SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (4 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 7623 times:
The question is complicated by the fact the pilot's contract will enable cross-fleeting to be fully implemented. UA's fleet is so large that they should have enough flexibility to cover the 788 routes in the short term.
Whether they will start new routes such as DEN-NRT is another matter. I'd expect it to be postponed if I had to guess.
The 762s are leaving the fleet, I don't think that will change. The two class 763s are done and available for international service.
We may see a delay in switching 752 TATL routes to 763 and/or increasing frequency if the grounding of the 787 is lengthy.
AA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5342 posts, RR: 11 Reply 2, posted (4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7349 times:
Quoting fun2fly (Thread starter): What are the short term/long term implications? Will it affect retirements/planned maintenance/refurbishments?
As Sonoma touched on, it all really depends on how long the birds are on the ground. If this is a one-week issue, then I would expect minimal changes to any forward planning; if this turns out to be a longer-term major redesign of systems, then there will, obviously, have to be bigger changes made.
I, for one, would expect the few 762's that remain to stick around a bit longer.
Hopefully, this can be resolved completely AND quickly. Time will tell- I (sadly) have no inside information as to what must be done to convince 787 lithium batteries to charge without entering into thermal runaway.
travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3313 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7249 times:
I am shocked that UA 32 (LAX-NRT) has been cancelled with no aircraft substitutions. I just looked on united.com, and the status is "cancelled" for at least the next few days.
They don't have a spare 777 or something sitting around? Forcing people to connect via SFO is not a very good solution, but perhaps they are just shuffling people onto other star carriers from LAX -- SQ and NH.
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7125 times:
travelin - I think the order to ground the 787s caught UA a bit off guard. This is the "slow" time of year when airlines like UA catch up on maintenance of a/c and for UA finishing off painting the last of the sUA frames. Going forward, UA will cover the lfight with a 777 as they did before.
travelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3313 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (4 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 7079 times:
Quoting warreng24 (Reply 4): UA has loaded replacement flights for UA32 and UA33
18 JAN UA1760 LAX-NRT, operated by N787UA
19 JAN UA1761 NRT-LAX, operated by N787UA
N787UA was in VCV for paint. Scheduled to exit VCV-LAX on 17 JAN as UA6863
OK I guess that makes sense that they'll use a 777 to cover the flight (as they did prior to the arrival of the 787) -- Of course the reg number on this particular 777 is quite ironic.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 5): travelin - I think the order to ground the 787s caught UA a bit off guard. This is the "slow" time of year when airlines like UA catch up on maintenance of a/c and for UA finishing off painting the last of the sUA frames. Going forward, UA will cover the lfight with a 777 as they did before.
Yeah -- I guess they are replacing it with a different flight number (the info above from warreng). That's why I was surprised that UA would not cover LAX-NRT, which is still an important route for them. I wonder why they changed flight numbers though? Why wouldn't they just do an equipment replacement for flight 32?
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 7010 times:
That flight number was used on second flights between LAX and NRT in the past. For whatever reason, they decided to just plug that one in. Its odd though because the flight departure times are the same as UA 32 which is the 787 flight.
73G From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 127 posts, RR: 2 Reply 8, posted (4 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 6938 times:
Quoting travelin man (Reply 6): Yeah -- I guess they are replacing it with a different flight number (the info above from warreng). That's why I was surprised that UA would not cover LAX-NRT, which is still an important route for them. I wonder why they changed flight numbers though? Why wouldn't they just do an equipment replacement for flight 32?
As the crew scheduling functionality for the two subsidiaries has not yet been merged, any inter-subisdiary equipment subsitutions require a new section to be built to properly determine crew legality and pay. Since PMCO equipment takes over on 1/19, the flight numbers remain 32/33.
Today's LAX-NRT customers appear to have been protected via the following:
1758 LAX-SEA (extra section using PMUA 757)
875 SEA-NRT
as well as
876 NRT-SEA
1759 SEA-LAX (extra section using PMUA 757)
It appears a couple of IAH-LAX turns and one IAH-ORD turn were subbed down to 739 equipment today as well.
