2 Rumours: New Cities And New Planes

[FA4UA]

Last week Senior VP of Onboard Service was in LHR meeting in town hall meetings with crews. During these meetings she said in the next year we shall see service beginning to 10 NEW cities that UA has never served before. One can only speculate where.... very exciting news though!

On a different note, our LHR Onboard safety team has been talking about a possible deal with Airbus for UA to acquire A340's in exchange for exit financing from Bankruptcy. The rumor is that UA would get the A340's to replace the 744's and grow our fleet to operate the 10 new cities mentioned above. Additionally it is rumored that UA will not have to pay until two years after delivery for anything to buy us time to get back on our feet.

This same onboard safety training team was correct on a number of other rumours including the new PS service in our Premium Transcon markets within the US.

FA4UA

 

[spacewaitress]

This same onboard safety training team was correct on a number of other rumours including the new PS service in our Premium Transcon markets within the US.

[post="200487"][/post]​

Yeah, exciting. All this for 25% less in your pocketbook (w/ paycuts and workrule givebacks).

I had to laugh about the ps memo that we got in our mailboxes. Much ado about catering to the premium status of the customers on those flights...yeah right. Maybe one way, but on a transcon turn. These people don't have a clue. Do they think we're robots, or what? Unfortunately for them, we're still made of flesh and blood.

 

[UAL_TECH]

Last week Senior VP of Onboard Service was in LHR meeting in town hall meetings with crews. During these meetings she said in the next year we shall see service beginning to 10 NEW cities that UA has never served before. One can only speculate where.... very exciting news though!

On a different note, our LHR Onboard safety team has been talking about a possible deal with Airbus for UA to acquire A340's in exchange for exit financing from Bankruptcy. The rumor is that UA would get the A340's to replace the 744's and grow our fleet to operate the 10 new cities mentioned above. Additionally it is rumored that UA will not have to pay until two years after delivery for anything to buy us time to get back on our feet.

This same onboard safety training team was correct on a number of other rumours including the new PS service in our Premium Transcon markets within the US.

FA4UA

[post="200487"][/post]​

I thought flight crews were tested for crack?
Love your optimism though

Take Care,
B) UT

 

[JFK777]

What's so exciting about replacing perfecting good and right sized 744 with A340-500/600's ? While I can appreciate the "freshness" of A340's at UA, They would make certain flights longer since A340's are slower then 744's. The 744 flights to Aussie, NRT, HKG and Europe don't need sligtly smaller A346's. If the providers of this information are correct in "10 new cities" I am asuming they are international destinations. I would say India, South Africa, Dubai, Israel, Malaysia & Indonesia to guess a few. I hope the new cities happen, A340 don't excite, 777-200LR or 777-300ER do.

 

[boeing787]

A340's are common with A320's. Save money probably more efficient too. However the B777 is the flagship. The 400 is a keeper too just have to wonder about the economics. If Airbus gives exit financing then guess what... UAL will soon have an all airbus fleet. Funny because UAL and Boeing go waaaay back.

 

[WorldTraveler]

Airbus would love to convert UA to all all Airbus airline and they have a great reputation for showing up as the hero to airlines in distress. However, they don't give their airplanes away. UA will be paying for those new airplanes for years to come and it will be off the backs of employees. They may be cheaper to operate than 744s but they are not as efficient or economical as 777s.

 

[UAL_TECH]

One of the ‘sad’ points is that ‘UAL Corp’ created an entity that bought the 747-4xx and then leased them back to ‘United Airlines’ (one of their 29 +/- entities) for the tax advantage.

As we renegotiate leases for our 747’s, what is our negotiating position?

But not to worry, we still have the ‘power’ of the ‘IAM’ and ‘ALPA†on the BOD.

JMHO, having these ‘anal orifices’ (is this OK?, or can I call them A$$Holes? ) has been our downfall from the outset.

Regardless, I do feel better taking a screwing in pay and bennies to subsidize airbus and consumers tickets.

B) UT

 

[magsau]

Airbus would love to convert UA to all all Airbus airline and they have a great reputation for showing up as the hero to airlines in distress. However, they don't give their airplanes away. UA will be paying for those new airplanes for years to come and it will be off the backs of employees. They may be cheaper to operate than 744s but they are not as efficient or economical as 777s.

[post="200619"][/post]​

World,

Can you provide a link to operating efficiencies of the A340/33 to the 747/777?

Airbus makes sense for UAL. As a pilot and a pax, I would much rather ride the oceans in a A340 versus a 777.

Did you ever hear the story of the LH pilot they asked about the airlines decision to only fly 4 engine airplanes over the oceans?

His response, "Yah, We only fly 4 engine airplanes over the water." When asked why? He said, "Oh that is an easy answer....Because they do not make them with 5."

 

[JFK777]

Lufthansa flies A330-300 from some east coast cities, so they too have joined "the 2 engines across the pond club". So much or flying only "4" engine airplanes.

 

[USFlyer]

Lufthansa flies A330-300 from some east coast cities, so they too have joined "the 2 engines across the pond club". So much or flying only "4" engine airplanes.

