Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 1, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11959 times:
With a 77E I assume? 744s they have can't do it against winter winds without serious restrictions.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Reply 2, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11916 times:
Yes its in lieu of the traditional extra SYD frequencies.
Schedule is
LAX-MEL
UA827 2245-0900 B744
MEL-LAX
UA826 1400-0910 B744
Important to note, the traditional SYD-MEL tag does not operate during this period, so SFO/LAX-SYD terminate in SYD.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Bistro1200 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 337 posts, RR: 4 Reply 3, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 11915 times:
UA flew B744's back in 2000 daily. It's been done regularly back then, and now with the new tank engineering and optimized routing that will be used, the weight restrictions will be less than back then.
Measure to the millimeter, mark with a crayon, cut with an axe.
N104UA From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 889 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11589 times:
I doubt a weight restriction. and thank god for this cause i am going to MEL during JAN
"Learn the rules, so you know how to break them properly." -H.H. The Dalai Lama
LHRBFSTrident From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 629 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11521 times:
Quoting N104UA (Reply 5): I doubt a weight restriction. and thank god for this cause i am going to MEL during JAN
My buddy in UA dispatch reports that LAX-SYD is often weight-restricted in winter and causes them headaches more often than not - but it's all a question of pax loads vs cargo and operational conditions on the day, as I understand it...
Next up: LAX-LHR NZ002 Y SkyCouch! LHR-LAX NZ001 Y
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5337 posts, RR: 8 Reply 8, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 11434 times:
Quoting PurpleBox (Reply 7): Quoting N104UA (Reply 5):
I doubt a weight restriction.
So how come Qantas needer the -400ER?
The 400ER is the ideal aircraft for this route but UAs 744s have the highest MTOW avalible and the PW engines give them a little more range then the RR/GE powered versions do. UA will take a bit of a payload hit to operate this route but not as much of one as QF would have if they had used a nonER 744.
Qantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1252 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11235 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 1): With a 77E I assume? 744s they have can't do it against winter winds without serious restrictions.
The 744 UA has have 875k MTOW which is the highest option available and PW4056 engines making them perfectly capable to do this flight. Funny how the crap still goes around here regarding UA's inferior 77E's and 744's..as many don't know UA operates the longest 744 flight ORD-HKG.
Kaitak744 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2208 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 11120 times:
Quoting Superfly (Reply 10): Glad to see UA adda new route.
Is this a sign that things are turning around for United?
This is not really a new route. They currently fly daily LAX-SYD-MEL.
And I wouldn't say things are turning around for United. Though it is surprising that UA is increasing MEL service, even after QF upgrades to an A380 and V-Australia starts 77W service, United still has not been able to keep up LAX-HKG and LAX-FRA. This is odd because competition on those routes are less than on MEL.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5337 posts, RR: 8 Reply 12, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 11040 times:
Quoting Kaitak744 (Reply 11): United still has not been able to keep up LAX-HKG and LAX-FRA. This is odd because competition on those routes are less than on MEL.
It's hard to lump in LAX-FRA in there as UA not being able to keep up, UA & LH operate their transatlantic flights as a JV so whichever carrier is best able to serve that particular market best at that particular time flies the route (DL ceding JFK-CDG to AF is a prime example of ths with another JV.)
LAX-HKG simply doesn't have the yield to operate the route profitably at this time, even CX dropped one of their frequencies between LAX-HKG due to a drop off in demand.
Apparently UA saw a fairly significant increase in traffic between the US and Australia this winter and is adding a flight for about a 6 week period to meet the demand. I don't think this is a sign that everything is going fantastically well (mind you I don't think things have been going badly either) but I think its further indication, along with all the other route cuts/additions/frequencies tweaks that UA has been making, that UA is constantly adjusting its network to meet demand and succeed in a marketplace where resting on your laurels won't cut it for any airline.
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Reply 13, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10996 times:
This flight should not be too surprising. United each year operates extra frequency to SYD from either LAX or SFO during the peak Southern summer period.
This year instead off only added SYD capacity, its running a separate MEL flight for the 6 weeks which by default allows for more SYD seats as well.
