179/180 EWR/HKG have been upgauged to the 77W. It was to go back to 77E in late October, but now stays 77W...

n92r03 wrote:

179/180 EWR/HKG have been upgauged to the 77W. It was to go back to 77E in late October, but now stays 77W...

It looks like the 77Ws currently being used for our daily SFO-HKG will make their way over to EWR as EWR-PVG will be upguaged to the 77W.
Starting this fall EWR-NRT/HKG/PVG and BOM all 77W, I think once the final batch of 77Ws are delivered EWR-DEL will be upguaged as well.

Quick side note the 77Ws currently used on UA 901 SFO-LHR, and UA 954 SFO-TLV will be used to upguage UA917 SFO-AKL which will resume daily service for the fall/winter 2019-2020 season.

jayunited wrote:

n92r03 wrote:

179/180 EWR/HKG have been upgauged to the 77W. It was to go back to 77E in late October, but now stays 77W...

It looks like the 77Ws currently being used for our daily SFO-HKG will make their way over to EWR as EWR-PVG will be upguaged to the 77W.
Starting this fall EWR-NRT/HKG/PVG and BOM all 77W, I think once the final batch of 77Ws are delivered EWR-DEL will be upguaged as well.

Quick side note the 77Ws currently used on UA 901 SFO-LHR, and UA 954 SFO-TLV will be used to upguage UA917 SFO-AKL which will resume daily service for the fall/winter 2019-2020 season.

Hi Jayunited,
So, it seems like the 77W has become a successful 747 replacement after all? Originally, the idea was that the A350 would be the 747 replacement, correct? I think I know how things changed since the original order by sUA, and now the A350 will ultimately (one day) replace the giant 772 fleet. My question is, do you foresee UA getting yet another top off order for the 77W or does UA have enough now? Or is the 778/9 in United’s future?

jayunited wrote:

It looks like the 77Ws currently being used for our daily SFO-HKG will make their way over to EWR as EWR-PVG will be upguaged to the 77W.
Starting this fall EWR-NRT/HKG/PVG and BOM all 77W, I think once the final batch of 77Ws are delivered EWR-DEL will be upguaged as well.

Quick side note the 77Ws currently used on UA 901 SFO-LHR, and UA 954 SFO-TLV will be used to upguage UA917 SFO-AKL which will resume daily service for the fall/winter 2019-2020 season.

EWR-TLV #2 is also 77W.

Hi All - I frequently read this forum because I'm interested in United's fleet, but almost never post because i'm not as familiar with it as all of you. I tried to read back to see if this had been posted, but I couldn't find it. If this is a duplicate or a repeat topic, please let me know and I"ll delete.

However, I saw this - I think it's pretty interesting that UA is using the 787-10 over the pacific. I also think that it speaks to United's strength there, in what seems to be a somewhat weak environment for other carriers.

From https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -dec-2019/

United during the weekend of 02AUG19’s schedule update filed Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner Trans-Pacific service on regular basis, initially operating service to Shanghai. For winter 2019/20 season, 787-10 to operate on following flights.

Los Angeles – Shanghai Pu Dong 07DEC19 – 31JAN20 6 of 7 weekly operated by 787-10, replacing -9
UA198 LAX1240 – 1835+1PVG 781 x2
UA198 LAX1240 – 1835+1PVG 789 2

UA199 PVG2025 – 1540LAX 781 x3
UA199 PVG2025 – 1540LAX 789 3

San Francisco – Shanghai Pu Dong eff 01FEB20 UA857/858 787-10 replaces 777-200ER
UA857 SFO1315 – 1845+1PVG 781 D
UA891 SFO1435 – 2015+1PVG 777 D

UA890 PVG0015 – 1920-1SFO 777 D
UA858 PVG1330 – 0830SFO 781 D

tlecam, Shanghai PVG is the global center of electronics manufacturing and UA hauls A LOT of cargo out of PVG (without the batteries of course) to the USA.

MIflyer12 wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Any idea how much time this would save on some of the 15 hr block flights? From a customer perspective, if significant, it could be a differentiation point.

