Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3698860/

Topic: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: AS739X
Posted 2007-11-11 12:42:28 and read 3676 times.

When did United upgrade KIX (885) to a 747-400?

ASSFO

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Buzz100ca
Posted 2007-11-11 12:46:46 and read 3663 times.

Looks like the switch from a 772 to the 744 occurred on October 27th.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: B747forever
Posted 2007-11-11 12:51:40 and read 3650 times.

Quoting Buzz100ca (Reply 1):
Looks like the switch from a 772 to the 744 occurred on October 27th.

Did they change to the 744 due to bigger demand???

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Stitch
Posted 2007-11-11 12:54:36 and read 3631 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 2):
Did they change to the 744 due to bigger demand?

I can only guess so since KIX's landing fees are pretty high, so moving to a 744 is going to be more expensive to operate outside of flight crew costs.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: B747forever
Posted 2007-11-11 12:56:44 and read 3623 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):

But if it expensive to operate the 744 it doesn't make any sense to change to it.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Bicoastal
Posted 2007-11-11 13:05:03 and read 3593 times.

Didn't UA axe the ORD-KIX and HNL-KIX routes? If so, maybe the demand on the one remaining KIX route, SFO, requires the extra lift and cargo capacity?? Or maybe this is temporary as UA installs its long awaited First and Business class seats in various aircraft.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Stitch
Posted 2007-11-11 13:06:51 and read 3585 times.

Quoting B747forever (Reply 4):
But if it expensive to operate the 744 it doesn't make any sense to change to it.

The 744 carries more passengers and more revenue belly payload, so if the extra demand is there, the extra revenues can outweigh the extra costs.

It's why UA flies 744s to international destinations in the "high season" when demand is greatest and 77Es and 763s during the "low season" when demand is lower. They tailor capacity to demand to maximize revenues.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Art at ISP
Posted 2007-11-11 13:11:25 and read 3573 times.

Historically the KIX trip was a 747-400-I took it a few times. I think it switched to the 777 about two or three years ago.

With the discontinuation of LAX-KIX by JAL, as well as the other routes on UA, I think the upgrade makes sense. Also if I recall correctly, AA discontinued DFW-KIX as well.

Although the fees are very high at KIX, perhaps UA had been overselling the 777's so the 747's make more economic sense at the moment.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: RampRat74
Posted 2007-11-11 16:09:18 and read 3373 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):
The 744 carries more revenue belly payload

False. The 777-200 has two more LD-3 positions then the 747-400.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Laxintl
Posted 2007-11-11 16:12:06 and read 3362 times.

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 5):
Didn't UA axe the ORD-KIX and HNL-KIX routes?

 checkmark  Exactly.

ORD-KIX got the axe a while ago and was a terrible performer, however HNL-KIX got the axe this year leaving SFO-KIX as UA's only flight hence upgauged to a 744.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Stitch
Posted 2007-11-11 16:44:56 and read 3296 times.

Quoting RampRat74 (Reply 8):
False. The 777-200 has two more LD-3 positions then the 747-400.

Yes, but what is the density one can put into the LD3 positions on a 77E compared to a 744? My money is a 744 will carry more overall payload by weight then a 77E when flying the same distance as a 77E. Especially a UA 77E which has a lower then average MTOW and engine thrust to begin with.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Centrair
Posted 2007-11-11 17:18:17 and read 3242 times.

There are currently only two non-stops to mainland North America from KIX; NW (DTW) and UA (SFO). With DFW gone and LAX gone, all the traffic that would have gone non-stop to those places are now going via SFO or DTW. The lift is needed probably to cover this. They can cover that west coast lift which does not only include pax going to SFO but to SEA, LAX and eastward. NW's flight can get pax going to the Midwest, South and East coast easily but UA's SFO HUB is perfect for getting pax to all points. A 744 can handle not only the pax demand but the cargo that is coming out.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Spyderz
Posted 2007-11-11 19:08:22 and read 3131 times.

Quoting Centrair (Reply 11):
There are currently only two non-stops to mainland North America from KIX; NW (DTW) and UA (SFO).

Small technicality, but doesn't Air Canada still fly YVR-KIX?

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: Carpethead
Posted 2007-11-11 19:16:06 and read 3115 times.

Quoting Spyderz (Reply 12):
Small technicality, but doesn't Air Canada still fly YVR-KIX?

AC sure does. This winter, its 5-weekly down from the usual daily.
Centrair meant mainland-US.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: B747forever
Posted 2007-11-11 23:18:33 and read 2960 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 6):

Okey, that makes sense. If it a big demand, of course they will change to a bigger a/c.

Topic: RE: United: SFO-KIX Question
Username: SiouxATC
Posted 2007-11-11 23:39:55 and read 2935 times.

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 9):
ORD-KIX got the axe a while ago and was a terrible performer, however HNL-KIX got the axe this year leaving SFO-KIX as UA's only flight hence upgauged to a 744.

Laxintl Hit the nail on the head, there is your answer.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/