FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

UA Update - 31.12.00

Mon Jan 01, 2001 1:02 pm

There is a fairly good chance that San Francisco to South America service will be inagurated with Boeing 747-400 aircraft. Look for more details in the new year!

Furthermore, keep your eyes and ears open for additional 747-400 orders (non "-X" version).

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Mon Jan 01, 2001 1:37 pm

Fly777Ual,

whats your source?
 
LOT767-300ER
Posts: 8526
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2001 12:57 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Mon Jan 01, 2001 1:39 pm

Whered you read that??????????
 
User avatar
United_fan
Posts: 6374
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 11:11 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Mon Jan 01, 2001 1:43 pm

Where abouts in South America (Rio?) 747-X would be nice!

United_Fan
Champagne For My Real Friends,and Real Pain For My Sham Friends
 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Mon Jan 01, 2001 7:14 pm

I didn't read it, LOT. LUV, you should know my sources. I've revealed them many times before (BTW-unlike others, my sources aren't pilots/FA's/CSR's, etc.).

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 1:07 am

Fly,

You know, you are supossed to mention your sources. For all we could know, you could be lying. I assume that you are becasue you havent mentioned them. I've found a bunch of things that you've said to be dead wrong, and this is another one.
 
Guest

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 2:26 am

I am not sure on info posted above. I know UA applied to fly LAX-GRU or LAX-EZE using B400 but was shot down by DOT in favor of CO and DL routes to Argentina. However, nothing would surprise me especially with an increase in int'l flying from SFO and its new int'l terminal.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8773
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 2:34 am

That would be nice.

However, where did you get that news from?

Please let us know. Thanks!
 
SQA340
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 2:55 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 3:18 am

FLY777UAL says,

"Furthermore, keep your eyes and ears open for additional 747-400 orders (non "-X" version)."


United took its last delivery of a 747 in August.

Who did you get this from?
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 3:41 am

I would like to point out how this flight in a 747 would cause United to bankrupt...If you dont mind.

First of all, 80%of United's SouthAmerica flights are done in 767s. If you can fill 205 seats, thats great. On some of the heaver routes, a 777 is used. Back before the days of teh 777, 747SPs were used on some routes. There is no market for those going from SFO to South America. What United has done is set up a nice little hub in MIA. That MIA hub is used to channel the people taking United to South America. That hub is just like SFO is the pacif gateway for United with LAX serving as a secondary pacific port too. Its much more cost effective to route passengers through MIA, and channel them down, then sending a 744 with 120 pax on it to EZE from SFO.

I think I know why Fly777Ual wrote this topic. Other to see how smart we are...there is a new terminal, and Shuttle creates a lot of pax traffic on the west. Pax can connect from Shuttle on to a South America flight. The problem is that the market is not that big. I could see a SFO to South America flight done twice a week in a 767, but not daily in a 744.

Fly, nothing personal.

Happy Flying,
David
 
CX747
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 3:58 am

I am not sure if UAL needs the capacity of the 744 on those routes, but I will take FLY777UAL at his word. He is very credible source who is quite knowledgable.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 4:07 am

Are you sure about that? He has been wrong with atleast 5 things, that he and I have discussed. I would not take his word on this, like I wouldnt take it on other views at United.

Fly,
Come in...are you there? Come on and tell us where you got your information.
 
CX747
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 4:27 am

I have heard from some sources that UAL is a potential 747-400LR customer. Possibly ordering 10 with 6 options or there abouts. Has anyone else heard this?
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
OH-LGA
Posts: 1253
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 1999 1:42 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 5:01 am

747 service from SFO to S. America?!?!?
ROTFL!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! Ohhh... thanks for the laugh  

Seriously, you've got to be kidding me. VARIG operates flights from GIG & GRU to LAX with 767 or MD-11 equipment.

VARIG + United = Star Alliance partners = codesharing if you ask me.

There may be an untapped market from SFO to S. America, but it's certainly not enough to warrant 744 service. 763 or MD-11 sized aircraft maybe, but only on a 3x weekly flight at the most.

I think United would be better off routing passengers through LAX onto VARIG or VASP.

Moi,
Kai
Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
 
johnboy
Posts: 2560
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 5:28 am

Why wouldn't SFO-South America flights work on 744? After all, SFO is a UA hub; who says it might not work to have SEL-SFO-GRU/EZE? or NRT-SFO-GRU? Think positively gentlemen! LAX doesn't deserve all the South American traffic!
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 5:35 am

The thing is that there isnt a market for it, at least daily in a 744. Also, there are no plans for this route, that I know of. I usually keep track of these things as much as I can.

If a SFO to South America flight were to take place, it is possible in a 767 twice a week. I dont believe that UA is filling the 777s to South America, but I could be wrong. If those flights are not going out full, then definantly dont put a 747 on that.
 
