CALMSP
Topic Author
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

UA Long-Haul Changes

Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:17 pm

IAD-ACC service ends July 1. EWR-CPH ends Sept 23
Suspended service for the winter season for some trans-Atlantic markets, such as EWR-FCO and IAD-DME.

And, as known internally, redeploy some of the Boeing 763s freed up by these changes to replace Boeing 757s now on certain trans-Atlantic routes such as EWR-FRA (Frankfurt, Germany), IAD-AMS (Amsterdam) and one EWR-LHR (London) aircraft.
 
smoot4208
Posts: 595
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:39 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:29 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Thread starter):
IAD-ACC service ends July 1. EWR-CPH ends Sept 23
Suspended service for the winter season for some trans-Atlantic markets, such as EWR-FCO and IAD-DME.

The seasonal cuts aren't surprising but cutting CPH and IAD-ACC kind of are
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:47 pm

Consistent with last weeks announced capacity guidance.
Discontinuing some routes that are under performing financially and reducing flights on other routes based on seasonal demand.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
washingtonian
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:50 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Thread starter):

IAD-ACC service ends July 1. EWR-CPH ends Sept 23
Suspended service for the winter season for some trans-Atlantic markets, such as EWR-FCO and IAD-DME.

And, as known internally, redeploy some of the Boeing 763s freed up by these changes to replace Boeing 757s now on certain trans-Atlantic routes such as EWR-FRA (Frankfurt, Germany), IAD-AMS (Amsterdam) and one EWR-LHR (London) aircraft.

All in all not too bad. Surprising about IAD-ACC. I would have thought this route a goldmine due to the large African population in DC, but I guess it's mostly VFR traffic.

Interesting that EWR-FCO will be suspended but IAD-FCO will remain. Also a bit weird that they will offer First class on only one of their multiple daily EWR-LHR flights...And finally, glad that IAD-AMS will be back to a widebody aircraft!
 
tsnamm
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:28 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:51 pm

Quoting smoot4208 (Reply 1):
The seasonal cuts aren't surprising but cutting CPH and IAD-ACC kind of are

You said it...along with EWR/ATH...even the seasonal IAD/DME is surprising...maybe that's a route they should move to EWR instead...there are a number of routes from EWR that desperately need upgauging..LHR has only 1 widebody, CDG has been reduced to 757's, AMS and MAD need widebodies as well....I was under the impression that one of the main reasons CO merged was the lack of wide body a/c, and that UA had plenty to spare...I'm not really seeing it work out this way, as far as these "redeployments" are concerned... apparently those segments are not producing, or UA wouldn't have cut them, but there doesn't seem to be any excess widebody capacity in the combined UA/CO fleet either...
 
laca773
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 7:10 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Mon Apr 02, 2012 11:58 pm

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 3):
nteresting that EWR-FCO will be suspended but IAD-FCO will remain. Also a bit weird that they will offer First class on only one of their multiple daily EWR-LHR flights...And finally, glad that IAD-AMS will be back to a widebody aircraft!

I'm not surprised about only one EWR-LHR segment offering P. PMCO seemed to do fine with a BizFirst without the need for a P cabin. They will continue to do well with the JWY offering in their EWR-LHR market.
 
washingtonian
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:11 am

Quoting laca773 (Reply 5):
I'm not surprised about only one EWR-LHR segment offering P. PMCO seemed to do fine with a BizFirst without the need for a P cabin. They will continue to do well with the JWY offering in their EWR-LHR market.

I just think it's generally better to have a consistant product across the board as much as possible. Obviously there are a lot of kinks to work out with the merger in the coming years...
 
usairways85
Posts: 3562
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 11:59 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 12:37 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Consistent with last weeks announced capacity guidance.

I thought international capacity was actually going to grow by a percentage or two? I am surprised about the suspension of EWR-FCO. At least make it 3x/4x weekly, I would imagine it has a larger O&D numbers than IAD, but I don't have anything to back that up.

Doesn't SAS have EWR-CPH pretty well covered?
 
