Rumor Looking For Corroboration

[AOG-N-IT]

Furthermore, there a reliable reports inside of the company that Bronner holds United B767 EETC paper and he is not interested in taking a "haircut" for United's POR.

The information I have posted on United eliminating its entire B767-200 fleet in about 12 months is public record, the information was provided to the bankruptcy court during the last omnibus hearing, and the aircraft "for sale" listing can be viewed at www.speednews.com.

You do realize that many of UAs 762s are the oldest production models still flying and that in many (if not most) combinations the flight deck and powerplant are not the same as the variants U is currently flying.

I guess your supposition is that US should bring the DC-9s, MD-80s, and the Fokkers out of retirement. Who needs fleet commonality?

....If it will support his UA/US ICT/UCT theories?...I'm sure he'd buy off on that scenario too.

Any move to take on UA's 767's would be a quantum step backwards...not because it's UA's assets....but because it's NOT a natural or logical fit. The age of the Acft in question is just another compounding negative.

I believe the issues on engine differences , tooling requirements , training issues and cockpit instrumentation differences because of the engines alone would prove to be too costly. This would in fact defeat the reason for going with Airbus to begin with....and that was a mistake in my opinion too !!!

IMHO....buying into UA's 767's ..is buying into another mans troubles. UA is not thinking of discarding them for giggles and grins afterall.

 

[CLT-Douglas]

With the wide body fleet now maxed out and little or no room to expand until the scheduled new A330-200's start arriving in 2006 (?) there has been talk such as in this thread about leasing used A330's to fill the gap until 2006. What ever happened to all this talk? The amount of used aircraft available on the market should be solid for US Airways to get some good deals while they wait for new wide body aircraft. I guess we can expect no new long haul international destinations until 2006 at the earliest? Even then the A330-200 will be replacing the 767's so I guess even by 2009 there still won't be much a difference? So, is the plan to get as many STAR members as possible to fly to CLT, PIT, PHL and cover for them on the international markets the won't be able to provide in the future? What's the plan if not?

 

[USA320Pilot]

AOG-N-IT:

The interest in United's B767-200s is likely due to David Bronner, with reports RSA owns the EETC paper.

United's business plan and POR, which is still being formulated, currently states the airline will eliminate this sub-fleet type in about one-year according to testimony at the last bankruptcy omnibus hearing. Do you think Bronner wants to have these aircraft returned to RSA and then have to place the jets on the open market where the buyer has leverage?

There is a glut of used aircraft available today and Bronner would have a difficult time subleasing the rejected EETCs. Thus, once United rejects the aircraft the owner will be US Airways' chairman of the board.

Where could Bronner unilaterally deploy United's B767-200s? Furthermore, where could US Airways easily obtain B767-200s on "the cheap", which could boost RSA's US Airways investment ROR?

Dave Siegel told ATW that he would like to serve 20 European destinations from Philadelphia and once things stabilize, there is reason to believe the United B767-200s will be transferred to US Airways. In my opinion, we could see an agreement announced in time for US Airways to market the flying, train the crews, and staff the expanded operation in time for the summer 2005 travel season.

Regards,

Chip

 

[ITRADE]

Hey, are there any A340s out there that are parked??? They're basically common with the A330 except for the engine which is usually a CFM-56 (similar to the CFM-56s on the A320 faimily craft).

 

[AOG-N-IT]

Chip,

Thanks for the over-simplification of things....I guess I just don't have your grasp of such worldly issues

I understand what Bronner is doing , if this comes to pass?

Yet I see this as more of an effort to protect the RSA's interests , more than a logical and cost wise move for U itself.

Getting things on the cheap is nothing special at this point....planes are sitting all over creation...and Airbus and Boeing are dying for more orders too

UA's 767's can be procured only slightly cheaper due to the RSA ties with U...and the ever-present FACT that UA's birds are ancient and ill-equipped from a powerplant standpointl....whom else would want them or could be force-fed them other than U ?

U as a business needs to wise up quickly period....and acting like the aviation version of the Statue of Liberty by welcoming UA's "Tired , Poor and Huddled Boeings" is a bad call from any logical perspective.