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8755 posts, RR: 52 Reply 11, posted (4 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 6575 times:
Quoting 73G (Reply 8): Today's LAX-NRT customers appear to have been protected via the following:
1758 LAX-SEA (extra section using PMUA 757)
875 SEA-NRT
as well as
876 NRT-SEA
1759 SEA-LAX (extra section using PMUA 757)
That is interesting to see the extra section SEA-LAX since now the route is only CRJs. I guess UA took priority for its own passengers on NRT-LAX by putting them through SEA and they could have put any extras on ANA's NRT-SEA since it had been upgraded to a 77W.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
suseJ772 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 625 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (4 months 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 3065 times:
Quoting Bthebest (Reply 9): Anyone else catch the irony with the registration
I saw that too. Crazy.
I am super bummed about all this. I booked an ATL-DEN flight via IAH for next Friday specifically to fly on the 787... (and to see my family?) Anyways... I understand. These things happen. But I was really looking forward to this.
Even my mother called me and was like are you still coming? Weren't you suppose to be flying on the Dreamliner (I was really proud she knew all that).
Anyways... before the grounding I still had the highest confidence in the plane and was very much looking forward to my flight. Guess I'll settle for a boring old 757 now
cytz_pilot From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 546 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2709 times:
Quoting suseJ772 (Reply 16): I am super bummed about all this. I booked an ATL-DEN flight via IAH for next Friday specifically to fly on the 787... (and to see my family?) Anyways... I understand. These things happen. But I was really looking forward to this.
I know that feel, bro. I'm also booked on a 787 (IAH-LAX) next Friday. It's the main reason I was traveling, although if they substitute a 764 it won't be so bad since I haven't flown in one of those either. And I'll get a full day of southern California warmth, so I guess it won't be a total loss...
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8755 posts, RR: 52 Reply 19, posted (4 months 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 15): Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 11):
I guess UA took priority for its own passengers on NRT-LAX by putting them through SEA a
I'd imagine that F cabin on the 757 would be filled to the brim with elites getting back from the NRT flight.
The 787 has 36 business class seats. Not everyone would have gone via SEA to get to LAX. Some might have flown to SFO, ORD, IAH, EWR, or IAD on nonstops from NRT. Also some might have taken other connections from SEA. UA could have put them on flights to different cities on different airlines. 24F seats likely would have been enough to cover the 787's rather small business class cabin.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
Norcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1280 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (4 months 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 2341 times:
Quoting cytz_pilot (Reply 18): I know that feel, bro. I'm also booked on a 787 (IAH-LAX) next Friday. It's the main reason I was traveling, although if they substitute a 764 it won't be so bad since I haven't flown in one of those either. And I'll get a full day of southern California warmth, so I guess it won't be a total loss...
You'll love the 764. My 787 flight back in Nov got subbed to the 764 and it was my first 764 flight EWR-IAH which I absolutely loved. It's an awesome aircraft and the interior rocks.
fun2fly From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 839 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2291 times:
I know some of this has changed, but were does an airline come up w/4-6 $200mm a/c to fill in for a grounding? Amazing the slack in the system if they can do this long term.
CHICAGO, Aug. 23, 2012 /PRNewswire/ -- United Airlines today announced the first international routes for the airline's newest addition to its fleet, the Boeing 787 Dreamliner. In addition to the previously-announced service from its Denver hub to Tokyo Narita, starting March 31, 2013, the airline will operate nonstop 787 service five days a week between its Houston hub and Lagos, Nigeria, beginning Jan. 7, 2013. United will also operate daily, nonstop 787 service between its Los Angeles hub and its Narita hub, beginning Jan. 3, 2013, and Los Angeles to Shanghai, beginning March 30, 2013.
United will also operate daily, nonstop 787 service from its Houston hub to Amsterdam and London Heathrow on a temporary basis. Houston to Amsterdam service begins Dec. 4, 2012, and Houston to London Heathrow service begins Feb. 4, 2013.
UALWN From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2262 times:
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 20): You'll love the 764. My 787 flight back in Nov got subbed to the 764 and it was my first 764 flight EWR-IAH which I absolutely loved. It's an awesome aircraft and the interior rocks.
Same thing happened to me in early December. My would-be first 787 flight, EWR-IAH, got subbed by a 764. It was my third 764 flight and the first since the new interior, and I absolutely loved it.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
Eh? I really don't care what aircraft I fly, as long as it gets me to where I want to go either on a 787 or what ever they use, I don't have any illusions and now a days I would wish I did not have to fly at all. The experience sucks no matter what you do, I have not liked flying since the middle of the last decade.
