United goes for Boeing

[screech]

Not sure if this has been posted yet but its official. United has Chosen Boeing for their narrowbody replacement. 100 737-NG and MAX. options for 100 more.

Nice work United.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/361067/20120709/boeing-airbus-737-max-a320-neo-farnborough.htm

 

[johnsonrod]

Oh no! A lot of those former UAL Airbus pilots will have to learn how to fly again! Joking...:laugh:

Let's hope the former CAL guys don't request the simulated analog on their PFDs on the 737 MAX... Why do they still use the old analog version when even SWA converted from that to the standard PFD with speed and altitude tapes? Seriously, why stay with the analog version on the current 737NG fleet?

 

["TheBigPicture"]

Seriously, why stay with the analog version on the current 737NG fleet?

Do you really have to a$$$$$k??

 

[olympus593]

Great who doesn t want to be in a 73 (pilot or pax) on a trancon...so comfy...

 

[wings421]

Great who doesn t want to be in a 73 (pilot or pax) on a trancon...so comfy...

No kidding. I just came to the 737 from the 757/767. Man, I think this thing was made for pilots 5 feet or shorter. Short hops would be ok but 6 + in a 737 is pushing things a bit.

I miss the 757...

 

[GogglesPisano]

2 guys in a phone booth in a hurricane doing what 3 guys used to do in a 727.

 

[igneousy2]

Do you really have to a$$$$$k??

the "dials-on-glass" option actually costs more money...and does not save any time on training.

 

[johnsonrod]

Do you really have to a$$$$$k??

Why not? Why keep the older simulated analog on the PFD? Simple question. Southwest converted to the standard PFD on the 700/800s and yet they continue to operate old a$$ 300s/500s with zero glass. So, why do the CAL guys keep the analog versions?

Not trying to be an a$$. Just a simple question and always curious about it but never asked. So, what is the rationale for keeping it? Anyone know?

 

[SkeWest]

Not trying to be an a$$. Just a simple question and always curious about it but never asked. So, what is the rationale for keeping it? Anyone know?[/QUOTE]

The CAL "guys" aren't keeping anything. Management is. It's purely about money and the Feds.

 

["TheBigPicture"]

I wasn't inferring that anyone was being an azz, just that it has to do with the $$$. Apparently no one got the pun.

 

[johnsonrod]

Whoops - now I do. I guess I see how making the switch can cost money and require additional training, etc. I guess UAL has a few years until the MAX arrives anyway to make the eventual switch.

Just wondering if there was a specific reason for retaining it given that SWA made the switch and the pilots I talk to there seem to prefer the standard PFD. Oh well - I guess Management and the accountants know best...

 

[fam62c]

Now they will probably put in an order for busses as well because for some reason these airlines have a desire to have multiple aircraft types that do the same thing. We never talk about how much this costs but it costs a lot in unnecessary duplication and inefficiency.

 

[Andy]

Oh no! A lot of those former UAL Airbus pilots will have to learn how to fly again! Joking...:laugh:

Let's hope the former CAL guys don't request the simulated analog on their PFDs on the 737 MAX... Why do they still use the old analog version when even SWA converted from that to the standard PFD with speed and altitude tapes? Seriously, why stay with the analog version on the current 737NG fleet?

I prefer fifi over the guppy; it's a much better cockpit design. And I've got no issues with the way it flies.

As for the analog on glass, CAL went with that long ago to allow all guppy pilots to fly with one certificate. They've been looking at going to the standard PFD but Boeing wants additional money to convert them over plus there will need to be some aircrew training.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the conversion to standard PFDs after all 500s are gone .... not that 500s are the issue but at that point, all guppies will be NGs.

Bottom line is that TheBigPicture was spot on when he said it costs $.

 

[eaglesview]

Forget the fake glass, how about the 1960's designed overhead panal! The NG's have the same panel as the 200 I used to fly. The 737 is fine for management, they don't fly them nor do they giva a crap about those that do. The shame is on Boeing. They allow airlines to dictate to them what the design will be. The yoke in the 777 is a perfect example, put there at the request of senior UAL types. They handcuff themselves by not being willing to let their engineers/designers do there job.

 

[igneousy2]

Forget the fake glass, how about the 1960's designed overhead panal! The NG's have the same panel as the 200 I used to fly. The 737 is fine for management, they don't fly them nor do they giva a crap about those that do. The shame is on Boeing. They allow airlines to dictate to them what the design will be. The yoke in the 777 is a perfect example, put there at the request of senior UAL types. They handcuff themselves by not being willing to let their engineers/designers do there job.

Boeing is just giving the customers what they want....incremental growth with minimal investment.

The shame here is on the FAA. How a -200 and a -900ER is allowed to be the same type is beyond me.

 

[luckytohaveajob]

$9 Billion order yet not pilot contract.

The new pitch is going to be you can all upgrade and we will take the planes if the pilots pay for them and give management another bonus.

 

[Homer Jay]

$9 Billion order yet not pilot contract.

The new pitch is going to be you can all upgrade and we will take the planes if the pilots pay for them and give management another bonus.

