Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service  
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8607 times:

Well, I was looking at the article posted by UA777UK in the Heathrow fuel rationing thread and it appears United has had to delay the introduction of their second LAX-LHR flight because of an inability to tanker in enough fuel on the 763ER. BAA really needs to correct the unfair treatment that is costing UA and AA a significant amount of money while BA and European carriers doing short hauls go relatively unscathed.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/Quot...-02_22-36-50_N0210606&symbol=AMR.N


Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
37 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8607 times:

when was the flight supposed to start?

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8590 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 1):
when was the flight supposed to start?

Next month. Check the article. UA has taken it out of the schedules now.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineCarbHeatIn From Ireland, joined Jun 2004, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8539 times:

I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 4, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8516 times:

Quoting CarbHeatIn (Reply 3):
I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.

There are plans to do that, possibly even making the 767 International fleet a 2-class (plus Y+) plane with an enhanced J class.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8432 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Next month. Check the article. UA has taken it out of the schedules now.

Sorry, i could not see it for looking.

Quoting CarbHeatIn (Reply 3):
I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.

UA has set aside $400m to start the fleet upgrades this year.


User currently offlineANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5264 posts, RR: 7
Reply 6, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8344 times:

Quoting N1120A (Thread starter):
BAA really needs to correct the unfair treatment that is costing UA and AA a significant amount of money while BA and European carriers doing short hauls go relatively unscathed.

BAA can hardly be to blame for the fuel depot fire.

It's not just American carriers, it is all long haul carriers. From what I have read in the press, airlines are allowed 80% of their normal fuel rations.

Airlines like BA are gettingfuel for the European flights from abroad and using their allowance to comepletly fill their long haul flights ex LHR. Why this is unfare to American carriers I have no idea. As above, it effects every airline.
QF, MH, CX, SQ, AA, UA etc etc etc


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 7, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8295 times:

Quoting ANstar (Reply 6):
Airlines like BA are gettingfuel for the European flights from abroad and using their allowance to comepletly fill their long haul flights ex LHR. Why this is unfare to American carriers I have no idea.

It is unfair because American carriers are restricted as to where and how they can fuel. A flight from LHR to LAX can't stop for over 2800nm until it hits BOS, and then you are talking about all sorts of customs and immigration issuse that you don't face flying between EU countries, as the Asian carriers can do. AA and UA can't compete on an even playing field with BA under the fuel rationing rules.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5264 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8235 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
It is unfair because American carriers are restricted as to where and how they can fuel. A flight from LHR to LAX can't stop for over 2800nm until it hits BOS, and then you are talking about all sorts of customs and immigration issuse that you don't face flying between EU countries, as the Asian carriers can do. AA and UA can't compete on an even playing field with BA under the fuel rationing rules.

They could stop at MAN, SNN etc just as QF stop at STN, and other asian carriers have stopped at AMS/FRA in thye past few weeks.

And I'd hazard a guess that it is effecting BA more than AA/UA. Maybe not on longhaul, but on shorthaul most of their flights will be carrying extra fuel.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 9, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8219 times:

Quoting ANstar (Reply 8):
QF stop at STN, and other asian carriers have stopped at AMS/FRA in thye past few weeks.

STN is out of the way and AMS/FRA are WAY out of the way for the US carriers. Additionally, with a 763ER from LAX, they would be thinking about weight restrictions if flying from FRA

Quoting ANstar (Reply 8):
And I'd hazard a guess that it is effecting BA more than AA/UA. Maybe not on longhaul, but on shorthaul most of their flights will be carrying extra fuel.

Except that tankering doesn't make as much of a difference on shorthaul aircraft.

Quoting ANstar (Reply 8):
They could stop at MAN, SNN etc

And delay their flights as well as end up having to pay extra landing fees.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8123 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
STN is out of the way

STN is barely out of the way. It is extremely close to LHR which means that fuel won't be wasted climbing up to cruise only to descend again and make a stopover. What altitude would a 767 climb to if flying between LHR and STN? Maybe 5,000 ft? That isn't too bad, but of course it is a huge waste of fuel to move a plane the size of a 767 between two airports so close. The most ideal case would be to not have a stopover, but it isn't like a 767 can tanker much fuel when flying between LAX and LHR since the plane is probably taking off at MTOW anyway.

Quoting CarbHeatIn (Reply 3):
I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.

