Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE  
User currently offlinelegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2022 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18841 times:

UA will reinstate their non stop service to CDG/TPE next Spring. The CDG flight will be on the newly configured 2 class 763 and the TPE will be on the 777. These two services were suspended by United about ten years ago. (The author needs to work on their facts)

http://thebat-sf.com/2012/07/10/unit...er%29%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail


John@SFO
107 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18715 times:

I could have sworn UA still flew SFO-TPE. Wow -- either way good for them.

And so I guess this is where the IAH-CDG flight is going? To SFO?



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently offlineLY777 From France, joined Nov 2005, 2611 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 18687 times:

I hope they will send 787s from SFO to CDG in the future...

Their 767 cabin look great BTW

[Edited 2012-07-10 08:20:42]


אמא, אני מתגעגע לך
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18646 times:

Good news, and very interesting... I had it on fairly good information that SFO-TPE was on the short list for 787 service, but I guess they think they can give it a go with the 777. I wonder if this means TPE-NRT will bite the dust?

User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24322 posts, RR: 47
Reply 4, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18651 times:

Lets hope they have better luck this time around. They tried hard to serve both nonstop previously on multiple occasions, but the lack of revenue (yield) hurt.

At least with TPE, using the smaller 777, and with EVA coming into Star it might do better this time around.

[Edited 2012-07-10 08:18:44]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinestrfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 790 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18353 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

wasn't there a political "to -do" when UAL wanted to fly Bejing (PEK) about also flying to TPE?? I think so but I don't exactly remember clearly.

User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4792 posts, RR: 25
Reply 6, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 18169 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6):
wasn't there a political "to -do" when UAL wanted to fly Bejing (PEK) about also flying to TPE?? I think so but I don't exactly remember clearly.

That was during Pan Am's time...

http://time-demo.newscred.com/articl...0455ea2551a694a003f291d6.html/edit


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8090 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 17715 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting legacyins (Thread starter):
UA will reinstate their non stop service to CDG/TPE next Spring. The CDG flight will be on the newly configured 2 class 763 and the TPE will be on the 777. These two services were suspended by United about ten years ago. (The author needs to work on their facts)

The 2-class 763ER has Business First seats which are among the best in the sky. The seat map is at www.seatguru.com


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 17573 times:

At 5583mi, does UA expect their 763's to be able to reasonably do that route without a significant weight penalty?? When they previously operated the route, it was done with the 3-cabin 763ER's with PW4060 motors and a much lower density cabin. The 2-cabin 763ER's have PW4056 motors and a much higher density cabin.

Does UA plan on (or have they already?) uprating the motors to PW4060's?? Or increasing MGTOW to 412.0??

Just for comparison, UA's ACC-IAD flights were frequently weight and/or balance critical, and that clocks in at only 5296mi and was flown by the stronger, lighter 3-cabin birds.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2356 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 17534 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 15):
The 2-cabin 763ER's have PW4056 motors and a much higher density cabin.

Not anymore. The engines were uprated and the cabins are in an all-new lower density arrangement with 214 seats (30J/184Y).

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 15):
Does UA plan on (or have they already?) uprating the motors to PW4060's?? Or increasing MGTOW to 412.0??

Yes and yes, both completed over a year ago. Plus, the mod adds winglets, further improving fuel efficiency.


User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 17483 times:

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 16):
Yes and yes, both completed over a year ago. Plus, the mod adds winglets, further improving fuel efficiency.

Not possible if it's over a year ago. Most of the 2-cabin birds still flying, right now, in domestic config (ships 6664 through 6677) were all 407.0 or even less.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently onlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 17439 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 18):
Not possible if it's over a year ago. Most of the 2-cabin birds still flying, right now, in domestic config (ships 6664 through 6677) were all 407.0 or even less.

Wasn't that a paper upgrade much like those done on the domestic 777s?



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently onlineryu2 From Taiwan, joined Aug 2002, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 17440 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 14):
The 2-class 763ER has Business First seats which are among the best in the sky. The seat map is at www.seatguru.com

Are these birds former PMCO? Or are they refurbished PMUA domestic Ghetto Birds?


