior. It was decision time. Do you spend the capital on increased maintenance and an interior refresh? Or do you cut the cord that would be cut soon anyway? UA chose the latter.

2) They still had value and found a buyer for many of them. The fact that FedEx was willing to pay a few million each was an incentive to sell them instead of initiating a refurbishment. Looking at it now, it looks like a good move in and of itself. There's dozens of same-age ex-AA 757s that didn't find another life.

3) The 757 was simply not a very economical plane for the domestic missions it was being used for and would have continued to be used on. This was even more true then when fuel was more expensive. The combination of higher fuel burn and rising maintenance costs leads to a high variable cost. In order to help mitigate the high costs, UA would likely have had to increase the seat density like DL did with an expensive interior refit. The economics simply weren't there to continue.

I think the loss of capacity during a crucial period of profits wasn't the most beneficial to UA, but this was a time when large capacity increases weren't being planned. A large 739 order was coming online, and something had to give. One can see why UA made the decision it did.

UA released its fleet plan for this year:

Deliveries:
4 77W
3 78J
4 789
3 763ER (ex HA)
10 737MAX-9

No mainline retirements...

the fleet should be by the end of the year:
18 777-300ER
55 777-200ER
19 777-200
3 787-10
25 787-9
12 787-8
16 767-400ER
38 767-300ER
21 757-300
56 757-200
10 737MAX-9
136 737-900ER
12 737-900
141 737-800
40 737-700
99 320-200
67 319-100

United1 wrote:

UA released its fleet plan for this year:

Deliveries:
4 77W
3 78J
4 789
3 763ER (ex HA)
10 737MAX-9

No mainline retirements...

14 widebody additions is huge. Aren't there some more ex-CZ A319/A320s in the pipeline?

jetblastdubai wrote:

United1 wrote:

UA released its fleet plan for this year:

Deliveries:
4 77W
3 78J
4 789
3 763ER (ex HA)
10 737MAX-9

No mainline retirements...

14 widebody additions is huge. Aren't there some more ex-CZ A319/A320s in the pipeline?

That's what I thought as well but it looks like the five already delivered ones undergoing induction are going to be it for this year.

I read on Flyertalk that the 78J has a smaller J cabin than the 789 with 42 seats. Any confirmation on that from anyone? I imagine PE will be taking over some of that area.

splitterz wrote:

I read on Flyertalk that the 78J has a smaller J cabin than the 789 with 42 seats. Any confirmation on that from anyone? I imagine PE will be taking over some of that area.

That's Polaris. Once the 789s get polaris, J count will be adjusted accordingly.

MSPNWA wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t understand the PMUA fleet being retired as soon as they were. Of the planes that were retired 36 or so were snapped up by Fed Ex. These jets had 25-30k cycles with 55-65k hours. Delta recently parked some 752’s with 45K cycles 95k. The 752 has a LOV OF 75K cycles/150k hrs according to the FAA. I do t understand that move. They are needed.

I see three things that went into the decisions back around the 2012-2013 time frame.

1) Fleet age. The vast majority of UA's 757s were built between 1989-1993. Most were were 20-24 years old at the time, and inside they were in need of a new interior. It was decision time. Do you spend the capital on increased maintenance and an interior refresh? Or do you cut the cord that would be cut soon anyway? UA chose the latter.

2) They still had value and found a buyer for many of them. The fact that FedEx was willing to pay a few million each was an incentive to sell them instead of initiating a refurbishment. Looking at it now, it looks like a good move in and of itself. There's dozens of same-age ex-AA 757s that didn't find another life.

3) The 757 was simply not a very economical plane for the domestic missions it was being used for and would have continued to be used on. This was even more true then when fuel was more expensive. The combination of higher fuel burn and rising maintenance costs leads to a high variable cost. In order to help mitigate the high costs, UA would likely have had to increase the seat density like DL did with an expensive interior refit. The economics simply weren't there to continue.

I think the loss of capacity during a crucial period of profits wasn't the most beneficial to UA, but this was a time when large capacity increases weren't being planned. A large 739 order was coming online, and something had to give. One can see why UA made the decision it did.

Well, if the 757 fleet had been kept, it would have allowed the airline to build up with it's domestic fleet numbers. Maybe it would have been better to start retiring them one for one with the 737 MAX10...

