xxcr
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:27 pm

I was looking at some routes and which equipment UA uses out of SFO and noticed they favor the 77W/788/789 over the 772 out of SFO. 772 used to be a common sighting at SFO, now i only the 77A and the occasional 772. Looking at the other hubs, its a mixture of all widebodies. Is there a reason for this?

ORD-772, ,763, 752
EWR-77W, 772, 764, 763, 752
IAH-772, 764, 763, 752
DEN-788/789
IAD-772, 788, 789, 752, 763

looking at the oversea flights out of sfo:
SFO-NRT-77W
SFO-HKG-77W
SFO-TPE-77W
SFO-PEK-77W
SFO-ICN-789
SFO-PVG-789x2
SFO-CTU-788
SFO-KIX-788
SFO-SIN-789
SFO-SYD-789
SFO-PPT-788
SFO-HND-789

SFO-LHR-77W, 772
SFO-FRA-77W, 789
SFO-MUN-788
SFO-ZUR-788
SFO-CDG-772
SFO-TLV-77W
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1134
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 4:50 pm

SFO, as United's Pacific gateway, has some of the highest demand long-haul routes in the network (so gets the 77W) and has some of the longest stage lengths in the network (so gets the 788 and 789 where that aircraft's efficiency makes a difference). LAX has a similar thing going on – really long stage lengths need the 78s.

Average stage length out of the rest of the hubs is shorter so the less efficient aircraft go there.
146 319 320 321 332 333 343 717 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 763 764 772 773 789 AR1 AT4 CNA CR2 CR7 DC9 ER3 ERD ER4 E70 E75 E90
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:17 pm

Perhaps it also has to do with fleet replacement? IIRC the last few UA 744s were all based in SFO, so it make sense for those flights to be replaced by 77Ws mostly. (77W being the "one-for-one" replacement for 744...yes, capacity is different, but it's as close as it gets without going into VLAs). The only non-SFO 77W flight is EWR-NRT anyway.

As for 787s - well, I guess it has to do with UA just wanting to keep them to a few bases? It's pretty common theme among US carriers anyway (i.e. DL right now based 80% of their 359 flight in DTW).
 
xxcr
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:24 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
Perhaps it also has to do with fleet replacement? IIRC the last few UA 744s were all based in SFO, so it make sense for those flights to be replaced by 77Ws mostly. (77W being the "one-for-one" replacement for 744...yes, capacity is different, but it's as close as it gets without going into VLAs). The only non-SFO 77W flight is EWR-NRT anyway.

EWR-NRT-77W
EWR-TLV-77W, 772

As for 787s - well, I guess it has to do with UA just wanting to keep them to a few bases? It's pretty common theme among US carriers anyway (i.e. DL right now based 80% of their 359 flight in DTW).
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 5:54 pm

adamblang wrote:
SFO, as United's Pacific gateway, has some of the highest demand long-haul routes in the network (so gets the 77W) and has some of the longest stage lengths in the network (so gets the 788 and 789 where that aircraft's efficiency makes a difference). LAX has a similar thing going on – really long stage lengths need the 78s.

Average stage length out of the rest of the hubs is shorter so the less efficient aircraft go there.


Mostly this.

Initially (pre-Kirby days) it was supposed to be based out of EWR, which makes sense given they have long trunk Asia routes (NRT, BOM, DEL, TLV, PEK, PVG), and slowly they're picking up at EWR with EWR-NRT nad EWR-BOM as 77Ws (BOM starting later this year).
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13831
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:00 pm

[quote="zakuivcustom"]Perhaps it also has to do with fleet replacement? IIRC the last few UA 744s were all based in SFO, so it make sense for those flights to be replaced by 77Ws mostly. (77W being the "one-for-one" replacement for 744...yes, capacity is different, but it's as close as it gets without going into VLAs). The only non-SFO 77W flight is EWR-NRT anyway.[quote]

EWR-NRT, EWR-BOM and 1 of the 2 daily EWR-TLV flights are 77W.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:28 pm

STT757 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
Perhaps it also has to do with fleet replacement? IIRC the last few UA 744s were all based in SFO, so it make sense for those flights to be replaced by 77Ws mostly. (77W being the "one-for-one" replacement for 744...yes, capacity is different, but it's as close as it gets without going into VLAs). The only non-SFO 77W flight is EWR-NRT anyway.

EWR-NRT, EWR-BOM and 1 of the 2 daily EWR-TLV flights are 77W.


EWR-BOM is not yet a 77W, though I think this happens in October.
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6969
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 6:58 pm

Only LHR (some flights, not all) and CDG are not getting the newer aircraft. I would venture to say that the fact that SFO is an Asian gateway for UA has forced UA to deploy their newer aircraft on those flights to better compete with the Asian carriers, who traditionally offer much better service (both hard and soft product). Looks like SFO will be 77A/77E-free soon; in other words, maybe the 77Es that fly to LHR and CDG will be moved to routes from other hubs, and eventually those flights will be taken over by 789s or something.

What is the schedule for the replacement of the 77A and 77E fleet? I know the 77Es will be replaced mostly by the A359s and those are still a bit far away.
Upcoming flights:
May: AM MEX-CUN 73H (Y), AM CUN-MEX 73W (Y).
August: KL MEX-AMS 74M (J), KQ AMS-NBO 788 (J).
 
