User avatar
legacyins
Topic Author
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 2:58 pm

UA will reinstate their non stop service to CDG/TPE next Spring. The CDG flight will be on the newly configured 2 class 763 and the TPE will be on the 777. These two services were suspended by United about ten years ago. (The author needs to work on their facts)

http://thebat-sf.com/2012/07/10/unit...er%29%29&utm_content=Yahoo%21+Mail
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:13 pm

I could have sworn UA still flew SFO-TPE. Wow -- either way good for them.

And so I guess this is where the IAH-CDG flight is going? To SFO?
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
LY777
Posts: 2269
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:15 pm

I hope they will send 787s from SFO to CDG in the future...

Their 767 cabin look great BTW

[Edited 2012-07-10 08:20:42]
Flown:A3B2,A320,A321,A332,A343,A388,717,727,732,734,735,738,73W,742/744/748,752,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W,D8,D10,L
 
codc10
Posts: 1759
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:17 pm

Good news, and very interesting... I had it on fairly good information that SFO-TPE was on the short list for 787 service, but I guess they think they can give it a go with the 777. I wonder if this means TPE-NRT will bite the dust?
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:17 pm

Lets hope they have better luck this time around. They tried hard to serve both nonstop previously on multiple occasions, but the lack of revenue (yield) hurt.

At least with TPE, using the smaller 777, and with EVA coming into Star it might do better this time around.

[Edited 2012-07-10 08:18:44]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
strfyr51
Posts: 2108
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:40 pm

wasn't there a political "to -do" when UAL wanted to fly Bejing (PEK) about also flying to TPE?? I think so but I don't exactly remember clearly.
 
panamair
Posts: 3761
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 3:59 pm

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 6):
wasn't there a political "to -do" when UAL wanted to fly Bejing (PEK) about also flying to TPE?? I think so but I don't exactly remember clearly.

That was during Pan Am's time...

http://time-demo.newscred.com/articl...0455ea2551a694a003f291d6.html/edit
 
jfk777
Posts: 5840
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:46 pm

Quoting legacyins (Thread starter):
UA will reinstate their non stop service to CDG/TPE next Spring. The CDG flight will be on the newly configured 2 class 763 and the TPE will be on the 777. These two services were suspended by United about ten years ago. (The author needs to work on their facts)

The 2-class 763ER has Business First seats which are among the best in the sky. The seat map is at www.seatguru.com
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 4:58 pm

At 5583mi, does UA expect their 763's to be able to reasonably do that route without a significant weight penalty?? When they previously operated the route, it was done with the 3-cabin 763ER's with PW4060 motors and a much lower density cabin. The 2-cabin 763ER's have PW4056 motors and a much higher density cabin.

Does UA plan on (or have they already?) uprating the motors to PW4060's?? Or increasing MGTOW to 412.0??

Just for comparison, UA's ACC-IAD flights were frequently weight and/or balance critical, and that clocks in at only 5296mi and was flown by the stronger, lighter 3-cabin birds.
 
codc10
Posts: 1759
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:02 pm

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 15):
The 2-cabin 763ER's have PW4056 motors and a much higher density cabin.

Not anymore. The engines were uprated and the cabins are in an all-new lower density arrangement with 214 seats (30J/184Y).

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 15):
Does UA plan on (or have they already?) uprating the motors to PW4060's?? Or increasing MGTOW to 412.0??

Yes and yes, both completed over a year ago. Plus, the mod adds winglets, further improving fuel efficiency.
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:07 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 16):
Yes and yes, both completed over a year ago. Plus, the mod adds winglets, further improving fuel efficiency.

Not possible if it's over a year ago. Most of the 2-cabin birds still flying, right now, in domestic config (ships 6664 through 6677) were all 407.0 or even less.
 
drerx7
Posts: 4218
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:11 pm

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 18):
Not possible if it's over a year ago. Most of the 2-cabin birds still flying, right now, in domestic config (ships 6664 through 6677) were all 407.0 or even less.