It won't be a point of differentiation of the form 'Save two hours on your trip to Sydney!' Think 15-20 minutes. But 15 minutes of fuel twice a day is a lot of money.

What it looks like......

notconcerned wrote:

jayunited wrote:

It looks like the 77Ws currently being used for our daily SFO-HKG will make their way over to EWR as EWR-PVG will be upguaged to the 77W.
Starting this fall EWR-NRT/HKG/PVG and BOM all 77W, I think once the final batch of 77Ws are delivered EWR-DEL will be upguaged as well.

Quick side note the 77Ws currently used on UA 901 SFO-LHR, and UA 954 SFO-TLV will be used to upguage UA917 SFO-AKL which will resume daily service for the fall/winter 2019-2020 season.

EWR-TLV #2 is also 77W.

I don't know how I forgot about EWR-TLV.
Its amazing the upguaging and additional frequencies UA has added at both SFO and EWR.

VC10er wrote:

Hi Jayunited,
So, it seems like the 77W has become a successful 747 replacement after all? Originally, the ideba was that the A350 would be the 747 replacement, correct? I think I know how things changed since the original order by sUA, and now the A350 will ultimately (one day) replace the giant 772 fleet. My question is, do you foresee UA getting yet another top off order for the 77W or does UA have enough now? Or is the 778/9 in United’s future?

I think (just my opinion) once the final 4 frames are delivered UA is done no more orders for the 77W. The additional 4 frames would bring UA's 77W fleet up to 22 total which was the total number of 744's UA had in the fleet when the original 77W order was placed. So the 77Ws will truly replace the 744s frame for frame although in some cases not on the same routes. As far as the 778/9, I can see the 779 or perhaps some extended version of the A35J (the rumored A350-1100) in UA's future but not until the time comes to retire the 77Ws. As far as the 778 I can think of a few routes that could benefit from the range that aircraft will reportedly have. However the problem with 778 is it is just to big for most of UA's ultra long haul routes. For the ultra long haul routes the 789 and the A359 in my opinion are the perfect size for our network.

How is UA handling the CRJ550 in schedules? Are CR7 flights being loaded for now that will be updated to the CR5 seatmaps when that type is certified, or is UA leaving those frames completely out of the schedules until certification?

tlecam wrote:

Hi All - I frequently read this forum because I'm interested in United's fleet, but almost never post because i'm not as familiar with it as all of you. I tried to read back to see if this had been posted, but I couldn't find it. If this is a duplicate or a repeat topic, please let me know and I"ll delete.

However, I saw this - I think it's pretty interesting that UA is using the 787-10 over the pacific. I also think that it speaks to United's strength there, in what seems to be a somewhat weak environment for other carriers.

From https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -dec-2019/

United during the weekend of 02AUG19’s schedule update filed Boeing 787-10 Dreamliner Trans-Pacific service on regular basis, initially operating service to Shanghai. For winter 2019/20 season, 787-10 to operate on following flights.

Los Angeles – Shanghai Pu Dong 07DEC19 – 31JAN20 6 of 7 weekly operated by 787-10, replacing -9
UA198 LAX1240 – 1835+1PVG 781 x2
UA198 LAX1240 – 1835+1PVG 789 2

UA199 PVG2025 – 1540LAX 781 x3
UA199 PVG2025 – 1540LAX 789 3

San Francisco – Shanghai Pu Dong eff 01FEB20 UA857/858 787-10 replaces 777-200ER
UA857 SFO1315 – 1845+1PVG 781 D
UA891 SFO1435 – 2015+1PVG 777 D

UA890 PVG0015 – 1920-1SFO 777 D
UA858 PVG1330 – 0830SFO 781 D

Nice little upgrade for the LAX-PVG flight.

I thought the 78J were flying exclusively out of EWR? i guess UA threw that idea out the window.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

764:
N76055 entered HKG 2760/1Aug for maint

772: (After delays)
N209UA sked to enter XMN 2758/5Aug, hopefully for Polaris/PE
N792UA exited XMN 2757/4Aug, maint only

2809 Polaris for sure........

xxcr wrote:

I thought the 78J were flying exclusively out of EWR? i guess UA threw that idea out the window.