Rafabozzolla
Posts: 968
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 1:27 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:09 am

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 7):
I thought international capacity was actually going to grow by a percentage or two? I am surprised about the suspension of EWR-FCO. At least make it 3x/4x weekly, I would imagine it has a larger O&D numbers than IAD, but I don't have anything to back that up.

At first it surprised me as well. But come to think of it. There's no competition out of IAD, whereas in New York AZ/DL are the elephants in the room. PMCO had no alternative but fly from EWR, UA can opt for the gateway with the least amount of competition.
 
nomorerjs
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:24 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:28 am

No ORD Int'l cuts! Woo Hoo (not that there is much to cut)!
 
washingtonian
Posts: 749
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2010 5:56 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:40 am

Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 8):
There's no competition out of IAD, whereas in New York AZ/DL are the elephants in the room.

Plus if the flight is full of connecting passengers and low on O&D, it makes more sense to route them through Dulles...
 
flybhx764
Posts: 259
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 8:48 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:50 am

Will UA upgrade flights with the Olympic games coming up?
 
nethkt
Posts: 1014
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2001 10:27 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:09 am

Too bad with IAD-DME. Russian market is tricky I guess. Even SQ cut down from Daily to 5 weekly?
No wonder, I always find low fare with 100% status miles on UA from DME to USA.


With SAS covering EWR-CPH/ARN/OSL, the NYC-Scandinavian market is pretty well covered by a Star alliance member so maybe better off with just code-sharing with SK and deploy aircraft for other market?
At one point, SAS used to have 2 daily CPH-EWR?
Let's just blame it on yields.
 
N62NA
Posts: 4010
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2003 1:05 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:32 am

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 4):
there are a number of routes from EWR that desperately need upgauging..LHR has only 1 widebody

Well, according to a.net wisdom, there's no difference between a narrowbody and a widebody flying TATL. It's all about "frequency" on this route allegedly.  
 
modesto2
Posts: 2671
Joined: Sun Jul 16, 2000 3:44 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:12 am

Quoting N62NA (Reply 13):
Well, according to a.net wisdom, there's no difference between a narrowbody and a widebody flying TATL. It's all about "frequency" on this route allegedly.

Very true! UA can compete far more effectively for lucrative business contracts if it offers 5x daily flights (which may include 4x 757 service) instead of 3x 777 service (for example). Additionally, the capabilities of the 767 and 777 can be better utilized on other routes.
 
jporterfi
Posts: 463
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 6:25 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:16 am

Quoting CALMSP (Thread starter):
And, as known internally, redeploy some of the Boeing 763s freed up by these changes to replace Boeing 757s now on certain trans-Atlantic routes such as EWR-FRA (Frankfurt, Germany), IAD-AMS (Amsterdam) and one EWR-LHR (London) aircraft.

It's about time that a 767 replaced a 757 on the EWR to LHR route. Finally an end to the unscheduled fuel stops that resulted from the 757s being pushed to their limit! And also a more comfortable ride across the pond.
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1270
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 6:50 am

interesting...only ACC for the summer so only one market gonna get the 767 for summer I guess...rest will have to wait until DME goes...still does not really balance out.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 7:52 am

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 3):
Also a bit weird that they will offer First class on only one of their multiple daily EWR-LHR flights

I hope that its a pre-cursor to seeing all the LHR - EWR flights completely transferred over to 3 class birds at some stage, I am sure that if one route warrants it, its this one.
 
b735
Posts: 51
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:28 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:05 am

Quote:
EWR-CPH ends Sept 23

Something don't add up here... According to airlineroutesnet update 2nd April :

Update at 0705GMT 02APR12

As per 02APR12 GDS timetable and inventory display, initial changes to UNITED’s Winter 2012/13 European Operation as follows. Note additional changes to come in the coming months.

