Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Will UA Run DEN-NRT Without 787?  
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3214 posts, RR: 13
Posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8174 times:

Hey all,

We're about 2 weeks into the FAA's Emergency AD grounding the 787. Right now the schedules still show UA operating the 787 for DEN-NRT with the inaugural on 31MAR, but does anyone know what the contingency plan(s) is/are in the event 787 is not back operational by then?? Will the route be indefinitely delayed, suspended, or operated by a 777??

Has anyone heard any rumors or speculation??



View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © John Price
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Pinkteam



[Edited 2013-01-30 11:18:01]

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently onlineAVENSAB727 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 944 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8168 times:

It should be back to 787 once they return.


Always look on the bright side of Life!
User currently offlineTranspac787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 3214 posts, RR: 13
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8138 times:

Quoting AVENSAB727 (Reply 1):

It should be back to 787 once they return.

Yes, thank you.  

My question is if the 787 is not operational by 31MAR, what is the contingency plan for that??


User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8106 times:

I would imagine they'd delay the launch. The economics and performance of the 787 are what make it work.

User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1720 posts, RR: 3
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 8106 times:

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 2):
My question is if the 787 is not operational by 31MAR, what is the contingency plan for that??

You just got "avensa'd"

I'd say they'll reroute pax over SEA/SFO/LAX until the 787 is back.


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7912 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

They won't run this route without the 787 given the economic factors involved. There isn't sufficient demand/yield to warrant a 777 a/c and the 767 can't run this route.

My impression is the 787 won't be fully operational until sometime after this route is due to start so they'll have a bit of a delay then get it underway later in the spring.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2764 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7912 times:

Just thinking out loud here in asking but would it be possible to use a 767 version (seat-wise) and just make a quick fuel stop along the way, in say - SEA, YVR or even ADK (ADK would be the best with very little chance of on-ground traffic delays) - or any other point along the way? Besides giving up a few minutes of out-of the-way flying time, and the refueling itself, couldn't this be the best option here? No need to change planes, not even any need to let folks out of the plane, and maybe not even any real need of more than an hour or so to this flight? Does UA have a couple of 767s around?

At least in my thinking, why rebook all those pax already there? Just find a spare plane - and a 767 with a quick fuel stop might be the best option.

 


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7862 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Fuel stops are expensive and when you combine it with the fact the 767's fuel economy is over 20% worse than the 787, it is cheaper to reroute the passengers and cargo then lose one's "tail" flying a 767 via ANC or SEA.

User currently offlineJoePatroni707 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 493 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7812 times:

I would guess that it depends on how long the 787 will grounded when the date arrives. If a fix is in the works, they may start it with a 777 and run it for a few weeks or so. Back in 91 AA did not delay the start of SJCNRT even though the MD11 was plauged with problems, they ran a DC10 for a while on the route. Although the DC10 could make it non stop it had MTOW issues vs SJC runway length and had to make a stop in OAK a few times for fuel. AA just then put the flight on a heavy weight diet, till the MD11s took over with I think was late 91 or early 92.

User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 7753 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 5):
My impression is the 787 won't be fully operational until sometime after this route is due to start so they'll have a bit of a delay then get it underway later in the spring.
Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 8):
I would guess that it depends on how long the 787 will grounded when the date arrives.

Equally as worrisome, though maybe not relevant to the DEN-NRT route, is if the grounding impacts the airplane's ETOPS. No one bought this airplane for 240 min ETOPS...


User currently offlineBoeingGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2010, 3151 posts, RR: 7
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7569 times:

Quoting JoePatroni707 (Reply 8):
Back in 91 AA did not delay the start of SJCNRT even though the MD11 was plauged with problems, they ran a DC10 for a while on the route.

Yeah, but ANA just suspended their 3-day old SJC-NRT flight even though they have 767s and 777s that could technically handle the route.

Let's hope the start of DEN-NRT with the 787 isn't an issue by then......


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2764 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 7501 times:

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7):
Fuel stops are expensive and when you combine it with the fact the 767's fuel economy is over 20% worse than the 787, it is cheaper to reroute the passengers and cargo then lose one's "tail" flying a 767 via ANC or SEA.

Okay..... I hear you with this. But even with some 20% increase in costs, I believe that in the press conference about the DEN-NRT route, UA management stated that it would concentrate its premium traffic to those points such as IAD, IAH, ORD, EWR, LAX, SFO and even SEA, and route its lower end traffic here through DEN, thus the 787. So wouldn't UA be giving up some premium $$$$ if it were to reroute those DEN pax through other points? At any rate, I think that we can agree here that the number crunchers are very busy with all of their spreadsheets figuring this out if DEN-NRT can't start without the 787.