CALTECH wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t understand the PMUA fleet being retired as soon as they were. Of the planes that were retired 36 or so were snapped up by Fed Ex. These jets had 25-30k cycles with 55-65k hours. Delta recently parked some 752’s with 45K cycles 95k. The 752 has a LOV OF 75K cycles/150k hrs according to the FAA. I do t understand that move. They are needed.

I see three things that went into the decisions back around the 2012-2013 time frame.

1) Fleet age. The vast majority of UA's 757s were built between 1989-1993. Most were were 20-24 years old at the time, and inside they were in need of a new interior. It was decision time. Do you spend the capital on increased maintenance and an interior refresh? Or do you cut the cord that would be cut soon anyway? UA chose the latter.

2) They still had value and found a buyer for many of them. The fact that FedEx was willing to pay a few million each was an incentive to sell them instead of initiating a refurbishment. Looking at it now, it looks like a good move in and of itself. There's dozens of same-age ex-AA 757s that didn't find another life.

3) The 757 was simply not a very economical plane for the domestic missions it was being used for and would have continued to be used on. This was even more true then when fuel was more expensive. The combination of higher fuel burn and rising maintenance costs leads to a high variable cost. In order to help mitigate the high costs, UA would likely have had to increase the seat density like DL did with an expensive interior refit. The economics simply weren't there to continue.

I think the loss of capacity during a crucial period of profits wasn't the most beneficial to UA, but this was a time when large capacity increases weren't being planned. A large 739 order was coming online, and something had to give. One can see why UA made the decision it did.

Well, if the 757 fleet had been kept, it would have allowed the airline to build up with it's domestic fleet numbers. Maybe it would have been better to start retiring them one for one with the 737 MAX10...

I don't believe the MAX10 concept existed when the 757 retirement begain. In hindsight it might have been a good idea, yes.

CALTECH wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

DL757NYC wrote:

I don’t understand the PMUA fleet being retired as soon as they were. Of the planes that were retired 36 or so were snapped up by Fed Ex. These jets had 25-30k cycles with 55-65k hours. Delta recently parked some 752’s with 45K cycles 95k. The 752 has a LOV OF 75K cycles/150k hrs according to the FAA. I do t understand that move. They are needed.

I see three things that went into the decisions back around the 2012-2013 time frame.

1) Fleet age. The vast majority of UA's 757s were built between 1989-1993. Most were were 20-24 years old at the time, and inside they were in need of a new interior. It was decision time. Do you spend the capital on increased maintenance and an interior refresh? Or do you cut the cord that would be cut soon anyway? UA chose the latter.

2) They still had value and found a buyer for many of them. The fact that FedEx was willing to pay a few million each was an incentive to sell them instead of initiating a refurbishment. Looking at it now, it looks like a good move in and of itself. There's dozens of same-age ex-AA 757s that didn't find another life.

3) The 757 was simply not a very economical plane for the domestic missions it was being used for and would have continued to be used on. This was even more true then when fuel was more expensive. The combination of higher fuel burn and rising maintenance costs leads to a high variable cost. In order to help mitigate the high costs, UA would likely have had to increase the seat density like DL did with an expensive interior refit. The economics simply weren't there to continue.

I think the loss of capacity during a crucial period of profits wasn't the most beneficial to UA, but this was a time when large capacity increases weren't being planned. A large 739 order was coming online, and something had to give. One can see why UA made the decision it did.

Well, if the 757 fleet had been kept, it would have allowed the airline to build up with it's domestic fleet numbers. Maybe it would have been better to start retiring them one for one with the 737 MAX10...

Aah, but that would have required the NGS system mod to be installed on virtually all of the 757-222 fleet. And that's a decision that, at least until recently, had been made in the "nope" category for even the PS birds that were kept.
The birds were old, and pretty beat up, inside and out. I flew in several post-merger, and was... pretty surprised by the conditions of the cabin. And I say that as an airline A&P, with thick skin for cabin squawks!
And UA brass at the time said that each 752 retirement / conversion to 739ER was saving them $2 million a year, right off the bat.
It was a sensible decision, albeit an imperfect one, and one with some negative consequences.