VC10er
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 7:14 pm

With 18 77W all taken up, and a number of other routes that would have been great for EWR, I’m surprised the 2nd top-off order never happened. I would have figured a couple more EWR Asia (possibly FRA) routes could fill a 77W out of EWR (Eg; HKG)?
The refurbished 77E’s would be fine on many European and SA routes. I wonder if the 78J “could” free up 2/4 77W’s? But they certainly don’t have the same legs as the 77E (right?)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4376
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Wed Aug 15, 2018 8:16 pm

The 77W also subs frequently across the network, its seen at IAH and DEN. IAH infrequently sees the 764 though
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
Midwest2K
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 10:14 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:25 am

UA must feel good about their position at ORD as they only fly the oldest wide bodies at O’Hare and still use 757s seasonally.

No 787s and only the occasional 77W.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:36 am

Midwest2K wrote:
UA must feel good about their position at ORD as they only fly the oldest wide bodies at O’Hare and still use 757s seasonally.

No 787s and only the occasional 77W.


Once upon a time I used to do a lot of work in Chicago and flew out of ORD often. It does seem odd that the home airport doesn’t get anything brand new? You even have the world famous United Tunnel!
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
rbavfan
Posts: 3143
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2015 5:53 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:11 am

EddieDude wrote:
Only LHR (some flights, not all) and CDG are not getting the newer aircraft. I would venture to say that the fact that SFO is an Asian gateway for UA has forced UA to deploy their newer aircraft on those flights to better compete with the Asian carriers, who traditionally offer much better service (both hard and soft product). Looks like SFO will be 77A/77E-free soon; in other words, maybe the 77Es that fly to LHR and CDG will be moved to routes from other hubs, and eventually those flights will be taken over by 789s or something.

What is the schedule for the replacement of the 77A and 77E fleet? I know the 77Es will be replaced mostly by the A359s and those are still a bit far away.


I'm betting LHR & CDG will be moved to 787-10's. It's designed around such routes.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 559
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:11 am

Midwest2K wrote:
UA must feel good about their position at ORD as they only fly the oldest wide bodies at O’Hare and still use 757s seasonally.

No 787s and only the occasional 77W.


That’ll all change with the new terminal. Right now only the 767s can park in between the C and B gates. There’s no room for a bunch of 787s unless they replace the 777s in ORD.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:59 am

Midwest2K wrote:
UA must feel good about their position at ORD as they only fly the oldest wide bodies at O’Hare and still use 757s seasonally.

No 787s and only the occasional 77W.


ORD's time will come while ORD may not be seeing many new international flights UA has done a great job strengthening and growing this hub domestically. I think over the next few years ORD will see some international long haul growth whether that growth is on the 787s 77Ws or our older 77Es and 767s is still unknown. While the 6pm international bank is full from the perspective of gate space UA has the space to add another international departure bank at either 8pm or 9pm. Right now only 2 international wide body flights leave at 9pm LHR and GRU. When ORD's time comes I thing UA probably will either add international wide body flights to the 9pm bank when there are wide body gates available. If not the 9pm bank UA could shuffle some flights around and create room free up some wide body gates during the 4pm departure bank.
 
Newbiepilot
Posts: 3638
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2016 10:18 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:55 am

Every long haul flight from SFO is over 5,000 miles. They probably are saving fuel by using their newest planes on the longer flights. ORD/IAD/EWR to Europe are shorter routes.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 3827
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:19 am

VC10er wrote:
With 18 77W all taken up, and a number of other routes that would have been great for EWR, I’m surprised the 2nd top-off order never happened. I would have figured a couple more EWR Asia (possibly FRA) routes could fill a 77W out of EWR (Eg; HKG)?
The refurbished 77E’s would be fine on many European and SA routes. I wonder if the 78J “could” free up 2/4 77W’s? But they certainly don’t have the same legs as the 77E (right?)

I think it has more to DO with the passenger loads and competition flown in a Region. United has been for a while tailoring route capacity to what airplane they can fly on any given day . They have a range of airplanes to operate and on the longest flights over the pacific. the 77E, the 77W, the B787-8 and B787-9 gived quite a bit of coverage where they're flying the right airplane with the Right Load on any given day and flight. Why use a sledge hammer when you need a fly swater?
 
jayunited
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 12:52 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
I think it has more to DO with the passenger loads and competition flown in a Region. United has been for a while tailoring route capacity to what airplane they can fly on any given day . They have a range of airplanes to operate and on the longest flights over the pacific. the 77E, the 77W, the B787-8 and B787-9 gived quite a bit of coverage where they're flying the right airplane with the Right Load on any given day and flight. Why use a sledge hammer when you need a fly swater?


Exactly I think you have nailed it we are seeing UA carry out route tailoring for a few years now in the domestic, Canadian, Mexico, Central America and Caribbean markets. Depending on the market and the day of the week a route that was a 753 on Monday morning come Wednesday morning that same route leaving at the exact same time is now a A319 fast forward to Friday and its now a 739ER. While I know we won't see route tailoring to that degree on international routes I think we will see some movements more than what we are seeing today. Once the FA's are fully merged (October 1st) all the restrictions that UA have been and still face are over and it will allow UA even more flexibility that we don't have today. UA's wide body fleet will span a range from our smallest frame 763 to our largest frame 77W, and we are already seeing some of this route tailoring from mid spring till early August flights like ORD-CDG and EWR-FRA utilized 77Es and 77Ws because that is when demand is at it peak. Now that we are in August UA has downguaged ORD-CDG to a 763, and EWR-FRA to a 77E, usually ORD-CDG isn't downguage till early-mid September. This movement should allow UA to maintain higher yields because you don't have a ton of unsold seats that you now have to discount which destroys yields. I also think having such a large diverse wide body fleet will allow UA to operate more seasonal international flights.

