ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8 Reply 5, posted (12 years 4 months 3 weeks ago) and read 887 times:
You know, you are supossed to mention your sources. For all we could know, you could be lying. I assume that you are becasue you havent mentioned them. I've found a bunch of things that you've said to be dead wrong, and this is another one.
DonC From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 6, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 862 times:
I am not sure on info posted above. I know UA applied to fly LAX-GRU or LAX-EZE using B400 but was shot down by DOT in favor of CO and DL routes to Argentina. However, nothing would surprise me especially with an increase in int'l flying from SFO and its new int'l terminal.
ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8 Reply 9, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 835 times:
I would like to point out how this flight in a 747 would cause United to bankrupt...If you dont mind.
First of all, 80%of United's SouthAmerica flights are done in 767s. If you can fill 205 seats, thats great. On some of the heaver routes, a 777 is used. Back before the days of teh 777, 747SPs were used on some routes. There is no market for those going from SFO to South America. What United has done is set up a nice little hub in MIA. That MIA hub is used to channel the people taking United to South America. That hub is just like SFO is the pacif gateway for United with LAX serving as a secondary pacific port too. Its much more cost effective to route passengers through MIA, and channel them down, then sending a 744 with 120 pax on it to EZE from SFO.
I think I know why Fly777Ual wrote this topic. Other to see how smart we are...there is a new terminal, and Shuttle creates a lot of pax traffic on the west. Pax can connect from Shuttle on to a South America flight. The problem is that the market is not that big. I could see a SFO to South America flight done twice a week in a 767, but not daily in a 744.
Johnboy From United States of America, joined Aug 1999, 2469 posts, RR: 1 Reply 14, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 794 times:
Why wouldn't SFO-South America flights work on 744? After all, SFO is a UA hub; who says it might not work to have SEL-SFO-GRU/EZE? or NRT-SFO-GRU? Think positively gentlemen! LAX doesn't deserve all the South American traffic!
ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8 Reply 15, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 788 times:
The thing is that there isnt a market for it, at least daily in a 744. Also, there are no plans for this route, that I know of. I usually keep track of these things as much as I can.
If a SFO to South America flight were to take place, it is possible in a 767 twice a week. I dont believe that UA is filling the 777s to South America, but I could be wrong. If those flights are not going out full, then definantly dont put a 747 on that.
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 17, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 779 times:
LUV- I would really appreciate it if you could post those 5 or so items where I have been dead wrong...especially the ones that we've "discussed" (?).
Furthermore, I have not read any rules on here where I am required to reveal my sources. You, of all people, should be well aware of them, as I have told you many times. Be resourceful...use the "search" option.
Also, if you could see a daily SFO-MAN flight with a 777, then why can't you envision a daily SFO-South America flight?
SQA340- Just keep your eyes and ears open for new 747-400 orders.
Johnboy- You hit the nail right on the head in your second sentence.
ILUV767 From United States of America, joined May 2000, 3141 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 764 times:
First thing, you must post your source on this. Here is the rule:
Back all your opinions with facts.
If you have something to say, say it, but be sure to mention your sources. If you're speculating, be sure to make that very clear as well.
From the detailed rules page
You were wrong about United Shuttle expansion. I've checked. Before the UA+US merger United was gearing up for United Shuttle East. Destinations included ALB, ROC, LGA, EWR and other north eastern cities.
Next, You posted the non-reving prices. Those numbers were very incorrect. I've flown many times, and have always checked the prices of my flights, and the numbers that you posted were incorrect from the actual.
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4510 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 761 times:
UA Shuttle East? I've never said anything about that except for the fact that it won't happen. Did it happen? NO. The fact of the matter is that the East Coast "Shuttle" was to be a completely different setup from the United Shuttle out West.
I cut and pasted non-reving prices from an earlier post on the forum. Skynet seemd to back the prices up, too.
I would really like for you to continue, LUV.
Maybe e-mail would be better so as not to clog the forum from unnecessary and unwanted posts.
CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (12 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 754 times:
See, this is the kind of thing that is wrong with the forum. FLY777UAL came to us with some information. He is a credible source and doesn't post ridiculous info. He let us all in on what he believes United to be doing. Now, we attack him. He is sharing information with us. If we attack him, in the future he won't share with us and that would be a shame. I for one will be keeping my eye out for new 747-400 orders as that is my favorite airplane!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower