New and SURPRISING destinations seem like something United actually enjoys doing- aside from just revenue growth. I’m not sure if many people would choose to fly UA because they have some of the interesting group of international destinations if none of them are truly relevant to “you” (not part of your beaten path) but they absolutely have a halo effect on the brand.

One thing UA does seem to do (which is a interesting biz strategy to me) is “virtually owning” particular places (vs whole continents) through being very committed to multiple frequencies from multiple hubs, such as; Hawaii, Israel, China, Tokyo and perhaps Tahiti, Guam (the island hopper), and Singapore is the of being “the” airline to Pacific Paradises- not just the big dots, all while still announcing surprises like CPT and Naples etc, etc.
What really stuck with me from what my Israeli friend said was “United’s commitment to Israel hasn’t gone unnoticed by Israels” - Eg; TLV is not just a dot that need 1 or 2 flights.
I can see India being a “virtually owned” place one day soon for UA.

With 3 HA 763's + 13 789's +4 78J's + 4 77W's, to be delivered in the next 18 months, there's a lot of lift to go somewhere without any real retirements (7 x 763's to be retired at some point). I think the only route we know for sure is CPT. Come Q4, UA would have the lift to move IAD>TLV to daily no worries.

My guess is that the Q4 2x 789 and 2x77W will allow UA to focus a bit more on Polaris refits and repainting, but there has to be a slew of 2020 announcements.

fun2fly wrote:

With 3 HA 763's + 13 789's +4 78J's + 4 77W's, to be delivered in the next 18 months, there's a lot of lift to go somewhere without any real retirements (7 x 763's to be retired at some point). I think the only route we know for sure is CPT. Come Q4, UA would have the lift to move IAD>TLV to daily no worries.

My guess is that the Q4 2x 789 and 2x77W will allow UA to focus a bit more on Polaris refits and repainting, but there has to be a slew of 2020 announcements.

When do all the new HND route awards have to start flying? How many of these new aircraft are needed to fill those? I suspect it has to be more than a few (even if it is a swap with another route to get the correct type).

ordbosewr wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

With 3 HA 763's + 13 789's +4 78J's + 4 77W's, to be delivered in the next 18 months, there's a lot of lift to go somewhere without any real retirements (7 x 763's to be retired at some point). I think the only route we know for sure is CPT. Come Q4, UA would have the lift to move IAD>TLV to daily no worries.

My guess is that the Q4 2x 789 and 2x77W will allow UA to focus a bit more on Polaris refits and repainting, but there has to be a slew of 2020 announcements.

When do all the new HND route awards have to start flying? How many of these new aircraft are needed to fill those? I suspect it has to be more than a few (even if it is a swap with another route to get the correct type).

That is really only two new routes as two of the four HND routes will replace NRT flights. I believe I read the seven 763s that were slated to be retired are being held onto and refurbished with Polaris. That

So out of the 24 frames:
4 for the new HND routes
4 to replace 4 772ERs moving to a HD domestic configuration (rumored and theorized)
1 for CPT (seasonally)

That leaves 15 or 16 for growth..
SFO-AMS year round
DEN-LHR year round (if UA can get a winter slot this will happen)
IAD-TLV daily
ORD-TLV
EWR-ICN
SFO-BNE
LAX-HKG
LAX-SIN

UA has lots of options

United1 wrote:

ordbosewr wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

With 3 HA 763's + 13 789's +4 78J's + 4 77W's, to be delivered in the next 18 months, there's a lot of lift to go somewhere without any real retirements (7 x 763's to be retired at some point). I think the only route we know for sure is CPT. Come Q4, UA would have the lift to move IAD>TLV to daily no worries.

My guess is that the Q4 2x 789 and 2x77W will allow UA to focus a bit more on Polaris refits and repainting, but there has to be a slew of 2020 announcements.

When do all the new HND route awards have to start flying? How many of these new aircraft are needed to fill those? I suspect it has to be more than a few (even if it is a swap with another route to get the correct type).

That is really only two new routes as two of the four HND routes will replace NRT flights. I believe I read the seven 763s that were slated to be retired are being held onto and refurbished with Polaris. That

So out of the 24 frames:
4 for the new HND routes
4 to replace 4 772ERs moving to a HD domestic configuration (rumored and theorized)
1 for CPT (seasonally)

That leaves 15 or 16 for growth..
SFO-AMS year round
DEN-LHR year round (if UA can get a winter slot this will happen)
IAD-TLV daily
ORD-TLV
EWR-ICN
SFO-BNE
LAX-HKG
LAX-SIN

UA has lots of options

But none from IAH-apparently.

EWR-TPE would be a GREAT route with Taiwan in the VISA Waiver Program! It has limited capacity (only 9x weekly on BR/CI) and doesn't have the over-capacity of JFK-ICN on OZ & KE A380's.

Also with BR's superior service in *A would feed BR's vast network in TPE to Southeast Asia.

x1234 wrote:

Also with BR's superior service in *A would feed BR's vast network in TPE to Southeast Asia.

It's not really that vast. The only markets that BR serves and not served by NH are CNX, CEB, DPS. Arguably, some markets might be better timed than NH (NRT-PNH) or not require a HND connection (HND-HAN/MNL).

notconcerned wrote:

x1234 wrote:

Also with BR's superior service in *A would feed BR's vast network in TPE to Southeast Asia.

It's not really that vast. The only markets that BR serves and not served by NH are CNX, CEB, DPS. Arguably, some markets might be better timed than NH (NRT-PNH) or not require a HND connection (HND-HAN/MNL).

Does the NH-UA TPAC JV have the same "partners get a veto on cooperation with others" provision as the AC-LH-UA TATL JV?

