CALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2631 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 6444 times:
Based on UA's hub at NRT, the flights at IAH would not make a turnaround, so another 744 would have to be positioned into IAH to make it work without a 17 hour aircraft layover. I believe something like IAH-LHR could be flown with a 744 to make the rotations work, but that would take two aircraft.
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8370 posts, RR: 7
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5973 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 3): With the 747 fleet being the size that it is, I would be surprised. Ua maxes the flying out in summer and the rotation does not work. I was surprised that HNL got the 747, but loads are good enough.
AND HNL is close to Japan to use only one plane which is on the ground in HNL for only a few hours. HNL is from Japan what FRA is from JFK.
flylku From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 807 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3322 times:
For Y, if I had my choice, I'd take any of their 777s over their 747s. I am headed to MNL from IAD across NRT and am glad it will be a 777. While I am not thrilled about the new 3x3x3 seating, at least it has the new entertainment system. Their new J on the 747 was very good (7 hours of sleep on SFO-SYD: what better test is there?).