Chicago – Brussels Service increases from 6 weekly in W11 to Daily in W12
Chicago – Munich eff 04NOV12 Reduces from Daily in W11 to 6 weekly in W12
Houston – Paris CDG
eff 15OCT12 Reduces from Daily to 6 weekly
03NOV12 – 07JAN13 Boeing 767-200ER operating instead of -400ER

Newark – Barcelona eff 12NOV12 Reduces from 6 weekly in W11 to 4 weekly in W12
Newark – Copenhagen eff 04NOV12 Reduces from 5 weekly in W11 to 4 weekly in W12
Newark – Frankfurt eff 09NOV12 UA050/051 Boeing 767-400ER replaces 777-200ER
Newark – Geneva eff 12NOV12 Reduces from Daily in W11 to 6 weekly in W12
Newark – Hamburg eff 12NOV12 Reduces from 5 weekly in W11 to 4 weekly in S12
Newark – Oslo eff 14JAN13 Reduces from Daily to 6 weekly
Newark – Paris CDG
eff 04JAN13 Boeing 767-400ER replaces 757-200 on UA056/057
eff 08JAN13 Overall service reduces from 2 to 1 Daily
UA056 EWR1805 – 0735+1CDG 764 D
UA057 CDG0925 – 1155EWR 764 D

Newark – Stuttgart eff 07NOV12 Reduces from 5 weekly in W11 to 4 weekly in S12
Washington Dulles – Manchester Service operates 5 weekly in Winter 2012 season
Washington Dulles – Paris 1 Daily 767-300ER service


Also, flights still available for booking at united.com

[Edited 2012-04-03 02:12:41]
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24594
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:48 am

Quoting B735 (Reply 18):
Something don't add up here... According to airlineroutesnet update 2nd April :

It should be zero'd out shortly and removed from res systems over the weekend. Unfortunately, UA is pulling out of CPH.
a.
 
klwright69
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 9:54 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 19):
Quoting B735 (Reply 18):
Something don't add up here... According to airlineroutesnet update 2nd April :

It should be zero'd out shortly and removed from res systems over the weekend. Unfortunately, UA is pulling out of CPH.

Unfortunately is the right word. This is surprising. Not surprising that Cologne or Bristol didn't work out. But Copenhagen is a major European capitol, and the equipment is only a 757.

I have wondered about Moscow. PMCO was never to warm to serving Moscow in the first place. They were planning on serving Moscow with a DC10-30 in the 90's and it never started.

[Edited 2012-04-03 02:55:52]
 
arn777
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 9:47 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 10:20 am

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 20):
But Copenhagen is a major European capitol, and the equipment is only a 757.

You are a victim of CPH and Copenhagen Connected's marketing division my friend...
 
g2scandinavia
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:00 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:10 am

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 20):
This is surprising. Not surprising that Cologne or Bristol didn't work out. But Copenhagen is a major European capitol, and the equipment is only a 757.



Well, many overestimate the size of Copenhagen based on the fact that its a hub for SAS.
However as a City, it's similar in size to Oslo and Helsinki. Stockholm is the only major European capitol within the Nordic countries. Copenhagen do however have the benefit of being linked to the City of Malmø in a region called Øresund.

CPH are probably one of the best airports in Europe when it comes to incentives and support for new airlines.
This has attracted many new services to the airport. The problem seems to be when the support period expires with the result of the airlines pulling out. Said in another way, airlines are not able to operate profitably faced with equal market conditions at CPH.

Delta have pullet out its year around service to ATL. JFK have been cut to operate only a few weeks this summer.
Now, United will pull out as well. It's especially alarmingly for CPH that United are presenting low demand for this summer as an argument for suspending the service. Especially because this summer will See less competition with DL out of its way for most of the summer. Also Air China pulled out of CPH before the service saw its first flight due to poor demand. SIA are also on the edge of pulling out unless they manage to agree on a deal with SAS to feed in more passengers.