SQA340
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 2:55 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 5:52 am

The South America market for UA wouldnt fit the 744. If they are't used in ORD, JFK, MIA dont count the equipment to be used with the 744.
 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 6:48 am

LUV- I would really appreciate it if you could post those 5 or so items where I have been dead wrong...especially the ones that we've "discussed" (?).

Furthermore, I have not read any rules on here where I am required to reveal my sources. You, of all people, should be well aware of them, as I have told you many times. Be resourceful...use the "search" option.

Also, if you could see a daily SFO-MAN flight with a 777, then why can't you envision a daily SFO-South America flight?

SQA340- Just keep your eyes and ears open for new 747-400 orders.  

Johnboy- You hit the nail right on the head in your second sentence.

CX747- Thank you.

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
SQA340
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 2:55 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 7:09 am

   Will do sir.

SQA340

 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 7:14 am

Fly,

First thing, you must post your source on this. Here is the rule:

Back all your opinions with facts.
If you have something to say, say it, but be sure to mention your sources. If you're speculating, be sure to make that very clear as well.


From the detailed rules page


Next,

You were wrong about United Shuttle expansion. I've checked. Before the UA+US merger United was gearing up for United Shuttle East. Destinations included ALB, ROC, LGA, EWR and other north eastern cities.

Next, You posted the non-reving prices. Those numbers were very incorrect. I've flown many times, and have always checked the prices of my flights, and the numbers that you posted were incorrect from the actual.

Would you like me to continue? I can if you want.

 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 7:20 am

UA Shuttle East? I've never said anything about that except for the fact that it won't happen. Did it happen? NO. The fact of the matter is that the East Coast "Shuttle" was to be a completely different setup from the United Shuttle out West.

I cut and pasted non-reving prices from an earlier post on the forum. Skynet seemd to back the prices up, too.

I would really like for you to continue, LUV.

Maybe e-mail would be better so as not to clog the forum from unnecessary and unwanted posts.

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

 
CX747
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 7:24 am

See, this is the kind of thing that is wrong with the forum. FLY777UAL came to us with some information. He is a credible source and doesn't post ridiculous info. He let us all in on what he believes United to be doing. Now, we attack him. He is sharing information with us. If we attack him, in the future he won't share with us and that would be a shame. I for one will be keeping my eye out for new 747-400 orders as that is my favorite airplane!
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Guest

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 7:40 am

FLY777UAL,

This sounds good, I recently have been on one of UAL's newest 744s and it was the nicest plane I've been on!

Regards,

B744

 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 7:58 am

Thank you for that lovely comment, Neo. And a happy New Year to you, too!  

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
Neo
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:21 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:01 am

Yeah you too!!! I just like to cut to the trace!!!
 
CX747
Posts: 5579
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:01 am

I am not sucking up. What I am doing is telling others that FLY777UAL has been a forum member since the beginning and I don't see the need to attack him on this information he shared with us.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Neo
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:21 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:07 am

I can't believe you didn't get his intention with this post!

I'm not trying to attack anyone here, I'm just stating my opinion! I think he's fooling around, because he ain't got nothing better to do!!


FLY777UAL

Have Happy New Year too, amigo!!


NEO
 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:07 am

I've never 'cut to the trace' before! Could you explain, please?  

(I know...you were going to type 'cut to the chase'...)  

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:09 am

You like to cut to the trace Neo? Really? Why don't you explain to the rest of us what it means to cut to the trace. I've heard of cutting to the chase, but not cutting to the trace. Please, enlighten me.

While you're at it, why don't you explain just exactly how you know that FLY777UAL is full of crap. I think 747-400 service from SFO is perfectly feasible, given the strength of UA's domestic route network into SFO. Remember, we're not just talking about the San Francisco market, we're talking about the western United States. Passengers can make connections, you know.

DeltaSFO


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Barry Crawford

It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
Neo
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:21 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:12 am

yeah, little mistake there.

Clearing up! I frankly stated my opinion there, Now wheter you like it or not, is another thing.

Still, i'm not declaring war or anything like that


Neo

 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:14 am

Neo....

Just a little gentle razzing, that's all.

Happy New Year.

DeltaSFO


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Barry Crawford

It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
SQA340
Posts: 683
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2000 2:55 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:15 am

I would just like to say that all the info on UA I get is either throught my dad (Who is employed with UAL) or through our times (the company's magazine and other reliable sources. I don't just post bull @#$% to get attention from other users.
 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:22 am

I'll explain everything in detail to anyone who cares to read, just to prove that this is not as outlandish an idea as originally thought by many (including myself).

Q: How many 747-400 aircraft are to be ordered, and when will the order take place?