They've been flying EWR-LAX from day one.

adamblang wrote:

xxcr wrote:

I thought the 78J were flying exclusively out of EWR? i guess UA threw that idea out the window.

They've been flying EWR-LAX from day one.

i know UA has been flying EWR-LAX/SFO from day one. I meant the international flights. I remember reading that UA was going to station the 78J at EWR for TATL flights only.

Could it be that the B787-10 is replacing the B789 on the LAX>PVG route to coincide with the start of the B789 Polaris installations, thereby freeing up some frames, and perhaps there might be some further swaps later on?

xxcr wrote:

I thought the 78J were flying exclusively out of EWR? i guess UA threw that idea out the window.

That was never the long-term plan, just the most sensible way to spool up the fleet. More 787-10s are arriving in the 4Q and beyond, which make it easier/more reliable to begin to spread the fleet geographically.

xxcr wrote:

i know UA has been flying EWR-LAX/SFO from day one. I meant the international flights. I remember reading that UA was going to station the 78J at EWR for TATL flights only.

I could be wrong I'm not sure UA ever said that explicitly, I think it was assumed on a.netters that the 78Js if used on international flights would be confined to TATL routes. Deploying the 78J on LAX/SFO-PVG does two things for UA first it allows UA to finally introduce the true Polaris seat and PE on these highly competitive routes, secondly it allows UA to increase capacity on the routes. What is equally as interesting is UA is increasing capacity to PVG from LAX, SFO and EWR, however I'm wondering if the capacity increase on EWR-PVG is more of a strategic move to help bolster UA's application for 2x daily EWR-PVG. If UA is awarded a second daily nonstop I don't see the 77W remaining on this route.


In other news another RR 752 is out of service for a few days do to a bird strike. N14120 struck birds on takeoff today 06 AUG as UA145 OPO-EWR, several were ingested in the number 2 engine upon return to the field maintenance discovered at least one went through the core requiring a number 2 engine change.

jayunited wrote:

xxcr wrote:

i know UA has been flying EWR-LAX/SFO from day one. I meant the international flights. I remember reading that UA was going to station the 78J at EWR for TATL flights only.

I could be wrong I'm not sure UA ever said that explicitly, I think it was assumed on a.netters that the 78Js if used on international flights would be confined to TATL routes. Deploying the 78J on LAX/SFO-PVG does two things for UA first it allows UA to finally introduce the true Polaris seat and PE on these highly competitive routes, secondly it allows UA to increase capacity on the routes. What is equally as interesting is UA is increasing capacity to PVG from LAX, SFO and EWR, however I'm wondering if the capacity increase on EWR-PVG is more of a strategic move to help bolster UA's application for 2x daily EWR-PVG. If UA is awarded a second daily nonstop I don't see the 77W remaining on this route.


In other news another RR 752 is out of service for a few days do to a bird strike. N14120 struck birds on takeoff today 06 AUG as UA145 OPO-EWR, several were ingested in the number 2 engine upon return to the field maintenance discovered at least one went through the core requiring a number 2 engine change.

Make's sense. This will be the 2nd route from the US- China on UA with the new Polaris/PE right? PEK being the 1st and currently the only one

xxcr wrote:

Make's sense. This will be the 2nd route from the US- China on UA with the new Polaris/PE right? PEK being the 1st and currently the only one

Come this fall the routes that will have Polaris/PE out of SFO are PEK, NRT, TLV, AKL, TPE, 2x daily HKG, 2x daily PVG, 2x daily FRA, and 2x daily LHR.
SFO-CDG is not included on this list because the flight is downguaged for the fall winter season from a 77E to a 788. Although Polaris/PE installation begins this fall for now when the first few frames reenter service they are subject to show up on any 788 route this is also true for the 789s.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) starting in late Q1 or early Q2, 2020 UA is schedule to start taking delivery of our next batch of 789s. If true I'm going to go out on a limb and say by May 2020 both SFO-SIN flights will finally have the true Polaris/PE seats.

jayunited wrote:

notconcerned wrote:

jayunited wrote:

It looks like the 77Ws currently being used for our daily SFO-HKG will make their way over to EWR as EWR-PVG will be upguaged to the 77W.
Starting this fall EWR-NRT/HKG/PVG and BOM all 77W, I think once the final batch of 77Ws are delivered EWR-DEL will be upguaged as well.