United1 wrote:

That is really only two new routes as two of the four HND routes will replace NRT flights. I believe I read the seven 763s that were slated to be retired are being held onto and refurbished with Polaris. That

So out of the 24 frames:
4 for the new HND routes
4 to replace 4 772ERs moving to a HD domestic configuration (rumored and theorized)
1 for CPT (seasonally)

That leaves 15 or 16 for growth..
SFO-AMS year round
DEN-LHR year round (if UA can get a winter slot this will happen)
IAD-TLV daily
ORD-TLV
EWR-ICN
SFO-BNE
LAX-HKG
LAX-SIN

UA has lots of options

There are 2 routes I don't see happening any time soon and 1 route I don't see happening at all.
The one route I don't see UA adding at all is LAX-HKG, in my opinion UA wants to stay clear of the LAX-HKG market that route would bleed red before the first flight ever takes off. If UA needs to add more capacity to HKG it would be from SFO maybe going 10x weekly. CX already jumped on IAD-HKG and I don't think there is enough demand for two carriers on this route and for now I don't see UA launching DEN-HKG, or IAH-HKG. So if our network requires more capacity I think it would be from SFO.
While Kirby has express desire to relaunch LAX-SIN he also made it clear we tried with the 789 and it wasn't the right aircraft for the route. With Kirby confirming UA will take delivery of the A359s we have on order starting in late 2022 there has been some speculation that UA might convert a small number of the 45 frames to the A359ULR because that is the only way UA get back on this route. Again its pure speculation at this point, but what we know is this, if UA's order stays the same it means UA will not relaunch LAX-SIN any time soon because neither the standard A359 or the 789 is the right aircraft for that route.
SFO-BNE in my opinion is at least 2-4 years away, I think first and foremost SFO-MEL would at the very least need to be daily during the Northern Hemisphere's IATA winter season then perhaps I could see UA launching SFO-BNE at 3x weekly seasonally during IATA winter. If the seasonal launch service proves successful then the following year 5x or 6x weekly during IATA winter and going 3x weekly during IATA summer.

I get nervous when an airline gets a small subfleet for specialized flying. It's not very efficient unless the route has maint visits into the schedule and I don't mean moving widebodies between LAX-IAH or DEN-IAH. 4 is a pretty small subfleet.

If SFO-SIN X2 and LAX-SIN operated it would take 5 units for 3 flights plus maint. Aren't there other routes that could use the 359ULR? SFO-BLR, EWR-JNB (altitude)

CO used to operate a very efficient 2 DC10-30 rotation between LAX and SYD that provided daily flights each way. there were different arrival times in LAX by day of week to provide roughly 8 hour or so of maint time. Maybe something similar could work between LAX and SIN that might include a no-op once per week.

Since ORD-HNL-GUM flights don't match at HNL, it would take 2 two unit routings or a spare.

Below routing is really too tight to operate w/o a spare at HNL. Can HNL and GUM keep these aircraft maintained?

#1 ORD 1010 HNL 1435-1515 EWR 0650 (turn doesn't work at HNL - could move ORD departure :45 earlier)
#2 EWR 0835 HNL 1344-1550 ORD 0457(5 maint. time ORD)

#3 SFO 0835 HNL 1114-1415 GUM 1800 (13 hours of maint time GUM)
#4 GUM 0710 HNL 1825-2100 SFO 0452 (3:45 hour turn)

Flights between NRT and GUM have been flown seasonally and a small fleet of 772ER domestic configured aircraft would make this difficult unless something like EWR-HNL and NRT-GUM would have opposite seasonality. If GUM maintain the fleet with a 13 layover each night maybe it could work? But due to timings, an extra unit would probably be required to fly SFO-HNL-SFO to make it work.

To me the answer for these routes would be the 78X understanding HNL would need more 78X flights to achieve efficiencies and swap out capability.

SIN-LAX and SIN-SFO can be flown with no pax restrictions on a standard 280T A359. I suspect that if the A359 is coming to United, most will be 280T regular models. These will also increase payload on ORD/EWR-HKG compared to the 77E of today.

Okcflyer wrote:

SIN-LAX and SIN-SFO can be flown with no pax restrictions on a standard 280T A359. I suspect that if the A359 is coming to United, most will be 280T regular models. These will also increase payload on ORD/EWR-HKG compared to the 77E of today.

I notice what you did there you stated SIN-LAX and SIN-SFO of course the standard A359 can do SIN-SFO-SIN SQ utilizes a standard A359 on one of their current SIN-SFO-SIN routes. UA is using our 789s on this route as well.

What I'm wondering isthis, can the standard A359 with at 280T with 253 passengers (SQ's current standard layout) do LAX-SIN where you're fighting the jet stream in the winter months without a weight restriction or having to block any passenger rows, like UA was forced to do year around when we flew this route utilizing a 789?
If the answer is yes a standard A359 can handle the westbound leg LAX-SIN in the dead of winter with no passenger rows being blocked then I would agree UA doesn't need the A359ULR to reenter the LAX-SIN-LAX market. But if can't do it on a year around basis with the need to block multiple rows the only way UA gets back into this market is with the S359ULR. Personally I don't see UA relaunching this route if its just going to be a repeat of the restrictions we saw on the 78.9 Even if those restrictions would only effect the flight from late December through the end of February.