CPH have one big problem, they think that new IC services will generate enough new traffic to keep it sustainable.
Nor Copenhagen or the airport as a hub are able to generate that traffic. The yield stream from Norway and Sweden are changing together with a better direct network from theese airports. Many people within the industry have warned of the consequence of this, often referred to as the "Copenhagen effect". With Berlin Airport to open shortly, I really do hope that the management of CPH starts to care about existing carriers rather than gaining new services at any cost.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24594
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:29 am

Copenhagen has a very large market to the United States, but it's largely leisure. MIACPH and LAXCPH are near 100 PDEW, but nobody wants to fly it at those low fares. It's rare for a trans-Atlantic market as large as either to not have non-stop service.
a.
 
panamair
Posts: 3765
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:36 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 23):
Copenhagen has a very large market to the United States, but it's largely leisure. MIACPH and LAXCPH are near 100 PDEW, but nobody wants to fly it at those low fares

Indeed, when Delta started its CPH-ATL service years ago, it got a large share of the CPH-Florida traffic via ATL, and was able to sustain the 763ER service year-round, but only when fuel prices were moderate. Of course now with fuel the way it is, many of these lower-yielding routes have simply lost their viability.
 
ARN
Posts: 255
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2001 12:34 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:39 am

Please guys, let us end this Scandinavian civil war.
There are more factors to demand than just the size
of the business community. Competition, proximity to
other airports to name a few. Sadly United is
withdrawing but there might be others that are entering.
And ARN has also lost longhaul carriers. MH, US recently
and UL, CX and KQ among others if we go
back in time.
 
g2scandinavia
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 8:00 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:40 am

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 23):
Copenhagen has a very large market to the United States, but it's largely leisure. MIACPH and LAXCPH are near 100 PDEW, but nobody wants to fly it at those low fares. It's rare for a trans-Atlantic market as large as either to not have non-stop service.

According to CPH, the actual number are 56.806 pax. The number are somewhat missleading as they include current transfer traffic to MIA through CPH and are therefore somewhat misleading in pinpointing whats actually local demand.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 11:57 am

Quoting Rafabozzolla (Reply 8):
At first it surprised me as well. But come to think of it. There's no competition out of IAD, whereas in New York AZ/DL are the elephants in the room. PMCO had no alternative but fly from EWR, UA can opt for the gateway with the least amount of competition.

Even with AZ/DL competition, Rome is still a major European port. I'm surprised how the shortage of widebodies is forcing UA to completely cut it from winter schedule, not just right-size the frequency.

On a side note, is flat-bed upgrade completed for 762 and 764 sub fleet yet ? (or even commenced ?) Those recliners are so 90s.
 
klwright69
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:18 pm

Why is IAD dropping ACC? Does anyone else know the particulars? I find this an interesting. UA is not combining it with any other African markets as a tag.
 
RyanairGuru
Posts: 6554
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:33 pm

Quoting jporterfi (Reply 15):
It's about time that a 767 replaced a 757 on the EWR to LHR route. Finally an end to the unscheduled fuel stops that resulted from the 757s being pushed to their limit!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think that EWR-UK/Ireland flights have ever needed a fuel stop, and if they did it was certainly only a one off.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:42 pm

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 28):
Why is IAD dropping ACC? Does anyone else know the particulars? I find this an interesting. UA is not combining it with any other African markets as a tag.

Perhaps to align east coast to Africa operations (tiny to begin with) to a single airport ? Other than oil-specific routes like IAH-LOS, it barely makes sense for UA to do IAD-ACC then open a new EWR-CAI, both being one-off routes.

Or merely a simple case of not enough aircraft, so they had to make the tough decision of yanking a profitable flight for a potentially more profitable one? who knows ?
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 1:57 pm

IAD-ACC is the most disapointing. They have been operating this route for a few years now. EWR-FCO is the most suprising. I figured the local demand out of EWR would easily warrant that flight year round. IAD-DME as a seasonal drop kind of makes sense.

UA operating EWR-CPH is a wash. I'm glad they are giving the market back to SAS. No sense in UA competiting in this exclusive market with a fellow star partner -- let alone on a 757 (versus an A330.) I'd wonder if ARN and OSL would come next?


Quoting modesto2 (Reply 14):
Very true! UA can compete far more effectively for lucrative business contracts if it offers 5x daily flights (which may include 4x 757 service) instead of 3x 777 service (for example). Additionally, the capabilities of the 767 and 777 can be better utilized on other routes.

