26 Responses

  1. Nikolay Klimchuk
    Nikolay Klimchuk at |

    United is not interested in carrying more passengers. They can easily sell more expensive tickets on less seats to get same income.
    As a United economy passenger I would rather see transatlantic 757 retired and replaced with 767/787. 737 is not good enough even for EWR-LAX leg so 757 retirement will make me Virgin customer instead.

  2. Brian B (@brianyyz)
    Brian B (@brianyyz) at |

    I wonder how much of this can be covered by an increase of block time on the 737s…

  3. Sam
    Sam at |

    I agree with Nikolay. I mostly fly Delta but have flown the Bos-SFO route on United on a 737, and it was not a comfortable flight. My wife has to take the same flight about once a quarter and she is just miserable when she gets off the plane. At least the 757 has some good seats in economy, that if you can pick them, make for a more reasonalbe cross country flight, in terms of comfort. Just my two cents.

    Thanks

  4. Nick
    Nick at |

    What happens with PS flights, replaced by standard config 737-900? How many intl config 757-200’s are there?

  5. Carl
    Carl at |

    Sorry to see them go. 24 F seats, mid-cabin lav, door 2 boarding were all nice features. But unless UA is ramping up deliveries, or redeploying some of the TATL 752’s, it does imply further domestic capacity reductions

  6. Gene
    Gene at |

    Very sad. The 757-200 is my favorite domestic aircraft.

  7. Nikolay Klimchuk
    Nikolay Klimchuk at |

    There was a good article couple years ago that shows struggle behind 737 vs 757 vs 320 choices: http://leehamnews.wordpress.com/2011/05/05/making-a-silk-purse-out-of-a-sows-ear-the-737-900er/

  8. Golfingboy
    Golfingboy at |

    I don’t really get UA’s logic with replacing many mainline aircraft with regionals… Keep in mind UA has stated they are going to start retiring the older Airbuses in the near future, so we are looking at a massive reduction in capacity [IMO a few percentage points is massive]. Delta is replacing regionals with mainline birds [MD 90s and 717s], what is DL seeing that UA is not seeing?

    I will say, if UA thinks instead of having 180 seats with 70% of the customers on deeply discounted fares [S fare and below] with 30% higher yield customers and yielding a profit margin of XX for a given flight. Let’s put a 70 seater on that route and the % of cheap-o fare customers will shrink to 30% while sustaining roughly the same number of higher yielding customers, therefore we will see a much healither profit margin for that same flight. If that is their train of thought, I just want to say, it is not linear. Business travelers who are not price sensitive do, and will, book away from UA based on equipment [sub-standard service, prone to cancellations, lower level of comfort, etc.].

    I used to enjoy regionals, but when I have found myself on those birds on longer trips, the stark contrast in the traveling experience is an eye-opener for me. Too many 3+ hour flights on RJs this year.

    1. wish it was still contintental
      wish it was still contintental at |

      Totally agree with you…did 160 PQS this past year out of EWR…90 percent of my time is spent in the A concourse on those darn RJ’s…i’ve heard from my next door neighbor is that UA is trying to run them into the ground as they are accruing a TON of time on them. I guess its good that they’re trying to get rid of them; however, you and I both know you “rock in roll” in those with sub standard service. Routes like Newark to TUL, OKC, MSY, and JAX should never be on an RJ. I commute weekly out of CLT, we used to have a 737 500 on the route with a full first meal…obviously that went away, replaced by a 145..while US Air up’d their fleet to EWR with A321’s and A320’s….not saying US air is smart, but UA route and fleet management are really messing up.

  9. Mark
    Mark at |

    Already seeing 739s making a lot of the west coast-Hawaii runs, especially KOA. It really is odd for me. When I grew up it was only wide-bodies to Hawaii (minimum a DC10) as there was no such thing as ETOPS at that time.

  10. Andrew C
    Andrew C at |

    FWIW, differences in savings likely due to ownership costs… I’m guessing these brand new 739ER birds command just a bit larger lease payments

  11. Carl
    Carl at |

    I totally agree with Golfingboy that UA is deluded if they think they are going to pick up much of the high yield traffic on routes where they operate RJs and the competition operates mainline.

    It’s not that I think the 70 and 76 seat RJs are uncomfortable. The newer e-Jets are comfortable, and even the UA configuration of the CR7 is OK (I dislike the AS version)… But the operational reliabilty sucks. And the customer treatment sucks (posted as ontime when the planned aircraft isn’t even expected to touch down by departure time, awful gate areas, etc.)

    So other than people pushing to make their elite level, only a few are going to choose a UA RJ if VX or AS or WN or B6 or DL are offering mainline on the same route, and only UA’s elites might be captive. But the math that says there are only 30 high fare customers and we can put them on an RJ doesn’t work if those 30 high fare customers go elsewhere. With the poor operational reliability, who wants to take an inbound RJ to connect to an international flight? Esp. if you must get there.

    The RJs need to be primarily on routes where there is only RJ service

  12. Ryan E
    Ryan E at |

    What will they eventually replace the TATL 752s with?

  13. Carl
    Carl at |

    There is no good replacement for the 752 in the TATL market. That may well be where the best, youngest 752’s remain. Otherwise, you need to use a widebody aircraft

  14. Greg
    Greg at |

    Are these just the legacy United 757-200s being retired, or are the legacy Continental 757-200s that are used domestically being retired too? Or are the legacy CO 752s all on transatlantic now?

  15. Papa Smurf
    Papa Smurf at |

    I believe the poster above was referring to the PMCO domestic 753. How do these fit into the picture? Are these newer than PMUA 752?

  16. Matthew
    Matthew at |

    Really good analysis here Seth. I too wonder how the numbers will add up in term of capacity.

  17. Blake Keithley
    Blake Keithley at |

    752 may cost $1300 dollars more to operate but if its paid for then it starts off the lease/purchase payment advantage. Additionally if there is an advantage in route utility such as being able to sub for a transatlantic or transcon wide body or increased payload off shorter runways or noise abated departures. Factor in these and you get a closer true cost. Lets say utilization is 350 hours a month and the lease payment is $375k dollars a month. That’s $1071 hr and now the only difference is $229 dollars an hour. If the 757 cost less per hour in maintenance now the 900 is more expensive if 757 carries an extra 100 revenue passengers then that’s an adjustment. Its more complex than just fuel burn.

  18. wish it was still contintental
    wish it was still contintental at |

    Take a look at late January routes from EWR to SEA…changing equipment from 737 to 757-200…that is going to tick some guys off, especially with Delta increasing their SEA TAC presence…they have recently added lie flat flights from JFK to SEA. For a 6 hour flight from the Tri-State to SEA; let’s see, on a UA 757 i’ll get channel 8 for live ATC or a lie flat seat, with tv and wifi on Delta…not a hard decision..good job by United management once again pushing customers away from your product…