That won't fly. They're replacement aircraft and even if they weren't, FUPM!!!!

 

[TWA Dude]

The shame here is on the FAA. How a -200 and a -900ER is allowed to be the same type is beyond me.

DC9, MD80, B717. All common type. At least the FAA is consistent.

 

[Ex737Driver]

I prefer fifi over the guppy; it's a much better cockpit design. And I've got no issues with the way it flies.

As for the analog on glass, CAL went with that long ago to allow all guppy pilots to fly with one certificate. They've been looking at going to the standard PFD but Boeing wants additional money to convert them over plus there will need to be some aircrew training.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the conversion to standard PFDs after all 500s are gone .... not that 500s are the issue but at that point, all guppies will be NGs.

Bottom line is that TheBigPicture was spot on when he said it costs $.

And the 767 is better than the bus and the 777 is better than the 767 and the 747 is better than the yadda, yadda, yadda. Who cares? The bus is a POS that cant make the west coast in the winter. The 75 is worthless over the pond. The 76 is a pig when full. The 777 makes you lose your flying skills. My johnson is bigger than yours. Ok, that's true.

 

[tie1on]

miracle lure part 2, remember the 787. no contract anywhere to be seen. the ultimate meltdown is about to happen, bad management decisions will bring the company to its knee's.

this place wil fail within 5 years by the idiots who run UNITED HOLDING COMPANY

 

[texman]

It will have a similar set up as the 787 with push button overhead. Still same type. No system change.

 

[IAHERJ]

I would look for another aircraft order later this year. This will be the widebody order and quite possibly an airbus order.

 

[Andy]

I would look for another aircraft order later this year. This will be the widebody order and quite possibly an airbus order.

I'd prefer to see a small guage narrowbody order. The 737 order is for 737-900s and Max 9s. If they're going to order 737s, I'd like to see some 737-600s ordered. If Airbus, then A-319s.

This order leaves a huge gap allowing for scope creep above 100 seats.

 

[Flyer1015]

Just in terms of comfort and noise, both in the back (cabin) and up front (flight deck), I'd take an A320 over a B737NG anyday.

 

[dicko]

It will have a similar set up as the 787 with push button overhead. Still same type. No system change.

Tex,

Where'd you hear that ? Any chance that they'll fix the slow death by heat, cold, noise and Fans' ?

 

[eaglesview]

Any chance they will come into the 21st century and allow engine starts without manually turning on and off packs. How about a temp control system that actually works. The inward swinging cargo doors have always been a problem for cargo...they never fixed that. (that's why they are going to take UAL airbus' south out of Houston) I am sure there are things the 737 will excell in but these things should have been fixed long ago.

 

[igneousy2]

I'd prefer to see a small guage narrowbody order. The 737 order is for 737-900s and Max 9s. If they're going to order 737s, I'd like to see some 737-600s ordered. If Airbus, then A-319s.

This order leaves a huge gap allowing for scope creep above 100 seats.

The numbers aren't that great for 737-700's unless you run them single class (i.e. SWA) the 600 is even worse which is why hardly anyone has purchased the 737-600 and no domestic carriers have.

A 737-700 and a 737-800 have very similar operating cost. One power-point slide I was shown had the operating cost of a 700 and 800 within a few hundred dollars of each other on the same 1,000 mile segment with the 700 having 30 less seats. So unless you use the specific stregnths of the 600/700 (slightly shorter fields, and slightly longer range) I don't think the short 737's work very well (relatively speaking).

 

[Ex737Driver]

The numbers aren't that great for 737-700's unless you run them single class (i.e. SWA) the 600 is even worse which is why hardly anyone has purchased the 737-600 and no domestic carriers have.

A 737-700 and a 737-800 have very similar operating cost. One power-point slide I was shown had the operating cost of a 700 and 800 within a few hundred dollars of each other on the same 1,000 mile segment with the 700 having 30 less seats. So unless you use the specific stregnths of the 600/700 (slightly shorter fields, and slightly longer range) I don't think the short 737's work very well (relatively speaking).

-700 will make it SNA-EWR with 124 paxs, full bags, and gas. Can't do that with a -800 or a -900ER.

 

[Andy]

The numbers aren't that great for 737-700's unless you run them single class (i.e. SWA) the 600 is even worse which is why hardly anyone has purchased the 737-600 and no domestic carriers have.

A 737-700 and a 737-800 have very similar operating cost. One power-point slide I was shown had the operating cost of a 700 and 800 within a few hundred dollars of each other on the same 1,000 mile segment with the 700 having 30 less seats. So unless you use the specific stregnths of the 600/700 (slightly shorter fields, and slightly longer range) I don't think the short 737's work very well (relatively speaking).

That's a comparison between 737s. How about a comparison of the -600 vs LarJs (large RJs)? CASM, range, cargo capacity, any other pertinent stats.

My concern is that an order of only 737-900s and Max 9s leaves a huge aircraft guage gap between those airframes and 70 seat RJs. This kind of order leaves the door open for 100+ seat RJ flying being farmed out to the regional carriers.

 

[catIIIc]

Only if we let them.