As far as weight limitations, the flight bookings will limited to 320 with any remaining weight will be made up of cargo, or last minute passengers.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2346 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 10619 times:
Great News! I did LAX-AKL-MEL back in 1993, it will be nice to see them doing it non-stop!
Quoting Bistro1200 (Reply 3): UA flew B744's back in 2000 daily. It's been done regularly back then, and now with the new tank engineering and optimized routing that will be used, the weight restrictions will be less than back then.
Can you tell us more about the new tank engineering?
Not a new route really, they withdrew the non-stop LAX-MEL service in Feb 2001 if I recall, amongst the many issues, were the weight restrictions/pax restrictions depending on the season. This route does push the 744 to its limits.
Welcome aboard Malaysia Airlines! Winner of Best Cabin Staff 2001,2002,2003,2004,2007,2009,2012
SRT75 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 252 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10482 times:
United787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2346 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10461 times:
LAxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 22053 posts, RR: 51 Reply 19, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 10428 times:
Quoting SRT75 (Reply 17): Will it be daily? If so, where will UA get these 2 frames for the 6 week period? Coming out of the desert?
Yes daily. United has plenty of 744 capacity slack this winter. Only 19 are required full time in the core schedule. UA is so spare of capacity it will be even flying for Air Pacific this fall.
Quoting United787 (Reply 15): Can you tell us more about the new tank engineering?
Basically is was discovered that Mr. Boeing did not build all the aircraft to have the same exact tank capacity, with each one being somewhat different with quite a variance across the fleet.
By carefully assigning aircraft that have several hundred gallons additional capacity, one can eek out a bit more performance.
Additionally all the PW4000's have been thru the Phase-III mods which has reduced their fuel burn, some cases even below manufacturer book values.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
Sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, RR: 18 Reply 20, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 10202 times:
Quoting LAxintl (Reply 19): Basically is was discovered that Mr. Boeing did not build all the aircraft to have the same exact tank capacity, with each one being somewhat different with quite a variance across the fleet.
That's pretty bad if they can't get that consistent across their production process isn't it?
Speedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 9991 times:
Quoting N104UA (Reply 5): I doubt a weight restriction. and thank god for this cause i am going to MEL during JAN
I think that when ua flew lax-mel they had weight restrictions...an i am sure they will have it now too, the 744 has amazing range with high Z/F WT but this is too long of a route not to limit the weight....just my opinion
And btw did DL have weight restrictions on the jfk-bom route with their 772er ?
Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 9): The 744 UA has have 875k MTOW which is the highest option available and PW4056
I know that the pw4056 are the most powerful of the three 744 engine options but i thought that no matter what engine the 744 has, the mtow is always 875000 lbs. Although it is a fact that this engine provides them a little bitt more range than both the rr and ge options, barely significant i suppose.
Speedbird741
Boa noite Faro, Air Portugal 257 climbing flight level 340
Ikramerica From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! , 21029 posts, RR: 60 Reply 23, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9891 times:
Quoting Speedbird741 (Reply 21): And btw did DL have weight restrictions on the jfk-bom route with their 772er ?
When it's run with the 77E, yes, but it's usually run with the 77L, so they shouldn't.