Very true. Those seats suck as far as first class seats go nowadays. BA Club World and VS Upper Class are probably more comfortable. But if you really care, you can always fly the 777 between LAX and LHR. The first class suites on the 777 are some of the best in the sky and are fully flat with ample privacy and storage space and a somewhat AVOD entertainment system which is manual.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineANstar From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2003, 5264 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8112 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
And delay their flights as well as end up having to pay extra landing fees

Like all other long haul carriers have to do. What I am trying to say is the issue is not just AA/UA. It is all long haul carriers.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
Except that tankering doesn't make as much of a difference on shorthaul aircraft.

Very true, but BA have many more short haul flights EX LHR than UA/AA have Long haul and what I am trying to say here is that they will still be feeling the pinch!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
STN is out of the way and AMS/FRA are WAY out of the way for the US carriers. Additionally, with a 763ER from LAX, they would be thinking about weight restrictions if flying from FRA

Never said the US carriers should stop in mainland EU. It was an example, that all Asian carriers have to make a stop en route to their destination. The US carriers are choosing not to make a stop, but infact carry the extra fuel. That is their choice.

You can#t really say BAA is favouring anybody. It is a flat 80% restriction across the board to ALL LHR airlines. How the airlines manage the restriciton is up to them.


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9644 posts, RR: 68
Reply 12, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 8079 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Couldnt they take 1 or 2 flights a week at route them thru STN with a very light fuel load, and use the fuel saved from these 1 or 2 flights to allow the others to go out full?

User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 13, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 8032 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 10):
STN is barely out of the way. It is extremely close to LHR which means that fuel won't be wasted climbing up to cruise only to descend again and make a stopover. What altitude would a 767 climb to if flying between LHR and STN? Maybe 5,000 ft? That isn't too bad, but of course it is a huge waste of fuel to move a plane the size of a 767 between two airports so close.

They are 36nm apart, which is very close but you are flying over very busy air space, which means a significant amount of vectoring.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12):
Couldnt they take 1 or 2 flights a week at route them thru STN with a very light fuel load, and use the fuel saved from these 1 or 2 flights to allow the others to go out full?

That would seem to be what eastbound carriers are doing, but you still have the problem of landing fees and delays



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineFXramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7309 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7967 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting N1120A (Thread starter):
BAA really needs to correct the unfair treatment that is costing UA and AA a significant amount of money while BA and European carriers doing short hauls go relatively unscathed.

How is BA uneffected? Thanks!



I miss the old Anet.
User currently offlineJbmitt From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 547 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7921 times:

United..if they wanted, could upgrade the equipment so something that could tanker more fuel. IE a 777 or a 747. Since they haven't, I would wager that the benefits of the 2nd flight are only minimal.

User currently offlineAirlineAddict From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 420 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7907 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I am not too familiar with operations at LHR, but if there's fuel at STN, would it not be easier for afffected carriers to truck in the additional 20%?

User currently offlineUadc8contrail From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1782 posts, RR: 9
Reply 17, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7880 times:

does anyone know when the fuel situation will return to normal levels???


bus driver.......move that bus:)
User currently offlineSFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7695 times:

Quoting ANstar (Reply 11):

You can#t really say BAA is favouring anybody. It is a flat 80% restriction across the board to ALL LHR airlines. How the airlines manage the restriciton is up to them.



Quoting ANstar (Reply 6):
It's not just American carriers, it is all long haul carriers. From what I have read in the press, airlines are allowed 80% of their normal fuel rations.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...m?documentid=381599&docketid=23542
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p84/381599.pdf

From Page 3:

Under BAA's rationing scheme, so-called "base" carriers at Heathrow, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, are provided 82% of their requirements for long-haul services, while so-called "visiting" carriers at Heathrow, including United and American, are provided 70% of their fuel requirements for long-haul services.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7610 times:

maybe they can work out a short-term deal with Iceland and KEF airport..for practical purposes, KEF is right in the flight path........and there wouldn't be the hassle of dealing with STN....

just an idea....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineAirxLiban From Lebanon, joined Oct 2003, 4513 posts, RR: 53
Reply 20, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7588 times:

I read the article but don't really understand what the plans are.

UA was originally gonna launce the second daily with a 772 and then they had to put a 763 on the route due to the fuel rationing and now they've postponed it?



PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26601 posts, RR: 75
Reply 21, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6850 times:

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 20):
UA was originally gonna launce the second daily with a 772 and then they had to put a 763 on the route due to the fuel rationing and now they've postponed it?