Quoting catiii (Reply 9):
Equally as worrisome, though maybe not relevant to the DEN-NRT route, is if the grounding impacts the airplane's ETOPS. No one bought this airplane for 240 min ETOPS...

Per the GCM, the biggest land gap on the DEN-NRT route would be from the end of the Aleutian Islands to Japan, and you are correct in that 240 min ETOPS is not needed here. But just asking, where would this 240 min ETOPS be needed with future routes for the 787?


 


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1689 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7369 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 6):
Just thinking out loud here in asking but would it be possible to use a 767 version (seat-wise) and just make a quick fuel stop along the way, in say - SEA, YVR or even ADK (ADK would be the best with very little chance of on-ground traffic delays) - or any other point along the way?

UA can probably accommodate the majority of the pax via their other TPAC flights. Keep in mind some of the pax would've been flying DEN-NRT-XXX, wherein UA could reroute DEN-SFO-XXX for several major destinations. Other pax would've been doing YYY-DEN-NRT, and they can be accommodated flying YYY-ORD/SFO/LAX-NRT instead. They can also push some of the pax over SEA if they want to go down that road (particular those who are O&D at the DEN end). In any event, it would make more sense to upgauge one of the existing flights if absolutely necessary - but considering they've managed to carry the load without a DEN flight up until now, they'll get by.

As an aside, there is absolutely zero chance they would consider stopping at ADK. The airport is not suitable for scheduled ops by a widebody and it would make no sense for UA to place infrastructure or make arrangements for fueling at an airport that serves no particular use to them otherwise. Also, ADK can fall victim to the weather problems that often plague the Aleutian Islands.


User currently offlinepoint2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 2764 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7302 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 12):

Okay, ADK is a bad idea....... and as for reroutes....... probably easiest doable and most cost effective. As for upguage (probably 777 if need be) a lot of seats would most likely have to be given away to fill the plane if this were to go on too long.

My bad here, but I haven't been following the 787 grounding threads here, which I believe will soon be into the 7th thread. Can anyone provide an easy update as to where we are with this? Is it still the batteries, or have more problems been found? Any idea of when this grounding will be lifted? Might the 787 be back in time for the DEN-NRT inauguration as planned on March 31?


 


User currently offlineCessna172RG From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 749 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7301 times:

Ok, consider this:

In March of 2002, I was flying Houston to Tokyo/Narita on a Continental 777-200. We had to make an emergency landing about an hour and a half after departing IAH because a passenger passed away. We dumped fuel and landed at Denver. After a brief refueling, we took off and flew nonstop from Denver to Tokyo/Narita without a problem.

So, I don't see why they can't fly that route in a 777-200.



Save the whales...for dinner!!!
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3045 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7164 times:

Quoting Cessna172RG (Reply 14):
Ok, consider this:

In March of 2002, I was flying Houston to Tokyo/Narita on a Continental 777-200. We had to make an emergency landing about an hour and a half after departing IAH because a passenger passed away. We dumped fuel and landed at Denver. After a brief refueling, we took off and flew nonstop from Denver to Tokyo/Narita without a problem.

So, I don't see why they can't fly that route in a 777-200.

The limitations aren't technical, they're market driven. They could fly it, but it doesn't make market sense to do so.


User currently onlineRDH3E From United States of America, joined Mar 2011, 1720 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 7154 times:

Quoting Cessna172RG (Reply 14):
So, I don't see why they can't fly that route in a 777-200.

The absolutely CAN, but it's going to be a river of red. No sense in intentionally losing that much money.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2098 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 7007 times:

If the 787 is still grounded or questionable, they will not start DEN-NRT. The route is marginal to begin with, it is out of range for the 763 and the 772 is too large. There may not be enough 772s available either.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 7):
the 767's fuel economy is over 20% worse than the 787

That is a bit of a canard from Boeing. The 20% is believed to the the fuel CASM over the 762 (with the 787 at 9 abreast). The 763 has only slightly higher trip costs and has more seats, which is why there are so few 762s still operating. The 762 is probably the least efficient aircraft in its class. The advantage over the 763 is smaller and at least the Y seating is more comfortable in the 767 than the 787. The overall trip costs are probably not that much higher but NRT is out of range so it is irrelevant.


User currently offlineORDBOSEWR From United States of America, joined Jun 2011, 449 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6995 times:

Quoting Cessna172RG (Reply 14):

Ok, consider this:

In March of 2002, I was flying Houston to Tokyo/Narita on a Continental 777-200. We had to make an emergency landing about an hour and a half after departing IAH because a passenger passed away. We dumped fuel and landed at Denver. After a brief refueling, we took off and flew nonstop from Denver to Tokyo/Narita without a problem.

So, I don't see why they can't fly that route in a 777-200.

and I am sure that CO did not make a penny on that flight! (for many reasons).