I thought that SIN-LAX was pulled partly because of timing. It left and departed at almost the same time as the SFO flight, so aside from being an advantage for LAX O&D, it didn't really contribute much to the entire network. Adding another frequency to SFO at the opposite time of day allows for some different connections that two flights at the same time from two different hubs didn't provide.

intotheair wrote:

I thought that SIN-LAX was pulled partly because of timing. It left and departed at almost the same time as the SFO flight, so aside from being an advantage for LAX O&D, it didn't really contribute much to the entire network. Adding another frequency to SFO at the opposite time of day allows for some different connections that two flights at the same time from two different hubs didn't provide.

No LAX-SIN was weight restricted daily, UA at a minimum was forced to block 20 seats on every flight Westbound. However during the winter months that number could be as high at 45-50 seats in coach needed to be blocked Westbound depending on headwinds. So while the 789 can handle SFO-SIN on a year around basis with a minor weight restriction (blocking passenger rows) during the winter months, it could not handle LAX-SIN. This is why UA canceled LAX-SIN and started daily double out of SFO. Going daily double morning and late evening has benefited UA but Kirby did express interest in getting back into the LAX-SIN market but he also acknowledged the 789 was not the right aircraft for that route.
My question to Okcflyer or anyone is this, can the standard 280T, A359 with 253 seats fly LAX-SIN year around without having to block rows even during the winter months? I'm asking because SQ did not launch their SIN-LAX-SIN route with a standard A359 they waited for the A359ULR to relaunch this route. If Kirby really wants to get UA back on this route can he do it profitably utilizing a standard A359 when UA starts taking delivery in late 2022?

There are only two key differences between the ULR and regular models:

- main tank pumps, sensors, and associated software tweaks to handle higher certified volume in the same tanks/space (more full)
- inactive forward cargo door

Non-ULR A359’s get the same 280T MTOW and modified wing twist and tips (burn reduction) that the ULR helped develop.

ULR model is ONLY NEEDED if the standard fuel tank size isn’t great enough and it’s a “second kink” problem. Pax count needs to be under 220 in order to have enough payload for fuel beyond what the standard model can tank.

Assuming UA pays the premium for the 280T weight variant since that probably wasn’t in their original contract.

SQ still occasionally flies LAX-SIN with standard A359’s due to ULR’s out of service. SQ’s non ULR’s are 275T models without the twist improvement. Very rarely are they blocking seats.

A 280T model should be able to do ~270pax without pax restrictions most days.

Question: when Singapore used an A340 (500?) to EWR nonstop, it was a nose to tail business class, right?
My Question is the TOTAL weight of 1 pax in a Polaris seat would equal how many Y seats with 1 pax?
Instead of blocking 40+ Y seats, would it not work better to use those empty blocked seats up by creating a much larger Polaris section? Or does the weight of a Polaris seat cancel out the benefit?

VC10er wrote:

Question: when Singapore used an A340 (500?) to EWR nonstop, it was a nose to tail business class, right?
My Question is the TOTAL weight of 1 pax in a Polaris seat would equal how many Y seats with 1 pax?
Instead of blocking 40+ Y seats, would it not work better to use those empty blocked seats up by creating a much larger Polaris section? Or does the weight of a Polaris seat cancel out the benefit?

I've heard that question answered both ways about seat weight. Probably the larger problem is having to have a sub-fleet with that configuration and really not that many other markets that such a high premium/also long range optimized aircraft would work for.

VC10er wrote:

Question: when Singapore used an A340 (500?) to EWR nonstop, it was a nose to tail business class, right?

You're right on both points above, 340-500 and all-J (although initially they were 2-class).

VC10er wrote:

Question: when Singapore used an A340 (500?) to EWR nonstop, it was a nose to tail business class, right?
My Question is the TOTAL weight of 1 pax in a Polaris seat would equal how many Y seats with 1 pax?
Instead of blocking 40+ Y seats, would it not work better to use those empty blocked seats up by creating a much larger Polaris section? Or does the weight of a Polaris seat cancel out the benefit?

Initially, the A345s were about two thirds Raffles class and one third "Executive Economy." The J seat was the space bed that was the same as UA's F in p.s. Executive Economy was 2-3-2 with more legroom, a massive (for the time) nine inch display, and a "lounge" area in the rear of the aircraft.

The all-J configuration came later.

Okcflyer wrote:

There are only two key differences between the ULR and regular models:

- main tank pumps, sensors, and associated software tweaks to handle higher certified volume in the same tanks/space (more full)
- inactive forward cargo door

Non-ULR A359’s get the same 280T MTOW and modified wing twist and tips (burn reduction) that the ULR helped develop.

ULR model is ONLY NEEDED if the standard fuel tank size isn’t great enough and it’s a “second kink” problem. Pax count needs to be under 220 in order to have enough payload for fuel beyond what the standard model can tank.

Assuming UA pays the premium for the 280T weight variant since that probably wasn’t in their original contract.

SQ still occasionally flies LAX-SIN with standard A359’s due to ULR’s out of service. SQ’s non ULR’s are 275T models without the twist improvement. Very rarely are they blocking seats.

A 280T model should be able to do ~270pax without pax restrictions most days.

Thank you for the answer I do appreciate it.
From your answer if UA opts for the 280T we might be back on this route late October 2023 if we have enough frames in the fleet.
Now you have me wondering what other routes could the 280T A359 handle without a weight restriction? I know it can handle routes like ORD/EWR-HKG, but what about EWR-JNB, ORD-BOM/DEL, SFO-BLR/BOM.
Finally (and this is just me being curious) if for the sake argument UA outfitted the A359s with 253 seats (same as SQ's standard A359s) could a 280T with 253 seats do EWR-SIN-EWR? Or is a route of that stage length completely out of range for the 280T A359? Just to be clear there is no speculation or rumor that UA is even interested in flying EWR-SIN so I don't want anyone to think otherwise its just a question that I'm posing to see if its possible.

