FreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 804 posts, RR: 6 Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3553 times:
Osprey88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 330 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 3542 times:
Excellent news for those in the Bay Area and FF of UA!
I would think that this service would be relatively popular, catching a lot of feeding traffic from other airports.
"Reading departure signs in some big airports reminds me of the places I've been"
Iluv747400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 368 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3306 times:
SQ452 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1053 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3287 times:
I know, seriously...that's such an odd stay, and, a complete waste of aircraft utilization. They could send the plane back 2 hours later after arrival and the aircraft would arrive in SFO in the early evening, great time for providing overnight red eye conntections to the east coast (you'll be tired as hell anyway so who cares).
AAJFKSJUBKLYN From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 836 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3224 times:
I would assume the schedule is everyday and the schedule posted is the Pilot of Flight Attendant Layover times.
SkyGirl From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 451 posts, RR: 4 Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3214 times:
oh, all of a sudden I am so glad that I'm not SFO based... not that I wouldn't mind going to CAN...
...Now they face an even greater danger...Tyrannousaurs in F-14's!!
Commavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 10188 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3187 times:
It's pretty standard for United's SFO-China flights. They want the flights timed to leave SFO westbound in the early afternoon, along with all their other Asia-bound flights, so they can benefit from all the connections. But, by the time the planes go to China, and then turned around, they wouldn't leave the Chinese cities until late at night (after 1900-2000 local) and thus wouldn't get back to SFO until early evening (1700-1800 local), which is an absolute waste for connections (most of which are, again, timed for all of the other inbound Asia arrivals which get into SFO around 0900-1200). The plane would then have to RON in SFO until the next day, before heading back out again to China.
Thus, it makes sense to just RON the plane at the Chinese stations and send them out the next morning.
Besides, either way, regardless of whether the plane RONs in SFO or in China, the schedule would still require 2 aircraft to keep a daily rotation. So, in other words, it makes no difference where the plan spends the long layover: whether SFO or PEK/PVG/CAN, it still takes the same 2 planes per route. In that case, why not time the flights to maximize connections at SFO which is the hub that is - after all - supposed to be designed specifically to capture connections?
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5819 posts, RR: 23 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3179 times:
With the restrictions on service to China, is that only for USA-China flights? Could this plane go onto another destination? I'd agree that 17 hours is a long time. Maybe United can get some maintenance done on the plane since they are contracting it all out anyhow.
ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
SQ452 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1053 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3030 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 6): Quoting Iluv747400 (Reply 2):
What's with the 17-hour turnaround?
It's pretty standard for United's SFO-China flights. They want the flights timed to leave SFO westbound in the early afternoon, along with all their other Asia-bound flights, so they can benefit from all the connections. But, by the time the planes go to China, and then turned around, they wouldn't leave the Chinese cities until late at night (after 1900-2000 local) and thus wouldn't get back to SFO until early evening (1700-1800 local), which is an absolute waste for connections (most of which are, again, timed for all of the other inbound Asia arrivals which get into SFO around 0900-1200). The plane would then have to RON in SFO until the next day, before heading back out again to China.
Thus, it makes sense to just RON the plane at the Chinese stations and send them out the next morning.
Besides, either way, regardless of whether the plane RONs in SFO or in China, the schedule would still require 2 aircraft to keep a daily rotation. So, in other words, it makes no difference where the plan spends the long layover: whether SFO or PEK/PVG/CAN, it still takes the same 2 planes per route. In that case, why not time the flights to maximize connections at SFO which is the hub that is - after all - supposed to be designed specifically to capture connections?
Actually come to think of it you make a good point about this. It would still require 2 aircraft.
SFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 323 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Quoting AS739X (Reply 7): Could this plane go onto another destination?
I do not believe that Fifth Freedom rights are afforded to US pax flag carriers out of Mainland China. Anyone?
Note that other UA aircraft in PVG and PEK also RON.
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5819 posts, RR: 23 Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2686 times:
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 804 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