User currently onlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 17406 times:

Quoting ryu2 (Reply 20):
Are these birds former PMCO? Or are they refurbished PMUA domestic Ghetto Birds?

Refurbed pmUA. CO never operated the 763. Eventhough I believe 5 -324s were built.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2016 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17384 times:

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 16):
Not anymore. The engines were uprated and the cabins are in an all-new lower density arrangement with 214 seats (30J/184Y).

So these are reconfigured Ghetto Birds, not PMCO 767s? I thought at least some of the PMCO 767s had the legs for SFO-CDG. Wasn't the plan to use the former Ghetto Birds from the east coast to Europe and Latin America?


User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6838 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17301 times:

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 1):
And so I guess this is where the IAH-CDG flight is going? To SFO?

Not sure the trade makes much sense. I'd have thought the Latin connects on IAH would result in much better yields.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24322 posts, RR: 47
Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17300 times:

The modified winglet 763s have 4060 engines (same as the international 3-class ones).

MTOW for the entire 763 fleet, new winglet, domestic, and international is 407,000lbs.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6584 posts, RR: 11
Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17544 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):

Honestly, SFO-CDG would be one of the routes I least suspected to appear on the 763. Still waiting for SFO-CAN



"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
User currently onlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17499 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
Not sure the trade makes much sense. I'd have thought the Latin connects on IAH would result in much better yields.

Well, I don't know. I suspect that the bulk of the transfer traffic onto IAH-CDG was from the west coast, so UA must believe that its enough to warrant the flight, even if the yields to Paris are probably some of the lowest across the pond. Had the U.S. not come up with the whole transit visa situation and what not - I think MIA/ATL and especially IAH would have looked a little different in terms of the service they see. They would definitely be more robust than what they are now.



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 19, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17544 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
The modified winglet 763s have 4060 engines (same as the international 3-class ones).

MTOW for the entire 763 fleet, new winglet, domestic, and international is 407,000lbs.

Thanks. I knew I saw 407.0 somewhere, haha.

So, they'll have the bigger engines but they won't have the higher MGTOW of 412.0. That route will probably be real close to weight restriction territory, especially on the westbounds into the wind.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently onlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5062 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17486 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 27):
So, they'll have the bigger engines but they won't have the higher MGTOW of 412.0. That route will probably be real close to weight restriction territory, especially on the westbounds into the wind.

I think the engines are a paperwork upgrade like the 777s...yes? no?



Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlineapjung From United States of America, joined Aug 2002, 116 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17449 times:

It's about time! I almost thought that I'd have to wait a little longer for UA to get their 787s for the possibility of resuming the TPE nonstop.

[Edited 2012-07-10 10:44:16]


Andy P. Jung
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3163 posts, RR: 13
Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17458 times:

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 28):
I think the engines are a paperwork upgrade like the 777s...yes? no?

Yes and no.

To get the additional 4,000# of thrust, it *is* a paper upgrade but you also need to have the appropriate fuel pumps and all other accompanying necessary hardware. If those were already in place and the engines were operating "derated", so to speak, then yes it is only a paper upgrade. Otherwise, there are some hardware changes to go along with it.



A340-500: 4 engines 4 long haul. 777-200LR: 2 engines 4 longer haul
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24322 posts, RR: 47
Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 17382 times:

UA 763s never were 412.0

Anyhow CDG-SFO & LAX were both past routes for UA on the 763 so they should have good historical data for its performance.

Regarding the engines, the domestic birds were previously uprated from 4052 to 4056, and now 4060. But its more than a paper change as it requires some engine plug mod.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 155 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17071 times:

I'm personally very surprised at TPE. Taipei has never been a high yielding destination and UA is reinstating the nonstop with a 772 when there's already plenty of capacity between BR and CI. For Summer 2012, there's 6,595 weekly oneway seats for SFO-TPE, more capacity then LAX-HKG, SFO-PEK, NYC-HKG, etc. SFO-TPE has one of the lowest percentages of premium seats as well for any US-Asia city pairing. Not that I'm against more routes from my home airport, but isn't a codeshare with BR enough for UA to TPE?