Anything beyond the west coast needs the additional fuel volume of the ULR.

intotheair wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Question: when Singapore used an A340 (500?) to EWR nonstop, it was a nose to tail business class, right?
My Question is the TOTAL weight of 1 pax in a Polaris seat would equal how many Y seats with 1 pax?
Instead of blocking 40+ Y seats, would it not work better to use those empty blocked seats up by creating a much larger Polaris section? Or does the weight of a Polaris seat cancel out the benefit?

Initially, the A345s were about two thirds Raffles class and one third "Executive Economy." The J seat was the space bed that was the same as UA's F in p.s. Executive Economy was 2-3-2 with more legroom, a massive (for the time) nine inch display, and a "lounge" area in the rear of the aircraft.

The all-J configuration came later.

The angled lie flat UA used in F on P.S.? Gosh, that was a strange dynamic: When UA first launched the 757 ps concept, I was on it very soon after it's launch and in First Class (and ps 757 really did feel "break-through" at that time). The second I saw it, I remembered the seat in every detail from having once flown in it before on Singapore from JFK to FRA, in "business class" however I do not recall Singapore's name for that cabin? BUT, after some time passed many people felt that the old UA international J seat (in leather) used for "ps business" was actually much more comfortable that the First Class seat. OR: the "SPACE BED?" - I sort of recall ads for it at LHR and on London busses.

(I could really be alone on this) but the old UNITED international J recliner was very, very comfortable. It was a more comfortable J recliner than Swiss, LH, AA and CO, etc..

Which leads me to a couple of burning questions I have always had (somewhat relevant to UA) Just about every airline I can think of (except United) went from a "recliner" chair for International business, to angled lie flats (and I personally NEVER found even ONE angled lie flat comfortable, and Lufthansa being close to worst, I always felt as if I was sliding down while sleeping)- then after just a few years, the airlines ripped them out and developed a true lie flat for "Business".
1: WHY was that interim "angled" era done, even on very premium airlines vs LEAPING to lie flats? - and "surprisingly" UNITED was among the first to skip the "angle era" 2: who else skipped angled flats? BA? The leap from recliner to true flat beds in J was a HUGE deal , 3, my BIGGER question (because I basically get "why" the half measure of the angled lie-flats) is:
HOW BIG a negative financial impact did that evolution cost the industry? How much money was wasted by designing/buying installing angled flat seats, and then getting rid of them before they even had a chance to get old, and then going through the process again...designing/buying business sized TRUE FLAT bed seats and installing them?

I spoke to a German gentleman on Ipanema beach in Rio he was an LH executive around the time LH announced lie-flats in business class, and said to me "The angled lie flats LH put in was one of the most embarrassing screw-ups LH ever did. That some very senior execs got into very big trouble over them."

I know some stuff but I thought this would be good place to come and fill in the gaps regarding the 787s?

What routes were the PMCO 787s going to go on assuming no merger?
and
Which aircraft were ordered by PMCO, which by PMUA, and which after the merger? Did the orders change at any point?

Thanks for any info

VC10er wrote:

Which leads me to a couple of burning questions I have always had (somewhat relevant to UA) Just about every airline I can think of (except United) went from a "recliner" chair for International business, to angled lie flats (and I personally NEVER found even ONE angled lie flat comfortable, and Lufthansa being close to worst, I always felt as if I was sliding down while sleeping)- then after just a few years, the airlines ripped them out and developed a true lie flat for "Business".
1: WHY was that interim "angled" era done, even on very premium airlines vs LEAPING to lie flats? - and "surprisingly" UNITED was among the first to skip the "angle era" 2: who else skipped angled flats? BA? The leap from recliner to true flat beds in J was a HUGE deal , 3, my BIGGER question (because I basically get "why" the half measure of the angled lie-flats) is:
HOW BIG a negative financial impact did that evolution cost the industry? How much money was wasted by designing/buying installing angled flat seats, and then getting rid of them before they even had a chance to get old, and then going through the process again...designing/buying business sized TRUE FLAT bed seats and installing them?

Most airlines at the time still had F so they had to maintain the marginal benefit (and price premium) for the F seat which would have been true lie-flat. Angle-flat J would not dilute the F market. Now one could argue that UA and BA had/still have F, but decided to go lie-flat in J. To that, it could be said that UA/BA installed a tight 2-4-2 J lie-flat, and F would offer aisle-access. It could also be said that UA/BA F are hardly premium to begin with.

United is celebrating 500 daily departures at DEN for the first time ever. 32 new routes have been added since the beginning of 2018.

https://hub.united.com/united-denver-50 ... m=referral

sohanb82 wrote:

I know some stuff but I thought this would be good place to come and fill in the gaps regarding the 787s?

What routes were the PMCO 787s going to go on assuming no merger?
and
Which aircraft were ordered by PMCO, which by PMUA, and which after the merger? Did the orders change at any point?