I think we all need to be patience for a little while longer its not secret UA screwed up this merger. However I think come 2019, 2020 once everything is on the right track I think and I hope we will see great things from UA.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:39 pm

Also, wouldn’t the 797 be a decent domestic aircraft on top of being a TATL monster? I presume a 797 won’t match the UA HD772 capacity, but perhaps offering more frequencies? (I who know virtually nothing) can “feel” how much UA would love to have the 797 sooner vs later- and many of them.
Couldn’t the 797 be configured in at least 2 ways to be the new P.S. aircraft as well as hub2hub and TATL?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
SRT75
Posts: 235
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:42 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:59 pm

Newbiepilot wrote:
Every long haul flight from SFO is over 5,000 miles. They probably are saving fuel by using their newest planes on the longer flights. ORD/IAD/EWR to Europe are shorter routes.


While this may be true, I think the fact that a 77W has almost 100 more seats than a 772 is the deciding factor (and a LOT more premium seats). The 772, 77E, and 77W can handle the stage length without restrictions. It's that UA funnels a good deal of Asia traffic (especially premium Asia traffic) through SFO. They need a lot of seats to meet that demand.
 
abauds201
Posts: 10
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2018 3:42 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:35 pm

Why does SFO-NRT get the 77W and HND only 789? I thought HND would have higher seat demand
 
BC77008
Posts: 448
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:48 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 3:44 pm

abauds201 wrote:
Why does SFO-NRT get the 77W and HND only 789? I thought HND would have higher seat demand

Perhaps more onward connections via Star partner ANA @ NRT vs HND, which would require more seats?
MY favorite airline and hub is bigger and/or better than YOUR favorite airline and hub!
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:05 pm

United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
EddieDude
Posts: 6969
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:36 pm

rbavfan wrote:
I'm betting LHR & CDG will be moved to 787-10's. It's designed around such routes.

From SFO? Probably not. I thought UA expected to base the 787-10s in the East Coast for European services.
Upcoming flights:
May: AM MEX-CUN 73H (Y), AM CUN-MEX 73W (Y).
August: KL MEX-AMS 74M (J), KQ AMS-NBO 788 (J).
 
xxcr
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 4:57 pm

EddieDude wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
I'm betting LHR & CDG will be moved to 787-10's. It's designed around such routes.

From SFO? Probably not. I thought UA expected to base the 787-10s in the East Coast for European services.



I though the 78J would be based out of EWR?

im guessing SFO-CDG will be stuck with the 772, even after the polaris retrofit is finished.
 
xxcr
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:01 pm

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA



Does UA have any more options for the 77W? IMO, they need more if they want to stay competitive in the Asian and euro market.
 
xxcr
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:07 pm

Im also surprised that SFO-SYD is on a 789 and not a 77W. Would the 77W be an overkill?
 
MKIAZ
Posts: 244
Joined: Thu May 01, 2014 5:24 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:13 pm

77W can also haul over quite a bit more cargo from Asia, especially to SFO.
 
notconcerned
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:39 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 5:28 pm

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA


But why does SFO-ICN/PVG need 77W? SFO-ICN went from 747 to 789, so maybe yields just aren't there. And SFO-PVG is now double daily 788/789.

As for ORD, isn't 77W a bit too much capacity? Considering ORD-LHR is only 3 daily on 763 and ORD-FRA is 2 daily with 772 (along with LH 2 daily 748 in summer/1 daily in winter).

Considering the upgauge on SFO-TLV and EWR-BOM, 77W might be better on upgauging routes out of SFO/EWR. Also 772 refits will increase Y capacity.
 
xxcr
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:25 pm

notconcerned wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA


But why does SFO-ICN/PVG need 77W? SFO-ICN went from 747 to 789, so maybe yields just aren't there. And SFO-PVG is now double daily 788/789.

As for ORD, isn't 77W a bit too much capacity? Considering ORD-LHR is only 3 daily on 763 and ORD-FRA is 2 daily with 772 (along with LH 2 daily 748 in summer/1 daily in winter).

Considering the upgauge on SFO-TLV and EWR-BOM, 77W might be better on upgauging routes out of SFO/EWR. Also 772 refits will increase Y capacity.



SFO-ICN is perfect with the 789, i remember flying there when it was still a 744 and it was never full. ORD doesnt need the 77W, too much capacity with low yields. the 772, 763, 752 is perfect for ORD for now. Even if they expanded to Asia and Europe from ORD, the 77W is still an overkill.
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 508
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 6:28 pm

EddieDude wrote:
rbavfan wrote:
I'm betting LHR & CDG will be moved to 787-10's. It's designed around such routes.

From SFO? Probably not. I thought UA expected to base the 787-10s in the East Coast for European services.


From all reports it will be, mainly for trunk TATL routes that are currently B77E/A and B764s, like -FRA/BRU/LHR/MAD etc.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:13 pm

xxcr wrote:
Im also surprised that SFO-SYD is on a 789 and not a 77W. Would the 77W be an overkill?