I beg the differ. It's long overdue that UA gets a 3-class bird on EWR-LHR. They need to compete with BA in some way and 4x 757 isn't the way to go about it. In fact, UA used to serve EWR-LHR on a 3 class 777 back in the day for many years.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
klwright69
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 2:39 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 31):
Quoting modesto2 (Reply 14):
Very true! UA can compete far more effectively for lucrative business contracts if it offers 5x daily flights (which may include 4x 757 service) instead of 3x 777 service (for example). Additionally, the capabilities of the 767 and 777 can be better utilized on other routes.

I beg the differ. It's long overdue that UA gets a 3-class bird on EWR-LHR. They need to compete with BA in some way and 4x 757 isn't the way to go about it. In fact, UA used to serve EWR-LHR on a 3 class 777 back in the day for many years.

Of course this is true. Others have complained about all the 757's on EWR/LHR and only one 777. I always responded that it is a matter of time that the 757's start leaving this market to allow flight upgauges, maybe even one by one. With all the particulars of a mega merger, the combined UA has a lot to do. Patience is required, but it's a matter of time.

Obviously OSL and ARN were left alone for a reason. Otherwise they could have cut them all and just code-shared with SAS. But it didn't happen.

[Edited 2012-04-03 07:59:39]
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:02 pm

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 32):
Obviously OSL and ARN were left alone for a reason. Otherwise they could have cut them all and just code-shared with SAS. But it didn't happen.

The fact that they cut CPH and not ARN or OSL is a little surprising. Wonder why CPH is more limited to have two competitors in from EWR than the other two destinations?
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2205
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:04 pm

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 4):
....I was under the impression that one of the main reasons CO merged was the lack of wide body a/c, and that UA had plenty to spare...I'm not really seeing it work out this way, as far as these "redeployments" are concerned... apparently those segments are not producing, or UA wouldn't have cut them, but there doesn't seem to be any excess widebody capacity in the combined UA/CO fleet either...

A lot of A-Netters seemed to think that PMUA had tons of spare widebodies laying around, but I am not sure where that school of thought came from. IIRC, PMUA's utilization of its fleet was pretty high, especially it's 763 and 772 fleet. The 744 fleet had a little more slack with a couple of birds sitting in the desert. It wasn't that PMUA had a ton of widebodies laying around, it was just that they had a lot more of them, but they were being used, if UA moves some of them to EWR and IAH, they are going to have to cut or swap somewhere else...

Quoting washingtonian (Reply 6):
I just think it's generally better to have a consistant product across the board as much as possible. Obviously there are a lot of kinks to work out with the merger in the coming years...
Quoting ual777uk (Reply 17):
I hope that its a pre-cursor to seeing all the LHR - EWR flights completely transferred over to 3 class birds at some stage, I am sure that if one route warrants it, its this one.

I agree! It think the overall quality of the hard product is aligning quickly: 72% of the combined international fleet with newer lay flat seats and E+ being added to PMCO aircraft at a face pace.

But, I think the mix of 2-class and 3-class planes and the routings they fly needs to be figured out. IMHO, wouldn't it be a good strategy to market that certain markets have ALL 3-class planes, like LHR, NRT, FRA etc. Perhaps when the PMUA domestic 2-class 763s are converted to international and the 788s start to arrive they will have more flexibility to move some things around.

Although I would prefer to fly a 767 over a 757 (mainly because of the 2-3-2 seating), I am not convinced that the 757 is the problem, I think it is the inconsistancy of 1st class being offered or not offered.

Quoting modesto2 (Reply 14):
Very true! UA can compete far more effectively for lucrative business contracts if it offers 5x daily flights (which may include 4x 757 service) instead of 3x 777 service (for example). Additionally, the capabilities of the 767 and 777 can be better utilized on other routes.

