From: kls@ohare.Chicago.COM (Karl Swartz)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation
Subject: Re: United drops 737-400 in favor of A-320
Date: 28 Jul 92 09:45:03 GMT
Organization: Chicago Software Works

In article <1992Jul9.170538.25541@leland.Stanford.EDU> spagiola@leland.stanford.edu writes:
>Karl Swartz writes
>> In addition to financing, the A-320 was apparently appealing due to
>> a slightly higher seating capacity (150 vs 143) and longer range
>> plus higher speed.  Power to handle a full-load takeoff from Denver
>> and Mexico City as well as other hot-and-high airports also favored
>> the A-320.

>From what I hear from UAL friends, the speed/range issue was crucial;  
>737-400s (or the proposed stretched -600) would be very slow on the  
>fairly long sectors that UAL wants to use these birds on.

Range I can see, but was speed really *that* much of an issue?

One thing that's a bit odd is that all the talk at Boeing seemed to
revolve around a rather massively modified 737.  What about a smaller
757?  It's certainly a more expensive starting point, but given the
enormity of the necessary modifications to the 737 to meet all the
requirements it's not clear (to me) that a 757 derivation would have
been more expensive.

It's interesting to look back on the launch of the 757 in light of
the United A320 deal.  Boeing *should* have built an aircraft in the
150 - 155 seat range, a direct replacement for the 727-200.  This was
the original plan for the 757, but British Airways wanted 180 seats,
for reasons that didn't seem to be clear to anybody else.  Primarily
for political reasons (keeping the Brits out of Airbus and Airbous out
of BA) Boeing badly wanted the BA order for the 757, and persuaded the
other launch customer, Eastern, into accepting the larger aircraft.

Besides failing to address the market which the 757 should have been
built for, and leaving a huge gap right at the most lucrative part of
the market, Boeing also created an aircraft that was quite similar in
capability to the concurrently launched 767.  It's interesting to note
that most 767 orders these days are for the larger -300 variant, where
the 757 isn't a competitor.

Of course the 757, after a very slow start, has become a very popular
aircraft, with enormous fleets in place or abuilding at all three of
the largest US carriers, and many smaller customers too.  But it would
be interesting to see what would have happened had Boeing built that
150 seat aircraft, either as the 757 or as yet another variant of the
737 or 757.

>> Interestingly, United chose the IAE V2500 engine over the CFM-56 for
>> their A-320s.  Given the number of CFM-56s United has in service one
>> would have expected them to equip their A-320s with this engine,
>> though using that logic they wouldn't have selected the A-320 at all.

>When you're getting 50, perhaps 100 of a model, you're pretty much  
>using up the available economies of scale.  Then financing and even  
>minor performance issues become much more important.

True, but United's engine choices for their 757s as well as their
newer 747s and 767s have tended to be very conservative.  Indeed,
United has traditionally been very conservative in equipment choice,
much more so than the other major US carriers.  Looking at the engine
choices for recent fleet additions it seems that American and Delta
both are much more willing to embrace change than United.

-- 
Karl Swartz		|INet	kls@ditka.chicago.com
1-415/854-3409		|UUCP	uunet!decwrl!ditka!kls
			|Snail	2144 Sand Hill Rd., Menlo Park CA 94025
"YOU try supporting 80 users on a steam-powered abacus!" (Alan Kaplan)