I'm not surprised SFO-SYD has remained a 789. A few years ago UA in a rare move announced on Flying Together why they made the switch from 744 to 77E to 789 and it really came down to yield. UA in a rare move announced we were loosing money on all our SYD routes when the 744s and 77Es were on these routes however now that these routes are being flown utilizing 789s according to the article that was published on Flying Together a few years ago our flights to Australia are now profitable. Placing a 77W on SFO-SYD along with the recently launched IAH-SYD would probably erode yields to the point that UA would probably be forced to cancel IAH-SYD.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA


I don't think UA needs a 77W on SFO-ICN, ICN was never a strong point for UA and as far as SFO-PVG, UA now operates that route daily double and before the 744s were retired we had a lot of empty seats on both flights now that both flights are 789s it give our customers the options they were looking for while UA is able to maintain capacity and higher yields. AS far as ORD I think the same applies while there are some routes that could benefit from an upguage to the 77W route like PVG, HKG, NRT, PEK, and FRA none of these routes need a 77W on a year around basis. While the 744 may have been on some of these routes on a year around basis in my opinion what ever profit UA may have made on these routes during the busy travel season was given back during the slow season because we were flying around half empty airplanes. Even though the 77E is smaller the the 77W and 744 the 77E has the right amount of seats for these routes out of ORD on a year around basis.

I think we have to stop (and I'm guilty of this) of looking at what aircraft was utilized in years past and comparing it to the aircraft that is being used today and assuming this route needs this particular aircraft just because a larger aircraft was used in years past. Pre-merger UA's widebody fleet was 763, 772/ER, 744; pre-merger CO had 762, 764, 77E. Now look at post-merger UA look at the diversity of our widebody fleet and the 787-10 will add another aircraft type into an already diversified fleet giving UA a ton of options neither sUA or sCO had before the merger. I mentioned this in an earlier post that once UA's flight attendants are fully integrated UA will have the freedom to finally move the widebody fleet freely around the system.
 
xxcr
Topic Author
Posts: 328
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2008 6:37 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 10:15 pm

jayunited wrote:
xxcr wrote:
Im also surprised that SFO-SYD is on a 789 and not a 77W. Would the 77W be an overkill?


I'm not surprised SFO-SYD has remained a 789. A few years ago UA in a rare move announced on Flying Together why they made the switch from 744 to 77E to 789 and it really came down to yield. UA in a rare move announced we were loosing money on all our SYD routes when the 744s and 77Es were on these routes however now that these routes are being flown utilizing 789s according to the article that was published on Flying Together a few years ago our flights to Australia are now profitable. Placing a 77W on SFO-SYD along with the recently launched IAH-SYD would probably erode yields to the point that UA would probably be forced to cancel IAH-SYD.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA


I don't think UA needs a 77W on SFO-ICN, ICN was never a strong point for UA and as far as SFO-PVG, UA now operates that route daily double and before the 744s were retired we had a lot of empty seats on both flights now that both flights are 789s it give our customers the options they were looking for while UA is able to maintain capacity and higher yields. AS far as ORD I think the same applies while there are some routes that could benefit from an upguage to the 77W route like PVG, HKG, NRT, PEK, and FRA none of these routes need a 77W on a year around basis. While the 744 may have been on some of these routes on a year around basis in my opinion what ever profit UA may have made on these routes during the busy travel season was given back during the slow season because we were flying around half empty airplanes. Even though the 77E is smaller the the 77W and 744 the 77E has the right amount of seats for these routes out of ORD on a year around basis.



I think we have to stop (and I'm guilty of this) of looking at what aircraft was utilized in years past and comparing it to the aircraft that is being used today and assuming this route needs this particular aircraft just because a larger aircraft was used in years past. Pre-merger UA's widebody fleet was 763, 772/ER, 744; pre-merger CO had 762, 764, 77E. Now look at post-merger UA look at the diversity of our widebody fleet and the 787-10 will add another aircraft type into an already diversified fleet giving UA a ton of options neither sUA or sCO had before the merger. I mentioned this in an earlier post that once UA's flight attendants are fully integrated UA will have the freedom to finally move the widebody fleet freely around the system.



I agree with your comment! UA has one of the most flexible fleets within the US3. Once they finish their Polaris retrofit, they'll have the one of the best hard products within the US3. My original post was based on flights out of SFO, but looking at the comments, i can see why UA does what it does.

AA is all the place with their F/J products, DL is fairly consistent i think....UA is getting there as well.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Thu Aug 16, 2018 11:52 pm

xxcr wrote:
I agree with your comment! UA has one of the most flexible fleets within the US3. Once they finish their Polaris retrofit, they'll have the one of the best hard products within the US3. My original post was based on flights out of SFO, but looking at the comments, i can see why UA does what it does.

AA is all the place with their F/J products, DL is fairly consistent i think....UA is getting there as well.


Exactly! I feel like everyone's patience has run out with UA and I can understand why. We are 8 years into this merger and a lot of those years were wasted while our competitors pull ahead. However, UA is finally starting to get on track with Polaris and PE retrofits, the FA will finally be integrated this October, both the narrow body and wide body fleets are growing, and UA is no longer shrinking its way to profitability. Although we are still a few years away from firing on all cylinders, I think by the end of 2020 UA will finally be able to put all things merger related behind us.
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:11 am

notconcerned wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA


But why does SFO-ICN/PVG need 77W? SFO-ICN went from 747 to 789, so maybe yields just aren't there. And SFO-PVG is now double daily 788/789.

As for ORD, isn't 77W a bit too much capacity? Considering ORD-LHR is only 3 daily on 763 and ORD-FRA is 2 daily with 772 (along with LH 2 daily 748 in summer/1 daily in winter).

Considering the upgauge on SFO-TLV and EWR-BOM, 77W might be better on upgauging routes out of SFO/EWR. Also 772 refits will increase Y capacity.


At the same time that they change the B747 for the B789, Korean Air launches its second daily flight to SFO :), obviously this demand ICN must have been one of the first routes to use the B77W and in PVG you leave the way open for MU to increase frequencies already have in order new A359 and B789, so much PVG and SFO are very competitive markets was a bad strategy of United to lower both the capacity with B789 in SFO.

