N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:03 am

Well, I was looking at the article posted by UA777UK in the Heathrow fuel rationing thread and it appears United has had to delay the introduction of their second LAX-LHR flight because of an inability to tanker in enough fuel on the 763ER. BAA really needs to correct the unfair treatment that is costing UA and AA a significant amount of money while BA and European carriers doing short hauls go relatively unscathed.

http://yahoo.reuters.com/stocks/Quot...-02_22-36-50_N0210606&symbol=AMR.N
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:05 am

when was the flight supposed to start?
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:08 am

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 1):
when was the flight supposed to start?

Next month. Check the article. UA has taken it out of the schedules now.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
CarbHeatIn
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 6:31 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:13 am

I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:17 am

Quoting CarbHeatIn (Reply 3):
I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.

There are plans to do that, possibly even making the 767 International fleet a 2-class (plus Y+) plane with an enhanced J class.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2136
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 4:30 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 2):
Next month. Check the article. UA has taken it out of the schedules now.

Sorry, i could not see it for looking.

Quoting CarbHeatIn (Reply 3):
I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.

UA has set aside $400m to start the fleet upgrades this year.
 
anstar
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:00 am

Quoting N1120A (Thread starter):
BAA really needs to correct the unfair treatment that is costing UA and AA a significant amount of money while BA and European carriers doing short hauls go relatively unscathed.

BAA can hardly be to blame for the fuel depot fire.

It's not just American carriers, it is all long haul carriers. From what I have read in the press, airlines are allowed 80% of their normal fuel rations.

Airlines like BA are gettingfuel for the European flights from abroad and using their allowance to comepletly fill their long haul flights ex LHR. Why this is unfare to American carriers I have no idea. As above, it effects every airline.
QF, MH, CX, SQ, AA, UA etc etc etc
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:13 am

Quoting ANstar (Reply 6):
Airlines like BA are gettingfuel for the European flights from abroad and using their allowance to comepletly fill their long haul flights ex LHR. Why this is unfare to American carriers I have no idea.

It is unfair because American carriers are restricted as to where and how they can fuel. A flight from LHR to LAX can't stop for over 2800nm until it hits BOS, and then you are talking about all sorts of customs and immigration issuse that you don't face flying between EU countries, as the Asian carriers can do. AA and UA can't compete on an even playing field with BA under the fuel rationing rules.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
anstar
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:25 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
It is unfair because American carriers are restricted as to where and how they can fuel. A flight from LHR to LAX can't stop for over 2800nm until it hits BOS, and then you are talking about all sorts of customs and immigration issuse that you don't face flying between EU countries, as the Asian carriers can do. AA and UA can't compete on an even playing field with BA under the fuel rationing rules.

They could stop at MAN, SNN etc just as QF stop at STN, and other asian carriers have stopped at AMS/FRA in thye past few weeks.

And I'd hazard a guess that it is effecting BA more than AA/UA. Maybe not on longhaul, but on shorthaul most of their flights will be carrying extra fuel.
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:29 am

Quoting ANstar (Reply 8):
QF stop at STN, and other asian carriers have stopped at AMS/FRA in thye past few weeks.

STN is out of the way and AMS/FRA are WAY out of the way for the US carriers. Additionally, with a 763ER from LAX, they would be thinking about weight restrictions if flying from FRA

Quoting ANstar (Reply 8):
And I'd hazard a guess that it is effecting BA more than AA/UA. Maybe not on longhaul, but on shorthaul most of their flights will be carrying extra fuel.

Except that tankering doesn't make as much of a difference on shorthaul aircraft.

Quoting ANstar (Reply 8):
They could stop at MAN, SNN etc

And delay their flights as well as end up having to pay extra landing fees.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:48 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
STN is out of the way

STN is barely out of the way. It is extremely close to LHR which means that fuel won't be wasted climbing up to cruise only to descend again and make a stopover. What altitude would a 767 climb to if flying between LHR and STN? Maybe 5,000 ft? That isn't too bad, but of course it is a huge waste of fuel to move a plane the size of a 767 between two airports so close. The most ideal case would be to not have a stopover, but it isn't like a 767 can tanker much fuel when flying between LAX and LHR since the plane is probably taking off at MTOW anyway.