Is BR joining the transpac JV when it joins Star?



Next flight: AA 1710/1452 SFO-DFW-AUS
25 PHX787 : I think one of the Taiwanese airlines has been flying it
26 LAXintl : Btw - for the record RoC-USA traffic has grown immensely over time - becoming one of the largest intercontinental market from the US by 2011 with almo
27 kiwiandrew : Not too surprising to see the restoration of SFO-TPE, although, like a few other posters, I had thought the 787 might be better sized for the service.
28 flylku : A number of posts have used the term "weight restricted". I believe the aircraft will go out at max gross of 407. So isn't the correct term payload re
29 goldorak : So they a dropping IAH-CDG to re-start SFO-CDG which is a known route with yields in the toilets ???? There's really something I don't understand in U
30 SonomaFlyer : I think unlike past attempts at SFO-CDG, this has a better chance given some new factors: 1. Smaller a/c with two classes of service; 2. The combined
31 shengzhurou : last time UA had the SFO-CDG was 2005 and they dropped after the summer, AF has had A343, A332, A388, 772 and 744 on this route depends on the season.
32 CALMSP : weight restrictions will happen, but that means you wont be near the MGTOW.
33 MUCramp : Anyone got any idea of the SFO-CDG-SFO schedule?
34 srbmod : Please keep the discussion focused on the topic or else this thread will be locked.
35 CALMSP : SFO-CDG 2:45pm - 10:45am 767-300 CDG-SFO 10:00am - 12:50pm 767-300
36 COSPN : SFO-MNL or SFO-GUM would be a winner also..mabe on the 787 ??
37 legacyins : As far as the reintroduction of the SFO-TPE route. BR is poised to enter the *A and is currently upgrading their premium class. When BR enters the all
38 Qantas744er : They should be able to carry around 40-50,000lbs of payload for the longer (ESAD) westbound CDG-SFO sector. Thats good for a full load of 214pax + bag
39 tsnamm : The question is, if BR are operating their own TPE/SFO flights, why would they transfer transiting business thru TPE to UA instead of their own metal
40 drerx7 : That's my sentiments as well. SFO-CDG seems like a yields/mileage dump; but hey, I'm a dentist not an airline CEO.
41 Post contains images CALMSP : i admit, i'm somewhat of an anti-dentite!
42 Post contains links legacyins : Press release by UA http://ir.unitedcontinentalholdings....-newsArticle&ID=1713262&highlight=
43 etoile : Note that since UA suspended SFO-TPE, the cross-strait market has arisen. So expect a good amount of traffic on the renewed service to be connecting
44 kiwiandrew : Excellent point, I hadn't thought of that.
45 trex8 : IIRC the Taiwanese carriers are not allowed to sell seats for transpac pax to transit thru TPE to mainland China. This was one of the cross straits a
46 etoile : The treaty arrangements (I mean agreements) have changed several times since 2003. As of now, you can book US-to-mainland flights on the Taiwanese ca
47 BreninTW : CALM, these times don't make sense -- either the aircraft sits on the ground at CDG for almost 24 hours or is it a W-routing? The aircraft arrives CD
48 Post contains images gigneil : They were. An engine plug is paper. NS
49 CALMSP : it clearly gives a hint towards....................
50 drerx7 : If those times are right - then the 767 is coming from elsewhere in the UA transatlantic - CDG network. Which flights arrive from the other hubs to ma
51 SonomaFlyer : Once we see the spring schedule, we'll see that 763 from CDG likely originated at IAD or EWR or ORD.
52 bayareapilot : This is CO dba UA we're talking about. They have a proven track record of marketing transatlantic flights on undersized equipment as non-stop when the
53 gigneil : It's neither undersized nor would ever, ever have to stop. The original United flew less capable 763s on the same route. So whatever. NS
54 CODC10 : As opposed to UAUA, which lacked suitable equipment for all but the most premium of markets, devoting a lot of real estate to FC cabins on flights wi
55 legacyins : They already Have Air China (CA) to cover the mainland market from their hub in Beijing. A far larger operation than BR has from TPE.
