UAL Furloughs..
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOING,
I understand the 762's are primarily used on the "premium" transcons - with an occasional 763 thrown in.
Any ideas what UAL will be operating these routes with instead?
Granted - the old 762's are not well liked by the biztravellers (and I suspect there are quite a few of those on the transcons) because of the old Biz Class seats, and lack of Econ Plus - but replacing them with A320/757 is only going to mean even more lost revenue for UAL?
Cheers
I understand the 762's are primarily used on the "premium" transcons - with an occasional 763 thrown in.
Any ideas what UAL will be operating these routes with instead?
Granted - the old 762's are not well liked by the biztravellers (and I suspect there are quite a few of those on the transcons) because of the old Biz Class seats, and lack of Econ Plus - but replacing them with A320/757 is only going to mean even more lost revenue for UAL?
Cheers
Ironside
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: hoschton, GA, USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
InitReg..
767-200 usually go from JFK to the west coast, sometimes a -300.
Nothing is written in stone around here, but the beancounters think that that Airbus should do the job......
But I hear the pilots say the A-321/20/19, of which I am not rated does not have the wing to do this with a full load.
We run 757's to the west coast out of EWR, not 767's.
By the way, you book 30 days ahead on the Net and you will find United maches most of the discount carriers on competing routes. I have bought several BDLSFO round trips for $199 for the in-laws who are not covered by passes.
I love the thought of my mother-in-law in the last center seat
Rumors, and rumors everywhere, some of the people say be may go down to 7700 pilots, from a little over 10,000, to about 8400 now as we continue to "Shrink to Profibility...." as they park more 747-400s and the bumps trickle on down.....
767-200 usually go from JFK to the west coast, sometimes a -300.
Nothing is written in stone around here, but the beancounters think that that Airbus should do the job......
But I hear the pilots say the A-321/20/19, of which I am not rated does not have the wing to do this with a full load.
We run 757's to the west coast out of EWR, not 767's.
By the way, you book 30 days ahead on the Net and you will find United maches most of the discount carriers on competing routes. I have bought several BDLSFO round trips for $199 for the in-laws who are not covered by passes.
I love the thought of my mother-in-law in the last center seat
Rumors, and rumors everywhere, some of the people say be may go down to 7700 pilots, from a little over 10,000, to about 8400 now as we continue to "Shrink to Profibility...." as they park more 747-400s and the bumps trickle on down.....
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks AV8R,
I had heard that the JFK-SFO/LAX routes (primary mission for the 762) were very profitable - lots of paid Biz and full-fare Econ tickets - in part due to wide-body 3-class aircraft.
Of course if the hypothesis is that the biztraveller is either mythical these days, or is buying tickets months in advance with Sat night stays (like your ma-in-law :-), then 757 makes sense - heck a CRJ-XXER will do....
Now that UAL can operate upto 268 RJ (from current limit of 133) -from a cost perspective OK - UAL *may* get a lower CASM from UX RJ ops, but from a revenue perspective - the RJ explosion sounds problematic. So now a pax can choose between Southwest Guppies and the UX CRJ...
Everybody talks about costs at UAL, but I think too many people - espp UAL mgmt - don't worry enough about revenue!
I had heard that the JFK-SFO/LAX routes (primary mission for the 762) were very profitable - lots of paid Biz and full-fare Econ tickets - in part due to wide-body 3-class aircraft.
Of course if the hypothesis is that the biztraveller is either mythical these days, or is buying tickets months in advance with Sat night stays (like your ma-in-law :-), then 757 makes sense - heck a CRJ-XXER will do....
Now that UAL can operate upto 268 RJ (from current limit of 133) -from a cost perspective OK - UAL *may* get a lower CASM from UX RJ ops, but from a revenue perspective - the RJ explosion sounds problematic. So now a pax can choose between Southwest Guppies and the UX CRJ...
Everybody talks about costs at UAL, but I think too many people - espp UAL mgmt - don't worry enough about revenue!
It was rumoured that a US major airline CEO was interested in some of United's 744s, if the price went from about 60 down to about $40 million, which causes me to wonder...