Wasn't that a paper upgrade much like those done on the domestic 777s?
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
ryu2
Posts: 1546
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 8:18 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:11 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 14):
The 2-class 763ER has Business First seats which are among the best in the sky. The seat map is at www.seatguru.com

Are these birds former PMCO? Or are they refurbished PMUA domestic Ghetto Birds?
 
drerx7
Posts: 4218
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:15 pm

Quoting ryu2 (Reply 20):
Are these birds former PMCO? Or are they refurbished PMUA domestic Ghetto Birds?

Refurbed pmUA. CO never operated the 763. Eventhough I believe 5 -324s were built.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:17 pm

Quoting CODC10 (Reply 16):
Not anymore. The engines were uprated and the cabins are in an all-new lower density arrangement with 214 seats (30J/184Y).

So these are reconfigured Ghetto Birds, not PMCO 767s? I thought at least some of the PMCO 767s had the legs for SFO-CDG. Wasn't the plan to use the former Ghetto Birds from the east coast to Europe and Latin America?
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 6343
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:24 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 1):
And so I guess this is where the IAH-CDG flight is going? To SFO?

Not sure the trade makes much sense. I'd have thought the Latin connects on IAH would result in much better yields.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:25 pm

The modified winglet 763s have 4060 engines (same as the international 3-class ones).

MTOW for the entire 763 fleet, new winglet, domestic, and international is 407,000lbs.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
tommy767
Posts: 4658
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 12:18 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:29 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):

Honestly, SFO-CDG would be one of the routes I least suspected to appear on the 763. Still waiting for SFO-CAN
"KEEP CLIMBING" -- DELTA
 
drerx7
Posts: 4218
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:31 pm

Quoting enilria (Reply 23):
Not sure the trade makes much sense. I'd have thought the Latin connects on IAH would result in much better yields.

Well, I don't know. I suspect that the bulk of the transfer traffic onto IAH-CDG was from the west coast, so UA must believe that its enough to warrant the flight, even if the yields to Paris are probably some of the lowest across the pond. Had the U.S. not come up with the whole transit visa situation and what not - I think MIA/ATL and especially IAH would have looked a little different in terms of the service they see. They would definitely be more robust than what they are now.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:32 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 24):
The modified winglet 763s have 4060 engines (same as the international 3-class ones).

MTOW for the entire 763 fleet, new winglet, domestic, and international is 407,000lbs.

Thanks. I knew I saw 407.0 somewhere, haha.

So, they'll have the bigger engines but they won't have the higher MGTOW of 412.0. That route will probably be real close to weight restriction territory, especially on the westbounds into the wind.
 
drerx7
Posts: 4218
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:37 pm

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 27):
So, they'll have the bigger engines but they won't have the higher MGTOW of 412.0. That route will probably be real close to weight restriction territory, especially on the westbounds into the wind.

I think the engines are a paperwork upgrade like the 777s...yes? no?
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
apjung
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2002 3:20 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:41 pm

It's about time! I almost thought that I'd have to wait a little longer for UA to get their 787s for the possibility of resuming the TPE nonstop.

[Edited 2012-07-10 10:44:16]
Andy P. Jung
 
Transpac787
Posts: 1349
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 12:47 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:42 pm

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 28):
I think the engines are a paperwork upgrade like the 777s...yes? no?

Yes and no.

To get the additional 4,000# of thrust, it *is* a paper upgrade but you also need to have the appropriate fuel pumps and all other accompanying necessary hardware. If those were already in place and the engines were operating "derated", so to speak, then yes it is only a paper upgrade. Otherwise, there are some hardware changes to go along with it.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:50 pm

UA 763s never were 412.0

Anyhow CDG-SFO & LAX were both past routes for UA on the 763 so they should have good historical data for its performance.

Regarding the engines, the domestic birds were previously uprated from 4052 to 4056, and now 4060. But its more than a paper change as it requires some engine plug mod.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
bioyuki
Posts: 97
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 8:00 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:23 pm

I'm personally very surprised at TPE. Taipei has never been a high yielding destination and UA is reinstating the nonstop with a 772 when there's already plenty of capacity between BR and CI. For Summer 2012, there's 6,595 weekly oneway seats for SFO-TPE, more capacity then LAX-HKG, SFO-PEK, NYC-HKG, etc. SFO-TPE has one of the lowest percentages of premium seats as well for any US-Asia city pairing. Not that I'm against more routes from my home airport, but isn't a codeshare with BR enough for UA to TPE?