Quoting RDH3E (Reply 16):
The absolutely CAN, but it's going to be a river of red. No sense in intentionally losing that much money.

  

The only way that UA opens this flight and the 787 is still grounded they feel the 787 grounding is coming to an end.

UA can easily rebook all of the customers via LAX or SFO on connections, so the capacity to NRT is not needed by UA.

It is all about profitability! As it should be


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1842 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6868 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting point2point (Reply 13):
Can anyone provide an easy update as to where we are with this? Is it still the batteries, or have more problems been found? Any idea of when this grounding will be lifted? Might the 787 be back in time for the DEN-NRT inauguration as planned on March 31?

The focus is on the batteries at the moment. We don't know for certain what is going on beyond the fact they are looking first at the batteries, then the charging system and back to the burned batteries to track down possible mfr defects. They may also be looking at how the battery is set up to see if increasing the spacing between cells, a change in the safety margins in the software and/or increased containment are needed. This is a complex process which is why its taking so long.

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):
That is a bit of a canard from Boeing. The 20% is believed to the the fuel CASM over the 762 (with the 787 at 9 abreast). The 763 has only slightly higher trip costs and has more seats, which is why there are so few 762s still operating. The 762 is probably the least efficient aircraft in its class. The advantage over the 763 is smaller and at least the Y seating is more comfortable in the 767 than the 787. The overall trip costs are probably not that much higher but NRT is out of range so it is irrelevant.
NH reported their fuel savings versus their 767s was on the order of 21% and that is before the next PiP for the engines which is due by 2014. There is no doubt this a/c saves a ton of fuel versus an a/c designed in the '70s be it 18% or 22% or more.

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/avd_06_26_2012_p01-01-470896.xml
[Edited 2013-01-30 16:16:08]

[Edited 2013-01-30 16:18:00]

User currently offlineBD500 From Canada, joined Feb 2010, 35 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6825 times:

Quoting point2point (Reply 6):

Just thinking out loud here in asking but would it be possible to use a 767 version (seat-wise) and just make a quick fuel stop along the way, in say - SEA, YVR or even ADK (ADK would be the best with very little chance of on-ground traffic delays)

I don't think YVR make sense, I believe the passengers will have to clear customs and they would'nt be able to sell the YVR-HND portion.


User currently offlineCOSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1623 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 6334 times:

HNL-DEN is going 777-200 3 class froma 757 1 Apr so who knows ??!?

User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5462 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5786 times:

Quoting catiii (Reply 3):
I would imagine they'd delay the launch. The economics and performance of the 787 are what make it work.
Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 5):
They won't run this route without the 787 given the economic factors involved. There isn't sufficient demand/yield to warrant a 777 a/c and the 767 can't run this route.
Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 10):
Yeah, but ANA just suspended their 3-day old SJC-NRT flight even though they have 767s and 777s that could technically handle the route
Quoting point2point (Reply 11):
At any rate, I think that we can agree here that the number crunchers are very busy with all of their spreadsheets figuring this out if DEN-NRT can't start without the 787.
Quoting catiii (Reply 15):
The limitations aren't technical, they're market driven. They could fly it, but it doesn't make market sense to do so.
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 17):
If the 787 is still grounded or questionable, they will not start DEN-NRT. The route is marginal to begin with, it is out of range for the 763 and the 772 is too large. There may not be enough 772s available either.

Despite all these comments, I'll mention that JAL is now running both BOS-NRT and SAN-NRT using their 777-200ERs -- both routes at slightly reduced frequencies. (BOS is 5x wkly instead of the 787-scheduled daily and SAN at 3x wkly rather than planned 4x wkly.)

And both of these routes have been said to be dependent on the economics of the 787 to be profitable.

I think there's something to be said for a carrier taking a route seriously and honoring a commitment they've made to fly a new route even if they will probably lose some money temporarily.

I wouldn't be so sure that UA will just ignore the bookings that already exist on the DEN-NRT route and anger more customers than they've already managed to do over the last year or so! I wouldn't be surprised to see them take the high road and sub another a/c on the route and start it when it's scheduled to start.

Finally, I can honestly say that I'm very happy that SAN-TYO was the choice of JL! As I see how they are working through this nasty situation (the grounding of a new airplane) and making things work as well as they are, I continue to be extremely impressed.

bb


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4405 posts, RR: 19
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4891 times:

Quoting SANFan (Reply 22):
I think there's something to be said for a carrier taking a route seriously and honoring a commitment they've made to fly a new route even if they will probably lose some money temporarily.

Don't make JAL out to be Mother Theresa here -- odds are decent they're flying the routes at a loss with the 777 because the alternative of no service at all may result in greater adverse financial impact to the company under the terms of the TPAC JV.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6004 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 4846 times:

Quoting avek00 (Reply 23):
Quoting SANFan (Reply 22):
I think there's something to be said for a carrier taking a route seriously and honoring a commitment they've made to fly a new route even if they will probably lose some money temporarily.

