AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 18806 posts, RR: 64 Reply 1, posted (2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10501 times:
This is partly due to fewer numbering options as UA and CO are still being flown as separate airlines in some respects. Why they are changing the east/west directional sequence is still unknown. From another forum, these are other changes to expect as of 6/7/13:
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 992 posts, RR: 1 Reply 2, posted (2 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 10451 times:
Quoting 777-500er (Thread starter): Why is that? Oddly all East Bound flights were always even and now the numbering is being inverted. Is there a logical explanation?
I don't know, but here's my guess:
They might be trying to harmonise flight numbers on an outbound/inbound basis.
If you look at the Asian departures, they all have odd numbers flying out of SFO and even numbers coming back in, and the changes you cited create the same pattern on the trans-Atlantic departures: odd out, even in.
This makes it easier for the geographically-challenged who cannot figure out whether a flight would be going east or west.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, RR: 24 Reply 3, posted (2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9801 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 2): If you look at the Asian departures, they all have odd numbers flying out of SFO and even numbers coming back in, and the changes you cited create the same pattern on the trans-Atlantic departures: odd out, even in.
The Asian flight numbering is based on the convention, long used by North America-based carriers, of using odd numbers westbound and even numbers eastbound systemwide.
One of the rare current exceptions is DL's JFK-LHR-JFK flights where DL wanted to use the more "prestigious" DL1 number for theJFK-originating flight when they purchased UA's New York-London rights (prior to Open Skies). I believe DL's JFK-LHR flights are their only eastbound transatlantic flights with odd numbers, and vice versa for the westbound flights..
flyingalex From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 992 posts, RR: 1 Reply 4, posted (2 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 9746 times:
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3): The Asian flight numbering is based on the convention, long used by North America-based carriers, of using odd numbers eastbound and even numbers westbound systemwide.
I guess Air Canada didn't get the memo, because they have the exact opposite:
AC838 is YOW-FRA, AC839 is FRA-YOW
AC844 is YYC-FRA, AC845 is FRA-YYC
AC872 is YYZ-FRA, AC877 is FRA-YYZ
AC874 is YUL-FRA, AC877 is FRA-YUL
AC876 is YYZ-FRA, AC877 is FRA-YYZ
and so on.
Public service announcement: "It's" = "it is". To indicate posession, write "its." Looks wrong, but it's correct grammar
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, RR: 24 Reply 5, posted (2 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 9616 times:
Quoting flyingalex (Reply 4): Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
The Asian flight numbering is based on the convention, long used by North America-based carriers, of using odd numbers eastbound and even numbers westbound systemwide.
I guess Air Canada didn't get the memo, because they have the exact opposite:
AC838 is YOW-FRA, AC839 is FRA-YOW
AC844 is YYC-FRA, AC845 is FRA-YYC
AC872 is YYZ-FRA, AC877 is FRA-YYZ
AC874 is YUL-FRA, AC877 is FRA-YUL
AC876 is YYZ-FRA, AC877 is FRA-YYZ
Sorry, that's what I meant, even eastbound, odd westbound, which was the point of my reference to the DL exception on JFK-LHR. Have corrected my earlier reply.
AmricanShamrok From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2608 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8214 times:
UA longhaul flight numbers are still very inconsistent following the merger with ex-CO aircraft still taking on low flight numbers (UA1-UA199 give or take) and sUA aircraft in the UA800-UA999 range. Will they eventually consolidate these flight numbers?
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2493 posts, RR: 2 Reply 13, posted (2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8109 times:
Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 12): with ex-CO aircraft still taking on low flight numbers (UA1-UA199 give or take) and sUA aircraft in the UA800-UA999 range.
Correct, sCO is UA1-199 and 1000+ and sUA is 200-999. Why, I don't know, it would have made more sense to have one as 1-700 and the other 700+ (a la HP/US) but it's not for me to reason why...
Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 12): Will they eventually consolidate these flight numbers?
Probably not. As noted above, sUA have been using 900-series flight numbers for long haul flights for years. At the end of the day it doesn't really make a difference (despite my tantrum above!) so it certainly won't be high up on the list of things to fix.
beachbum1970 From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 46 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (2 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8082 times:
Quoting SHAQ (Reply 10): United 1 is PHX-DEN-IAH?!!
That's a bad joke or what?
I think that UA1 should be IAH-ORD or IAH-FRA or SFO-FRA , SFO-LHR
But not a domestic route!
Back in the 90s and early 2000s, UA1 and UA2 were the "Around The World" flights for United. I believe UA1 was westbound, UA2 was eastbound and I think towards the end the routing was LAX-HKG-DEL-LHR-IAD-LAX. Pan Am also used PA1 and PA2 for their "Around The World" service.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 426 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7661 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 13): As noted above, sUA have been using 900-series flight numbers for long haul flights for years.
As I recall, prior to the merger, at least at SFO, just about every 900-series flight originated or ended on the other side of the Atlantic. This included a number of flights that began in Europe, stopped at IAD or ORD, and continued to SFO (usually on different metal). 800 series flights were (and, into SFO at least, still are) largely trans-pacific flights, although IIRC there was at least one flight from MEX that went through LAX that had an 800 series flight number...
I recall hearing that UA inherited its international flight numbers from PA, although I don't know how accurate that is...I don't know how long UA used 900/901 for SFO-FRA, but it's been at least 7 years, and I'm sad to see it go...but not really a huge deal in the grand scheme of things. It would be nice to see they at least re-do the flight numbers so there's some rhyme or reason, but I don't see that happening anytime soon...I can't imagine it's anywhere near high on their priority list...
BMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 14315 posts, RR: 26 Reply 16, posted (2 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 7220 times:
Quoting 777-500er (Thread starter): I just noticed that some of UA's historic Transatlantic flights are being re-numbered in a quite not logical process.
What's historic about them? They had old flight numbers, now they have new flight numbers and it won't make a practical difference to anyone since they're arbitrary anyway.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
cosyr From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 200 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (2 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6664 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 13): Correct, sCO is UA1-199 and 1000+ and sUA is 200-999
Well that would explain why the long standing flight 1 from IAH-LAX-HNL-GUM or IAH-HNL-GUM changed, when the UA 777's took over the route. Hopefully it will go back after they merge operations, especially because UA's flight 1 prior to the merger was also HNL.
bavair From Germany, joined Jul 2011, 104 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 months 2 days ago) and read 6070 times:
UA1 was due to become one of the flights to MUC - I think IAD. However, about 3 weeks ago, those plans were changed to UA1 being retired from service alltogether if I remember correclty.
NorthstarBoy From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1713 posts, RR: 1 Reply 20, posted (2 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5966 times:
Quoting warden145 (Reply 15): I recall hearing that UA inherited its international flight numbers from PA, although I don't know how accurate that is...
I can think of some examples, UA 801 when it used to operate JFK-Nrt started life as PA 801. PA 811 Lax-Syd became UA 811, then changed to UA 815 and finally the current UA 839. Also DL 30, which flies JFK-SVO started life as PA 30 also doing JFK-SVO.
BMI727: You're right, most people probably dont care, but for some of us, we can use the old flight numbers to visualize specific routes and maybe recall some of UA's past glory.
some examples:
UA 1 Westbound round the world
UA 2 Eastbound round the world.
these two routes also represent the only usage of the 763 to Asia by UA. Because of the Indian Bilateral UA had to fly Lhr-Del-Hkg vv with a 763. I was told once that UA wanted to put a 744 on the trip to counter some of the issues the 763 had with flying over the himalayas and lack of suitable diversion airports for ETOPS flying and was told by the Indian government they could put the 744 on the trip if they wished, but could only sell 208 seats. UA would have had to block off half the airplane. (the configuration at the time for most of the 744 fleet was 18/80/320 with a six aircraft subfleet offering a premium heavy 36/123/142 configuration.) I've also been told that having to operate the DEL sectors with the 763 created another headache for UA: the flight was constantly oversold.
UA 801 Jfk-Nrt
UA 803 Ewr-Nrt
UA 805 Sfo-Hkg
UA 807 Sfo-Icn
UA 809 Sfo-Osa
UA 811 Lax-Syd
UA 817 Lax-Kix
UA 819 Sfo-Nrt
UA 821 Hnl-Nrt
UA 837 Sfo-Nrt
UA 841 Lax-Akl
UA 843 (I believe) Sfo-Hnl-Akl-Syd operated by a DC-10-30. I believe the flight was canceled when the 744 came online and UA could operate Lax-Syd with enough capacity that the multi stop Sfo-Syd and Lax-Syd 74L weren't needed anymore. Everyone was funneled into UA 811, the ns 747-400 Lax-Syd
UA 845 Sfo-Tpe
UA 847 Lax-Mel
UA 869 Mia-Ccs
UA 891 Lax-Nrt (the Lax-Nrt operated with this flight number for at least the last 15 years, until the 787 came online and the flight was changed to flight 32 westbound/33 eastbound, then reverted to 802 westbound/801 eastbound when UA reverted back to the 3 class 777 that had been operating the trip until the 787 started it.)
