B777UA From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 155 posts, RR: 0 Posted (11 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4857 times:
does anyone know if United Flies any Widebody aircraft from ORD to EWR? I know back in the late 90's I have flown a DC-10 to EWR and also a B 777 do they fly the 777 or 767 from ORD to EWR or any from EWR to ORD Now?
American 767 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3320 posts, RR: 14 Reply 3, posted (11 months 3 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 3721 times:
Yes I remember when United used to fly the DC-10 from ORD to EWR. It was back in the mid 90s when some United planes were still wearing the Saul Bass rainbow scheme. Don't forget that at that time, way before the CO/UA merger was even thought of, United was quite strong in EWR.
Ben Soriano
"Aimer jusqu'a l'impossible, c'est possible". Tina Arena.
bsmalls From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 14 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3146 times:
Will you please allow me to reminisce for a quick moment.
United used to fly 747s domestically to EWR because sad to say my one and only flight on a 747 came I believe in either 1986 or 1987 and it was on United between ORD and EWR. At the time I was attending college in South Bend Indiana and I would fly home on breaks and holidays to my home in northern New Jersey. At the time my airline of choice was United connecting though ORD because between ORD and EWR, United would schedule various aircraft ranging in size from the 727 up to the 747. What was great about my 747 flight is that not only was I upgraded to 1st as I was a tall lanky kid standing 6 feet 5 inches and many times gate agents would have pity on me and bump me to 1st but I was seated next to a chatty, know it all United pilot who talked my ear off for the entire flight about aviation and the airline industry. Needless to say I was in heaven. Bar none my best flight ever!
Sorry about the quasi-trip report but I couldn't help myself.
Now back on topic, there are no widebody flights between EWR and ORD on UA.
kurt From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 413 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (11 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3029 times:
I think during that time period (late '80s), UA operated a 747 from EWR-NRT and back, so a turn EWR-ORD would make sense to get the aircraft back to a hub.
Checking the August '82 timetable, I see two EWR-ORD flights (8 a.m, flight 1; and 11 a.m., flight 107), and one EWR-SFO flight (10 a.m., flight 35), all using 747 equipment (all three of these flights continued on to HNL). Lots of DC-10s at EWR, too; the other three EWR-ORD flights were all DC-10s, plus EWR-LAX (2x) and EWR-DEN.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16256 posts, RR: 52 Reply 7, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2365 times:
Quoting bsmalls (Reply 4): Now back on topic, there are no widebody flights between EWR and ORD on UA.
Yeah but there are more than 3x the daily frequencies, we have had this discussion hundreds of times on Anet over the years. Using wide bodies on domestic routes is more efficient, but business travelers prefer frequency. Thus EWR-ORD is 16 x daily with narrow bodies instead of 8 daily 767s.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 26697 posts, RR: 83 Reply 8, posted (11 months 3 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2364 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 6): Up until 2004 UA flew a 777 between DEN-EWR-LHR-EWR-DEN.
I was on one of the last DEN-EWR flights. It was nice.
No, that's just what Continental thought. You fly that many planes between EWR-ORD you are asking for cancellation and delays because the amount of volume at each airport can't handle it.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
COEWR787 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 305 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 6): Up until 2004 UA flew a 777 between DEN-EWR-LHR-EWR-DEN.
Yes! UA906/907. Used to be my favorite flight to go to London and back.
Also you could do SFO - DEN - EWR all on 777 connecting through in DEN. That was nice too.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1867 times:
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16256 posts, RR: 52 Reply 12, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1812 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 9): No, that's just what Continental thought.
I don't understand, multple frequencies with narrowbodies between airports is a CO only idea? So DL and US are operating widebodies between LGA and BOS and DCA? And AA has widebodies to ORD from LGA?
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 11): IIRC sometime around 1999-2000 didn't UA also fly 777 and 763 on EWR-SFO/LAX?
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 13, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1732 times:
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2167 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1702 times:
Quoting STT757 (Reply 7): Using wide bodies on domestic routes is more efficient,
Not always. Widebodies have very high trip costs relative to narrowbodies so the CASM relationship is not always linear. There is not nearly as much cargo on most domestic routes as there is volume below decks on aircraft like 777s and A330s, so you wind up flying a lot of empty space around. Finally, the opportunity cost of tying up longhaul-capable metal on a low-yield domestic route is an unfavorable proposition for an airline that paid for a $150m jet.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 9):
No, that's just what Continental thought. You fly that many planes between EWR-ORD you are asking for cancellation and delays because the amount of volume at each airport can't handle it.
Do any of those airports have capacity issues, high volume, or weather problems? Do any other airlines operate high-frequency flights? It's absurd to isolate that issue as a Continental problem... it's what the market demands.
CO had a rep of flying ERJ's and props between their boutique fortress hubs and major cities for years. Since the merger that has been eliminated.
In favor of outsourced large regional jets. You'll still see ERJs on some of those major routes today as well. I think it's a pretty crappy practice too. At least the Q's will have First and E+.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 13):
Pretty sure they had at least a few 767s on these route in 1999.
Yes, I distinctly recall some 767-200 frequencies on EWR-LAX/SFO in the late 90s, along with some DC-10s here and there. Perhaps not in the exact time frame referenced, but it was not unusual. With that said, most UA flights from EWR in the late 90s were 757/727/737, plus the 777 on DEN-EWR-LHR routing.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 16, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1630 times:
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 15): Yes, I distinctly recall some 767-200 frequencies on EWR-LAX/SFO in the late 90s, along with some DC-10s here and there. Perhaps not in the exact time frame referenced, but it was not unusual. With that said, most UA flights from EWR in the late 90s were 757/727/737, plus the 777 on DEN-EWR-LHR routing.