Quoting CarbHeatIn (Reply 3):
I would not be impresed, having paid for a First Class ticket, to find myself on a UA 767, LHR-LAX. Those old seats need replacing fast.

Very true. Those seats suck as far as first class seats go nowadays. BA Club World and VS Upper Class are probably more comfortable. But if you really care, you can always fly the 777 between LAX and LHR. The first class suites on the 777 are some of the best in the sky and are fully flat with ample privacy and storage space and a somewhat AVOD entertainment system which is manual.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
anstar
Posts: 2868
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2003 3:49 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:52 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
And delay their flights as well as end up having to pay extra landing fees

Like all other long haul carriers have to do. What I am trying to say is the issue is not just AA/UA. It is all long haul carriers.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
Except that tankering doesn't make as much of a difference on shorthaul aircraft.

Very true, but BA have many more short haul flights EX LHR than UA/AA have Long haul and what I am trying to say here is that they will still be feeling the pinch!

Quoting N1120A (Reply 9):
STN is out of the way and AMS/FRA are WAY out of the way for the US carriers. Additionally, with a 763ER from LAX, they would be thinking about weight restrictions if flying from FRA

Never said the US carriers should stop in mainland EU. It was an example, that all Asian carriers have to make a stop en route to their destination. The US carriers are choosing not to make a stop, but infact carry the extra fuel. That is their choice.

You can#t really say BAA is favouring anybody. It is a flat 80% restriction across the board to ALL LHR airlines. How the airlines manage the restriciton is up to them.
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:57 am

Couldnt they take 1 or 2 flights a week at route them thru STN with a very light fuel load, and use the fuel saved from these 1 or 2 flights to allow the others to go out full?
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:07 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 10):
STN is barely out of the way. It is extremely close to LHR which means that fuel won't be wasted climbing up to cruise only to descend again and make a stopover. What altitude would a 767 climb to if flying between LHR and STN? Maybe 5,000 ft? That isn't too bad, but of course it is a huge waste of fuel to move a plane the size of a 767 between two airports so close.

They are 36nm apart, which is very close but you are flying over very busy air space, which means a significant amount of vectoring.

Quoting Clickhappy (Reply 12):
Couldnt they take 1 or 2 flights a week at route them thru STN with a very light fuel load, and use the fuel saved from these 1 or 2 flights to allow the others to go out full?

That would seem to be what eastbound carriers are doing, but you still have the problem of landing fees and delays
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
User avatar
fxramper
Posts: 5837
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 12:03 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:22 am

Quoting N1120A (Thread starter):
BAA really needs to correct the unfair treatment that is costing UA and AA a significant amount of money while BA and European carriers doing short hauls go relatively unscathed.

How is BA uneffected? Thanks!
 
jbmitt
Posts: 493
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:32 am

United..if they wanted, could upgrade the equipment so something that could tanker more fuel. IE a 777 or a 747. Since they haven't, I would wager that the benefits of the 2nd flight are only minimal.
 
airlineaddict
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:37 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:33 am

I am not too familiar with operations at LHR, but if there's fuel at STN, would it not be easier for afffected carriers to truck in the additional 20%?
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:37 am

does anyone know when the fuel situation will return to normal levels???
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 8:15 am

Quoting ANstar (Reply 11):

You can#t really say BAA is favouring anybody. It is a flat 80% restriction across the board to ALL LHR airlines. How the airlines manage the restriciton is up to them.