When UA first started Ord-Eze it was flight 441 or 443, cant recall which.
Also many of the deep south america trips from Mia that UA took over from PA before they dismantled the MIA hub, carried high 900 numbers, I believe UA 976 was Mia-Eze for example, operated by a 741.
I could have elite status if I wanted it, but flying the same airline all the time is boring.
carpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, RR: 4 Reply 21, posted (2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4677 times:
To throw a curveball, does UA's Trans-Atlantic operation constitute historical proportions. PmUA have only been flying to Europe for only 25 years or so, though I have no idea how long pmCO have been flying to Europe.
I suppose it at all depends on what each person think is 'historical.'
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (2 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4607 times:
I dont want to get too het up over flight numbers save for the factr that UA1 should go on historic or premier route, i.e. ORD - HNL, SFO - LHR/HKG something like that.
SRT75 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 252 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4359 times:
Quoting bavair (Reply 18): However, about 3 weeks ago, those plans were changed to UA1 being retired from service alltogether if I remember correclty
This seems improbable, since airlines usually view flight 1/2 as "prestige" or "premier" routes. But, if you have inside knowledge, all I can say is that seems like a pretty bad idea. If post-merger UA wants to establish itself as a world-class airline that can compete with the best of them, it should make UA 1/2 a prestice route flying the 787.
You're most correct, Pre Merger UA used the Pan Am flight numbers to Asia. For a LONG time SFO-HKG was UA805 and similar to the rest of Asia. the flights to Europe were 900 Series flights. SFO- LHR UA954, and SFO- CDG was UA 931
CO used flight numbers that we never used up to the 1600-1700 series, But I guess now they're attempting to put their "mark" on the airline and that's cool. The Flight numbers are of little consequence as long as it's United Pilots flying them using UAL equipment because S-CO and S-UA are all United. and if changing flight numbers is what they need to be OK?? Then I'm OK with it Too They can call them 9000 series for all I care. It's just not all that serious. Is IT??
25 bavair: This is no inside information. I also know that quite a few other airlines - eg. LH - who don't have a flight number 1. Source for UA1
26 RDH3E: Well I don't like what they did with flight #1. It's a disgrace to the legacy of William "Pat" Patterson who is the reason UA is the carrier it is to
27 flyingalex: LH Flight 1 is the first HAM-FRA flight every morning.
28 ual777uk: UA says they are dropping #1 from International ,so there is every chance it will be going domestic. Premium Service would be a good place to put it.
29 papertec: I think I might have named this topic "Hysterical Atlantic Flights," given the apparent panic over changing a favorite flight number! Too funny for wo
30 PHX787: Not sure why they numbered it like this but just for reference, US1 is PHX-ORD.....
32 United1: PHX-ORD was was historically HP 1....ORD was one of the initial destinations IIRC.
33 ANITIX87: And I know CO80/81 as the GVA flight!!!! Too many changes! TIS
34 ikramerica: CO1 was HNL-IAH or reverse, can't recall. If I'm not mistaken us carriers pair six premiere routes on flights 1-12, skip 13, then pair the rest even/o
35 lapper: UA1 becomes EWR-LAX-SFO from 02 July to 12 August on a 738. Then it changes to EWR-SFO direct. Interestingly there is no UA2 until 13 August when it b
36 ikramerica: Is UA1 both directions? I know many airlines are moving to this system. My recent DL flight was the same number both ways.
37 Viscount724: Agree. Years ago I used to always know what flight number I was on. Now I pay no attention to flight numbers when I book. I'm only interested in depa
38 bohica: I thought the same thing until I looked at a PA schedule on Departed Flights. Most PA TATL and TPAC flights were in the 1-200 range. There were a cou
39 timz: Offhand guess: when UA started a second SFO-LHR nonstop it was 954. (May have started as a 747SP.)
40 strfyr51: It's really of Little Importance now, UCH is trying to build a "Legacy" based on the Merger and whatever they have to do to make management feel bette
41 UAL747DEN: Are you serious!!! For UA to be a world class airline and compete they have to put the flight number 1 on prestigious flights? I have read a lot of u
42 RDH3E: Because while it doesn't matter to paying passengers, employees care about these things. And I, perhaps unlike you, am proud of the history of this c
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 479 posts, 
From Germany, joined Jul 2010, 992 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21460 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2493 posts, 
From Panama, joined Jun 2007, 284 posts, 
From Ireland, joined May 2008, 2608 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Aug 2005, 765 posts, 
From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2769 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
