Australia1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3956 times:
Surely UA should look at flying HNL/MEL. Who want to fly LAX/SYD/MEL & QF is doing well with LAX/BNE 5 days a week.
Australians don't want to transit awful LAX & Queenslanders & Brisbaneites don't want to fly to SYD to get to USA !!!
UA have daily DEN/HNL/DEN service using a 777. They could continue the flight DEN/HNL onto MEL twice a week initally & same to BNE & then increase over time, without dropping any services to SYD.
SFO/SYD began if I rembmer correctly as 3/week then eventually increased to daily.
Onedude From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3953 times:
Agree with you but don't know if the economics stand up. AC tried HNL/MEL just before 9/11 but folded it after Ansett collapsed with no domestic feed to the service.
SFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 323 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3942 times:
Quoting Australia1 (Thread starter): UA have daily DEN/HNL/DEN service using a 777. They could continue the flight DEN/HNL onto MEL twice a week initally & same to BNE
UA fly DEN - HNL using a 2-class 772 (non-ER) model that does not have the range to fly HNL - BNE (non-stop with sufficient yield, etc.) , much less HNL - MEL.
I recall a poster by the name of Simpilicity (from BNE as well) who was fond of asking similar questions. Perhaps he could chime in with his thoughts.
Australia1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3914 times:
Quoting Onedude (Reply 1): Agree with you but don't know if the economics stand up. AC tried HNL/MEL just before 9/11 but folded it after Ansett collapsed with no domestic feed to the service.
AC using a 763er which was weight restricted & the point of my topic, was not many Australians going to the U.S. want to terminate their journey or stopover at LAX or SFO in both directions, so if UA fly eg. MEL/HNL/DEN they could easily connect beyond DEN, without having to transit LAX or SFO. If they wanted to stop in LAX or SFO they could using existing services in 2 direction.
Quoting SFORunner (Reply 2): UA fly DEN - HNL using a 2-class 772 (non-ER) model that does not have the range to fly HNL - BNE (non-stop with sufficient yield, etc.) , much less HNL - MEL.
Surely they have plenty of longer range 777's, eg. the ones that once flew LAX/AKL/LAX.
QF is doing very well yiled wise out of BNE to LAX 5 days/week, BUT pax hate LAX, as BNE flight goes into TBIT in LAX & to connect on AA eg. pax must go into LA proper, walk next door to terminal 4 & get in the non-security queue.
Was talking to black guy at non-security & he said they are paid to go slow. I asked what he meant & he said, if they worked faster or more effeciently, they would be sent home earlier & therefore earn less pay. Crazy !!! Turning people off going to the U.S. & with their deficit they need every torist they can get.
DJ748 From Australia, joined Jul 2006, 355 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3854 times:
I do recall UA have a code-share agreement with DJ so they would have some good feed into the BNE service if they do start it, particularly from CNS, CBR, ADL, TSV and possibly some other destinations. A HNL connection may be considered easier to some people compared to connecting through LAX where QF fly into.
UA would need a better product at a cheaper price than QF into BNE if they did serve it. If they use a 777, they would need to rid themselves of the
2-5-2 seating, example here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0517905/M/
Unless of course they use a 747-400 where they have 3-4-3, example here: http://www.airliners.net/open.file/0971981/M/ . Then you have the issue of QF having IFE compared the virtually non-existent IFE on the UA 744.
Could CO ever serve BNE? They currently do 4x weekly on GUM-CNS with good connections onto HNL/JFK and into Asia from there. A 757 from GUM to BNE would be useful with the CO base in GUM. Would be nice to see a regular 757 service into Australia at some point.
Bicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 3834 times:
Quoting Australia1 (Reply 3): Surely they have plenty of longer range 777's, eg. the ones that once flew LAX/AKL/LAX.
United doesn't have aircraft sitting around doing nothing. They have no long range aircraft available. And they have no plans to purchase more until their financials improve for a few more quarters. They'd have to end a route to start another one with a 777 or any other aircraft in the fleet. Don't know where you got the idea that they can just start a route and throw a spare 777 on it.
Australia1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 3780 times:
Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 6): United doesn't have aircraft sitting around doing nothing. They have no long range aircraft available. And they have no plans to purchase more until their financials improve for a few more quarters. They'd have to end a route to start another one with a 777 or any other aircraft in the fleet. Don't know where you got the idea that they can just start a route and throw a spare 777 on it.
No but they could probably switch a longer range 777 onto this route, or switch with various aircraft such as a 763er, possibly?
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 3763 times:
Quoting Australia1 (Reply 3): the point of my topic, was not many Australians going to the U.S. want to terminate their journey or stopover at LAX or SFO in both directions,
Yes they do - LAX is the biggest N. A. O&D market to from Oz
Quoting Australia1 (Reply 3): Surely they have plenty of longer range 777's, eg. the ones that once flew LAX/AKL/LAX
They are out making money elsewhere! For it to be worth while for UA to send them to Oz, they would have to make MORE money then where they are now, frankly very unlikely.