Thanks for any info

Bangalore, Hyderabad, Chennai in India, plus Australia and “Southeast Asia”.

https://m.economictimes.com/industry/tr ... 425348.cms


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

intotheair wrote:

United is celebrating 500 daily departures at DEN for the first time ever. 32 new routes have been added since the beginning of 2018.

https://hub.united.com/united-denver-50 ... m=referral

Really amazing, and more evidence to support the case for a new 100 seat mainline, which also opens the doors for more 76 seat ERJ-175s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

notconcerned wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Which leads me to a couple of burning questions I have always had (somewhat relevant to UA) Just about every airline I can think of (except United) went from a "recliner" chair for International business, to angled lie flats (and I personally NEVER found even ONE angled lie flat comfortable, and Lufthansa being close to worst, I always felt as if I was sliding down while sleeping)- then after just a few years, the airlines ripped them out and developed a true lie flat for "Business".
1: WHY was that interim "angled" era done, even on very premium airlines vs LEAPING to lie flats? - and "surprisingly" UNITED was among the first to skip the "angle era" 2: who else skipped angled flats? BA? The leap from recliner to true flat beds in J was a HUGE deal , 3, my BIGGER question (because I basically get "why" the half measure of the angled lie-flats) is:
HOW BIG a negative financial impact did that evolution cost the industry? How much money was wasted by designing/buying installing angled flat seats, and then getting rid of them before they even had a chance to get old, and then going through the process again...designing/buying business sized TRUE FLAT bed seats and installing them?

Most airlines at the time still had F so they had to maintain the marginal benefit (and price premium) for the F seat which would have been true lie-flat. Angle-flat J would not dilute the F market. Now one could argue that UA and BA had/still have F, but decided to go lie-flat in J. To that, it could be said that UA/BA installed a tight 2-4-2 J lie-flat, and F would offer aisle-access. It could also be said that UA/BA F are hardly premium to begin with.

I actually remember that "rationale" (and once business was fixed up I think it contributed to the death of First). I used to fly UA often in that original First flatbed. While of course were better than the lounge chairs they replaced- they were ugly, and who ever chose the colors couldn't have been a sighted person! The strange thing was the food in UNITED FIRST in the OLD days of big fat chairs was amazing, carving a roast by your seat, lobster tails, giant flower arrangements etc. The moment the bed seats arrived- gone was the seat side roast carving! (unless my memory is not good)
I loved UA's Pentagram designed First Class seat design (are there any still flying?), they were big and had such great storage. On the 747 they were the best. (not in the world, but for UA) those accompanied the 2-4-2 business lie flats. It only goes to show how people always want more!
The primary reason I did not fly CO that much even during it's peak of popularity was ONLY because CO's BF recliner seats, they were so bad - People may disagree with me about Polaris but international ULH "IS" all about sleep for road warriors. The only redeeming quality of the current/old Diamond BF seat.

All that said, what really astounds me, gets me really wondering, is when I think about HOW MUCH money (the amount an airline must invest in premium hard product etc to compete) is the truly fascinating part for me: How much does it cost to do what United is doing with the interior overhauls of all the OLD fleets: Polaris, PE, new carpets and bulkheads, etc, etc: everything that made my Polaris converted 767 look and smell brand new? The costs must be staggering! (I think if you told the average John & Jane Smith that the 767 they are on is 19 years old they would be shocked)
How much to gut and refurbish those used Airbuses (because I think they are really beautiful inside, and that the John & Jane would be shocked once again to learn the plane they are in is 12+ years old and flew for Air Moldova)
Nobody has ever mentioned a number, such as: "United is spending X Billions of dollars over the next X years to refurbish their entire X number of their current wide-body fleet" - same thing for Delta or AA or any other airline undergoing such a make-over. THANKS ALL, R

VC10er wrote:

Which leads me to a couple of burning questions I have always had (somewhat relevant to UA) Just about every airline I can think of (except United) went from a "recliner" chair for International business, to angled lie flats (and I personally NEVER found even ONE angled lie flat comfortable, and Lufthansa being close to worst, I always felt as if I was sliding down while sleeping)- then after just a few years, the airlines ripped them out and developed a true lie flat for "Business".
1: WHY was that interim "angled" era done, even on very premium airlines vs LEAPING to lie flats? - and "surprisingly" UNITED was among the first to skip the "angle era" 2: who else skipped angled flats? BA? The leap from recliner to true flat beds in J was a HUGE deal , 3, my BIGGER question (because I basically get "why" the half measure of the angled lie-flats) is:
HOW BIG a negative financial impact did that evolution cost the industry? How much money was wasted by designing/buying installing angled flat seats, and then getting rid of them before they even had a chance to get old, and then going through the process again...designing/buying business sized TRUE FLAT bed seats and installing them?

I spoke to a German gentleman on Ipanema beach in Rio he was an LH executive around the time LH announced lie-flats in business class, and said to me "The angled lie flats LH put in was one of the most embarrassing screw-ups LH ever did. That some very senior execs got into very big trouble over them."

I think you already know the answer to your question, just look at airlines top airlines all over the world LH for example their A350s have no first class although the aircraft they are replacing A346 does, it has been reported BA's A35Js will not have first class and if these aircraft are replacing some of BA's oldest 744s then represents a lost of first, CX's A359s and A35Js no first class and they've remove first class from some of their internationally configured 77Ws, QR now only has first class on their A380s no other wide body in their fleet has first class and the list of airlines goes on and on and on. Today's business class with truly lie flat seating and semi privacy is what first class was years ago. As business class became more and more like first class it became hard and harder for companies and everyday people to justify paying $20,000 dollars for a a roundtrip international flight when they could get a slightly narrower semi private lie flat business class seat for only $8,000 dollars roundtrip. So as more and more people migrated towards business class it meant first class was a total waste of space because it was either being filled with upgrades or non revs. Whereas today at certain times of the year it is impossible for non revs to get business class on UA international flight and only 1, 2, or 3 people are being upgraded. Or you have flights like SFO-SIN-SFO where its not uncommon to see G.S. passengers on the upgrade list on the day of departure and in many cases they are not upgraded because business class is full.
One last thing what we are seeing at UA is remarkable especially at it pertains to the ITPE 77Es vs the Polaris 77Es. What I've notice at UA is a lot of people don't purchase an upgrade on the IPTE 77Es on short or medium haul international flights. I believe its because people no longer believe 2-4-2 is worth the cost for a 6, 7 or 8 hour international flight. But the moment UA nails down which aircraft will be on the route and updates the seat map 2 or 3 days out to show true Polars 1-2-1 if we had 20-25 empty seats in business class on the IPTE 77E by the time you get to the airport business class is either full because people purchased the upgrade or there are only at most 5-8 open seats with 20 revenue passengers who just added their names to upgraded list. It is amazing to see how revenue passengers respond in real time to Polaris vs IPTE. Which is one of the main drivers why UA has been full steam ahead trying to phase out all IPTE aircraft. The 763s are done the (except for 4 77Es unless they were left off the list by mistake (see an earlier post for information) ) the IPTE seating configuration will disappear from most if not all international routes by the end of 2019.