Quick side note the 77Ws currently used on UA 901 SFO-LHR, and UA 954 SFO-TLV will be used to upguage UA917 SFO-AKL which will resume daily service for the fall/winter 2019-2020 season.

EWR-TLV #2 is also 77W.

I don't know how I forgot about EWR-TLV.
Its amazing the upguaging and additional frequencies UA has added at both SFO and EWR.

VC10er wrote:

Hi Jayunited,
So, it seems like the 77W has become a successful 747 replacement after all? Originally, the ideba was that the A350 would be the 747 replacement, correct? I think I know how things changed since the original order by sUA, and now the A350 will ultimately (one day) replace the giant 772 fleet. My question is, do you foresee UA getting yet another top off order for the 77W or does UA have enough now? Or is the 778/9 in United’s future?

I think (just my opinion) once the final 4 frames are delivered UA is done no more orders for the 77W. The additional 4 frames would bring UA's 77W fleet up to 22 total which was the total number of 744's UA had in the fleet when the original 77W order was placed. So the 77Ws will truly replace the 744s frame for frame although in some cases not on the same routes. As far as the 778/9, I can see the 779 or perhaps some extended version of the A35J (the rumored A350-1100) in UA's future but not until the time comes to retire the 77Ws. As far as the 778 I can think of a few routes that could benefit from the range that aircraft will reportedly have. However the problem with 778 is it is just to big for most of UA's ultra long haul routes. For the ultra long haul routes the 789 and the A359 in my opinion are the perfect size for our network.

Thanks Jayunited,
I have one quickie question: a 3 class UA 744 held how many pax total, vs the 77W?
I have read often “a plane that big is just too big for UA”-going all the way back to when most of us were on our knees praying to God United would buy the 748i. But as United keeps upping their game as a customer centric, stylish airline (Eg: Polaris Lounges etc) and EWR only being so big, I could see that one day, UA’s got the momentum of the “BIG COMEBACK” story people love (like CO had for a while at least) that a 779 from EWR to HK, and perhaps a few other major destinations, that United could fill them as Oscar’s vision of “The Business Sky Warrior’s airline of choice” comes true.
When I think about the Jersey City skyline 15 years ago vs today with one behemoth skyscraper after another- 15 minutes from EWR, Hudson Yards, etc....perhaps it is about frequency, but I also think an EWR to SYD/SIN isn’t entirely crazy? (If United keeps all its promises!)

The 747 had a final configuration of
18F/66B/290Y.
The 77W has
60 Polaris/24 Premium Plus and 266Y.
Sorry don’t have breakdown of Econ+
and standard Econ.

744 was 12F/52BF/88E+/222Y= 374, with 64 F/BF and 59.3% Y.
77W is 60J/24PE/62E+/204Y = 350, with 84 J/PE and 58.3% Y.
78X is 44J/21PE/34E+/208Y = 307, with 65 J/PE and 67.8% Y (higher Y density)
789 is 48J/21PE/39E+/149Y = 257, with 69 J/PE and 58.0 Y.

