This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Dismiss
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from FlightAware.com. We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Dismiss
Back to Squawk list
  • 23

United Continues to Evaluate 100-Seat Mainline Aircraft

Submitted
United Airlines continues to evaluate adding a 100-seat aircraft to its mainline fleet, less than a year after it cited the aircraft category's poor economics for the conversion of its Boeing 737-700 order to larger variants. (www.flightglobal.com) More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


canuck44
canuck44 7
Wouldn't it be ironic if United orders the C-Series that Boeing claimed forced them to provide huge discounts to get the contract with United for the 737-700's that United ended up trading up for the most part.
golson33
Gary Olson 1
Sorry - You all have it wrong! United is planning on cramming 100 seats onboard an ATR-42 aircraft.
zuberiom
omari zuberi 1
Hahaha that's a good joke
iflyrjs
blame that on scope pffft
pilot62
I would rather see the C-Series, or ER-190 / even the ER-175 is more comfortable then the 700,800, or 900 - The 737-10 will be a nightmare & I'll avoid it as much as the other 37's
bartmiller
bartmiller 3
You shouldn't blame the aircraft. It is the airline that decides the seat type, pitch, and width.
patpylot
patrick baker 1
what part of delta's analysis of the c series for their network does not work in the calculus for united air lines?
drdisque
Ben Deneweth 3
Delta took the C-series to be allowed scope relief to have more 76 seaters as they don't see a place for 50-seaters at their ATL megahub (they think everything connected to ATL should be able to support a 76 seater).

The calculus is different for United as they still like the economics of the 50 seater out of most of their hubs (the only hub they're really trying to get 50 seaters out of is SFO, and that's due to space constraints). So they're less desperate to trade 50 seaters for 76 seaters.

Additionally, Delta has 3 fortress hubs where they can use 100 seat aircraft really effectively to force yields high on mid-range routes.

United has no real fortress hub (their closest one is Houston). They need to compete on mainline routes and the best way to compete on those routes is by keeping their CASM low and the best way to keep CASM low is SEATS - thus the high number of 737-900's in their fleet and 737-MAX10's on order.
paulgilpin1953
paul gilpin 1
regarding your united hub comment.
i thought united owned denver's airport.
that's a question, not a comment.
mikeosmers
That was true quite a long time ago when legacy UAL forced out (ironically) legacy CAL and became the vast majority player. Things didn't turn out so well over the years not In the least because of fee and taxation issues levied by Denver for use of the airport to the extent (I am told so count this as rumor) that spare parts installed from on site stores are taxed... which resulted in a storage facility being built just across the county line (with the resulting 40 minute lag time for transport) to escape the additional costs...
patpylot
patrick baker 0
united may like the 50 seater, but the market does not support 50 seaters anymore. The fare structure , the costs, all speak against this once useful aircraft. Plus, these are older now, the fixed costs of maintaining them has risen, but not the fares. will these aircraft become freighters, kind of like when fed ex first cranked up- little jets ?.
gerardogodoy
gerardo godoy -2
When will they start evaluating hitting the passengers?? Us Airlines are a disgrace to aviation

Login

Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!