Is BR joining the transpac JV when it joins Star?
Next flight: UA 35/NH 40/UA 876: SFO-KIX-HND-SFO
 
PHX787
Posts: 7877
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:46 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:33 pm

Quoting tommy767 (Reply 1):
I could have sworn UA still flew SFO-TPE. Wow -- either way good for them.

I think one of the Taiwanese airlines has been flying it
Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 6:36 pm

Btw - for the record RoC-USA traffic has grown immensely over time - becoming one of the largest intercontinental market from the US by 2011 with almost 2 million travellers.

[Edited 2012-07-10 11:50:00]
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
kiwiandrew

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:33 pm

Not too surprising to see the restoration of SFO-TPE, although, like a few other posters, I had thought the 787 might be better sized for the service. But with BR on their way to *A it seems as though the route might have a better chance this time around. I still wonder whether we will eventually see SFO-CAN in the long term.
 
User avatar
flylku
Posts: 586
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2006 10:44 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 8:43 pm

A number of posts have used the term "weight restricted". I believe the aircraft will go out at max gross of 407. So isn't the correct term payload restricted?
...are we there yet?
 
goldorak
Posts: 1362
Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 5:29 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:14 pm

So they a dropping IAH-CDG to re-start SFO-CDG which is a known route with yields in the toilets ????
There's really something I don't understand in UA strategy
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 1868
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:19 pm

Quoting goldorak (Reply 49):
So they a dropping IAH-CDG to re-start SFO-CDG which is a known route with yields in the toilets ????
There's really something I don't understand in UA strategy

I think unlike past attempts at SFO-CDG, this has a better chance given some new factors:

1. Smaller a/c with two classes of service;
2. The combined carrier is larger with a bigger potential pool of passengers to draw from;
3. The a/c itself is more efficient with its overhaul.

I think the yields stunk before due to too much capacity and the AF competition. UA must have analyzed AF's SFO operation and saw a chance to pull down some good cash with a right-sized a/c.

This causes me to rethink our France trip next summer; the 763 is a much more comfortable long haul a/c at 2-3-2 in Y.
 
User avatar
shengzhurou
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu May 27, 2010 5:07 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:49 pm

last time UA had the SFO-CDG was 2005 and they dropped after the summer, AF has had A343, A332, A388, 772 and 744 on this route depends on the season. this is a good decision for UA to have a share on SFO-CDG route that starts with a 763ER. If the market is good , we might even see a 772 on this route.

EVA is been doing good on SFO with the 77W, and CI with 744, I don't know if UA can keep the 772 daily flight operating during low seasons.

we will probably see a 788 flys to CAN, NGO, TPE in the future from SFO.

[Edited 2012-07-10 14:49:53]
Sheng Zhu Rou
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:00 pm

Quoting flylku (Reply 48):

weight restrictions will happen, but that means you wont be near the MGTOW.
 
MUCramp
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 4:20 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:15 pm

Anyone got any idea of the SFO-CDG-SFO schedule?
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:18 pm

Please keep the discussion focused on the topic or else this thread will be locked.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:24 pm

Quoting MUCramp (Reply 33):

SFO-CDG
2:45pm - 10:45am 767-300

CDG-SFO
10:00am - 12:50pm 767-300
 
COSPN
Posts: 1535
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 6:33 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:39 pm

SFO-MNL or SFO-GUM would be a winner also..mabe on the 787 ??
 
User avatar
legacyins
Topic Author
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:14 pm

As far as the reintroduction of the SFO-TPE route. BR is poised to enter the *A and is currently upgrading their premium class. When BR enters the alliance, what can they provide UA at TPE that they don't already have? China is covered by CA but UA does have a limited exposure to SE Asia.

On both these routes, I believe they will be counting on their members to fill the seats. This is good and bad, IMO. Could it mean a lot of award traveler, especially CDG, filling those seats?
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1152
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:16 pm

They should be able to carry around 40-50,000lbs of payload for the longer (ESAD) westbound CDG-SFO sector.

Thats good for a full load of 214pax + bags and a few thousand pounds of cargo depending on the day.