A: I haven't heard or seen anything definite about how many are to be ordered, or when they will be ordered. Speculation is around, or [more than likely], below 10 aircraft. The 747 will not only be used to possibly inagurate San Francisco - South America service, but will also be used to bolster current Pacific and Atlantic operations, and facilitate expansion. The possibilities are endless, however, the most likely routes are to be out of San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, and Denver.

Pacific:
Based upon current 'off season' loads to Japan, a third daily SFO-NRT flight, as well as a DEN-NRT flight [new runway, remember?] is what we could be looking forward to in the coming year or two [maybe even an additional LAX-NRT flight]. JFK-HKG is due to open up this Spring, which should take some pressure off of all three HKG flights, to LAX, SFO, and ORD. All three run strong the entire year, giving SFO a good possibility of a second daily SFO-HKG flight.


Atlantic:
Given the off season loads, mainly to London, SFO-LHR is a good candidate to have its other 777 flight replaced by a 747. With the upcoming third daily SFO-LHR flight, to be operated by a 767-300, the two 747-400 and one 767-300 flights would give United an additional ~~95 seats in that market. 42% of these additional seats would be comprised of the much needed high-yield Business Class seats. The 777 which would be replaced, could be sent to expand other markets, SEA-LHR for example. ORD is another good candidate to receive year-round 747 service, to both LHR and FRA, with IAD coming in right behind.


Q: Out of all the routes to be operated, why would United operate San Francisco to South America, and more importantly, why with 747's?

A: First and foremost, let me state that San Francisco is United's largest Pacific gateway, offering many daily flights to eight non-stop destinations, expanding to ten when combined with same airport, and in some cases, same plane destinations. Furthermore, most of the Asian flights continue on to another Asian destination, giving travellers many more options and frequencies from which to choose for their Trans-Pacific flight, aside from a Varig flight routed through LAX, continuing on only to NRT.

A passenger going to SEL, for instance, could opt for the non-stop SFO-SEL flight, or choose from two daily SFO-NRT flights, connecting to four NRT-SEL flights (an additional NRT-SEL flight is to be added this Spring).

The 747 is truly what makes the route, not only from a passenger and cargo standpoint, but also from a logistical standpoint. The flight could arrive in the morning (8-9am), and then be ready to continue on to say, HKG or NRT by 11:00-12:00, which, as mentioned in the first question, takes care of your HKG or NRT expansion.


What many readers of this post seem to jump to is the conclusion that United will start all-out South America operations from San Francisco, emulating their MIA hub. If you read my first post, I state that "There is a good chance that San Francisco to South America service will be inagurated...". Whether that is just one daily SFO-GIG flight, fed by many Varig flight coming from all over the continent, or SFO-GIG, GRU, SCL, etc. flights, your guess is as good as mine, however, I'm willing to bet that its the first option!  

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L



 
Neo
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:21 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:22 am

Delta SFO

That's why UA codeshares with RG on its flight to South America. There is no chance of UA starting a non-stop service to S.America. I mean not in the near future. What FLY777UAL tried to do, is speculating about something he couldn't back up with a source. Insted he prefers to keep his "source" as a secret.

LA, AR, Avianca and RG already fly to LAX.

western united states, is pretty much covered up by conections through LAX!

No need to start such route.

Neo



 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:31 am

Like SQA340, I would also like to say that my information comes directly from the company, and also that I don't post bull just to get attention from forum users.

My sources aren't a secret. Like I said earlier, I've mentioned them numerous times in many other posts. My sources are directors, supervisors, vice presidents, and even Jim Goodwin himself. I have the e-mails to prove for Goodwin, if you don't believe me.

I choose not to post information that I've received while talking to CSR's, pilots, flight attendants, etc., as it tends to be the 'rough, rough draft' of the information from Corporate.

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
Neo
Posts: 730
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2001 8:21 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:33 am

I understand your point now, I have to confess that i was unfair in my statements. I should've paid more attention to the posts. Therefore i would like to appologize to you. Hope you'll understand me.

Best Reagards

Neo
 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:37 am

Not a problem! You are well entitled to your opinions, which I very much valued and respected. There is a lot more to think about behind the decisions than what originally comes to mind!  

No apologies necessary, Neo!

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
alexinwa
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:08 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:49 am

Boy oh boy, are we all hung over today or just testy?

I like the ideas and thoughts posted here. I have posted things are here that I have "HEARD" Isnt that the point?

As far as the topic, since none of us are making UA's plans for them, it is nice to think about all the possible outcomes. I love the idea myself. If I fly to South America, I could stay on UA the whole way making only one stop (Im in Seattle) VS. two changes and going to Miami.