Australia1, in gereral terms, there are not enough pax, willing to pay high enough fares for UA to do as you suggest. Don't forget US airlines have the ability to serve other, more profitable routes, QF & NZ don't, so they are willing to provide services in the SW Pacific that no US carrier in their right mind would, because the US can make mor money elsewhere.
QF & NZ supply those services that they think they can find sufficient pax willing to pay enough money so they make enough profit that they provide the service. You can bet this is a lower number than any US carrier would be satisfied with.
777fan From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2402 posts, RR: 3 Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 3694 times:
Quoting SFORunner (Reply 2): UA fly DEN - HNL using a 2-class 772 (non-ER) model that does not have the range to fly HNL - BNE (non-stop with sufficient yield, etc.) , much less HNL - MEL.
IIRC, the 777 use on the HNL-DEN route is seasonal; they often use a 763.
The HNL transit to Australia is a great idea as it would no doubt be more appealing to Aussies traveling to the States but seeing as how they already codeshare with AC on the HNL-SYD route, it's kind of a moot point. If they were to do it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 763 on a HNL-SYD/MEL route; it's what AC uses and would save the 777s for higher capacity routes.
Think of the connection points from HNL: SFO, LAX, ORD, DEN.
Aaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7635 posts, RR: 28 Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 3666 times:
This is not an economical proposal. UA's 772ER fleet is currently being utilized for the high yield missions in Asia and Europe that are best suited to it. As others have stated, there's no evidence to suggest that UA would be able to generate sufficient revenue on a BNE or MEL tag from HNL to supersede that already provided by existing service.
As mentioned, UA already dedicates two 777s to KIX and NRT service from HNL but the remaining 777s serving HNL from SFO and ORD are strictly 2-class birds for domestic service. It would be quite a challenge from a fleet planning point of view to retask from this current arrangement.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
Penguinflies From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 975 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 3511 times:
I'm surprised from a marketing standpoint that UA doesn't codeshare on the DEN-HNL (ua metal) HNL-SYD (AC metal) and do the connection that way.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1832 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3416 times:
Quoting Penguinflies (Reply 11): I'm surprised from a marketing standpoint that UA doesn't codeshare on the DEN-HNL (ua metal) HNL-SYD (AC metal) and do the connection that way.
AC probably does not have the rights to pick up US passengers at HNL. There are a lot of restrictions flying to OZ.
Even if UA could get the rights HNL or DEN to MEL or BNE it would probably not be worth taking a 772 off another route. Those markets are puny compared to SFO or LAX.
Ha763 From United States of America, joined Jan 2003, 3492 posts, RR: 6 Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3364 times:
Quoting Penguinflies (Reply 11): I'm surprised from a marketing standpoint that UA doesn't codeshare on the DEN-HNL (ua metal) HNL-SYD (AC metal) and do the connection that way.
Wouldn't really work since the DEN flight arrives around 4:30pm and the SYD flight leaves at 11:45pm. That's a 7 hour layover. BTW, UA does code share on AC's HNL-SYD flight, it's UA8489.
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12): AC probably does not have the rights to pick up US passengers at HNL.
AC does have 5th freedom rights out of HNL. It's one of the 2 or 3 U.S. destinations specified in the Canada-Australia bilateral.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3361 times:
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12): Quoting Penguinflies (Reply 11):
I'm surprised from a marketing standpoint that UA doesn't codeshare on the DEN-HNL (ua metal) HNL-SYD (AC metal) and do the connection that way.
AC probably does not have the rights to pick up US passengers at HNL
Yes they do!
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12): There are a lot of restrictions flying to OZ.
No there is not
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12): Even if UA could get the rights HNL or DEN to MEL or BNE
They have them
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12): it would probably not be worth taking a 772 off another route. Those markets are puny compared to SFO or LAX.
Australia1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3209 times:
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 14): Quoting AADC10 (Reply 12):
it would probably not be worth taking a 772 off another route. Those markets are puny compared to SFO or LAX.
Agreed, very puny
Gemuser
I disagree !!! I think you would find that if pax could avoid SYD & LAX, they would RUSH services that avoid both.
I would suggest that maybe UA could drop 3 SYD/LAX/SYD a week (UA826/827) leaving a daily service, thereby freeing up a 744. Then, there would be suitable aircraft for a HNL/MEL & HNL/BNE service.
AC's SYD/HNL/SYD is a daily 763ER most of year, except around Xmas when upgraded to a A343, so very little capacity to give to UA, even if timings did coincide at HNL with UA to DEN.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3166 times:
Quoting Australia1 (Reply 15): I disagree !!! I think you would find that if pax could avoid SYD & LAX, they would RUSH services that avoid both.