UA is a master at dispatching payload/range limited flights and I am certain they will get the max performance out of the aircraft.
Happiness is V1 in Lagos
 
tsnamm
Posts: 529
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 3:28 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:01 am

Quoting legacyins (Reply 37):

On both these routes, I believe they will be counting on their members to fill the seats. This is good and bad, IMO. Could it mean a lot of award traveler, especially CDG, filling those seats?

The question is, if BR are operating their own TPE/SFO flights, why would they transfer transiting business thru TPE to UA instead of their own metal?
This route will need to depend on the westbound leg connecting UA traffic thru SFO.. I also can't imagine that SFO is a better hub to CDG than IAH. But you have to assume that they have crunched the numbers....
 
drerx7
Posts: 4218
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:19 am

Quoting tsnamm (Reply 39):
I also can't imagine that SFO is a better hub to CDG than IAH. But you have to assume that they have crunched the numbers....

That's my sentiments as well. SFO-CDG seems like a yields/mileage dump; but hey, I'm a dentist not an airline CEO.
Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
 
CALMSP
Posts: 2895
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:26 am

Quoting drerx7 (Reply 40):

i admit, i'm somewhat of an anti-dentite!  
 
User avatar
legacyins
Topic Author
Posts: 1811
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:29 am

 
etoile
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:22 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:37 am

Quoting bioyuki (Reply 24):
isn't a codeshare with BR enough for UA to TPE?
Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 27):
Not too surprising to see the restoration of SFO-TPE, although, like a few other posters, I had thought the 787 might be better sized for the service. But with BR on their way to *A it seems as though the route might have a better chance this time around. I still wonder whether we will eventually see SFO-CAN in the long term.
Quoting legacyins (Reply 37):
what can they provide UA at TPE that they don't already have?

Note that since UA suspended SFO-TPE, the cross-strait market has arisen. So expect a good amount of traffic on the renewed service to be connecting on to the mainland, where aside from Shanghai and Beijing, there are 11 other municipalities with populations greater than 10 million.
 
kiwiandrew

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:41 am

Quoting etoile (Reply 43):
Note that since UA suspended SFO-TPE, the cross-strait market has arisen. So expect a good amount of traffic on the renewed service to be connecting on to the mainland, where aside from Shanghai and Beijing, there are 11 other municipalities with populations greater than 10 million.

Excellent point, I hadn't thought of that.
 
trex8
Posts: 4603
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:16 am

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 44):
Quoting etoile (Reply 43):
Note that since UA suspended SFO-TPE, the cross-strait market has arisen. So expect a good amount of traffic on the renewed service to be connecting on to the mainland, where aside from Shanghai and Beijing, there are 11 other municipalities with populations greater than 10 million.

Excellent point, I hadn't thought of that.

IIRC the Taiwanese carriers are not allowed to sell seats for transpac pax to transit thru TPE to mainland China. This was one of the cross straits agreement issues they have been trying to change for a while. Don't know if it affects UA pax connecting to BR flights in TPE though.
 
etoile
Posts: 61
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:22 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:36 am

Quoting trex8 (Reply 45):
IIRC the Taiwanese carriers are not allowed to sell seats for transpac pax to transit thru TPE to mainland China. This was one of the cross straits agreement issues they have been trying to change for a while. Don't know if it affects UA pax connecting to BR flights in TPE though.

The treaty arrangements (I mean agreements) have changed several times since 2003. As of now, you can book US-to-mainland flights on the Taiwanese carriers.
 
User avatar
BreninTW
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 5:31 pm

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:51 am

Quoting CALMSP (Reply 35):
SFO-CDG
2:45pm - 10:45am 767-300

CDG-SFO
10:00am - 12:50pm 767-300

CALM, these times don't make sense -- either the aircraft sits on the ground at CDG for almost 24 hours or is it a W-routing?

The aircraft arrives CDG at 10:45AM, and departs the following day at 10:00AM -- or should one of those AMs be a PM?
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:58 am

Quoting Transpac787 (Reply 22):
If those were already in place and the engines were operating "derated",

They were.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 23):
But its more than a paper change as it requires some engine plug mod.

An engine plug is paper.  

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

RE: UA To Reinstate SFO-CDG/TPE

Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:59 am

Quoting BreninTW (Reply 47):

it clearly gives a hint towards....................

Who is online