[post="200684"][/post]​

I think the A330s are all Condor-operated. LH, to my knowledge, does not have any A330s in its fleet.

 

[WorldTraveler]

I knew this topic would degenerate into an Airbus vs Boeing discussion (or argument) and I'd just as soon not participate. Since it has been started, I'll make my points and then leave it to the rest of you to do w/ it as you choose.

There are three points I'll make.

1. Airbus has placed most of their aircraft at US carriers when they have been in financial straits. From the first A300s at Eastern to Pan Am to Northwest (despite what N by NW will say) and US.
2. Airbus has a long history of overpromising and overdelivering - esp. on range, performance, and operating cost. ie A310s at DL, A330s at US, A340-600s at SA/CX...
3. If the A340 (new and old generations) is so great, then why has the 777 won 3/4 of all orders for its class?
I'm not an anti-Airbus person but I do not think Airbus can produce products capable of flying the very long routes more economically thatn the 777 which is what UA needs. Boeing clearly has issues but I look very suspect at Airbus when they somehow manage to make their greatest inroads at US carriers when those carriers are in financial difficulties. There's a reason DL dumped the A310 and now flies the world's largest 767 fleet and why AA can't wait to dump the A300-600.

This discussion may all be academic anyway. I would doubt that Airbus will provide the exit bankruptcy financing for United. Although they could have a hand in it, there are laws against aircraft manunfacturers and foreign companies from investing in US airlines. On both of those counts, a direct Airbus investment in UA will be hard to justify.

One final thought on the promise of new service. US did the same thing at just about this same point in their transformation plan. I guess promising new service and new planes is supposed to not make the sting of cuts not quite as bad.

It is very interesting that four of the six US legacy airlines have faced serious financial challenges since 9/11 and there have essentially been two paths those four airlines have taken. AA and DL followed paths that involve cutting costs outside of bankruptcy and committing themselves to dramatic changes in their business. US and UA have resorted to bankruptcy and are engaged in repeated cycles of cost cuts, much of which is being born by employees. (2/3 of UA's latest cost cuts are employee-related vs about half of DL's current cost cut targets). The story is certainly not finished for any of the 6 but there is enough here for one to think about.

 

[ZMAN777]

I think the A330s are all Condor-operated. LH, to my knowledge, does not have any A330s in its fleet.

[post="200746"][/post]​

Actually they do. I was in FRA on several occasions during the last month and saw a few in LH colors, not Condor.

Cheers,
Z B)

 

[Flydrive1]

Actually they do. I was in FRA on several occasions during the last month and saw a few in LH colors, not Condor.

Cheers,
Z B)

[post="200782"][/post]​

LH also operates all-Business Class 737NG's and A319's(wet lease agreements, I believe) from DUS to EWR...possibly other markets as well.

Cheers! B)

 

[JFK777]

LH operates A330-300 from JFK to FRA every day at 4:00PM. Look up the configuration at seatguru.com. LH, SAS, and Air Canada, all Star alliance, operate Rolls Trent powered A330-300.

 

[Ukridge]

Last year (or was it two already?) when Virgin began to fly the longer A340 out of Heathrow, there was a flurry of advertising from both the airline and RR concerning the range capabilities of the engine/aircraft mix. They were even stressing NO2 emissions. The point however, was that the Trent (I remember this name as it is so easy) engines were a generation ahead of anything else on the market (for its class) in terms of petrol usage.

World Traveler rhetorically asked if this were to be a Boeing versus Airbus debate. I would rather think it would be a technology issue. If the Boeing web site is correct, United launched the 777 is 1995. That means that its engines are at least 10 years old. The A340-500/600 and its technology represents at least 7 to 8 years in advancement. I would believe it to be patent that the Trents would offer much more in efficiency – in fact a generational leap ahead.
To me, the question would be if an airline could marry what Airbus offers to its route structure. There are certain tools for certain jobs. This seems to be basic airline management (or so I would imagine). Virgin, Singapore, and a host of others have opted for the newer A340s – with reason. Air France, headquartered in the same country as Toulouse, opted for (at least from what I can determine from a few minutes on the computer) the newer 777.

I mention the later because I do not take as an article of faith that an airline manger would buy an aircraft based just on whether it is “Europeanâ€￾ or not. Political decisions may have had their place in the decision suite at one time, but I believe those days have drawn to a close. Branson, the Singapore chiefs, and others must have seen something in the longer A340s that met their expectations. I would venture to say that Singapore, for example, must have done a great deal of homework before they ordered airplanes that they expected to ply the Singapore-New York/America routes. If the A340 did not provide what they needed, they would have opted for something else.

I would submit that this is more than just a simple rivalry. There are significant technological issues at stake and so far Airbus has been very successful in improving their products to meet the challenge. Their order books are filled for reasons other than simple political games. Comparing the new A340 to the original/early Airbus products is a trap which overlooks any firms ability to dynamically grow and perfect its product. In other words the products get better.

Perhaps United would do well to examine such an offer. Any perceived loyalty to Boeing certainly has not garnered them any political support in the FCs.

Cheers