I have said it a million times...and only the dim and un-aware fail to appreciate the facts and logic. The cost of purchase can be a great thing if it's a bargain with prolonged staying power? This deal lacks duration Vs. what it will cost to facilitate it. :down:

.The cost of actual ownership can make or break a good initial purchase/lease rather quickly....again, it will boil down to added inventory , training in both the flight department and maintenance.....doing this will essentially add yet another new yet old airframe to the fleet.... Not exactly something we need at this point....we need something to mesh and make an immediate positive impact...not something that will take an added out-lay of funds to maintain and tool-up for right off the bat. :down:

One good thing comes to mind...Dave can't dispute whom will be doing the work on these crates this time....I'm sure the work will be O'plenty too !


I sure hope the RSA didn't make any investments on 8-track Tape Players 25 years ago...with this type of logic , U will have to absorb those too....I guess we'll know what the future of in-flight entertainment on U will be like anyway , if the RSA did?

 

[a320av8r]

I can't imagine, even Dave, adding UA old junk to the fleet. Didn't UA take those dogs off of the trans-Atlantic due to age?

However, I did hear from a reliable source that UA has some 727's...

 

[Bear96]

I can't imagine, even Dave, adding UA old junk to the fleet. Didn't UA take those dogs off of the trans-Atlantic due to age?

The last int'l route UA used the 767-200s on was IAD-BRU and even that was at least five years ago... IAD-BRU has been the 767-300 for quite a while now.

 

[Cosmo]

Dave Siegel told ATW that he would like to serve 20 European destinations from Philadelphia and once things stabilize, there is reason to believe the United B767-200s will be transferred to US Airways. In my opinion, we could see an agreement announced in time for US Airways to market the flying, train the crews, and staff the expanded operation in time for the summer 2005 travel season.

Chip:

If US Airways does get these B767-200s, do you see them as being added to the current fleet total of 279 aircraft, since they would be doing new flying for the carrier, or would they simply replace other aircraft (presumably B737s) to maintain the 279 number?

 

[ClueByFour]

There is a glut of used aircraft available today and Bronner would have a difficult time subleasing the rejected EETCs. Thus, once United rejects the aircraft the owner will be US Airways' chairman of the board.

Where could Bronner unilaterally deploy United's B767-200s? Furthermore, where could US Airways easily obtain B767-200s on "the cheap", which could boost RSA's US Airways investment ROR?

Dave Siegel told ATW that he would like to serve 20 European destinations from Philadelphia and once things stabilize, there is reason to believe the United B767-200s will be transferred to US Airways. In my opinion, we could see an agreement announced in time for US Airways to market the flying, train the crews, and staff the expanded operation in time for the summer 2005 travel season.

Stop the obsession and think for a second:

UA's birds are the oldest flying, with differing powerplants from what US flies (and, in some cases I believe, different powerplants than any other 762 operator). Presumably, there are some flight deck differences with the US birds as well.

Bronner will cost the company far more in operational expenditure than he will ever recoup on the paper costs. Besides which, if the birds go to US, it's like Bronner paying rent to himself.

By your theory, US should still be flying the F-100 fleet--after all, they filled a niche (90-100 seat bird) that US needs to fill, they cost a ton to maintain, and Bronner had the paper. Note that US is not flying F-100s anymore.

There are also indications out of UA that many of these birds have not been on overseas duties for some time. I'm assuming that UA has been maintaining them to ETOPS standards--if not, there is another capital expense with these birds.

A 11th grade student taking high school economics or management would see that the operational expense of operating these aging beasts far outweighs any PL offset that Bronner might reap by deploying them at US. This makes the humble assumption that Bronner and those advocating he place these jets at US understand economics and management at an 11th grade level--questionable.

 

[AOG-N-IT]

If the 279 Fleet figure remains in place?...and U does take delivery of UA's B767's?....I see a tough row to hoe ahead.

Per Chips musings....Seigel desires added international lift out of and into PHL....OK that makes sense in itself , however if we do not bolster our domestic operations by methods other than more and more RJ Flying , we will in fact have a hard time filling those seats to the projected addition in European destinations.

Now , we look into the mouth of the lion regarding WN cutting into our domestic operations in PHL itself....I highly doubt that WN's goal is to become a domestic feed for our international service at this point...or any point in this lifetime. I believe as most do , that WN is coming to rip our guts out period.

The crux of the matter becomes a repeat of history....without a sound , viable and profitable domestic operation to feed this increased international desires...We will assuridly die from within. The lessons of Pan Am's failure should serve as a warning to all involved.

