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.