More or less off and on. I recall August 2002 a 762 between EWR-LAX on both AA and UA.
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 15): n favor of outsourced large regional jets. You'll still see ERJs on some of those major routes today as well. I think it's a pretty crappy practice too. At least the Q's will have First and E+.
First on a prop is a bit of a joke. A wake up call that UA has to resolve scope issues.
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 14): Right, it's CLEARLY CO's problem that UA has:
Not that it's UA's problem but the issue is that ORD and EWR get so backed up on most days that some of these frequencies end up getting cancelled or literally two flights taking off and arriving at the same time because of delays. Down at IAD they fly 767s between the two destinations with less frequency, why can't they do this for EWR?
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
airzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1103 posts, RR: 1 Reply 17, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1601 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 16):
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 14):
Right, it's CLEARLY CO's problem that UA has:
Not that it's UA's problem but the issue is that ORD and EWR get so backed up on most days that some of these frequencies end up getting cancelled or literally two flights taking off and arriving at the same time because of delays. Down at IAD they fly 767s between the two destinations with less frequency, why can't they do this for EWR?
Let's pretend for a second you know what you're talking about, say UA cuts frequency in half and uses larger planes. Do you think the slots at EWR and LGA are just going to magically sit there and reduce capacity at the airport and magically reduce delays?
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 18, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1566 times:
Quoting airzim (Reply 17): Let's pretend for a second you know what your talking about, say UA cuts frequency in half and uses larger planes. Do you think the slots at EWR and LGA are just going to magically sit there and reduce capacity at the airport and magically reduce delays?
I'm sorry have you seen the on-time rates for planes between EWR and ORD? It's laughable at best.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2167 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1554 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 16):
First on a prop is a bit of a joke. A wake up call that UA has to resolve scope issues.
UA wants to, but management and the pilots have opposing, defensible positions on the issue. Anyway, F on a prop is better than no F on a prop.
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 16): Down at IAD they fly 767s between the two destinations with less frequency, why can't they do this for EWR?
The frequency issue is driven by demand. Not only is there a lot of connecting traffic between EWR and ORD due to the large hubs on both ends, but the EWRORD local market is massive. The two routes really aren't compatible in that regard. UA has a lot more capacity on ORD-DCA, for example.
I'm sure we will see widebodies on EWRORD sooner or later. Only two of the seven flights between IAD-ORD are 767s, the rest are A319/320, and one 767 is a 3-cabin bird with 183 seats.
airzim From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1103 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 18): Quoting airzim (Reply 17):
Let's pretend for a second you know what you're talking about, say UA cuts frequency in half and uses larger planes. Do you think the slots at EWR and LGA are just going to magically sit there and reduce capacity at the airport and magically reduce delays?
I'm sorry have you seen the on-time rates for planes between EWR and ORD? It's laughable at best.
The airlines could give two cents about the on time rates in these markets. They know they're rubbish.
But you didn't answer the question. What do you think happens under the scenario you propose?
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 21, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1486 times:
Quoting airzim (Reply 20): But you didn't answer the question. What do you think happens under the scenario you propose?
EWR and ORD is hub to hub so just like EWR-IAH and bouncing off what CODC10 just said, I see no reason why sometime later or next year EWR-ORD can be operated by some widebody aircraft eliminating 1-3 frequencies of smaller jet (or RJ) use.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16256 posts, RR: 52 Reply 22, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1469 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 21): I see no reason why sometime later or next year EWR-ORD can be operated by some widebody aircraft eliminating 1-3 frequencies of smaller jet (or RJ) use.
The slots are going to be used, no matter what. Also why the obsession with the widebody, why not the 757-300 which has more capacity than PMUA's 767s.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2167 posts, RR: 8 Reply 23, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1435 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 21): EWR-ORD can be operated by some widebody aircraft eliminating 1-3 frequencies of smaller jet (or RJ) use.
You have to understand that operating a widebody is extremely costly, and it is highly realistic that operating 2-3 full A320s or 737s is more profitable for the airline than a single 767 or 777 flight, given the very high fixed cost of flying the aircraft without the benefit of a long haul to spread that cost over.
Again, it's not a linear relationship. Most domestic widebody flying, especially on shorter routes, is primarily for aircraft positioning or to accommodate containerized freight. Routes only with high pax volumes are better suited for aircraft like 757-300.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6172 posts, RR: 9 Reply 24, posted (11 months 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
That doesn't stop DL, UA, or AA from operating widebodies on short/medium haul routes.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
25 airzim: I'll answer for you, if you give an inch, your competitors are going to take over those slots and grab for your jugular. B6 will flood Florida with s
26 CODC10: Outside of JFK-SFO/LAX, which are likely their highest yielding domestic routes, AA does very little domestic widebody flying. One-off flights MIA-DF
27 tommy767: Ah com'on. Don't use the bankruptcy excuse again. That's nonsense. Airlines don't go into bankruptcy by flying a 767 between Atlanta and Phoenix, OK?
28 CODC10: I think you mean 76P/76Q as 76D is the flat-bed 764. These are non-ER 763s. They don't have the engines, weights, or range to do longhaul flying. Any
29 airzim: Why not? Did they not head into BK? Did they not pull almost all domestic WB flying and convert into International birds? Airline might not solely go
30 tommy767: Um because last time I checked, Delta was making more money than United, not in BK, and STILL DOING IT. "Might make sense." You have the proof to tel
31 airzim: That's intellectually dishonest. To attempt to compare and airline that is still in the integration process and has yet to realize all the economies
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 155 posts, 
From Zimbabwe, joined Jun 2001, 1103 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