 

[WorldTraveler]

While it may be true that UA's 762's may get placed at US whether it makes sense or not in order to protect RSA's investment, going into deep S. America would be a risky venture. Although UA is now 4th of 4 US carriers in Latin market position behind AA, CO, and DL, all three of those carriers have the capability to defend their market position. Further, DL has a very similar east coast route network to US and has not expanded in Latin America for several years, indicating that the profit potential is probably not there right now. If US were to expand into deep Latin America, PHL makes more sense for basing the flights than CLT - which is much smaller and has a much smaller Latin business and leisure base. Even from PHL, US will have to compete against AA at JFK and CO at EWR.

It is hard to see US' employees get so raked over the coals and I'm sure many of you would like an end to the last many years of uncertainty. I'm betting US' salvation will come from Ft. Worth in the form of an AA acquisition rather than from UA. Although AA is not flush w/ cash right now, they recognize that the east coast is one of their few deficiencies. While they would probably rather not attempt a merger so soon after the TWA debacle, they will do it if it makes sense. American Eagle is probably worth a couple billion dollars, enough to finance a US acquisition and transition. You'll also remember that they expressed interest in acquiring US back before US and United tried to link up. UAL will be in no position to counter an AMR acquisition if one is launched.

US still has very valuable market positions and will be sought after whether as an independent airline or through a merger. The other merger possibilities for US include NW if it is willing to give up its relationship w/ CO or a European airline.

Bottom line...I'm more likely to bet on US' hubs getting service to S. America as part of AA than independently or with UA.

 

[USA320Pilot]

Cosmo:

Cosmo asked: "If US Airways does get these B767-200s, do you see them as being added to the current fleet total of 279 aircraft, since they would be doing new flying for the carrier, or would they simply replace other aircraft (presumably B737s) to maintain the 279 number?"

Chip answers: Good question. A few months ago I would have said if US Airways obtains used B767s they would have replaced B737s to keep the fleet count at 279, but recently there have been two changes to the evolving business plan.

If US Airways does not win its A320 heavy maintenance outsourcing appeal -- now expected to be heard after January 1 -- then the B767s could replace A320 aircraft.

In addition, the ALPA modified restructuring agreement states the company must fly a minimum number of annual block hours of 939,900, which equals 10.01 hours per day per aircraft. At the recent Smith Barney Transportation Conference Dave Siegel told analysts the company will increase mainline ASMs by 3 percent in 2004, but there have been hints the block hour number could dramatically grow if there are across-the-board productivity improvements. The intent is to derive more revenue from the same number of aircraft and personnel, to lower unit costs to fight the LCC's.

Even though this may seem strange, in my opinion, the greater the productivity gains, the more incentive the company will have to expand the minimum fleet count because the airline could further drive down unit costs to return to profitability.

Regards,

Chip

 

[767jetz]

Dave Siegel told ATW that he would like to serve 20 European destinations from Philadelphia and once things stabilize, there is reason to believe the United B767-200s will be transferred to US Airways. In my opinion, we could see an agreement announced in time for US Airways to market the flying, train the crews, and staff the expanded operation in time for the summer 2005 travel season.

Regards,

Chip

Well, well, well...

Another prediction that hasn't come true.

Hmmmmmm...

Here's a news flash for you:

"UAL Corp., the parent of United Airlines, reached a deal to sell 16 Boeing 767-222 aircraft and five spare engines to the Air Transport Group Inc. for $32 million, according to a papers filed in bankruptcy court."

IMO just another example of how often your endless speculation and "reliable sources" are wrong.

 

[usfliboi]

Dave Siegel told ATW that he would like to serve 20 European destinations from Philadelphia and once things stabilize, there is reason to believe the United B767-200s will be transferred to US Airways. In my opinion, we could see an agreement announced in time for US Airways to market the flying, train the crews, and staff the expanded operation in time for the summer 2005 travel season.

Regards,

Chip

Well, well, well...

Another prediction that hasn't come true.

Hmmmmmm...

Here's a news flash for you:

"UAL Corp., the parent of United Airlines, reached a deal to sell 16 Boeing 767-222 aircraft and five spare engines to the Air Transport Group Inc. for $32 million, according to a papers filed in bankruptcy court."

IMO just another example of how often your endless speculation and "reliable sources" are wrong.

Three hold pages and yours is the first negative ! Well it was a good run!!!!! Anyone know what aircraft Usairways has up for sale? I notice speednews showed Usairwasy leasing has aircraft up for sale, but didnt see which ones. Were these the express planes?