UA To Remove All 757-200s by 2015 ...

United Airlines plans to remove all seventy-three of its B757-200s and replace them with B737-900(ER)s over the next two and a half years airline. However, it has been speculated that with the rate of 757-200 retirements set to outstrip the number of 737-900(ER)s arriving (forty-eight) over that period, United may be forced to lease in extra aircraft to cover the shortfall; a move which would contradict CFO Rainey's claims that United "plans to keep the carrier's overall fleet count roughly flat over [...]the next five years". United has seventy-three B757-200s, fifty-five winglet equipped B757-200s and twenty-one B757-300s in its fleet and firm orders for eighty-eight B737-900(ER)s.

For what it's worth, the 737-900 has 167 (20/135) seats, while the 757-200 has 182 (24/158). Obviously the loss of those 15 seats can hurt if you're the first nonrev in line to *not* get on a flight, but it's still better than some of the older 737s. Also, those 757-300s that are coming in from the merger? Those hold 213 people (24/189). Not too bad.

I like those 757's. Straight up airplane. Very simple to troubleshoot. I've had very little issues with a 757 maintenance speaking wise. The EICAS system in conjunction with the FIM is simple to follow. No fancy overengineered garbage. But the New Gens are not bad airplanes themselves. Boeing WAS great until they came up with the 787. I wish we could deep six those airplanes and keep our 757's. At least they stay flying instead of on the ground idle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 29palms

I like those 757's. Straight up airplane. Very simple to troubleshoot. I've had very little issues with a 757 maintenance speaking wise. The EICAS system in conjunction with the FIM is simple to follow. No fancy overengineered garbage. But the New Gens are not bad airplanes themselves. Boeing WAS great until they came up with the 787. I wish we could deep six those airplanes and keep our 757's. At least they stay flying instead of on the ground idle.

---

<Interesting perspective 29 from a maintainance point of view. At the most recent Paris air show, most carriers jumped on the A350 to purchase, the comparable aircraft to the 787.

Then again, it's Paris. I'm sure if it were Seattle, there would be a difference. That, and I'm also guessing they had plans on getting those planes for quite some time, not just because of one demo :)

I bet the A350 has far less issues than the 787. I think it will eventually be proven to be a misfortunate business decision to aquire so many of those. From what I see thus far, I'd rather go with those Airbuses. I see what you mean about "Home cookin" inasfar as favoritism for types of airplanes. Can we say JOBS??? Lots of jobs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 29palms

I bet the A350 has far less issues than the 787. I think it will eventually be proven to be a misfortunate business decision to aquire so many of those. From what I see thus far, I'd rather go with those Airbuses. I see what you mean about "Home cookin" inasfar as favoritism for types of airplanes. Can we say JOBS??? Lots of jobs?

---

I agree with you 29. Issue free for now.

From a dispatching point of view, the 757 has been my favorite aircraft, performance-wise. We could launch 225 psgrs in a 757 out of MDW (short rwys) all the way to CUN/CZM with no weight penalties until we hit +95 degrees F.