In the past UA flew by quite with the B747 to FRA from ORD, even when LH had 3 daily flights in ORD that operated with B747, A343, A333, both ORD and FRA are strong Star Alliance territories and there is enough premium demand for operate with a B77W, same
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:23 am

jayunited wrote:
xxcr wrote:
Im also surprised that SFO-SYD is on a 789 and not a 77W. Would the 77W be an overkill?


I'm not surprised SFO-SYD has remained a 789. A few years ago UA in a rare move announced on Flying Together why they made the switch from 744 to 77E to 789 and it really came down to yield. UA in a rare move announced we were loosing money on all our SYD routes when the 744s and 77Es were on these routes however now that these routes are being flown utilizing 789s according to the article that was published on Flying Together a few years ago our flights to Australia are now profitable. Placing a 77W on SFO-SYD along with the recently launched IAH-SYD would probably erode yields to the point that UA would probably be forced to cancel IAH-SYD.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA


I don't think UA needs a 77W on SFO-ICN, ICN was never a strong point for UA and as far as SFO-PVG, UA now operates that route daily double and before the 744s were retired we had a lot of empty seats on both flights now that both flights are 789s it give our customers the options they were looking for while UA is able to maintain capacity and higher yields. AS far as ORD I think the same applies while there are some routes that could benefit from an upguage to the 77W route like PVG, HKG, NRT, PEK, and FRA none of these routes need a 77W on a year around basis. While the 744 may have been on some of these routes on a year around basis in my opinion what ever profit UA may have made on these routes during the busy travel season was given back during the slow season because we were flying around half empty airplanes. Even though the 77E is smaller the the 77W and 744 the 77E has the right amount of seats for these routes out of ORD on a year around basis.

I think we have to stop (and I'm guilty of this) of looking at what aircraft was utilized in years past and comparing it to the aircraft that is being used today and assuming this route needs this particular aircraft just because a larger aircraft was used in years past. Pre-merger UA's widebody fleet was 763, 772/ER, 744; pre-merger CO had 762, 764, 77E. Now look at post-merger UA look at the diversity of our widebody fleet and the 787-10 will add another aircraft type into an already diversified fleet giving UA a ton of options neither sUA or sCO had before the merger. I mentioned this in an earlier post that once UA's flight attendants are fully integrated UA will have the freedom to finally move the widebody fleet freely around the system.


when United flew to Sydney with the Boeing 747-400 it was 5 times a week and the route was LAX-SYD-MEL, in SFO it was not daily either, when it changes to B77E in SFO it starts to be daily and MEL is eliminated, with the arrival of the Dreamliners SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD, LAX-MEL are all daily flights obviously United considerably increases its capacity to Australia, and there is a better performance between the b789 and b77E and the capacity difference was not much

And why not try to strong? ICN being a Star Alliance territory, the competitiveness of ICN is very strong because Korean Air is very strong and offers wonderful products like Asiana, United with the improvement of its business class could give battle to both airlines, clearly if it could sending the B77W to ICN, Seoul and San Francisco are very strong financial centers, there is a high demand for premium passengers, and United can connect more passengers to other destinations in Asia with their partner Asiana Airlines
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1473
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:06 pm

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
notconcerned wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
United needs more B77W in SFO especially mainly in routes like Seoul it is impressive that Korean Air leads the market in such a strong Star Alliance territory, Shanghai PVG also needs the B77W service, and ORD also needs B77W for its missions in Asia, LHR and FRA


But why does SFO-ICN/PVG need 77W? SFO-ICN went from 747 to 789, so maybe yields just aren't there. And SFO-PVG is now double daily 788/789.

As for ORD, isn't 77W a bit too much capacity? Considering ORD-LHR is only 3 daily on 763 and ORD-FRA is 2 daily with 772 (along with LH 2 daily 748 in summer/1 daily in winter).

Considering the upgauge on SFO-TLV and EWR-BOM, 77W might be better on upgauging routes out of SFO/EWR. Also 772 refits will increase Y capacity.


At the same time that they change the B747 for the B789, Korean Air launches its second daily flight to SFO :), obviously this demand ICN must have been one of the first routes to use the B77W and in PVG you leave the way open for MU to increase frequencies already have in order new A359 and B789, so much PVG and SFO are very competitive markets was a bad strategy of United to lower both the capacity with B789 in SFO.

In the past UA flew by quite with the B747 to FRA from ORD, even when LH had 3 daily flights in ORD that operated with B747, A343, A333, both ORD and FRA are strong Star Alliance territories and there is enough premium demand for operate with a B77W, same


There's only 17 77W's available so you have to pick somewhere. I'm sure the business community appreciates the 2x PVG>SFO flights with over 500 seats vs. 360ish on a single 77W/747. Add in the fact you can also fly PVG to LAX, ORD, EWR making it one of the larger outstations for UA based on pax, you have a strong UA presence.

Hold on tight for the 78J to loosen some 77W's up come Q1 or Q2 when they are fully integrated into the schedule + the 18th 77W.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:07 pm

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
when United flew to Sydney with the Boeing 747-400 it was 5 times a week and the route was LAX-SYD-MEL, in SFO it was not daily either, when it changes to B77E in SFO it starts to be daily and MEL is eliminated, with the arrival of the Dreamliners SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD, LAX-MEL are all daily flights obviously United considerably increases its capacity to Australia, and there is a better performance between the b789 and b77E and the capacity difference was not much

And why not try to strong? ICN being a Star Alliance territory, the competitiveness of ICN is very strong because Korean Air is very strong and offers wonderful products like Asiana, United with the improvement of its business class could give battle to both airlines, clearly if it could sending the B77W to ICN, Seoul and San Francisco are very strong financial centers, there is a high demand for premium passengers, and United can connect more passengers to other destinations in Asia with their partner Asiana Airlines


I suggest you go do some research on the history of UA's SYD flights because you are greatly mistaken to say UA didn't operate SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD daily when those flights where 744s and that the routes only went daily when the 77Es to over.