CO has them on EWR-HKG though. But it seems to be worth it, as it's a very popular flight.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
Speedbird741 From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (4 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9649 times:
Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 23): CO has them on EWR-HKG though. But it seems to be worth it, as it's a very popular flight
Yeah but here we're talking ge90....i don't think weight restrictions are necessary in this case
Speedbird741
Boa noite Faro, Air Portugal 257 climbing flight level 340
25 EASTERN747: I personally can't understand WHY anyone would choose to fly UA on a long distant flight given there is an alternative, especially an real internation
26 DL Widget Head: Actually, the PW4056 is the least powerful engine for the 744. the RR RB211-524H has 60,600 thrust and the GE CF6-80C2B1F has 57,900 thrust while the
27 QF108: IMO, this is a smart move by UA with spare aircraft available. This flight would be an absolute must for anybody not flying to SYD. Transfer options t
28 BlatantEcho: EASTERN747 - Not to derail the thread too much, but I agree completely. That said.... remember, customers only search FARES. If UA is lowest, they wil
29 Speedbird741: Nope....the pw is the most powerful for the 744 being the 744 the least Pratt & Whitney PW4062 63,300 lb (281.57 kN) Rolls-Royce RB211-524H2-T 59,500
30 Planetime: Just out of curiousity is there that much demand for the MEL-LAX route? Couldn't UA sent that bird to MEL-SFO since there are more connections for UA
31 DL Widget Head: Well, I can't think of a passenger operator using this engine can you? As far as I know, this engine is only used on freighters. Since this post was
32 REALDEAL: When exactly is this? Is one of FJ 744's in for heavy maintenance? QF has daily nonstop MEL/LAX QF93 & daily direct (via AKL) QF25, which many freque
33 Speedbird741: In the boeing website link i sent you...it is about the passenger 744 Pardon me...i meant the pw 4062, which is used on the paz version correct ? Spe
34 Triple7man: I had trouble getting on QF flights LAX-SYD-LAX in summer 1999 because of weight restrictions. The return flight had 70 seats available but I didn't g
35 United1: Well its a moot point anyway as UA uses PW4056s not PW4062s on their 744s, DL Widget Head is spot on though that its not the engine power that gives
36 Tullamarine: Yes LA is the more popular destination and MEL-SFO is further than MEL-LAX. Since MEL-LAX is already a stretch with some restrictions, MEL-SFO is pro
37 REALDEAL: actually this is wrong. In Amadeus(& in world airport codes) MEL/SFO is 7863 miles(12645 kilometres (7903 miles)) MEL/LAX is 7944 miles(12749 kilomet
38 WunalaYann: And even the ERs are sometimes a smidge short on the LAX-MEL leg in strong headwinds... If I am not mistaken, as far as aircraft currently in product
39 VHECA: They are already at MEL or did you mean non-stop? It would be awesome to see more 777's out of MEL and I agree that there is a plethora of options fo
40 Qfa763: "And even the ERs are sometimes a smidge short on the LAX-MEL leg in strong headwinds..". Correct. A trip I did LAX-MEL QF94 end June 2008 had to dive
41 SSTsomeday: What interests me is: Since the SYD-MEL leg of the LAX-SYD-MEL route will be cut during this period, it will disallow UA SFO passengers heading to MEL
42 Alangirvan: I think UA does some codesharing with DJ on Australian domestic sectors, so passengers could transfer from UA at SYD. If you are travelling via AKL, S
43 Tayser: 787-8 + 787-9 (from 787's boeing page): 787-8 range: 7650-8200NM 787-9 range: 8000-8500NM (from great circle mapper - possible carriers in brackets):
44 VH-BZF: Great to see UA back non-stop to Melbourne! I know that if there is a whiff of bad weather in Mel (low cloud/fog etc) then the QF94 (B744ER) in winter
45 ZK-NBT: Good news for MEL! Something I didn't expect. Remember they are not adding the extra SYD flights this year so during this period UA will have more SYD
46 Travelin man: Lots of reasons (besides price): 1. Corporate contracts -- a lot of companies have contracts with United 2. Frequent flyer miles -- don't underestima
47 WunalaYann: Indeed. But I was only talking about aircraft currently in production. Cheers for that, although sorry about the inconvenience.
48 Stitch: Can't earn and burn Star Alliance miles on QF. And if you are in Star Alliance, it's easier to fly UA direct to SYD then fly SQ via NRT+SIN. Likely c
49 DavidByrne: But there's also another alternative, on NZ via AKL, where you can "earn and burn" *A miles. Much less of a diversion than via NRT and SIN, and a far
50 Alangirvan: Some of the Asian carriers give good deals to fly between US and Australia via an Asian hub, though the best deals are usually for people from Wester
51 DavidByrne: . . . but they'll still have to handle their bags twice.
52 Alangirvan: All under one roof at MEL. Once to check in at LAX, Claim and recheck at MEL Just a thought - if people are flying UA to SYD and they use DJ for Aust
53 Ikramerica: And 77W, which has the same range as the 346HGW.
54 WunalaYann: Funny that because Wikipedia indicates that the 77W has a range of 7930nm yet I remember reading some posts on this forum about infrequent but real p
55 Alangirvan: On this forum, some people have said the A345 and A346HGW would be preferred between the Gulf (AUH/DXB) and Eastern Australia over the 77W for payload