For a route like EWR-LHR, are 5 daily flights really better than 3 daily flights? I could understand keeping the day flight with a 757 but I could see the 6:25p flight go to a 763 and the two later flights be combined to a 772 or 763.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:07 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 31):
IAD-ACC is the most disapointing. They have been operating this route for a few years now. EWR-FCO is the most suprising. I figured the local demand out of EWR would easily warrant that flight year round. IAD-DME as a seasonal drop kind of makes sense.

Rome is a horrifically bad business market. The major financial and industrial market in Italy are all in/around MIlan. With the retirement of the 762, and fuel being so high, if the route is not making money, it's not going to be flown. Plus with JV in Europe, just route that demand over a European hub if they want to fly UA bad enough. It will be back in summer where premium demand is strong in the leisure market.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 31):
UA operating EWR-CPH is a wash. I'm glad they are giving the market back to SAS. No sense in UA competiting in this exclusive market with a fellow star partner -- let alone on a 757 (versus an A330.) I'd wonder if ARN and OSL would come next?

This is going to happen more and more. With the European JV's, this is all metal neutral anyway. Unless fuel prices drop and the demand picks back up.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 31):
I beg the differ. It's long overdue that UA gets a 3-class bird on EWR-LHR. They need to compete with BA in some way and 4x 757 isn't the way to go about it. In fact, UA used to serve EWR-LHR on a 3 class 777 back in the day for many years.

I'm not so sure. LHR has tons of capacity and the flight time is not that long. I would bet UA puts a new 2 Class 767 on EWR-LHR. UA is not going to do 1 out of 5 flights with F. It will be all or none in my humble opinion.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:22 pm

Quoting united787 (Reply 34):
Although I would prefer to fly a 767 over a 757 (mainly because of the 2-3-2 seating), I am not convinced that the 757 is the problem, I think it is the inconsistancy of 1st class being offered or not offered.

Fact of the matter is, there aren't enough seats up front on EWR-LHR for the 757. To DUB, LIS, MAN, EDI, MAD sure, fine, that's great. But LHR is a super premium market and it needs the seat availability in F.

Quoting airzim (Reply 35):
Rome is a horrifically bad business market. The major financial and industrial market in Italy are all in/around MIlan. With the retirement of the 762, and fuel being so high, if the route is not making money, it's not going to be flown

Sure but it's surprising that they are leaving IAD-FCO to operate instead. I don't think even Continental ever seasonally suspended EWR-FCO. The NYC metro area has a ton of Italians.

Quoting airzim (Reply 35):
I'm not so sure. LHR has tons of capacity and the flight time is not that long. I would bet UA puts a new 2 Class 767 on EWR-LHR. UA is not going to do 1 out of 5 flights with F. It will be all or none in my humble opinion.

It's the largest European market from EWR -- I'm sure they can swing it.

1 out of 5 flights is a start. And yes, they can operate some flights with F and J, some not. A PMCO 757 is scheduled on IAD-LHR this summer among the mix of 3 class 777 and 763.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
usairways85
Posts: 3562
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 11:59 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:22 pm

Quoting united787 (Reply 34):
For a route like EWR-LHR, are 5 daily flights really better than 3 daily flights? I could understand keeping the day flight with a 757 but I could see the 6:25p flight go to a 763 and the two later flights be combined to a 772 or 763.

NYC-LHR is all about frequency, just look at the shuttle operation AA/BA have over at JFK

Quoting airzim (Reply 35):
This is going to happen more and more. With the European JV's, this is all metal neutral anyway. Unless fuel prices drop and the demand picks back up.

Yes, the JV's give increased flexibility in righsizing markets. Although note that I do not believe SAS is a member of the "star" JV
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:26 pm

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 37):
NYC-LHR is all about frequency, just look at the shuttle operation AA/BA have over at JFK

And yet they are on 3-class 777 and 744 with BA/AA. UA is mainly 757. That's a huge difference.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:39 pm

There might be a lot of Italians in New York, but if they either are not traveling or not paying high enough fares to be profitable during the low season, then there's no reason to fly it.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 36):
Sure but it's surprising that they are leaving IAD-FCO to operate instead. I don't think even Continental ever seasonally suspended EWR-FCO. The NYC metro area has a ton of Italians.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1216
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:40 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 36):
Fact of the matter is, there aren't enough seats up front on EWR-LHR for the 757. To DUB, LIS, MAN, EDI, MAD sure, fine, that's great. But LHR is a super premium market and it needs the seat availability in F.

