4 United planes repossessed

Those 762s are showing as exported to the UK, but still nto on the Uk register. Usually its an instantaneous thing.

4 United planes repossessed

United was forced to return four Boeing 767 jets after it couldn’t reach a new rental deal with the planes’ leasing companies. That move that is forcing the airline to scrap its Chicago-Buenos Aires service as of June 6, though United will still service the Argentine capital from its hub at Washington Dulles, the Chicago Tribune (free registration) reports. United says no domestic routes will be affected. But, four other jets remain at risk of being returned if United can’t reach new deals on those as well. The repossession of the first four jets comes after a May ruling by the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous court order that prevented lessors from taking back 14 of United’s 460 airplanes. The new ruling says the planes can be repossessed unless United made its rental payments in full. In response, United rejected the leases on six of those planes, leaving eight up for possible repossession.

What is the feasibility of UA pulling some of the 762’s they just retired, out of retirement, to replace the 763’s that were repossesed? I’m assuming they own said 762’s, and they can replace a few 763’s on domestic services, so those 763’s can be put on intl service where the void was from the repoe’d a/c, and they don’t have to cancel any routes. How feasible is this?

The 762s were not RVSM equipped / capable, which is an expensive avionics upgrade and this resulted in their demise as much as anything else.

Interestingly, a number of the ex-UA 762s were “registered” to a UK address recently – given the rumours about DHL Europe looking for 762Fs to replace their increasingly aged A300Fs, I wonder whether this is a prelude to them being converted to freighters (in which context an RVSM upgrade would make sense)… eg:

N601UA
Aircraft Description
Serial Number 21862 Type Registration Individual
Manufacturer Name BOEING Certificate Issue Date None
Model 767-222 Mode S Code 51746271
Year Manufacturer 1983 Cancel Date None
Reason for Cancellation Exported Exported To UNITED KINGDOM
————————————————————————–
Aircraft Registration prior to Deregistration

Name SALE REPORTED
Street 28 CASTLE BAR PARK SUITE 2 EALING
City LONDON State None Zip Code W5 1B-U
Country UNITED KINGDOM

Andy

Well theyre not going to make a really expensive colour scheme the way they are going are they? Same with Air Canada, their new scheme is to save money rather than look stunning.

why not in the new colours, which incidentaly are about 40$ cheaper than the old colours 😉

Just as well its cheaper then 🙂

Interesting that they can repaint them but not pay for them…….

When a plane come out of heavy maintenance, it needs repainting.
Usualy after C and D checks. As part opf the maintenance requires the paint to be stripped off to check for cracks.

So, they would have been painted as they came out of maintenance…. so why not in the new colours, which incidentaly are about 30-40% cheaper than the old colours 😉

I know also that Hawaiian hav 2 or 3, Ansett have 2 or 3 . Also I think TWA (or some airline like that) have most of their defunct 767 fleet at Mojave.

Those AA 762’s appear to be in outstanding condition. On a similar note, I don’t know if this has been mentioned before. What is the feasibility of UA pulling some of the 762’s they just retired, out of retirement, to replace the 763’s that were repossesed? I’m assuming they own said 762’s, and they can replace a few 763’s on domestic services, so those 763’s can be put on intl service where the void was from the repoe’d a/c, and they don’t have to cancel any routes. How feasible is this?

how many workable/livable/flyable/reasonably good 767 are sitting around in the desert…*light bulb* kc-767+e-10 *light bulb*

I know that American has some parked up at Roswell New Mexico

how many workable/livable/flyable/reasonably good 767 are sitting around in the desert…*light bulb* kc-767+e-10 *light bulb*

The thing is though, many 767’s may be sitting in the desert but would they still be airworthy after sitting in a desert for 2-3 years? The paint may strip off in the heat anyway.

The average humidity is only about 8 per cent, the windows are sealed and the engines are filled with a pickling oil to preserve the engine seals

Add their cost savings from renegotiating with their union to their posted quarterly losses and UA is still WAY under from breaking even, not even close.

They are STILL in chapter 11 (with no hope to leave anytime soon) and their cash reserves are STILL appaling.

I still have hope. They reached agreements with their remaining 2 unions on June 1st, so they now have agreements on restructuring with all 6 of their unions. Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

I do not think that many leasing companies will want to lease to UA.

I would think that they would rather have them in employment than not! They could have some deal whereby if not paid daily/weekly or whatever,then they are repossessed.

In response to an earlier comment,it would up to the leasing company to make them airworthy ready for any lease.

true. Good point. However:

A further 4 aircraft may also be repossessed in the near future if United cannot renegotiate the terms of these aircraft aswell

This quote suggests that United aren’t keeping up as it seems to pointing the finger a lot at United.

Not necessarily. UA may be paying it’s planes right now. Problem for UA is that the lease will expire. Then a new lease will have to be set up. This will likely be more expensive since planes are in more demand then when the lease was set up.

You would think that it would be easy to source replacements from aircraft stored in the desert,and there must be still quite a few, I would think.

I do not think that many leasing companies will want to lease to UA. Not at favourable rates anyway. The risk for the lessors that UA does not pay for one reason or another is rather large. Remember, they are STILL loosing money fast. They are STILL in chapter 11 (with no hope to leave anytime soon) and their cash reserves are STILL appaling.

Leasing companies will prefer leasing to more stable airlines that make money and/or are backed by rich people. For instance Emirates, Singapore Airlines, Vietnam Airways, BA, AF, KL.

Come to think of it. Since they are in C11 I am not even convinced they are ALLOWED something like that. Paying of their current creditors (long list!) goes ahead of making new creditors!

Short answer, Airline owner – “yes”.

Although the temperature is high, it’s pretty constant all the year round and rainfall and humidity are very low indeed As a result, the chances of environmental damage to the aircraft and their systems are slim indeed.

Or did you think that most airliner “parking lots” were in the desert by accident? 🙂

The thing is though, many 767’s may be sitting in the desert but would they still be airworthy after sitting in a desert for 2-3 years? The paint may strip off in the heat anyway.

You would think that it would be easy to source replacements from aircraft stored in the desert,and there must be still quite a few, I would think. OK,they would have the expense of painting them,but you would think that they could get a good deal. Perhaps the routes weren’t doing great anyway?

true. Good point. However:

” A further 4 aircraft may also be repossessed in the near future if United cannot renegotiate the terms of these aircraft aswell “

This quote suggests that United aren’t keeping up as it seems to pointing the finger a lot at United. I know United are paying and the planes are at the end of their lease but what I’m saying is that United must be really gutted to have to drop routes to compensate for not being able to source extra planes.
I know a lot of people will see the word repossessed and immediatelt think that the airline haven’t been keeping up.

The normally accepted meaning of REPOSSESSED is that payments have not been made according to a contract,and the owner snatches them back. This is NOT the case here.