UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5945 times:
I have no good info here, but is it possible they rotate aircraft through HKG for down time and maintenance? Also, add flights, and there is a higher chance of everything getting screwed up. Done right, an Asian destination could work. A problem is timing-dead of night departure times. United is starting TPE-SFO and already has BKK-NRT, so HKG traffic would rely on Asian pax, who are more likely to take a daytime flight on a very highly served HKG route. UA operates DEL-EWR. Same there, but there might be a bit of a market. The question is, is it profitable to fly an old 744 in the middle of the night to Airports you already serve more conveniently? I think in this case the answer is No.
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 5795 times:
I agree CGK is a hole in the network. I don't know if UA could make it work to HKG.The thing is, Asia is big. Real big. HKG-CGK is a tad bit longer than LAX-DTW or MIA-PHX. It couldn't be done with reasonable turnaround times and profitability. We are talking about flying 3500 nm and turning a 744 3 times in an overnight stay to compete at bad times on a high capacity route with multiple other carriers.
warreng24 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 684 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 5181 times:
Quoting United Airline (Thread starter): UA has 1 B 747-400 sitting in HKG overnight (SFO-HKG-SFO). Should/will they use it to open up new intra-Asia routes? Let's say HKG-TPE or HKG-BKK or HKG-DEL (They have done the later two)?
IIRC, before the start of the HKG-SGN tag-on, PMUA always had a B744 sitting overnight in HKG. It came in handy as a "spare" if the HKG-SIN tag-on B744 went MX.
Once the HKG-SGN tag-on started, there was no B744 RON's in HKG.
Then after the merger with CO, there was 2 x B744 RON's in HKG. I believe they were rotated in/out for overnight MX. The HKG-SIN and HKG-SGN tag-on's were operated by PMCO B738's (in a COMIKE configuration).
During Mid-2013, B744 operations will be consolidated to SFO. Therefore, the B744 on ORD-HKG will revert to a PMUA B772. I'd imagine that UA will continue to have a B772 or a B744 RON at HKG. HKG-SIN is currently scheduled to remain as a B744, but I'd imagine that scheduling will rotate in the B722 as loads/demand permit.
IIRC, the PMCO 772 that operates EWR-HKG-EWR has always RON at HKG.
AA94 From United States of America, joined Aug 2011, 365 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4104 times:
If I'm looking at the schedule right, I believe the flight pair in question is UA869/862. The aircraft arrives into HKG at 1900 local, and departs the next day for SFO at 1230 local. That leaves around ~15.5 hours in between, and even less if you account for the time it takes to deplane and service the aircraft after UA869, and the time it takes to service and enplane the aircraft for UA 862, not to mention servicing/enplaning/deplaning for a tag flight.
With a flight time of ~5 hours on HKG-CGK, it simply doesn't seem possible that UA could turn an aircraft during the overnight. Even if it were possible, when you add in the factors that UA787DEN touches upon, there's really no case for adding a flight simply to utilize the aircraft.
Choose a challenge over competence / Eleanor Roosevelt
flyingdoc787 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 23 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2020 times:
How about HKG-MNL-HKG? Flying time between HKG and MNL is around 2 hours, so that will give enough time for the flight to arrive and depart MNL at a decent time, and still keep within the current HKG arrival (1900) and departure (1230). The plane can RON in MNL, just as DL's 744s do. MNL has capabilities for MX as well.
dep. HKG 2015 arr. MNL 2215 (RON)
dep. MNL 0900 arr. HKG 1100
UA already has operations in MNL from GUM, so resources on the ground are there. The Philippines-USA market is huge, albeit mostly low-yield VFR, so I don't think opening this route would conflict with UA's current GUM operations; they might even complement them.
However, I don't know about current restrictions on flights operated by US-based carriers to/from the Philippines. In any case, one can always dream! It would be great to have UA's 744 in Manila!
UA787DEN From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 291 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1859 times:
MNL is the best idea I've seen so far. But a UA 744 needs more than an hour or hour and a half for an international turn, and if it needs MX they would be screwed. I honestly don't know how it would do. CX operates 744s on the route. KA, 5J, and PR also operate it, and probably with lower costs simply because they are Asian carriers. Also, foreign carriers pay a king's ransom to fly MNL. I think that a 772 might make it work, leaving HKG at 2100 at leaving MNL at 0700. But an old 744 just wouldn't work. Airlines don't add routes for the hell of it. They add routes to make money, and UA on HKG-MNL won't.
VC10er From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 2476 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (5 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1170 times:
I know when United down guagded to a 737 from HKG to SIN, there was a huge cry of anger and I was #1 on that rampage. Now they have gone back to the 747. United's premium product (especially First) was very good (not nearly as good as most of it's Asian rivals- but in a UA contex very good). All that said, United 737's are very nice birds and can they feed other smaller Asian cities with them out of NRT or HKG? Hanoi perhaps or KL? Also..can a Singapoian buy a ticket from SIN to HKG (on the 747) only?
Last: the Denver to Tokyo 787, will that 787 just turn and go back to Denver or could it tag?
[Edited 2012-12-29 23:42:06]
The world is missing love, let's use our flights to spread it!