Drew From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (16 years 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
This is great news, but what has changed that has made United change its mind and begin flying this route again? Improvement of the Asian economies? Stronger hub at Dulles? I am curious if anyone else has better (and more informed insights) and enthused they are flying 'around the world' again.
CV990A From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 1479 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (16 years 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2826 times:
I flew this route a while back, on the 767, and think it was abandoned because of some technicality about the aircraft they could use on the route. That's why there's no plane change in HKG and LAX on this version of the service.
DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7907 posts, RR: 14
Reply 7, posted (16 years 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
After reading the actual press release United decided to restart the service b/c of the demand for flights to India and also cited the turnaround in the Asian economy as to why. The Asian economy slump was the main reason why the service was pulled. As for the routing through Dulles as opposed to Kennedy I can only imagine that b/c they are using a 747-400 instead of the 767-300 that the capacity is better suited to Dulles where other flights feed it. Don't hold me on this one. But how many aircraft would actually be needed to run this route fully. Just for the westbound sector flight #1 would take 2 days... obviously another ship would launch the following day for Hong Kong from LAX but can a 747-400 operate 2 full days without being sent back to the home base for an overnight check??? http://www.ual.com/site/primaryPR/1,10026,1528_597,00.html
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
MEL From Canada, joined Oct 1999, 1109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (16 years 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2787 times:
I think the decision to route the flight through IAD rather than JFK is a smart one. I don't think JFK-LHR could support a 747-400, only they reduced the number of JFK-LHR flights from 3 to 2 (from 3-763s to 1-763 and 1-744). The IAD-LHR market in the summer on UA is booming. Almost every night this past week United has oversold every single one of its 3-daily non-stops from IAD-LHR and back, and the summer travel season has only begun. I think it was a bad idea for UA to drop 744s from IAD-LHR and IAD-FRA this summer, as they would surely be full if they were on the service. Maybe the aircraft were needed on other routes (ORD-FRA/SFO-LHR).