I'm sure that he could also find a good deal on buckets of red paint. Don't forget the fashionable "submarine gray", so that they can be hidden from IL-18 "Coot" patrol planes, or Nimrods, whenever these "whales" surface in the Atlantik, or Pacifik: "Ship ahoy, Comrade Lieutenant!"...[The US Navy might make a large profit on this transaction-heck, they use S-3 Vikings to look for drugs: these planes could be subsidized with logos for Texaco, Wal-Mart's day-glow designer underwear, or McDonalds' Glistening Earthworm-Burgers ("avec frommage et pommes frites, s'il vouz plait") on the fuselage...]
And just why does an airline need each cockpit configuration to be 100% standard? If an airline ends up with one fleet having only two layoouts, with differences consisting ONLY of relatively minor things, i.e. position light switches, altitude hold buttons, rotating beacons, coffee holders, what is the big deal? If you can get a batch of planes, even with different galleys, whose service is spread out over an 8-hour flight to AMS, or an awful 14-hours to Narita or nonstop to the New Chang Ying Restaurant, is it really so important to delay the introduction to line flying? Just tell the flight attendants (nothing personal, 'Wagon Dragon') to get "uuused to it". "Hold them by the ears", if necessary, said Ole after he returned from his frozen honeymoon with Lina...
The FAA allowed Connie Kalitta's DC-8s to operate in several cockpit layouts with various engines, which were reportedly interesting combinations.
I'm sure that he could also find a good deal on buckets of red paint. Don't forget the fashionable "submarine gray", so that they can be hidden from IL-18 "Coot" patrol planes, or Nimrods, whenever these "whales" surface in the Atlantik, or Pacifik: "Ship ahoy, Comrade Lieutenant!"...[The US Navy might make a large profit on this transaction-heck, they use S-3 Vikings to look for drugs: these planes could be subsidized with logos for Texaco, Wal-Mart's day-glow designer underwear, or McDonalds' Glistening Earthworm-Burgers ("avec frommage et pommes frites, s'il vouz plait") on the fuselage...]
And just why does an airline need each cockpit configuration to be 100% standard? If an airline ends up with one fleet having only two layoouts, with differences consisting ONLY of relatively minor things, i.e. position light switches, altitude hold buttons, rotating beacons, coffee holders, what is the big deal? If you can get a batch of planes, even with different galleys, whose service is spread out over an 8-hour flight to AMS, or an awful 14-hours to Narita or nonstop to the New Chang Ying Restaurant, is it really so important to delay the introduction to line flying? Just tell the flight attendants (nothing personal, 'Wagon Dragon') to get "uuused to it". "Hold them by the ears", if necessary, said Ole after he returned from his frozen honeymoon with Lina...
The FAA allowed Connie Kalitta's DC-8s to operate in several cockpit layouts with various engines, which were reportedly interesting combinations.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 17th Nov 2002 at 05:11.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The FAA allowed Connie Kalitta's DC-8s to operate in several cockpit layouts with various engines, which were reportedly interesting combinations."
Connie probably just kept showing them the same airplane over and over again. The Kalitta folks liked to brag about getting things over on the FAA.
Connie probably just kept showing them the same airplane over and over again. The Kalitta folks liked to brag about getting things over on the FAA.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
aa717 driver..i'm gonna tell your wife...and I KNOW her.....shopsywhopsy...that new? try the wright-flyer....some of those folks were already old when I was born...and I'm old..and they're still flying......"are you gonna go in for some shopsy-whopsy?"
Guest
Posts: n/a
Loads out of the three New York airports seem to be the slowest to recover throughout the US. Many other routes are showing pretty full loads with high proportions of "mileage plan" passengers. I know because I always make sure I get a passenger list. What I do not know is how much these business passengers are paying for their ticket. The business travellers are back in the sky but are they helping the airline revenues?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Floride
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"At least in Europe governmemt subsidies are banned to ensure the survival of the fittest, the industry over here in general being better for it"
I am sorry ,but I had to reply to that BS.
Air france was subsidized for the past 30 years, it never made money but yet was still bloodsucking the French citizens, and beeing obnoxious as well, and severals other airlines in the same sack.
And how about Airbus sponsored by europe for 20 years, and making deals that allows them to give airplanes away only with the support of the governments.
I am sorry ,but I had to reply to that BS.
Air france was subsidized for the past 30 years, it never made money but yet was still bloodsucking the French citizens, and beeing obnoxious as well, and severals other airlines in the same sack.
And how about Airbus sponsored by europe for 20 years, and making deals that allows them to give airplanes away only with the support of the governments.