Agreed, BUT how many??? I strongly suggest it is too small a number to be viable
Quoting Australia1 (Reply 15): I would suggest that maybe UA could drop 3 SYD/LAX/SYD a week (UA826/827) leaving a daily service, thereby freeing up a 744. Then, there would be suitable aircraft for a HNL/MEL & HNL/BNE service.
UA826/7 only operate in peak times, which just happen to be off peak times in the northern hemisphere, so the B744 are not avialable most of the year, they are busy elsewhere.
Are you SURE your name is not Simplicity??? You are really starting to sound like him!
Australia1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3155 times:
Quoting Gemuser (Reply 16): Quoting Australia1 (Reply 15):
I would suggest that maybe UA could drop 3 SYD/LAX/SYD a week (UA826/827) leaving a daily service, thereby freeing up a 744. Then, there would be suitable aircraft for a HNL/MEL & HNL/BNE service.
UA826/7 only operate in peak times, which just happen to be off peak times in the northern hemisphere, so the B744 are not avialable most of the year, they are busy elsewhere.
a simple solution ... UA could switch these flights 826/827 from LAX/SYD to HNL/MEL & HNL/BNE or better still DEN/HNL/MEL & BNE, which would free up the aircraft that was to operate DEN/HNL/DEN whether it be a 777 or 767. I think 826/7 operate 3 times/week in peak season (Australia) which would be enough to begin with.
UA would still have both daily SYD/LAX & SYD/SFO with MEL/SYD connection. They would pick up some traffic from QF, form thos pax would don't want to fly thru LAX & aren't terminating there. Similarly, they would pick up some traffic from QF out of BNE, PLUS for DEC-JAN, many people look for other options rather than fly to USA as LAX is hated that much !!!
Interesting response when you click on his profile:
Username:tSimpilicity
This user chose to end his or her First Class Membership. We are holding his/her username though in case he or she choose to come back. Activating this username is as simple as clicking here!
ANstar From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4845 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
Quoting 777fan (Reply 9): IIRC, the 777 use on the HNL-DEN route is seasonal; they often use a 763.
The HNL transit to Australia is a great idea as it would no doubt be more appealing to Aussies traveling to the States but seeing as how they already codeshare with AC on the HNL-SYD route, it's kind of a moot point. If they were to do it, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 763 on a HNL-SYD/MEL route; it's what AC uses and would save the 777s for higher capacity routes.
Think of the connection points from HNL: SFO, LAX, ORD, DEN.
Quoting Australia1 (Reply 15): I disagree !!! I think you would find that if pax could avoid SYD & LAX, they would RUSH services that avoid both
I'm not sure it is worht UA flying HNL-SYD as it will be over served once JQ coms on the route. As for avoiding LAX, pax could alsready get the SYD-SFO flight.
Australia1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3076 times:
Quoting ANstar (Reply 19): Quoting Australia1 (Reply 15):
I disagree !!! I think you would find that if pax could avoid SYD & LAX, they would RUSH services that avoid both
I'm not sure it is worht UA flying HNL-SYD as it will be over served once JQ coms on the route. As for avoiding LAX, pax could alsready get the SYD-SFO flight.
Both LAX & SFO are very congested. I didn't suggest UA should fly HNL/SYD, when the problem is SYD. No one except Sydneysiders want to fly out of SYD internationally. Chnaging terminals at SYD from dom to int ( & v.v.) is a major pain in the arse, as well as being very time consuming, which is what you don't want when have a 13 or 14 hour flight ahead of you !!!
Mymiles2go From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 207 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2987 times:
That said - what does your solution provide? Earlier you said it would be routed SFO/LAX-HNL-BNE/MEL - at the end of the day that's still aircraft that would be visting SFO/LAX (if you base it on your incorrect arguement that LAX and SFO are too busy).
Nonethless, why on earth would UA take aircraft off of other well performing routes to do a very niche route. There are a lot of other routes that UA would likely prefer to do before this - i.e. - ORD/IAD-DEL, DEN-NRT, etc...
The reality is they simply don't have spare longhaul aircraft, I'm not clear why that's not sinking in yet on this thread.
25 N1120A: Yes they do have the range, but why in the world would United use an uncompetitive domestic product? This guy probably is Simplicity.
26 SFORunner: Are you sure that the 772 (non-ER) has the range (with "viable" load - yeah, a somewhat subjective term)? It's not uncommon for UA's ORD - HNL (772A)
27 Australia1: Sorry I don't think I said using LAX or SFO. My point is, QF thinks just about everyone likes to fly out of SYD. By avoiding SYD & LAX & SFO, MEL & B
28 6thfreedom: AC did not suspend MEL flights becuase of Ansett or profitability. The service was launched Nov 2001, after S11, when there was a major downturn in tr
29 Gemuser: How do you know this? Even if its true don't you think that it may be because its cheaper to consolidate traffic via your biggest port, that way you
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 214 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 7635 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Nov 2003, 4845 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