Quoting ANstar (Reply 6):
It's not just American carriers, it is all long haul carriers. From what I have read in the press, airlines are allowed 80% of their normal fuel rations.

http://dms.dot.gov/search/document.c...m?documentid=381599&docketid=23542
http://dmses.dot.gov/docimages/p84/381599.pdf

From Page 3:

Under BAA's rationing scheme, so-called "base" carriers at Heathrow, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, are provided 82% of their requirements for long-haul services, while so-called "visiting" carriers at Heathrow, including United and American, are provided 70% of their fuel requirements for long-haul services.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:05 am

maybe they can work out a short-term deal with Iceland and KEF airport..for practical purposes, KEF is right in the flight path........and there wouldn't be the hassle of dealing with STN....

just an idea....
"Up the Irons!"
 
airxliban
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 12:14 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:11 am

I read the article but don't really understand what the plans are.

UA was originally gonna launce the second daily with a 772 and then they had to put a 763 on the route due to the fuel rationing and now they've postponed it?
PARIS, FRANCE...THE BEIRUT OF EUROPE.
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 12:33 pm

Quoting AirxLiban (Reply 20):
UA was originally gonna launce the second daily with a 772 and then they had to put a 763 on the route due to the fuel rationing and now they've postponed it?

The problem is that the route is pretty much on the edge of the route's range, particularly on the westbound (the way out of LHR). You can't really tanker enough fuel in to run back with only 70% of your fuel needs.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
kanebear
Posts: 852
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 12:06 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:12 pm

STN isn't on the way but SNN is and I'm sure they wouldn't mind the extra traffic too much. Big grin Seriously, it's a bad situation for all involved but until the fuel supply is sorted it's not as though anyone can do anything. It's not like BAA are doing this by choice. They simply can't supply any more than is being supplied!! If you take a gallon jar and only fill it half way, you can't very well drink the full gallon can you.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 2:55 pm

Quoting Kanebear (Reply 22):
STN isn't on the way but SNN is and I'm sure they wouldn't mind the extra traffic too much.

I think it would be more efficient to fuel at STN as it is so close. Getting a plane up to cruising altitude takes the most fuel of the flight. If a plane just goes to Stansted, it will stay very low and not waste fuel by having to climb to cruising altitude twice like it would have to if it went to KEF, SNN or any other airport more than a few hundred miles away. Also it would take so little fuel to get to STN that UA would have to tanker in less fuel for its other flights in order to stay under its fuel limitation. If you are going to make a tech stop on one flight, you might as well get the most bang for your buck.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 3:34 pm

Quoting AirlineAddict (Reply 16):
would it not be easier for afffected carriers to truck in the additional 20%?

It would take a fleet of trucks the size of which London's roadways could not handle nor even exist in Britain.

N
 
IL96M
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 5:14 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:20 pm

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 10):
The first class suites on the 777 are some of the best in the sky

With all due respect, but you must be kidding... right? Ever tried SQ F-Class...
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 5:48 pm

Quoting IL96M (Reply 25):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 10):
The first class suites on the 777 are some of the best in the sky

With all due respect, but you must be kidding... right? Ever tried SQ F-Class...

Actually, I believe he has, but here are some pictures.

United:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Vasco Garcia



Singapore:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Sam Chui
View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © T Seythal



The seats look the same except for the color. Besides, SQ doesn't have first suites (or First at all) on their intercontinental T7s
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
Speedbird2155
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 7:44 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:01 pm

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 18):
From Page 3:

Under BAA's rationing scheme, so-called "base" carriers at Heathrow, including British Airways and Virgin Atlantic, are provided 82% of their requirements for long-haul services, while so-called "visiting" carriers at Heathrow, including United and American, are provided 70% of their fuel requirements for long-haul services.

This is a policy that was agreed on by all carriers at LHR well before this incident happened. All carriers therefore knew what would happen and most have prepared for it. If the American carriers haven't planned properly then that is something they need to look at but BAA cannot be blamed for this (never thought I would ever be defending them, gee!!!) They agreed to it, so live with it.

Carriers such as QF have altered how their planes are refuelled so that only one flight a day needs to stop for extra fuel which for QF is one of their night departures. Similarly given that BA has also been affected, as pointed out before changes have had to be made so that the short-haul flight are penalised so that our long-haul operation can get the fuel ex-LHR.
 
whitehatter
Posts: 5180
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 6:52 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:05 pm

Quoting N1120A (Thread starter):
Well, I was looking at the article posted by UA777UK in the Heathrow fuel rationing thread and it appears United has had to delay the introduction of their second LAX-LHR flight because of an inability to tanker in enough fuel on the 763ER. BAA really needs to correct the unfair treatment that is costing UA and AA a significant amount of money

BAA does not sell fuel.

United are all grown up and capable of negotiating their own fuel contracts. If a supplier cannot deliver then what does it have to do with BAA?

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 23):
I think it would be more efficient to fuel at STN as it is so close.

or drop in somewhere like MAN. UA flights used to regularly call in on the eastbound in the days of the 741. It adds to the journey time but it's easy to arrange as United have a presence at MAN with BD, so arranging to have them fuelled quickly isn't a problem. DE do it regularly on LAS-FRA flights withthe 763.
Lead me not into temptation, I can find my own way there...
 
dba4u
Posts: 630
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2005 7:53 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:07 pm

In the article it says that everything should be back to normal in june. Is this realistic?
 
Geo772
Posts: 439
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sat Feb 04, 2006 6:41 pm

Quoting WhiteHatter (Reply 28):
BAA does not sell fuel.

United are all grown up and capable of negotiating their own fuel contracts. If a supplier cannot deliver then what does it have to do with BAA?

BAA control the fuel network at Heathrow. You still buy the fuel in the traditional way but the airport operator controls the hydrant so gets to decide how much you can have.

BA is very much affected by the fuel rationing, shorthaul tank in most if not all of their fuel from abroad, which on a single flight does not increase burn by much but over thousands of flights it adds up quite a bit.

As for long haul aircraft tankering in fuel, mostly from the US by the way, a 744 that brings in 50 tonnes of fuel has to burn about 3 tonnes to do that (and thats from Boston).

You also get the problems of wing icing on the ground caused by having all that fuel sitting in the wing.
Flown on A300B4/600,A319/20/21,A332/3,A343,B727,B732/3/4/5/6/7/8,B741/2/4,B752/3,B762/3,B772/3,DC10,L1011-200,VC10,MD80,
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:09 am

Quoting IL96M (Reply 25):
Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 10):
The first class suites on the 777 are some of the best in the sky

With all due respect, but you must be kidding... right? Ever tried SQ F-Class...

I have actually not tried SQ first class (only Raffles), but United has a very good first class suite. The seat fully folds flat, and there is a ton of storage and privacy since each suite is quite separate from the others. Also the food service is quite good. I think it is just as good as other airlines.

Some people complain about the service, but I don't fid a problem with it. I actually like the more personalized service offered by the United fllight attendants. Singapore flight attendants are great and very helpful and are always eager to serve you, but they don't really have personalities (or at least supress them). I perfer the pationate service that I have received more often than not in United First class. Yes the flight attendants are older, but they are very experienced and you have to be pationate about a job if you are going to stick with it for over 20 years.

My biggest complaint about United First Suites is that the PTV is small. You kind of have on demand since you can get cassette tapes and play the video with an in seat recorder, but it is not as nice as a fully functional AVOD system like SQ.

But United First Class is very competitive with all the airlines that they compete with on the 747 and 777. United offers first class on every long haul international flight. That gives them an advantage (although the first class on the 767 is pretty bad) over many other airlines. It seems like most of the competitors have dumped first class on many routes. But United has kept it.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
3201
Posts: 813
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2004 4:16 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:31 am

Reading the original article, I don't think it would be *impossible* for UA to tanker in enough fuel to add the second flight within the rationing rules, just expensive enough that the additional flight wouldn't be profitable (or wouldn't be as profitable as something else they could be doing) (or would be even MORE unprofitable than they were willing to accept for adding the route for strategic purposes).

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 31):
As for long haul aircraft tankering in fuel, mostly from the US by the way, a 744 that brings in 50 tonnes of fuel has to burn about 3 tonnes to do that (and thats from Boston).

Those numbers don't seem right to me. By my calcs, more like 8 tonnes extra burn for 50 tonnes on a 744 from BOS. What payload and contingency (alternate, percent contingency, hold reserve) fuel were you assuming?

Anyway a 772 from IAD with 50 tonnes payload should be able to carry in an extra 30 tonnes at a cost of 5 tonnes, plus at least 5 tonnes of various contingency. With a departure fuel requirement of around 60 tonnes, he can carry in a lot more than 30% of the fuel he'd need for return. But LAX, SFO, ORD are all longer, can bring less % in and higher cost of carry. My guess is the second LAX flight would be feasible but not at all economic. I'll probably do some more investigation to see if that guess is right.
7 hours aint long-haul
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:25 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
It is unfair because American carriers are restricted as to where and how they can fuel. A flight from LHR to LAX can't stop for over 2800nm until it hits BOS, and then you are talking about all sorts of customs and immigration issuse that you don't face flying between EU countries,

Well that problem is of America's own making. What does it have to do with BA or BAA?
 
N1120A
Topic Author
Posts: 26467
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:44 am

Quoting HS748 (Reply 33):
Well that problem is of America's own making. What does it have to do with BA or BAA?

Actually, the location of the US is of the UK's making, but I digress.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
IADLHR
Posts: 612
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:25 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:49 am

I read somewhere recently that both UA and AA claim this is in violation of Bermuda 2. I did not know that fuel or fuel rationing is even mentioned in Bermuda 2. If so, than the US and AA and UA may have a legitimate complaint.
 
Aisak
Posts: 549
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 10:56 pm

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:39 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
A flight from LHR to LAX can't stop for over 2800nm until it hits BOS, and then you are talking about all sorts of customs and immigration issuse that you don't face flying between EU countries, as the Asian carriers can do. AA and UA can't compete on an even playing field with BA under the fuel rationing rules.

If an Asian carrier (could be African or Australian...) wants to land in an EU member... there are also borders. To travel from UK and Germany you have to go throgh inmigration and customs, no matter if you are British, German, Indian or US citizen

On the other hand, this EU-inmigration issue can be easily translated into US-inmigration issue by landing in BOS where you have to clear inmigration and customs

And I don't know if this might work in this case, but if they decide to refuel one flight in SNN like said above.... don't UK and Ireland have the so-called "common travel area" where there are no inmigration nor customs?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 7):
It is unfair because American carriers are restricted as to where and how they can fuel.

So everyone else...

The solution or "patch" to this problem implemented by BA (short-haul heavily restricted over long-haul 100% loaded) can also be implemented by UA

Lets say for any reason LAX-LHR or SFO-LAX can't carry that 30% extra fuel + fuel-to-carry-fuel beacause it's too expensive or let's say simply it doesn't fit in the tanks.... they have LHR-IAD and LHR-JFK suitable to be heavily restricted in order to SFO, LAX and ORD can be filled almost 100%

Another option can also be convert one SFO-LHR-SFO to SFO-LHR-JFK(or IAD)-SFO like Qantas has done with STN or FRA.... Sure that only one-stop flight will help the other UA's out of LHR

[Edited 2006-02-04 22:05:43]
 
HS748
Posts: 621
Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2005 3:01 am

RE: United Has To Delay Second LAX-LHR Service

Sun Feb 05, 2006 6:44 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 34):
Actually, the location of the US is of the UK's making, but I digress.

Totally.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Alexa [Bot], alfa164, Bing [Bot], cheeken, dabpit, deltacto, dubaiamman243, flyinryan99, flymco753, foppishbum, IPFreely, jbs2886, klm617, moo, msycajun, nyswiss, qfatwa, SGAviation, speedbored, VS11 and 407 guests