Also the idea of SEA-LHR has been talked about for a long time since UA dropped the route shortly after the PAN AM takeover. UA has stated in Seattle papers many times that they want to re-start that route as well as re-starting SEA-HNL non-stop and they have even mentioned SEA-Hong Kong re-starting. With the 777's they have, all routes are possible.
You mad Bro???
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:55 am

I understand that the SFO to South America route may be a good idea, infact, I mentioned that it was becaue SFO is a Pacific hub, but I dont think that there is the market to allow for a 747.

Fly777ual, i want you to know that I have a lot of respect for you. After reading this topic, I understand your point of view. Be sure that in the future, you post that this is a specualtion, and explain your reasoning.

I would like to make peace with you. You and I agree on a lot of issues. We are both equally knowledgeable (sp?) on United Airlines. I think that we can both agree on that. We do see things from different point of views.

For future refernces, I would appreaciate your sources when you post. This way, i can confirm your posts, as well as understand them better. If you post that a new route is going to go in affect, I would go and check Unimatic. Not to critique, but to find out more information.

Happy Flying,
David
 
gibberish
Posts: 411
Joined: Mon Sep 11, 2000 5:35 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 8:56 am

FLY777UAL, you deserve my respect. I can't prove if what you are saying is true or completely wrong. But from what I have read, you sound serious about it. Anyway, what I wanted to say is that you were harshly critizised but still kept your cool. You were "attacked" from all sides and still you accepted Neo's apology. Very smooth handling.


Later,

gibberish
 
FLY777UAL
Topic Author
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 9:21 am

LUV-

This isn't speculation on my part! Just "Jimmy's"!  

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L

 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 9:30 am

I'll have to give ole' Jimmy a call and talk to him about it  

Anyway...peace man.  

Happy Flying,
David
 
dellatorre
Posts: 864
Joined: Sat May 13, 2000 2:50 pm

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 9:31 am

I´ve been through all the replies of this topic and realized that it was a total waste of time. Let´s try to think something more constructive!!!!! Talking about evasive issues makes topics like this useless.

Anyway, I don´t think there is a market for San Francisco to Brazil route. First place, it would require a long range aircraft since UA 767-300 can´t fly neither Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro non-stop(not really sure). A 777 would be totally unprofitable!! B747-400 not even consider.

I consider such operation (SFO-GRU/GIG) very unappropriate.

Grettings,
Dellatorre
 
Guest

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 10:06 am

Frankly,

If the "best minds" at United are considering starting an SFO-South America route, then all I have to say is that Continental and American have won the psychological war down in the Houston/Newark and New York/Miami market.

Aside from the fact that I don't see how United will be able to inaugurate a route to Brazil without a new route authority, it seems to me that even with all the domestic and international feed UA gets into SFO there are few if any viable routes to South America that can be run from SFO, because SFO lacks the necessary O&D traffic to many of the South American markets that UA might envision serving from there. In the end that is a more important factor than even feed in the success of an international route.

I make this judgement based on what I read recently about Delta's chances of succeeding on the Santiago,Chile and Atlanta route. In Airliners' Magazine, no one less than the President of Lan Chile questioned Delta's chances by arguing that based on their analysis of the market they just did not see anyone wanting to go to Atlanta from Chile or to Miami via Atlanta from Chile. The same I gather is true from many South American markets to SFO.

The overwhelming commercial reality that makes Miami the premiere hub for Latin American operations is that many of the import and export houses that do business in Latin American have their headquarters in Miami. Try as United and Delta may to change these travel patterns and the cultural paradigms associated with them, the basic fact is that the coveted business traveller to Latin American often orginates in Miami or has business to do in Miami on his way to Latin America.

So, I dare United to try. It would be a waste of their resources, and more evidence of their inability to make inroads at all into American's dominance in Latin America from Miami.
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: UA Update - 31.12.00

Tue Jan 02, 2001 10:17 am

I make this judgement based on what I read recently about Delta's chances of succeeding on the Santiago,Chile and Atlanta route. In Airliners' Magazine, no one less than the President of Lan Chile questioned Delta's chances by arguing that based on their analysis of the market they just did not see anyone wanting to go to Atlanta from Chile

I have yet to read the latest issue of Airways, but with all due respect to the president of LanChile, he should study up on Delta's route structure. Atlanta's location makes it perfect for connections from almost the whole of the United States. The last numbers I saw showed 23% of South America bound passengers originating in the South Florida area. So it's not as though South Florida is the end all and be all of South America flights.

Second, consider the motives the chief executive of LanChile has in saying that. Delta is his competitor. Our alliance competes with theirs. So, naturally, he will say that.

At any rate, the numbers speak for themselves. Our SCL flights are running load factors in the high 80s, so I'd say we turn a tidy profit on these flights.

ATL-South America is working, and given UA's strong route structure at SFO, I'm sure SFO-South America would work as well.

Happy New Year.

DeltaSFO


Click for large version
Click here for full size photo!

Photo © Barry Crawford

It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.