Regarding LAX-PVG, it makes you wonder if Polaris is slightly harder to sell on that route with 4 fewer premium seats and/or the 50 extra Y seats can be sold vs a 789. Or, maybe cargo is enough of a difference. Note, the 744 at 5655 cubic feet of cargo space only trails the 772 at 5330. Newer aircraft carry much more: 77W at 7120, 78X at 6722, 789 at 6090. Weight density may be higher on 744 and/or 772ER

For what its worth, the 78X on LAX-PVG has about a 800nm padding from stated range. In comparison, IAH-SYD and SFO-SIN have about a 300nm padding from stated range of the 789. The same 300nm pad is on the 772ER EWR-BOM (77W has a 600 nm pad). Note each route has greater or lessor headwind components, so LAX-PVG may encounter blocked seats at least some of the time.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

744 was 12F/52BF/88E+/222Y= 374, with 64 F/BF and 59.3% Y.
77W is 60J/24PE/62E+/204Y = 350, with 84 J/PE and 58.3% Y.
78X is 44J/21PE/34E+/208Y = 307, with 65 J/PE and 67/8% Y (higher Y density)
789 is 48J/21PE/39E+/149Y = 257, with 69 J/PE and 58.0 Y.

Regarding LAX-PVG, it makes you wonder if Polaris is slightly harder to sell on that route with 4 fewer premium seats and/or the 50 extra Y seats can be sold vs a 789. Or, maybe cargo is enough of a difference. Note, the 744 at 5655 cubic feet of cargo space only trails the 772 at 5330. Newer aircraft carry much more: 77W at 7120, 78X at 6722, 789 at 6090. Weight density may be higher on 744 and/or 772ER

For what its worth, the 78X on LAX-PVG has about a 800nm padding from stated range. In comparison, IAH-SYD and SFO-SIN have about a 300nm padding from stated range of the 789. The same 300nm pad is on the 772ER EWR-BOM (77W has a 600 nm pad).

Sorry you are correct my info was wrong thx.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

744 was 12F/52BF/88E+/222Y= 374, with 64 F/BF and 59.3% Y.
77W is 60J/24PE/62E+/204Y = 350, with 84 J/PE and 58.3% Y.
78X is 44J/21PE/34E+/208Y = 307, with 65 J/PE and 67.8% Y (higher Y density)
789 is 48J/21PE/39E+/149Y = 257, with 69 J/PE and 58.0 Y.

Regarding LAX-PVG, it makes you wonder if Polaris is slightly harder to sell on that route with 4 fewer premium seats and/or the 50 extra Y seats can be sold vs a 789. Or, maybe cargo is enough of a difference. Note, the 744 at 5655 cubic feet of cargo space only trails the 772 at 5330. Newer aircraft carry much more: 77W at 7120, 78X at 6722, 789 at 6090. Weight density may be higher on 744 and/or 772ER

I think you might be looking at it from the wrong angle. I don't think UA is struggling to sell premium seats I think UA needs more capacity on the route, going daily double isn't an option as an application for 2x daily LAX-PVG has zero chance of being approved, this leaves upguaging as UA's only option. Putting a 77W on the route gives UA 350 seats but the 77W operating cost are much higher than the 789s which would put UA at a cost disadvantage when compared to their US counterparts AA and DL. But by placing the 787-10 on the route UA gets 318 seats, however the operating cost are inline with those on the 789 and UA remains competitive on this route.

With all of UA's LAX international flights being flown solely on 787s, if this route does in fact need more capacity then only aircraft that makes sense is the 787-10.

Is there any chance of ORD-ICN being launched on UA metal due to the pullout of OZ? Surely UA doesn't want to leave KE as the sole operator on ORD-ICN, right?

IIRC when United announced the Haneda slots they said that LAX-HND would be on the 787-10.
This might be why they are putting it on this route as well as it frees up a 789 to be reconfig.

BNAMealer wrote:

Is there any chance of ORD-ICN being launched on UA metal due to the pullout of OZ? Surely UA doesn't want to leave KE as the sole operator on ORD-ICN, right?

KE is the sole operator on IAD-ICN and was until 2017 on IAH-ICN. I think UA is content with the 2x SFO-ICN and drive traffic through SFO.

notconcerned wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Is there any chance of ORD-ICN being launched on UA metal due to the pullout of OZ? Surely UA doesn't want to leave KE as the sole operator on ORD-ICN, right?