Don't make JAL out to be Mother Theresa here -- odds are decent they're flying the routes at a loss with the 777 because the alternative of no service at all may result in greater adverse financial impact to the company under the terms of the TPAC JV.

...we also don't know if there is some sort of financial compensation coming from Boeing or the insurance company.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
25 tommy767 : can DEN-NRT be run with a 2-class 763?
26 strfyr51 : Just thinking out loud here in asking but would it be possible to use a 767 version (seat-wise) and just make a quick fuel stop along the way, in say
27 catiii : As you come down off that high horse you're on, I would point out that the difference in what JAL is doing and, hypothetically, what UA would do is t
28 SonomaFlyer : Although its possible JL will continue SAN at 3x a week, it becomes problematic given the loads they can carry westbound. They key is whether the flig
29 jayunited : United will not run this route without the 787 and although the 777 can make the flight it is to much plane for this route and starting this spring an
30 tommy767 : would a one stop DEN-SEA-NRT or DEN-LAX-NRT work? Tag it on with a 777?
31 SANFan : Wow, excuse me for being impressed. I suppose I should feel the same as those in SJC who've indefinitely lost their new NH nonstop to Tokyo after wha
32 FreshSide3 : Up until last year, UA flight 875 were run as a change-of-gauge DEN-SEA-NRT, and before that, as a thru 777. It worked in the past.
33 AVENSAB727 : If UA does cancel the launch of DEN-NRT, I know that there is a small chance of that ever happening. I wonder what could UA place the 787 in. IAH-SCL,
34 jayunited : United is not canceling DEN-NRT, the flight would probably be postponed if the 787's are still grounded. So no United will not be placing the 787 on
35 catiii : Ok, the point still remains: JAL has already been operating the routes (be it for the last month or the last 10 months) , and it's harder to suddenly
36 thenoflyzone : not profitably, no ! Combine the length of the sector involved, 5029 nm, with the altitude of DEN, 5300ft, and the 763 is not well placed to operate
37 Concordski : I have a ATL-DEN-NRT ticket in May and I'd be really disappointed If I'm rerouted ATL-DEN-SFO-NRT, ATL-DEN-SEA-NRT. I would pay more to have a 1 stop
38 SonomaFlyer : I would contact UA in April and discuss it with them. There's no reason to do a two stop solution when you can go via ORD or EWR or IAH or even SFO.
39 catiii : Or maybe they'll take pity and even put you on the nonstop on DL?
40 N104UA : Not unless there are no seats on any UA plane.
41 captainstefan : SFO would require two stops or travel on another airline. I can't remember how long it's been since UA flew nonstop ATL-SFO.
42 2travel2know2 : Does UA already fly DEN-ANC year around or seasonal? Is there a market for that? If the answers are yes, then DEN-ANC-NRT temporary B767 may make sen
43 malaysia : I thought originally TWA was going to put a 762 on STL-NRT so can maybe CO 762 on DEN-NRT?
44 AADC10 : Do not forget that UA had to go back to the 772 on LAX-NRT so they can fill some of the seats with passengers that might have taken DEN-NRT. Only UA
45 Post contains images point2point : There's been an update on another airline site (that I'm reluctant to link here for concern of getting deleted when I linked to this site previously)
46 sonomaflyer : You might want to follow the threads on the issue. The consensus on the issue is they are looking at electrical issues besides just the batteries. Th
47 steex : I think the odds are very slim they would re-accommodate you on a 2-stop routing in the first place. They're going to assume you were trying to get t
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...
Will UA Go 744 On IAH-NRT In September? posted Sat Jun 30 2012 21:29:18 by AVENSAB727
Will UA Keep Its First Class In The Long Run? posted Thu May 31 2012 20:55:48 by United Airline
UA To Launch DEN-NRT posted Mon May 21 2012 22:29:12 by panam330
Will UA Restart CLT-DEN? posted Fri Oct 16 2009 17:55:00 by USAirALB
Why No DEN-NRT On UA. posted Wed Aug 5 2009 10:31:23 by AirmaleJUM
UA DEN-NRT Is Likely To Be Launched posted Sun Nov 5 2006 06:21:20 by Jimyvr
Why Will UA Abandon JFK - LHR/NRT? posted Mon Aug 14 2006 20:14:50 by UA933
Will UA Bring Back 777s On DEN-EWR? posted Wed Jan 7 2004 08:05:37 by Shawn Patrick
UA's Third SFO-NRT Will Return posted Sun Jul 7 2002 22:03:30 by Flyua
Will UA Use 744 For SFO-ORD? Run This Summer posted Wed May 1 2002 19:17:30 by SJCguy