56 Tayser: last time I checked, they were in production in Seattle flying yet? no... in production? yes.
57 SunriseValley: The 77W based on a passenger ready weight of 383K lb and at MZFW hauls a payload of about 140K lb 5500nm according to the load/range table dated Decem
58 Ikramerica: If this was the case, it had to do with the extreme weather environment last winter and possible routings that avoided certain airspace. Since neithe
59 Ikramerica: Why is everyone insisting on lumping the A345 and A346HGW together, anyway? The A346HGW has similar performance to the 77W (but burns more fuel), but
60 WunalaYann: Thank you for the correction. Do "bums" include luggage? Bugger me. I should have said "currently flying for commercial airlines". Meh. Set me up in
61 GarethW: I'm extremely surprised with the narrow margins on this. If VA tried LAX-MEL with the 77W they would have, based on above calcs, approx 5400lbs of ma
62 WunalaYann: I actually just realise now that we were talking pounds (grrrr...) and not metric. Indeed, looking at it this way, it seems like a tight fit. Mind yo
63 SunriseValley: Yes, the standard that Boeing and I believe Airbus use is 210lb per passenger including baggage. I believe the ESAD westbound LAX- SYD/MEL/AKL is bas
64 GarethW: Yes a tight fit indeed unless I'm missing the trick somewhere along the line. I do wonder though whether it's smart in the current aviation climate b
65 SunriseValley: No Gareth. The ESAD distance factors in the winds at -40k which I think is worst case scenario probably less than 20% of the time.. Also the likeliho
66 Zkpilot: A380 can cruise at 744 speed but burns more fuel than at M.01 slower. Also A380 can only use certain runways (at full runway length) and will have a
67 GarethW: Hey thanks for that, I wasn't aware that ESAD factored in 40kts. Good to know. Agree that they shouldn't have a shortage of cargo demand! Cheers, GW
68 Alangirvan: The A345 is the long range, short one, and the A346 HGW is the one that catches up with the 345's. You would use the 345 or the 77L because you know
69 United_Fan: I was wondering how a 'new' airline like Virgina Australia can do ETOPS flights right from the start? Doesn't ETOPS have to be earned?
70 SunriseValley: I believe that applies only in Japan.
71 OOer: Yes, that flight was almost always weight restricted and at times made stops in MAN. Now that flight operates with the 772LR which can carry everyone
72 LAXintl: Well foreign rules are different then the US ones. But even a US airline can start with ETOPS out of the gate in theory by piggy backing on an approv
73 Lambert747: The only way any of that would be possible is if UA joined One World, which will not happen in this lifetime. One airline on the LAX-BNE nonstop is m
75 ZK-NBT: As above in reply 19 UA only has 19 744s out of 24 that will be part of the active fleet next winter so they will lease an aircraft to FJ to cover fo
76 Tayser: Long shot, but I'll throw the question in to the ring anyhow: Anyone think United has thought of taking the A380 plunge to replace their 747s? Perhaps
77 Lambert747: There are 3 routes in the UA system that IMHO could sustain the demand for a A380, those routes being: SFO-HKG ORD-LHR IAD-LHR Outside routes that co
78 Lambert747: What was the penalty on JFK-HKG, and what would the penalty have been on ORD-DEL?
79 Sydscott: Yet we are just about to have a 2nd airline commence non-stop service? Realistically Brisbane, from an Australian perspective, should be a growth mar
80 QANTAS077: UA 744, QF A380 or QF 744, no matter which you choose this is without doubt the most physically draining non-stop flight I've ever taken, I did it on
81 REALDEAL: you should have broken the journey in fabulous Fiji for a few days !!!
82 VH-BZF: I've heard that MEL-LAX is QF's biggest money earner in terms of yield! I would have sworn that SYD-LAX would have been better, however due to the ext
83 Tayser: ...think about it, a city only half a million smaller in size than SYD (and growing faster with an economy that hasn't just this quarter churned out a
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
From United States of America, joined exactly 8 years ago today! 
, 21029 posts, 
From UK - Northern Ireland, joined Nov 2006, 629 posts, 
From Thailand, joined May 2000, 38505 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2377 posts, 
From Portugal, joined Aug 2008, 654 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