KE is the sole operator on IAD-ICN and was until 2017 on IAH-ICN. I think UA is content with the 2x SFO-ICN and drive traffic through SFO.

South Korea is such a particular market. There's so much overwhelming brand loyalty for KE and OZ among those in the U.S. who are traveling there, so I think UA and AA are at a disadvantage.

So it sounds like they're moving forward with the A319/320 conversions but are holding off on repainting. I'm assuming the used ones coming online will get both the new layout and livery?

ericm2031 wrote:

So it sounds like they're moving forward with the A319/320 conversions but are holding off on repainting. I'm assuming the used ones coming online will get both the new layout and livery?

They are only going to re-paint on the normal cycle ... just because its in for conversion doesn't mean its due for paint.

A/C 4634 A320 ground damage at IAD on Aug 6th. not sure how long she will be OTS.

Pinto wrote:

IIRC when United announced the Haneda slots they said that LAX-HND would be on the 787-10.
This might be why they are putting it on this route as well as it frees up a 789 to be reconfig.

Even though we will have a few 789s out of service for Polaris/PE installation I don't think we face a shortage do to the fact that UA still has 5 787-10s on order (if I'm not mistaken the next 78J is schedule to be delivered in January and another in either late February or early March 2020), also keep in mind the first of 19 additional 789s begin arriving in Q1 2020 as well.

BNAMealer wrote:

Is there any chance of ORD-ICN being launched on UA metal due to the pullout of OZ? Surely UA doesn't want to leave KE as the sole operator on ORD-ICN, right?

I don't think ORD-ICN is in the works. But with 4 77Ws scheduled to be delivered I think 2 frames will be delivered late Q4 2019, the remaining 2 frames in Q1/2 2020, and between now and 2023 5 78Js, and 19 additional 789s it will be interesting to see what new international routes UA adds.
I don't think UA is done adding international routes from EWR and SFO but I also think IAD, perhaps ORD, IAH and maybe LAX (not including previously announced HND) might see new routes.

Between now and 2023 UA will have added a total of 28 wide bodies to the fleet and so far only 7 763s are scheduled to be retired. Who knows what new international routes UA is considering adding we will have to wait for official announcements.

I know of the rumors I've heard but nothing for certain (meaning actual cities) that I would feel comfortable posting on here at this time.

jayunited wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Is there any chance of ORD-ICN being launched on UA metal due to the pullout of OZ? Surely UA doesn't want to leave KE as the sole operator on ORD-ICN, right?

I don't think ORD-ICN is in the works. But with 4 77Ws scheduled to be delivered I think 2 frames will be delivered late Q4 2019, the remaining 2 frames in Q1/2 2020, and between now and 2023 5 78Js, and 19 additional 789s it will be interesting to see what new international routes UA adds.
I don't think UA is done adding international routes from EWR and SFO but I also think IAD, perhaps ORD, IAH and maybe LAX (not including previously announced HND) might see new routes.

Between now and 2023 UA will have added a total of 28 wide bodies to the fleet and so far only 7 763s are scheduled to be retired. Who knows what new international routes UA is considering adding we will have to wait for official announcements.

I know of the rumors I've heard but nothing for certain (meaning actual cities) that I would feel comfortable posting on here at this time.

Thanks.

Why hasn't ORD seen new long haul routes in recent years? Also, why no 787's at ORD and will this change?

BNAMealer wrote:

jayunited wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Is there any chance of ORD-ICN being launched on UA metal due to the pullout of OZ? Surely UA doesn't want to leave KE as the sole operator on ORD-ICN, right?

I don't think ORD-ICN is in the works. But with 4 77Ws scheduled to be delivered I think 2 frames will be delivered late Q4 2019, the remaining 2 frames in Q1/2 2020, and between now and 2023 5 78Js, and 19 additional 789s it will be interesting to see what new international routes UA adds.
I don't think UA is done adding international routes from EWR and SFO but I also think IAD, perhaps ORD, IAH and maybe LAX (not including previously announced HND) might see new routes.