United1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5338 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
Quoting fun2fly (Reply 21): I know some of this has changed, but were does an airline come up w/4-6 $200mm a/c to fill in for a grounding? Amazing the slack in the system if they can do this long term.
Winter is the slow season so generally there is allot of excess capacity in the system. Usually that excess is pulled down and non critical overhauls are performed (painting, IPTE/interiors ect.) As long as the 787 is back up by the middle of March you probably won't see much change to UAs operations.
Quoting UALWN (Reply 22): It was my third 764 flight and the first since the new interior, and I absolutely loved it.
The 764s and 763s with the new interiors are an absolutely awesome ride.
Norcal773 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 1280 posts, RR: 12 Reply 25, posted (4 months 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2340 times:
Quoting brilondon (Reply 23): Eh? I really don't care what aircraft I fly, as long as it gets me to where I want to go either on a 787 or what ever they use, I don't have any illusions and now a days I would wish I did not have to fly at all. The experience sucks no matter what you do, I have not liked flying since the middle of the last decade.
Eeh, have you considered joining a Trains enthusiasts forum then and ditching A.net?
Quoting UALWN (Reply 22): Same thing happened to me in early December. My would-be first 787 flight, EWR-IAH, got subbed by a 764. It was my third 764 flight and the first since the new interior, and I absolutely loved it.
It's a great aircraft indeed. I am a big 777 fan and I'd rather fly on UA's 764 than the 772s.
point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1961 posts, RR: 1 Reply 27, posted (3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1585 times:
Quoting fun2fly (Reply 26): Looks like the 787 issues will be longer than we thought.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 1): Whether they will start new routes such as DEN-NRT is another matter. I'd expect it to be postponed if I had to guess.
Is there another bird UA could use to start DEN-NRT if the 787 issues aren't resolved by then? Maybe a 777 would be too much here, and a 767 may have to make an ANC fuel-stop or something along the way, but I would imagine that there are already quite a number of seats booked here, so would any other aircraft in the UA fleet be able to substitute here?
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1178 posts, RR: 0 Reply 28, posted (3 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1540 times:
Quoting point2point (Reply 27): Is there another bird UA could use to start DEN-NRT if the 787 issues aren't resolved by then? Maybe a 777 would be too much here, and a 767 may have to make an ANC fuel-stop or something along the way, but I would imagine that there are already quite a number of seats booked here, so would any other aircraft in the UA fleet be able to substitute here?
I don't think it would make economic sense to run a 767 with a tech stop enroute and I don't think they have the slack for it anyway (except possibly with the 762?).
I'd think the 777 is too much a/c for the route but they could run it with a two class 777 if there is slack in the schedule to make it work.
These changes were presumably taken from the United Hub page, but I can't see it there:
• LAX–NRT will fly using a S-UA B777.
• IAH–HNL will change from a S-UA B777 to fly using a S-CO B767-400.
• IAH–LOS will fly as a S-CO B777.
• IAH–GIG will change from S-CO B777 to fly as a S-CO B767-400.
• EWR–FRA will change from S-CO B767-400 to fly as a S-CO B767-200.
• Domestic segments scheduled with the B787 will instead be operated by a variety of S-CO aircraft.
brilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, RR: 1 Reply 30, posted (3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 1011 times:
Quoting Norcal773 (Reply 25): Eeh, have you considered joining a Trains enthusiasts forum then and ditching A.net?
No. I am part of a Railway group, we skype on Sundays. We also get together and trade pictures and stories a couple of times a year. I still like to watch aircraft but I have lost my enthusiasm for flying. I feel like it is like taking a bus and treated similarly. BTW, do you really care?
cosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 202 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (3 months 4 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 935 times:
Since they were planning to retire the 5 762's this quarter, I would hope they can make some adjustments to schedules and just replace 762's in for 787's on any routes that allow it (Probably not LAX-NRT). Then when the 787's are allowed back up, they can swap them back within 24 hours, and retire the 762's as planned.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 839 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 433 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4989 posts, 
From Andorra, joined Jun 2009, 2331 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 3183 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