How is ICN Star Alliance territory when KE (the largest operator at ICN) is in the JV with DL? Although OZ is a member of Star they don't really bring much to the table especially when you compare OZ operations to that of KE their largest competitor. Star Alliance has strong territories though out Asia, ICN is not one of them. Again if if you look at UA's history in the South Korean market you will see UA has been in decline there for a decade if not longer.
 
tpaewr
Posts: 695
Joined: Sat May 19, 2001 9:01 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:24 pm

For those unaware a quick Google search of “ United 747 Sydney daily” will uncover plenty of references to the fact that the service was NOT non daily prior the 787.

Prior the merger UA was daily with 747s from both LAX & SFO to SYD with a tag to MEL. This went to 777 and later sCO 787s with MEL gaining a n/s from LAX. It was all alway daily. Only IAH has been trimmed back from the daily service that it was launched with.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:13 pm

It will be interesting to see what happens when UA’s 789’s have Polaris to Sydney, Melbourne and Singapore. The gap in hard product in front will close considerably- maybe never match that of an airline like SQ, or QF (I’ve never flown QF but I’ll assume it’s very good upfront) but US will have a much improved business class product- business people like privacy to work and Polaris works great in that regard.
I would not be surprised if the route was 2x daily one day should UA’s reputation in Australia and Singapore etc does a big turnaround.
I actually think if UA had at least 6 more 77W they would find a spot to use them right away. I just suspect that when the A350’s ultimately do arrive UA might have too many 77W’s if they took the fleet to 24 vs 18 (yes, no? I’m kinda talking out of my...)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
codc10
Posts: 2504
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:16 pm

Not only was UA’s 747 service to Australia daily year-round, but ran 10-14x weekly from time to time on both city pairs during the high season.

It is true that with LAX-SYD/MEL, SFO-SYD/AKL (seasonal) and IAH-SYD, UA is running more peak-time capacity to the region than ever before.
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:23 pm

jayunited wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
when United flew to Sydney with the Boeing 747-400 it was 5 times a week and the route was LAX-SYD-MEL, in SFO it was not daily either, when it changes to B77E in SFO it starts to be daily and MEL is eliminated, with the arrival of the Dreamliners SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD, LAX-MEL are all daily flights obviously United considerably increases its capacity to Australia, and there is a better performance between the b789 and b77E and the capacity difference was not much

And why not try to strong? ICN being a Star Alliance territory, the competitiveness of ICN is very strong because Korean Air is very strong and offers wonderful products like Asiana, United with the improvement of its business class could give battle to both airlines, clearly if it could sending the B77W to ICN, Seoul and San Francisco are very strong financial centers, there is a high demand for premium passengers, and United can connect more passengers to other destinations in Asia with their partner Asiana Airlines


I suggest you go do some research on the history of UA's SYD flights because you are greatly mistaken to say UA didn't operate SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD daily when those flights where 744s and that the routes only went daily when the 77Es to over.

How is ICN Star Alliance territory when KE (the largest operator at ICN) is in the JV with DL? Although OZ is a member of Star they don't really bring much to the table especially when you compare OZ operations to that of KE their largest competitor. Star Alliance has strong territories though out Asia, ICN is not one of them. Again if if you look at UA's history in the South Korean market you will see UA has been in decline there for a decade if not longer.


At the beginning of the arrival of the Boeing 747-400 United I had a very premium configuration of 306 passengers between 3 classes, at the time of good feelings but always with a stop SFO-AKL-SYD, LAX-SYD-MEL, unlike from now on they are all independent SFO-AKL, SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD, LAX-MEL and now IAH-SYD

And why not try to improve? United is obviously very weak, because the products of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines are much better, as United could compete with their Boeing 747-400 along with the Boeing 747-8i of Korean Air its product is brutally superior, but with the new Polaris class United can give battle and demand, in addition Asiana Airlines has more than 22 destinations in China and many more in Asia is not so weak, besides Asiana has tremendous services and good cabins to work a JV between UA and OZ would not be so bad, UA it has to do with a better future and not get bogged down
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
zkncj
Posts: 3198
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:57 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Fri Aug 17, 2018 11:28 pm

xxcr wrote:

looking at the oversea flights out of sfo:
SFO-NRT-77W
SFO-HKG-77W
SFO-TPE-77W
SFO-PEK-77W
SFO-ICN-789
SFO-PVG-789x2
SFO-CTU-788
SFO-KIX-788
SFO-SIN-789
SFO-SYD-789
SFO-PPT-788
SFO-HND-789
SFO-LHR-77W, 772
SFO-FRA-77W, 789
SFO-MUN-788
SFO-ZUR-788
SFO-CDG-772
SFO-TLV-77W


Also add SFO-AKL which is an seasonal daily 77W service - Which is operated in joint venture with NZ, e.g Daily UA 77W and Daily NZ 77W.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6881
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Sat Aug 18, 2018 12:34 am

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
when United flew to Sydney with the Boeing 747-400 it was 5 times a week and the route was LAX-SYD-MEL, in SFO it was not daily either, when it changes to B77E in SFO it starts to be daily and MEL is eliminated, with the arrival of the Dreamliners SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD, LAX-MEL are all daily flights obviously United considerably increases its capacity to Australia, and there is a better performance between the b789 and b77E and the capacity difference was not much

And why not try to strong? ICN being a Star Alliance territory, the competitiveness of ICN is very strong because Korean Air is very strong and offers wonderful products like Asiana, United with the improvement of its business class could give battle to both airlines, clearly if it could sending the B77W to ICN, Seoul and San Francisco are very strong financial centers, there is a high demand for premium passengers, and United can connect more passengers to other destinations in Asia with their partner Asiana Airlines


I suggest you go do some research on the history of UA's SYD flights because you are greatly mistaken to say UA didn't operate SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD daily when those flights where 744s and that the routes only went daily when the 77Es to over.

