legacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1972 posts, RR: 0 Posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 18150 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)
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2297 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 17955 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?
jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7811 posts, RR: 8 Reply 7, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 17024 times:
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
Transpac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3153 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16882 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.
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1958 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16693 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?
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4957 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16808 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.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4957 posts, RR: 8 Reply 20, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 16795 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?
Transpac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3153 posts, RR: 14 Reply 22, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16767 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.
bioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 4 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 16380 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.