The problem is that the route is pretty much on the edge of the route's range, particularly on the westbound (the way out of LHR). You can't really tanker enough fuel in to run back with only 70% of your fuel needs.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineKanebear From United States of America, joined May 2002, 953 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6511 times:

STN isn't on the way but SNN is and I'm sure they wouldn't mind the extra traffic too much. Big grin Seriously, it's a bad situation for all involved but until the fuel supply is sorted it's not as though anyone can do anything. It's not like BAA are doing this by choice. They simply can't supply any more than is being supplied!! If you take a gallon jar and only fill it half way, you can't very well drink the full gallon can you.

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9666 posts, RR: 52
Reply 23, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6392 times:

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 22):
STN isn't on the way but SNN is and I'm sure they wouldn't mind the extra traffic too much.

I think it would be more efficient to fuel at STN as it is so close. Getting a plane up to cruising altitude takes the most fuel of the flight. If a plane just goes to Stansted, it will stay very low and not waste fuel by having to climb to cruising altitude twice like it would have to if it went to KEF, SNN or any other airport more than a few hundred miles away. Also it would take so little fuel to get to STN that UA would have to tanker in less fuel for its other flights in order to stay under its fuel limitation. If you are going to make a tech stop on one flight, you might as well get the most bang for your buck.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineGigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 24, posted (8 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6256 times:

Quoting AirlineAddict (Reply 16):
would it not be easier for afffected carriers to truck in the additional 20%?

It would take a fleet of trucks the size of which London's roadways could not handle nor even exist in Britain.

N


25 IL96M : With all due respect, but you must be kidding... right? Ever tried SQ F-Class...
26 Post contains images N1120A : Actually, I believe he has, but here are some pictures. United: Singapore: The seats look the same except for the color. Besides, SQ doesn't have fir
27 Speedbird2155 : This is a policy that was agreed on by all carriers at LHR well before this incident happened. All carriers therefore knew what would happen and most
28 WhiteHatter : BAA does not sell fuel. United are all grown up and capable of negotiating their own fuel contracts. If a supplier cannot deliver then what does it h
29 Dba4U : In the article it says that everything should be back to normal in june. Is this realistic?
30 Geo772 : BAA control the fuel network at Heathrow. You still buy the fuel in the traditional way but the airport operator controls the hydrant so gets to deci
31 RoseFlyer : I have actually not tried SQ first class (only Raffles), but United has a very good first class suite. The seat fully folds flat, and there is a ton
32 3201 : Reading the original article, I don't think it would be *impossible* for UA to tanker in enough fuel to add the second flight within the rationing rul
33 HS748 : Well that problem is of America's own making. What does it have to do with BA or BAA?
34 N1120A : Actually, the location of the US is of the UK's making, but I digress.
35 IADLHR : I read somewhere recently that both UA and AA claim this is in violation of Bermuda 2. I did not know that fuel or fuel rationing is even mentioned in
36 Aisak : If an Asian carrier (could be African or Australian...) wants to land in an EU member... there are also borders. To travel from UK and Germany you ha
37 HS748 : Totally.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
United To Resume MSY-LAX Nonstop Service posted Fri Nov 11 2005 23:48:52 by MSYtristar
United/Skywest To Start ASE-LAX Non-Stop posted Wed Mar 22 2006 19:08:18 by UAPremierGuy
United Express To Add BOI-LAX 2 Nonstops posted Fri Feb 3 2006 05:39:07 by MtnWest1979
CX To Start 4th Daily LHR Service posted Mon Jun 27 2005 19:41:11 by Jakob77
CO To Start Second EWR-CDG Service posted Tue Oct 21 2003 17:18:47 by CB777
United Airlines Applies For Daily LAX-DCA Service posted Thu Sep 19 2002 00:24:52 by BA
United Express To Add New Daily Jet Service posted Mon Aug 26 2002 17:28:23 by Flyingbronco05
What If United Has To Go Alone? posted Sun Jun 10 2001 02:56:38 by Ampropilot2b
United Has Responded To IA West Coast Service. posted Wed Feb 9 2005 14:03:24 by Juventus
United P.S. SFO To LAX! posted Wed Oct 18 2006 19:58:18 by Gkpetery
CO To Start Second EWR-CDG Service posted Tue Oct 21 2003 17:18:47 by CB777
United Airlines Applies For Daily LAX-DCA Service posted Thu Sep 19 2002 00:24:52 by BA
United Express To Add New Daily Jet Service posted Mon Aug 26 2002 17:28:23 by Flyingbronco05
What If United Has To Go Alone? posted Sun Jun 10 2001 02:56:38 by Ampropilot2b
United Has Responded To IA West Coast Service. posted Wed Feb 9 2005 14:03:24 by Juventus
EK To Start A Second A380 Service To Jeddah posted Sat Oct 30 2010 05:33:47 by aviationbuff