How is ICN Star Alliance territory when KE (the largest operator at ICN) is in the JV with DL? Although OZ is a member of Star they don't really bring much to the table especially when you compare OZ operations to that of KE their largest competitor. Star Alliance has strong territories though out Asia, ICN is not one of them. Again if if you look at UA's history in the South Korean market you will see UA has been in decline there for a decade if not longer.


At the beginning of the arrival of the Boeing 747-400 United I had a very premium configuration of 306 passengers between 3 classes, at the time of good feelings but always with a stop SFO-AKL-SYD, LAX-SYD-MEL, unlike from now on they are all independent SFO-AKL, SFO-SYD, LAX-SYD, LAX-MEL and now IAH-SYD

And why not try to improve? United is obviously very weak, because the products of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines are much better, as United could compete with their Boeing 747-400 along with the Boeing 747-8i of Korean Air its product is brutally superior, but with the new Polaris class United can give battle and demand, in addition Asiana Airlines has more than 22 destinations in China and many more in Asia is not so weak, besides Asiana has tremendous services and good cabins to work a JV between UA and OZ would not be so bad, UA it has to do with a better future and not get bogged down


UA didn’t run SFO-AKL Non stop back then there was a SFO-HNL-AKL-SYD D10 for a while which became SFO-SYD 744 then LAX-HNL-AKL-MEL 741 which became LAX-AKL-MEL 744, there was LAX-SYD 74L that became a 744, there was a LAX-SYD-BNE tag I believe 3 weekly around 91-94.

There was a brief 18 months 99-01 where there was a 744 non stop LAX-MEL daily and LAX-AKL dedicated 744 daily aswell, MEL was heavily restricted so went back to Via AKL.

LAX/SFO-SYD were most definitely daily 744’s year round for a long time, SFO May have started 3-4 weekly in 1992/93. They both operated up to 10 weekly over NW peak some years.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2143
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA 77W and 772

Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:21 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
UA didn’t run SFO-AKL Non stop back then there was a SFO-HNL-AKL-SYD D10 for a while which became SFO-SYD 744 then LAX-HNL-AKL-MEL 741 which became LAX-AKL-MEL 744, there was LAX-SYD 74L that became a 744, there was a LAX-SYD-BNE tag I believe 3 weekly around 91-94.

There was a brief 18 months 99-01 where there was a 744 non stop LAX-MEL daily and LAX-AKL dedicated 744 daily aswell, MEL was heavily restricted so went back to Via AKL.

LAX/SFO-SYD were most definitely daily 744’s year round for a long time, SFO May have started 3-4 weekly in 1992/93. They both operated up to 10 weekly over NW peak some years.


Thank you you beat me to it, but thank you for your response. I'm not sure what point RainerBoeing777 is trying to make but it is obvious they have the wrong information as it pertains to the history of UA's service to Australia and New Zealand.
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Sat Aug 18, 2018 2:21 am

jayunited wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
UA didn’t run SFO-AKL Non stop back then there was a SFO-HNL-AKL-SYD D10 for a while which became SFO-SYD 744 then LAX-HNL-AKL-MEL 741 which became LAX-AKL-MEL 744, there was LAX-SYD 74L that became a 744, there was a LAX-SYD-BNE tag I believe 3 weekly around 91-94.

There was a brief 18 months 99-01 where there was a 744 non stop LAX-MEL daily and LAX-AKL dedicated 744 daily aswell, MEL was heavily restricted so went back to Via AKL.

LAX/SFO-SYD were most definitely daily 744’s year round for a long time, SFO May have started 3-4 weekly in 1992/93. They both operated up to 10 weekly over NW peak some years.


Thank you you beat me to it, but thank you for your response. I'm not sure what point RainerBoeing777 is trying to make but it is obvious they have the wrong information as it pertains to the history of UA's service to Australia and New Zealand.


Here is the route LAX-SYD-MEL always stayed with a stop, I read several post about the operations of United in Australia, and the B747 never had so much force even if there were no strong load factors, with the arrival of the Dreamliners. optimizes its operations in Oceania, SFO-SYD, LAX-MEL, LAX-SYD, SFO-AKL (at the beginning it was operated with Boeing 787) and now IAH-SYD. Even the daily flight between SFO-SYD with the Boieng 747-400 was maintained for a very short time


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/213817/united-s14-international-operation-changes-as-of-17aug13/
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6881
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Sat Aug 18, 2018 3:10 am

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
UA didn’t run SFO-AKL Non stop back then there was a SFO-HNL-AKL-SYD D10 for a while which became SFO-SYD 744 then LAX-HNL-AKL-MEL 741 which became LAX-AKL-MEL 744, there was LAX-SYD 74L that became a 744, there was a LAX-SYD-BNE tag I believe 3 weekly around 91-94.