I think there's a perception versus reality problem with LHR. United has two big hurdles with LHR out of New York. 1) EWR is at a yield disadvantage over JFK. 2) BA/AA have premium corporate contracts. Therefore LHR is a premium market for BA/AA who have the lucractive corporate agreements and a sustainable transfer hub at LHR. UA is relying on pure O&D in EWR, hence why we see the smaller gauge and higher frequency. I might be proven wrong, but I would very surprised to see F on LHR from EWR. Maybe, but I just don't see it.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 36):
Sure but it's surprising that they are leaving IAD-FCO to operate instead. I don't think even Continental ever seasonally suspended EWR-FCO. The NYC metro area has a ton of Italians.

They often reduced frequency to FCO in the winter. I agree that it looks surprising they kept IAD over EWR. Maybe it is a capital to capital thing. But this is one of the benefits of this merger. With CO, if they dropped FCO from EWR they exited the market. Now they can shift traffic to IAD hopefully improve yield and still preserve a destination. NYC might have tons of Italians, but if there's no J traffic, the flight won't work.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 36):
It's the largest European market from EWR -- I'm sure they can swing it.

1 out of 5 flights is a start. And yes, they can operate some flights with F and J, some not. A PMCO 757 is scheduled on IAD-LHR this summer among the mix of 3 class 777 and 763.

That's true. It will be interesting how they market this mixed product offering to the marketplace.
 
mogandoCI
Posts: 1247
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:39 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:40 pm

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 37):
NYC-LHR is all about frequency, just look at the shuttle operation AA/BA have over at JFK

When one is crossing so many time zones, I still can't see the value of flights every 30 minutes even during peak times. There's definitely some consolidation and equipment up-gauging that could be done to lower CASM.

The value of extra frequencies decreases exponentially after a certain threshold. 10x daily is only marginally more important to business pax than something like 8x daily on a TATL route. By the time you factor in higher CASM and congestion, the last dollar being chased has significantly diminished in value.

I'll take 5x 737NG flights that arrive on-time over 10x CRJs that are delay prone.
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:52 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Thread starter):
And, as known internally, redeploy some of the Boeing 763s freed up by these changes to replace Boeing 757s now on certain trans-Atlantic routes such as EWR-FRA (Frankfurt, Germany)

I didn't see this part. This is also a good move. A 757 on EWR-FRA is just pathetic.
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
klwright69
Posts: 2393
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 3:58 pm

Maintaining IAD, while suspending EWR to FCO, makes sense, it's one of the benefits of the merger. People keep talking about the best place to funnel transfer pax which is through IAD, and not delay prone EWR. How true this is, they have decided during off season FCO will be served through IAD only. Now we see this in action...

PMCO did not want to just stop FCO outright for part of the year..Which makes sense. They just absorbed some losses instead most likely.

Regarding NYC Italians? I think it's a myth on here that routes are sustained by local ethnic communities.

So interesting, these long term changes leave the middle east, and South America, and the Far East unaffected. How interesting...!

Regarding the upgrades of IAD-AMS/CDG, this should not be surprising. The 757 was probably preplanned to be temporary here. I think it had NOTHING to do with diversions.
 
GolfBravoRomeo
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2007 3:12 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:12 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 42):
A 757 on EWR-FRA is just pathetic.

That's the second flight that was added recently (maybe not that recently). The other flight is a 777.
 
Rdh3e
Posts: 2822
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:09 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:14 pm

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 43):
Maintaining IAD, while suspending EWR to FCO, makes sense, it's one of the benefits of the merger.