jayunited wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Which leads me to a couple of burning questions I have always had (somewhat relevant to UA) Just about every airline I can think of (except United) went from a "recliner" chair for International business, to angled lie flats (and I personally NEVER found even ONE angled lie flat comfortable, and Lufthansa being close to worst, I always felt as if I was sliding down while sleeping)- then after just a few years, the airlines ripped them out and developed a true lie flat for "Business".
1: WHY was that interim "angled" era done, even on very premium airlines vs LEAPING to lie flats? - and "surprisingly" UNITED was among the first to skip the "angle era" 2: who else skipped angled flats? BA? The leap from recliner to true flat beds in J was a HUGE deal , 3, my BIGGER question (because I basically get "why" the half measure of the angled lie-flats) is:
HOW BIG a negative financial impact did that evolution cost the industry? How much money was wasted by designing/buying installing angled flat seats, and then getting rid of them before they even had a chance to get old, and then going through the process again...designing/buying business sized TRUE FLAT bed seats and installing them?

I spoke to a German gentleman on Ipanema beach in Rio he was an LH executive around the time LH announced lie-flats in business class, and said to me "The angled lie flats LH put in was one of the most embarrassing screw-ups LH ever did. That some very senior execs got into very big trouble over them."

I think you already know the answer to your question, just look at airlines top airlines all over the world LH for example their A350s have no first class although the aircraft they are replacing A346 does, it has been reported BA's A35Js will not have first class and if these aircraft are replacing some of BA's oldest 744s then represents a lost of first, CX's A359s and A35Js no first class and they've remove first class from some of their internationally configured 77Ws, QR now only has first class on their A380s no other wide body in their fleet has first class and the list of airlines goes on and on and on. Today's business class with truly lie flat seating and semi privacy is what first class was years ago. As business class became more and more like first class it became hard and harder for companies and everyday people to justify paying $20,000 dollars for a a roundtrip international flight when they could get a slightly narrower semi private lie flat business class seat for only $8,000 dollars roundtrip. So as more and more people migrated towards business class it meant first class was a total waste of space because it was either being filled with upgrades or non revs. Whereas today at certain times of the year it is impossible for non revs to get business class on UA international flight and only 1, 2, or 3 people are being upgraded. Or you have flights like SFO-SIN-SFO where its not uncommon to see G.S. passengers on the upgrade list on the day of departure and in many cases they are not upgraded because business class is full.
One last thing what we are seeing at UA is remarkable especially at it pertains to the ITPE 77Es vs the Polaris 77Es. What I've notice at UA is a lot of people don't purchase an upgrade on the IPTE 77Es on short or medium haul international flights. I believe its because people no longer believe 2-4-2 is worth the cost for a 6, 7 or 8 hour international flight. But the moment UA nails down which aircraft will be on the route and updates the seat map 2 or 3 days out to show true Polars 1-2-1 if we had 20-25 empty seats in business class on the IPTE 77E by the time you get to the airport business class is either full because people purchased the upgrade or there are only at most 5-8 open seats with 20 revenue passengers who just added their names to upgraded list. It is amazing to see how revenue passengers respond in real time to Polaris vs IPTE. Which is one of the main drivers why UA has been full steam ahead trying to phase out all IPTE aircraft. The 763s are done the (except for 4 77Es unless they were left off the list by mistake (see an earlier post for information) ) the IPTE seating configuration will disappear from most if not all international routes by the end of 2019.

Thanks jayunited,
You are basically correct that I could almost answer my own question when it comes to true F disappearing. In essence the Polaris seat is a miniature blue version of the old F seat- and speaking for myself-I don’t need more than Polaris to feel comfortable and happy, even on a 18 hour flight. Sure, not nearly as spacious and open as the old F, and less storage at your seat; but with such easy aisle access, getting up twice or more to get stuff out of the overhead is a breeze. Storage (or lack of) in the very first backward/forward was annoying, but I do recall my first flight in that seat and found the “flatness, length and cushioning” provided an amazingly comfortable sleep nook! Indeed, “today” they are inferior to virtually any other flat bed, at the time of their launch (context being everything) they ROCKED! And for the RECORD: I have read so many times here on a.net “who wants to stare in the face of the passenger across from you?” - the partition with the TV screens and footrest is plenty tall enough and wide enough (even at the window) and you CANNOT see the person on the other side AT ALL. Unless you stand up.

You raised that LH & BA are doing away with First Class on the A350s. What seat is LH using for the front? (Not the 748 V shaped seat where 2 pax feet come close to touching? Is there a new LH mini F/J seat w all aisle access? BA? — I don’t fly as much as I used to. Once upon a time I would fly enough UA Metal to be sure I bagged GS (usually by September)for the following year, then I would airline hop and try other airlines. Today, if I make GS its by flying every flight in paid business and hope it adds up (I’m not rich, it’s business flying) I miss the days of trying other airlines and lounges. The LH First Class Lounge at FRA is beyond spectacular- I’d get to FRA many hours before my flight to get one of the bedrooms. I could almost live in one!