There was a brief 18 months 99-01 where there was a 744 non stop LAX-MEL daily and LAX-AKL dedicated 744 daily aswell, MEL was heavily restricted so went back to Via AKL.

LAX/SFO-SYD were most definitely daily 744’s year round for a long time, SFO May have started 3-4 weekly in 1992/93. They both operated up to 10 weekly over NW peak some years.


Thank you you beat me to it, but thank you for your response. I'm not sure what point RainerBoeing777 is trying to make but it is obvious they have the wrong information as it pertains to the history of UA's service to Australia and New Zealand.


Here is the route LAX-SYD-MEL always stayed with a stop, I read several post about the operations of United in Australia, and the B747 never had so much force even if there were no strong load factors, with the arrival of the Dreamliners. optimizes its operations in Oceania, SFO-SYD, LAX-MEL, LAX-SYD, SFO-AKL (at the beginning it was operated with Boeing 787) and now IAH-SYD. Even the daily flight between SFO-SYD with the Boieng 747-400 was maintained for a very short time


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/213817/united-s14-international-operation-changes-as-of-17aug13/


What are you trying to point out? MEL was briefly served non stop 1999/01 with a 744 from LAX, and it happened one NW DEC-FEB for a 6-8 week period probably around 2011/12 iirc.

Load factors were good in NW to SYD and would allow more freight uplift in NS when pax loads were lighter.
 
RainerBoeing777
Posts: 350
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 3:43 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Sat Aug 18, 2018 4:05 am

ZK-NBT wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:
jayunited wrote:

Thank you you beat me to it, but thank you for your response. I'm not sure what point RainerBoeing777 is trying to make but it is obvious they have the wrong information as it pertains to the history of UA's service to Australia and New Zealand.


Here is the route LAX-SYD-MEL always stayed with a stop, I read several post about the operations of United in Australia, and the B747 never had so much force even if there were no strong load factors, with the arrival of the Dreamliners. optimizes its operations in Oceania, SFO-SYD, LAX-MEL, LAX-SYD, SFO-AKL (at the beginning it was operated with Boeing 787) and now IAH-SYD. Even the daily flight between SFO-SYD with the Boieng 747-400 was maintained for a very short time


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/213817/united-s14-international-operation-changes-as-of-17aug13/


What are you trying to point out? MEL was briefly served non stop 1999/01 with a 744 from LAX, and it happened one NW DEC-FEB for a 6-8 week period probably around 2011/12 iirc.

Load factors were good in NW to SYD and would allow more freight uplift in NS when pax loads were lighter.


LAX-MEL was easily possible when QANTAS used the new Boeing 747-400ER, United was not profitable, so MEL always came back with a stop like LAX-SYD-MEL or LAX-AKL-MEL and the last one who flew United direct to MEL was in 2009
CX - JL - LH - KE - KL - SQ - QR - QF - TG
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6881
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Sat Aug 18, 2018 5:39 am

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
ZK-NBT wrote:
RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Here is the route LAX-SYD-MEL always stayed with a stop, I read several post about the operations of United in Australia, and the B747 never had so much force even if there were no strong load factors, with the arrival of the Dreamliners. optimizes its operations in Oceania, SFO-SYD, LAX-MEL, LAX-SYD, SFO-AKL (at the beginning it was operated with Boeing 787) and now IAH-SYD. Even the daily flight between SFO-SYD with the Boieng 747-400 was maintained for a very short time


https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/213817/united-s14-international-operation-changes-as-of-17aug13/


What are you trying to point out? MEL was briefly served non stop 1999/01 with a 744 from LAX, and it happened one NW DEC-FEB for a 6-8 week period probably around 2011/12 iirc.

Load factors were good in NW to SYD and would allow more freight uplift in NS when pax loads were lighter.


LAX-MEL was easily possible when QANTAS used the new Boeing 747-400ER, United was not profitable, so MEL always came back with a stop like LAX-SYD-MEL or LAX-AKL-MEL and the last one who flew United direct to MEL was in 2009


UA didn’t have the 744ER, they actually announced LAX- MEL before QF, QF then announced it with a standard 744 starting 6 weeks before UA in 1999, UA ran LAX-MEL DEC 99 April 01 and as you say couldn’t sustain it with their PW 744’s and probably the fact QF were on the route aswell.
 
notconcerned
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:39 pm

Re: UA 77W and 772

Sat Aug 18, 2018 1:56 pm

RainerBoeing777 wrote:
And why not try to improve? United is obviously very weak, because the products of Korean Air and Asiana Airlines are much better, as United could compete with their Boeing 747-400 along with the Boeing 747-8i of Korean Air its product is brutally superior, but with the new Polaris class United can give battle and demand, in addition Asiana Airlines has more than 22 destinations in China and many more in Asia is not so weak, besides Asiana has tremendous services and good cabins to work a JV between UA and OZ would not be so bad, UA it has to do with a better future and not get bogged down


UA is weak in many markets, they have limited number of 77W, not sure why they have to throw resources at SFO-ICN when that route is probably only marginally profitable for UA (as compared to maybe SFO-TLV or EWR-BOM which have recent upgauge). UA is also probably satisfied with its current JV with NH, and OZ doesn't offer any more new destinations except for a few 2nd tier cities (e.g., CEB, DAD). Overall, I'm not sure UA is that interested to grow its ICN presence and happy to let DL/KE build it out (and better to have DL to leave NRT).

But back to topic, nothing rules out why SFO-ICN won't be converted to a Polaris config 772 and then it can be just as competitive.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos