Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th  
User currently offlineFreequentFlier From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 893 posts, RR: 12
Posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4422 times:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/071106/aqtu157.html?.v=22

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineOsprey88 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 330 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4411 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"
User currently offlineIluv747400 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4175 times:

UA 865
SFO: 12:35 PM
CAN: 6:00 PM +1

UA 868
CAN: 11:00 AM
SFO: 9:00 AM


What's with the 17-hour turnaround?


User currently offlineSQ452 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4156 times:

Quoting Iluv747400 (Reply 2):
UA 865
SFO: 12:35 PM
CAN: 6:00 PM +1

UA 868
CAN: 11:00 AM
SFO: 9:00 AM


What's with the 17-hour turnaround?

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).



SIN > CVG > BOS
User currently offlineAAJFKSJUBKLYN From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 901 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 4093 times:

I would assume the schedule is everyday and the schedule posted is the Pilot of Flight Attendant Layover times.

User currently offlineSkyGirl From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 451 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4083 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!!
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11442 posts, RR: 61
Reply 6, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4056 times:

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?


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 7, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4048 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!"
User currently offlineSQ452 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1110 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3899 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.



SIN > CVG > BOS
User currently offlineSFORunner From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 324 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3772 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.


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3555 times:

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 9):

Thats what I was thinking, but just wasn't sure. Thanks

ASSFO



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 8 months 3 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 3375 times:

Wheres the 777 coming from, what route is going to lose that aircraft?

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...
UA Tries SFO - Can Plus LAX - PVG For China Bid posted Tue Jul 17 2007 01:01:44 by Jimyvr
UA Starts SFO-Aspen, CO Service posted Sat Aug 24 2002 00:53:41 by DIA
Report: UA To Apply SFO-CAN posted Fri Mar 3 2006 06:58:18 by BigGSFO
UA New SFO-ANC Eff. June 3, 2004 posted Wed Apr 21 2004 05:31:12 by Copaair737
UA Plane @SFO Damaged posted Sun Oct 14 2007 10:19:01 by IADLHR
Southwest (WN) Starts SFO (a Little Early) posted Sun Aug 26 2007 02:58:57 by Legacyins
UA 853 SFO-NRT - Which 777 Config? posted Tue Apr 3 2007 08:56:14 by Goomba
UA Upgrades MSY In June posted Thu Mar 22 2007 01:17:07 by MSYtristar
When UA Fly To CAN. posted Tue Oct 24 2006 08:41:52 by Rogershen
UA Starts IAD-FCO April 1 2007 posted Thu Oct 19 2006 15:03:32 by Panamair