Back to United. My REAL QUESTION, THE ONE BIG ONE THAT IM JUST DYING TO KNOW, I often think about the boardroom meeting with Oscar being presented the TOTAL COSTS for the total refurbishment of all the existing (often quite old) WB fleet: 772, 767, 788,9.
For example: on average, the cost taking a sUA 772 w 3 classes or sCO 2 class Diamond BF seat 772, gutting and replacing virtually EVERYTHING, so a 772, 767, 787 will resemble the new 77W interior as possible, plus cost associated with it out of service. They had to have those numbers down to great detail to be signed off on by Oscar and perhaps the BoD.
I’d love to know the cost of creating a Polaris Lounge (like EWR) and other things like new gate desks and back wall, new gate seating, new United Club overhaul, etc, etc, BUT MOSTY the aircraft refurbishments.
I would LOVE to know how much it cost to take a used A319/20 and gut it and create a “FRESH FROM THE FACTORY” interior.

Over the years I’ve learned so much about PRASM, CASM, Quarterly earnings here and I’m so grateful- thanks to all!
BUT I HAVE NEVER READ OR HEARD A PEEP about the total, real or estimated cost of the sweeping investments being made all towards the goal of creating a complete reinvention of a behemoth airline the size of UA.

I totally get the fact that all this money poured into EVERYTHING, even all the brand new aircraft either just put in service or coming soon, that it all means SQUAT unless “customer service” both “actual or perceived” changes for the better in a very significant way.

United has made it VERY CLEAR, “we heard you! So, we are on a major customer service improvement mission” to the general population - but they have never said “United is investing X Billion to completely overhaul the entire end to end Passenger experience”. A message often promoted in other businesses

Signed, so curious, and advanced thanks,
R

Reportedly, UA quietly booked an additional two (2) A359 orders, bringing total to 47.

Why on earth would they do that now, with the first delivery still 4-5 years away? Unless it was part of a larger deal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

codc10 wrote:

Reportedly, UA quietly booked an additional two (2) A359 orders, bringing total to 47.

What will all of the people who say UA is not taking the 359's talk about now? Reopening the 757 line? I always wonder what would trigger a 2 unit order before you even fly the unit. Option expiring at a good rate?

Anyhow, 47 of these will replace 56 of the international 77E's at approx. 25 years of service. Probably safe to assume the 78J will replace the other 77E's + the 77A domestic units. United has a very impressive wide body order book with 4x 77W's, 4x 78J's, 13 789's +47 359's = 68 units (plus 3x ex-HA 763's).

STT757 wrote:

Why on earth would they do that now, with the first delivery still 4-5 years away? Unless it was part of a larger deal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As in, maybe Airbus offered them amazing terms on a couple widebodies to get them on the interested list for the A321XLR, that AA just showed public interest in? Could be, as Airbus definitely wants to announce something positive this month. The 797 seems like it could have been the perfect plane, but they've dragged their feet so long that every year that passes will make it sell less.

cosyr wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Why on earth would they do that now, with the first delivery still 4-5 years away? Unless it was part of a larger deal?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

As in, maybe Airbus offered them amazing terms on a couple widebodies to get them on the interested list for the A321XLR, that AA just showed public interest in? Could be, as Airbus definitely wants to announce something positive this month. The 797 seems like it could have been the perfect plane, but they've dragged their feet so long that every year that passes will make it sell less.

That’s what I’m thinking, as part of a deal for A321XLRs to replace their 752s. I think if Boeing launches the 797 UA will absolutely order it, to replace their 767s.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

STT757 wrote:

Why on earth would they do that now, with the first delivery still 4-5 years away? Unless it was part of a larger deal?

Maybe 2021 delivery spots vs. the current 2022?

maybe airbus said, “sure, we’ll upgrade you to the 280T version at no extra cost, but you’ll have to buy two additional frames.”

i agree that the going from 45 to 47 is a little odd. there has to be a specific reason why it was done.

With the MAX problems, which hopefully will be resolved soon without long-term impact on the traveling public using the aircraft, I was wondering if UA could do a swap at Airbus by trading in the 359 orders for a huge order of 321NEO/321XLR units and at Boeing swap the MAX 10 for more maybe 50 789/78X added orders. I would think delivery timings of 321s would be the critical issue.

Looking at the 359, it does have more passenger capability and slightly more range, but cargo capacity matches the 789 on space with the 789 looks able to carry more weight.

Earlier in the thread I believe it was discussed about UA passenger counts on the 359. I would expect it to carry more than the 789 (even with PE installed), meaning range could be an issue on SIN flights.

Could Boeing be talked into a slightly longer ranged 789, maybe with a slight bump in fuel capacity and 78X engines?

calpsafltskeds wrote:

With the MAX problems, which hopefully will be resolved soon without long-term impact on the traveling public using the aircraft, I was wondering if UA could do a swap at Airbus by trading in the 359 orders for a huge order of 321NEO/321XLR units and at Boeing swap the MAX 10 for more maybe 50 789/78X added orders.

If the MAX10 were developed at the same time as the 8/9, it would still be in service right now as it does not have MCAS. No reason to think UA would ditch that forthcoming fleet.

I think the A321XLR makes a ton of sense for UA to replace their 757s on Trans-Atlantic, Deep South America, Denver-Hawaii and Trans-cons.

