FreequentFlier
Topic Author
Posts: 575
Joined: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:30 am

UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:14 am

 
Osprey88
Posts: 268
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2007 8:13 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 4:26 am

Excellent news for those in the Bay Area and FF of UA!

I would think that this service would be relatively popular, catching a lot of feeding traffic from other airports.
"Reading departure signs in some big airports reminds me of the places I've been"
 
iluv747400
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2000 8:12 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:09 pm

UA 865
SFO: 12:35 PM
CAN: 6:00 PM +1

UA 868
CAN: 11:00 AM
SFO: 9:00 AM


What's with the 17-hour turnaround?
 
sq452
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:49 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 12:32 pm

Quoting Iluv747400 (Reply 2):
UA 865
SFO: 12:35 PM
CAN: 6:00 PM +1

UA 868
CAN: 11:00 AM
SFO: 9:00 AM


What's with the 17-hour turnaround?

I know, seriously...that's such an odd stay, and, a complete waste of aircraft utilization. They could send the plane back 2 hours later after arrival and the aircraft would arrive in SFO in the early evening, great time for providing overnight red eye conntections to the east coast (you'll be tired as hell anyway so who cares).
SIN > CVG > BOS
 
aajfksjubklyn
Posts: 458
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 10:46 pm

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:36 pm

I would assume the schedule is everyday and the schedule posted is the Pilot of Flight Attendant Layover times.
 
skygirl
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:22 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:40 pm

oh, all of a sudden I am so glad that I'm not SFO based... not that I wouldn't mind going to CAN...
...Now they face an even greater danger...Tyrannousaurs in F-14's!!
 
commavia
Posts: 9744
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:58 pm

Quoting Iluv747400 (Reply 2):
What's with the 17-hour turnaround?

It's pretty standard for United's SFO-China flights. They want the flights timed to leave SFO westbound in the early afternoon, along with all their other Asia-bound flights, so they can benefit from all the connections. But, by the time the planes go to China, and then turned around, they wouldn't leave the Chinese cities until late at night (after 1900-2000 local) and thus wouldn't get back to SFO until early evening (1700-1800 local), which is an absolute waste for connections (most of which are, again, timed for all of the other inbound Asia arrivals which get into SFO around 0900-1200). The plane would then have to RON in SFO until the next day, before heading back out again to China.

Thus, it makes sense to just RON the plane at the Chinese stations and send them out the next morning.

Besides, either way, regardless of whether the plane RONs in SFO or in China, the schedule would still require 2 aircraft to keep a daily rotation. So, in other words, it makes no difference where the plan spends the long layover: whether SFO or PEK/PVG/CAN, it still takes the same 2 planes per route. In that case, why not time the flights to maximize connections at SFO which is the hub that is - after all - supposed to be designed specifically to capture connections?
 
as739x
Posts: 5001
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 2:01 pm

With the restrictions on service to China, is that only for USA-China flights? Could this plane go onto another destination? I'd agree that 17 hours is a long time. Maybe United can get some maintenance done on the plane since they are contracting it all out anyhow.

ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
sq452
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:49 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 5:43 pm

Quoting Commavia (Reply 6):
Quoting Iluv747400 (Reply 2):
What's with the 17-hour turnaround?

It's pretty standard for United's SFO-China flights. They want the flights timed to leave SFO westbound in the early afternoon, along with all their other Asia-bound flights, so they can benefit from all the connections. But, by the time the planes go to China, and then turned around, they wouldn't leave the Chinese cities until late at night (after 1900-2000 local) and thus wouldn't get back to SFO until early evening (1700-1800 local), which is an absolute waste for connections (most of which are, again, timed for all of the other inbound Asia arrivals which get into SFO around 0900-1200). The plane would then have to RON in SFO until the next day, before heading back out again to China.

Thus, it makes sense to just RON the plane at the Chinese stations and send them out the next morning.

Besides, either way, regardless of whether the plane RONs in SFO or in China, the schedule would still require 2 aircraft to keep a daily rotation. So, in other words, it makes no difference where the plan spends the long layover: whether SFO or PEK/PVG/CAN, it still takes the same 2 planes per route. In that case, why not time the flights to maximize connections at SFO which is the hub that is - after all - supposed to be designed specifically to capture connections?

Actually come to think of it you make a good point about this. It would still require 2 aircraft.
SIN > CVG > BOS
 
SFORunner
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 30, 2004 4:23 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:18 pm

Quoting AS739X (Reply 7):
Could this plane go onto another destination?

I do not believe that Fifth Freedom rights are afforded to US pax flag carriers out of Mainland China. Anyone?

Note that other UA aircraft in PVG and PEK also RON.
 
as739x
Posts: 5001
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:58 am

Quoting SFORunner (Reply 9):

Thats what I was thinking, but just wasn't sure. Thanks

ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2133
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: UA Starts SFO-CAN June 18th

Thu Nov 08, 2007 1:56 pm

Wheres the 777 coming from, what route is going to lose that aircraft?