Fits the previous UA strategy where there was seasonal ORD-FCO service during the summer. They didnt do it last year, probably because of the EWR flight, but I think those 2 flights during peak season will be just right, with 1 going year round.
 
greenwichsud
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 11:18 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:22 pm

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 37):
NYC-LHR is all about frequency, just look at the shuttle operation AA/BA have over at JFK

AA is bankrupt (and could be acquired) and UA seems to be outperforming BA financially. How do we know that the AA/BA duo are necessarily making all the right moves and this is not necessarily a flight to safety from other markets in which each carrier could not compete effectively?
 
nycdave
Posts: 301
Joined: Mon Aug 16, 2010 4:22 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:31 pm

Quoting united787 (Reply 34):
It wasn't that PMUA had a ton of widebodies laying around, it was just that they had a lot more of them, but they were being used, if UA moves some of them to EWR and IAH, they are going to have to cut or swap somewhere else...

Amen. Any time someone says "UA should put one of their widebodies on (insert PMCO route here)", they better have a PMUA route in mind they're going to pull the aircraft from.

Quoting airzim (Reply 40):
1) EWR is at a yield disadvantage over JFK. 2) BA/AA have premium corporate contracts. Therefore LHR is a premium market for BA/AA who have the lucractive corporate agreements and a sustainable transfer hub at LHR. UA is relying on pure O&D in EWR, hence why we see the smaller gauge and higher frequency.

Not sure where you're getting that -- I don't have the breakdown for the routes, but as an airport in general, EWR has almost double the proportion of business travelers / travelers coming/going straight from the office, than JFK does. Also, as has been discussed many, many times, almost no pax from beyond the East River go to EWR, and almost no pax from west of the Hudson go to JFK. PANYNJ gives pretty good statistics on a monthly and annual basis, including origin/destination, trip purpose, etc. I'd be very surprised to see a business-intensive market like LHR draw *less* business pax, proportionally, than other routes from EWR. If you've got evidence/data to the contrary, let's see it!  
 
B747forever
Posts: 12855
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 9:50 pm

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:58 pm

Quoting CALMSP (Thread starter):
EWR-CPH ends Sept 23

Will it be back for S13?
Work Hard, Fly Right
 
codc10
Posts: 1762
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: UA Long-Haul Changes

Tue Apr 03, 2012 5:42 pm

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 31):

I beg the differ. It's long overdue that UA gets a 3-class bird on EWR-LHR. They need to compete with BA in some way and 4x 757 isn't the way to go about it. In fact, UA used to serve EWR-LHR on a 3 class 777 back in the day for many years.

I think the EWR-LHR frequency is going to be a 30J/184Y sUA reconfigured 67E. I'd be surprised to see just one frequency get F, but it's not out of the question.

Quoting airzim (Reply 35):
With the European JV's, this is all metal neutral anyway. Unless fuel prices drop and the demand picks back up.

SK isn't currently part of the A++ JV. UA would only share revenue over a AC/LH/LX hub. This cut is just capacity rationalization, unfortunately.

Quoting airzim (Reply 35):

I'm not so sure. LHR has tons of capacity and the flight time is not that long. I would bet UA puts a new 2 Class 767 on EWR-LHR.

Agreed.

Quoting TOMMY767 (Reply 36):
But LHR is a super premium market and it needs the seat availability in F.

Only the OW carriers operate true F service on the NYC-LHR route - KU is not a serious competitor on the route. The other operators (UA, VS, DL) have two-cabin products with 13 daily roundtrips between them, so I don't think it's necessarily a prerequisite for success in the market.

Quoting airzim (Reply 40):

They often reduced frequency to FCO in the winter.

Yes, usually down to 3-4x weekly, outside holiday periods.

Quoting airzim (Reply 40):
I agree that it looks surprising they kept IAD over EWR. Maybe it is a capital to capital thing.

The sUA 777 has a good mix of premium to economy seats for IAD-FCO, especially without the EWR service operating. FCO generally attracts strong connecting traffic from LAX/SFO/ORD, all of which are markets adequately served via IAD.

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 43):
The 757 was probably preplanned to be temporary here. I think it had NOTHING to do with diversions.

This is correct. Between the 787 delays, 767/777 reconfigurations, and route expansion, the double-daily 757s on IAD-CDG were an interim measure.