Keep the 737-10 for domestic growth and or replace their oldest A320s which will hit 30 years of age in 2023.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Is the 777x a possibility to replace UA’s remaining 777’s not being replaced by 359?

STT757 wrote:

I think the A321XLR makes a ton of sense for UA to replace their 757s on Trans-Atlantic, Deep South America, Denver-Hawaii and Trans-cons.

Keep the 737-10 for domestic growth and or replace their oldest A320s which will hit 30 years of age in 2023.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Do not think the A321 will be able to do DEN-Hawaii between April and October (late spring to early fall) due to take off performance issues. Specifically: single engine climb performance. The regular A321neo is already under-winged which negatively (significantly) affects field performance at high density altitudes (DEN in the summer season). Don’t see getting out of DEN with the 100T take off weight needed unless it’s dead of winter.

DEN doesn’t have any takeoff obstacles that require exceptional climb performance.

STT757 wrote:

I think the A321XLR makes a ton of sense for UA to replace their 757s on Trans-Atlantic, Deep South America, Denver-Hawaii and Trans-cons.

A321XLR is substantially an A321 with aux tanks... the issue isn't range so much as takeoff performance on a hot summer day at DEN with a field elevation of 5300' MSL.

jetmatt777 wrote:

DEN doesn’t have any takeoff obstacles that require exceptional climb performance.

Max tire speed is the concern... even at the moment, in early June, density altitude in DEN is 7100ft. An A321 on a ~3000nm ETOPS sector with any kind of reasonable pax load starts to get tricky under those conditions

STT757 wrote:

I think the A321XLR makes a ton of sense for UA to replace their 757s on Trans-Atlantic, Deep South America, Denver-Hawaii and Trans-cons.

Keep the 737-10 for domestic growth and or replace their oldest A320s which will hit 30 years of age in 2023.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

How deep into South America? Could a A321XLR do EWR or ORD to GRU, EZE?
I agree that a long thin A21XLR could be interesting to open up some nonstops to Brasilia or Lima etc.

Could the order of 2 more A350’s actually come down simply to doing very tight, very good mathematics? Yes, strangely small order- but UA has been making small top off orders the last couple of years.
Perhaps part of the original 45 A350 had some kind of special subfleet need, (just spitballing) but say 8 of the 45 we’re going to be ULH, but given projections, 10 is better?

codc10 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

I think the A321XLR makes a ton of sense for UA to replace their 757s on Trans-Atlantic, Deep South America, Denver-Hawaii and Trans-cons.

A321XLR is substantially an A321 with aux tanks... the issue isn't range so much as takeoff performance on a hot summer day at DEN with a field elevation of 5300' MSL.

jetmatt777 wrote:

DEN doesn’t have any takeoff obstacles that require exceptional climb performance.

Max tire speed is the concern... even at the moment, in early June, density altitude in DEN is 7100ft. An A321 on a ~3000nm ETOPS sector with any kind of reasonable pax load starts to get tricky under those conditions

I would agree with that, however the person I quoted mentioned engine out performance as the reason. The mountains are 40 miles away.

jetmatt777 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

STT757 wrote:

I think the A321XLR makes a ton of sense for UA to replace their 757s on Trans-Atlantic, Deep South America, Denver-Hawaii and Trans-cons.

A321XLR is substantially an A321 with aux tanks... the issue isn't range so much as takeoff performance on a hot summer day at DEN with a field elevation of 5300' MSL.

jetmatt777 wrote:

DEN doesn’t have any takeoff obstacles that require exceptional climb performance.

Max tire speed is the concern... even at the moment, in early June, density altitude in DEN is 7100ft. An A321 on a ~3000nm ETOPS sector with any kind of reasonable pax load starts to get tricky under those conditions

I would agree with that, however the person I quoted mentioned engine out performance as the reason. The mountains are 40 miles away.

Single engine climb performance is usually the limiting performance factor for hot and high.

Single engine drift down altitude at high weights may be an issue as well.

Okcflyer wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

A321XLR is substantially an A321 with aux tanks... the issue isn't range so much as takeoff performance on a hot summer day at DEN with a field elevation of 5300' MSL.



Max tire speed is the concern... even at the moment, in early June, density altitude in DEN is 7100ft. An A321 on a ~3000nm ETOPS sector with any kind of reasonable pax load starts to get tricky under those conditions

I would agree with that, however the person I quoted mentioned engine out performance as the reason. The mountains are 40 miles away.

Single engine climb performance is usually the limiting performance factor for hot and high.

Single engine drift down altitude at high weights may be an issue as well.

Generally, yes, but not in this case because there is no doubt about the ability of the A321 of any variety to safely operate from DEN, generally. The question for these most marginal operations (which is so even for the 757-200) is whether there's enough room left for an economical pax load at a permissible gross weight (will get safely airborne below max tire speed) on a hot summer day with enough fuel (+ ETOPS reserves) to make it all the way to the Islands.

codc10 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I would agree with that, however the person I quoted mentioned engine out performance as the reason. The mountains are 40 miles away.

Single engine climb performance is usually the limiting performance factor for hot and high.

Single engine drift down altitude at high weights may be an issue as well.

Generally, yes, but not in this case because there is no doubt about the ability of the A321 of any variety to safely operate from DEN, generally. The question for these most marginal operations (which is so even for the 757-200) is whether there's enough room left for an economical pax load at a permissible gross weight (will get safely airborne below max tire speed) on a hot summer day with enough fuel (+ ETOPS reserves) to make it all the way to the Islands.

Hence the comment about high weight. What good is an LR or XLR if MTOW is below standard A321 weights? No way it’ll do DEN for Hawaii outside of the coldest months.