56 hohd : If bulk of the traffic is tranfer for SFO-CDG flight, it makes more sense to route that traffic via ORD (or even a reinstated IAH). From SFO, they wi
57 STT757 : IAH-CDG's return?..
58 IAHworldflyer : It might be possible that they would get some connecting traffic from their Hawaiian islands operation, though I can't believe there would be much mo
59 drerx7 : Or DEN-CDG...which would be even more of a yields dump. Where else would they route a 763 into CDG from? IAH and LAX are the only places in the netwo
60 tommy767 : I think a 763 on CDG-EWR is very reasonable with AF gone -- and they can play it safe. IAD will be back with a 763 by the fall.
61 STT757 : EWR-CDG is getting a 764 in the fall, EWR-CDG 1 757, 1 764.
62 tommy767 : Ah, my bad forgot about that.
63 CODC10 : IAD-CDG gets a 67E this fall. It's not reflected in the schedules at the moment but I am fairly sure that's the current plan. As it stands now, UA914
64 drerx7 : The SFO-CDG could be the IAD bird.
65 Post contains images point2point : Okay..... ummmm..... DEN may not have the best yields domestically (and considering they're really not that bad), but they have some of the highest y
66 panamair : Looks like UA will be suspending NRT-TPE starting October 27...flight has been zeroed out in various GDS. So basically there will be no UA metal in TP
67 drerx7 : LOL, DEN-CDG is another market though...CDG is a hard location without hub feed to make work from secondary airports.
68 LAXintl : There are some scheduling updates that are in process, so the whole picture not clear. For instance UA will ops a 2nd NRT-SFO during the winter which
69 etoile : I believe there aren't additional flight rights available from US to BJS now, nor can UA upgauge now.
70 United1 : There are quite a few route authorities available between the US and China right now...and as far as I know there are no restrictions on UA upgauging
71 etoile : Which authorities are for sale or otherwise available? My mistake about the gauge - I had thought all the sUA flights to BJS were 744, but only SFO i
72 christao17 : Quite curious about the timing of the SFO-TPE flight and how that would connect with BR flights. Normally, UA runs its Asia flights from SFO departing
73 legacyins : I guess another question is, what does BR offer to UA that they do not already have. TPE- Vietnam/Indonesia/Philippines/Bali/Thailand. All low yield
74 United1 : There is no need to buy any route authorities if an airline wants to serve China. After the initial hoopla a few years ago demand dropped off and the
75 panamair : I wonder what will happen to the UA ground employees at TPE between October and April when UA will have no flight operating into TPE then. AFAIK, UA
76 LAXintl : UA only has a token number of customer service staff in TPE, mostly in supervisory/management roles. Bulk of the work is performed by the local handli
77 christao17 : Guess overnight parking fees in TPE are low enough to justify 18 hours there? Would seem like they could tag something on to increase utilization, bu
78 CODC10 : It's way too much airplane, but it would be good to see a TPE-GUM turn reinstated with that idle 777.
79 mogandoCI : Isn't it odd that conventional wisdom says TPE is low yielding, yet UA is putting 3-class instead of 2-class 777 on it ? Wouldn't this route be the id
80 LAXintl : Its not a matter of parking fees, but simply the manner the schedules must work to provide hub connectivity on the US end. AA, CO, DL, UA all leave a
81 laca773 : SFO-TPE seems like it will be a natural fit for UA's SFO Asian hub. I was also wondering once they have enough 788s, will they switch over to it. This
82 legacyins : Do you mean it will be flown by a 76W (?) in the future? As of now, it loaded as a 777.
83 Schweigend : San Francisco and Paris are great World Cities, both with lots of charm. A U.S. airline connecting them with the right aircraft -- in this case, the
84 anonms : Define "transit thru TPE". If you mean they can't have tag-on flight segments under the same flight number, then that would make sense. However, CI d
85 mogandoCI : My thoughts too. 767 would choke on SFO-TPE westbound against any type of headwinds. UA loves to have their entire Asian bank arrive SFO in the morni
86 AADC10 : I hope that they do not. The 767 has wider seats, aisles and fewer middle seats. The 787 is a carbon fiber sardine can, better for the airline than t
87 mogandoCI : EWR ? Absolutely nothing to write home about. Standard INS uptight boredom.
88 SonomaFlyer : Apparently you've not gone through customs/immigration when the European flight bank arrives. It can be very very busy from about 1 p.m. on through 7
89 mogandoCI : Are those spread out over 6 hours, or all lumped together ? UA's Asian arrivals are all very bunched up (kinda like LHR at 7am)
90 goldorak : I sincerely doubt UA will have goo yields to CDG. For AF, even alone on this route, it has been said many times on this forum that SFO is one of thei
91 legacyins : I have no idea about the yields, as most people do not unless they work in the yield management area of an airline or can deduce the information from
92 etoile : Three with XL
93 N782NC : Really? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that SFO consistently vies with IAD as AF's strongest performing US route. I recall t
94 goldorak : very likely you are correct, but with such a low frequency offered and their pricing startegy, I don't think they are a real threat to AF and UA. The
95 flylku : I'm missing something. Why might it not go out at MGTOW? I can see factors like density altitude/runway length and perhaps CG as restrictions but oth
96 warden145 : That makes sense. However... ...if IAH, LAX, and JFK are ahead of SFO in terms of yields, why did AF send the temporarily available A380 to SFO and n
97 SFOA380 : I doubt SFO is a yield dump. The presence of large, Fortune 500 companies based in the Bay Area is tremendous and Paris certainly has a ton of global
98 jjeff : Exactly.
99 Post contains links and images point2point : Well, at least domestically, it is lower than DEN, and just above LAX when comparing ticket yields. The data the I have is a Boyd study, and it is Q4
100 United1 : Lets be really careful using that data without understanding how those numbers were generated 1. that's for all airlines combined at the airport not
101 LAXintl : Yields out West (CA, AZ & NV particular) have always been lower then the US average, and no where close to US Northeast money pot. Its simply a ma
102 LAXintl : The schedules were formally loaded. Taipei is exactly as I posted in Reply 76 Effective April 09, 2013 UA871 SFO-TPE 1330-1755 777 UA872 TPE-SFO 1155-
103 CALPSAFltSkeds : As scheduled, it takes two aircraft to fly this route. However, UA is already using one full 772 unit to fly TPE-NRT-TPE with a 14+ hour overhight at
104 STT757 : TPE is a former CO Mike route, as is Kaohsiung.
105 CO764 : Great news about CDG! I was really surprised that everyone else was sitting back and letting AF take everything for that route! They definitely seem t
106 RDH3E : The NRTTPE sector is not for sale in the system right now. Even before the SFOTPE sector starts up. Looks like they are eliminating that route.
107 hohd : SFO is probably a good yield market for AF, but it wont be for UA. UA also has to rely primarily on O & D, with limited connecting traffic in SFO
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 To Start SFO-DCA-SFO Route posted Tue Feb 28 2012 07:54:14 by legacyins
Report: UA To Apply SFO-CAN posted Fri Mar 3 2006 06:58:18 by BigGSFO
UA To Start SFO-TUS posted Mon Aug 29 2005 19:04:48 by MAH4546
UA To Suspend SFO-ICN For This Fall/winter posted Thu Jul 28 2005 10:09:43 by HeeseokKoo
UA To Start SFO-COS, LAX-RNO, MYR-ORD, MYR-IAD posted Mon Dec 27 2004 21:13:19 by Iowaman
Rumors: UA To Reinstate HKG-LAX Within A Year posted Sun Jun 30 2002 18:30:19 by United Airline
UA To Start LAX-CDG Nonstop posted Sat Oct 9 1999 00:53:16 by ORD
UA(CO) To Start SFO/LAX To Hilo posted Wed Dec 15 2010 12:52:16 by UnitedTristar
UA To Start MSP To SFO posted Fri Feb 6 2009 16:04:41 by UnitedTristar
UA To Fly New Config 744 SFO-HKG-SIN-HKG-SFO posted Thu Aug 14 2008 09:38:56 by N104UA