Between now and 2023 UA will have added a total of 28 wide bodies to the fleet and so far only 7 763s are scheduled to be retired. Who knows what new international routes UA is considering adding we will have to wait for official announcements.

I know of the rumors I've heard but nothing for certain (meaning actual cities) that I would feel comfortable posting on here at this time.

Thanks.

Why hasn't ORD seen new long haul routes in recent years? Also, why no 787's at ORD and will this change?

My understanding is there are very few gates that can accommodate 78s.

TrafficCop wrote:

The 747 had a final configuration of
18F/66B/290Y.
The 77W has
60 Polaris/24 Premium Plus and 266Y.
Sorry don’t have breakdown of Econ+
and standard Econ.

747 had 52 in Business in IPTE.

BNAMealer wrote:

Also, why no 787's at ORD and will this change?

A few reasons:

• United tries to concentrate specific longhaul fleets at specific hubs for reliability reasons.
• The 789s range isn't needed for any routes out of ORD but is needed for routes out of IAH, LAX, and SFO.
• No routes out of ORD need the middling capacity of the 788 – they either fill the bigger 772s or can only support the 763s.
• The 78J's have been introduced to markets that needed a capacity upgrade.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a few 78Js in ORD next summer. With the number of 787s of all types United's taking ORD'll eventually see its fair share. But right now the relative benefits of the various models is more needed elsewhere.

BNAMealer wrote:

Why hasn't ORD seen new long haul routes in recent years? Also, why no 787's at ORD and will this change?

ORD and especially UA are very tight on gates so until the O'Hare 21 project starts creating a net increase in gates, I don't believe UA will be expanding much at ORD and that is a few years away. Construction has started on the T5 expansion but the T2 Global Terminal and Satellites 1 & 2 are still in the design phase.

https://www.ord21.com/Renderings/pages/default.aspx

Also, the T1 widebody gates work for 767s but not so well for the larger spans of the 787s so if they bring in the 787 they won't be able to use some of the adjacent gates. So, I don't think we will see UA 787s until the new Satellite 1 is operational. https://www.ord21.com/SiteCollectionIma ... re%20s.jpg

United787 wrote:

Also, the T1 widebody gates work for 767s but not so well for the larger spans of the 787s so if they bring in the 787 they won't be able to use some of the adjacent gates. So, I don't think we will see UA 787s until the new Satellite 1 is operational.

Counter argument: The 787s have a slightly smaller wingspan than the 777s. Nothing physically stops United from replacing a 777 with a 787 on an existing route. 1-for-1 replacements shouldn't be a gate issue.

United787 wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Why hasn't ORD seen new long haul routes in recent years? Also, why no 787's at ORD and will this change?

ORD and especially UA are very tight on gates so until the O'Hare 21 project starts creating a net increase in gates, I don't believe UA will be expanding much at ORD and that is a few years away. Construction has started on the T5 expansion but the T2 Global Terminal and Satellites 1 & 2 are still in the design phase.

https://www.ord21.com/Renderings/pages/default.aspx

Also, the T1 widebody gates work for 767s but not so well for the larger spans of the 787s so if they bring in the 787 they won't be able to use some of the adjacent gates. So, I don't think we will see UA 787s until the new Satellite 1 is operational. https://www.ord21.com/SiteCollectionIma ... re%20s.jpg

And I would think the T5 expansion needs to be completed before they can start any T2 main terminal work. The can start the satellites, but that is going to cut into UA's C gates, so I wouldn't be surprised if UA took DL's T2 gates until at least part of the C expansion (or whatever they're going to call those gates) are ready to be occupied.

intotheair wrote:

notconcerned wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Is there any chance of ORD-ICN being launched on UA metal due to the pullout of OZ? Surely UA doesn't want to leave KE as the sole operator on ORD-ICN, right?

KE is the sole operator on IAD-ICN and was until 2017 on IAH-ICN. I think UA is content with the 2x SFO-ICN and drive traffic through SFO.

South Korea is such a particular market. There's so much overwhelming brand loyalty for KE and OZ among those in the U.S. who are traveling there, so I think UA and AA are at a disadvantage.

Plus there are no more slots available at ICN between 0600 and 2300 so they can't add any more flights there (with a viable schedule anyways)

adamblang wrote:

Counter argument: The 787s have a slightly smaller wingspan than the 777s. Nothing physically stops United from replacing a 777 with a 787 on an existing route. 1-for-1 replacements shouldn't be a gate issue.

Your statement doesn't address the real problem. Swapping a 777 for 787 is meaningless and doesn't provide UA with what we need which is more wide body gates capable of handling 764s, 787s, 77Es and 77Ws.
As much as people (myself included) would love to see UA deploy the 787s from ORD the truth is they aren't needed at ORD at this time the 77Es and 763s are doing the job just fine. Once T5 is complete as someone else stated UA will take over the gates DL currently occupies to make way for the expansion of the C concourse and/or the satellite, (I don't know what they intend to do). Once that phase of construction is completed UA should have some extra wide body gates enabling us to grow our international service while T2 is being demolished and replace by the new World Terminal.

UA's 763 will be in the fleet well into the next decade, UA still hasn't decided whats going to replace the 763s by the time they make that decision and the deliveries start hopefully the ORD modernization project will be far enough along enabling UA to grow ORD and utilize the newer modern aircraft that will be in our fleet. For now I think we need to accept the fact that ORD will probably be one of the last hubs (if not the last hub) UA's 763s operate out of.

jayunited, any future Pacific expansion out of SFO to say BKK, MNL or SGN/HAN!? Also why is the B787-10 deployed on LAX/SFO-PVG!? I can think of more profitable markets in the Atlantic. Is it because of cargo or more needed J seats or better (Polaris) J seats? Or is it temporary until Polaris is installed on the B787-9's? I think more Y seats will dilute the market and push fares down when they are already down from CN3 competition.

jayunited wrote:

Swapping a 777 for 787 is meaningless

To be clear, I don't think United would or should swap 787s for 777s (see two posts above the quoted post). I'm just saying there are gates at ORD that could take a 787 if United wanted to schedule 'em.

Why is UA reducing the Polaris seat count on the 787-8 mods (28 vs. 36)? It seems like the trend at UA is to go for larger premium cabins across the fleet. The 787-8 currently flies some high-premium routes like IAD-LHR, SFO-ZRH, and DEN-FRA. Would a less premium-heavy aircraft open up some routes to less premium destinations like Southeast Asia, with larger volumes of Y seats counteracting the low yields?

adamblang wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Swapping a 777 for 787 is meaningless

To be clear, I don't think United would or should swap 787s for 777s (see two posts above the quoted post). I'm just saying there are gates at ORD that could take a 787 if United wanted to schedule 'em.

I think some of the details are being glossed over here. Yes, UA has gates that could fit a 787 (and 747 and 777 for that matter), the question is can UA swap a 767 for a 787 at ORD now. and it is my understand the majority of the 767's park in the odd gates of C, that is in the alley. It is my understanding that if they wanted to park a 787 at one of those gates then they can't use the adjacent gates.
they could probably park a 787 at C18 or C20, (because those long had 747's parked at them), but that is not what UA would really want.

So, yes, technically UA has gates that they could use for 787's, but not all widebody gates are created equally. Because of this, UA is leaving the 767's at ORD to allow them to optimize the gate utilization at ORD.

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Why is UA reducing the Polaris seat count on the 787-8 mods (28 vs. 36)? It seems like the trend at UA is to go for larger premium cabins across the fleet. The 787-8 currently flies some high-premium routes like IAD-LHR, SFO-ZRH, and DEN-FRA. Would a less premium-heavy aircraft open up some routes to less premium destinations like Southeast Asia, with larger volumes of Y seats counteracting the low yields?

I imagine that is their thinking. In my mind, maybe they look to upgauge the three B788 routes you mentioned and can re-use these on true thin routes like the B788 was supposed to open up (and UA does run a number of).

It certainly is interesting to see them reduce the front cabin (though some of that is math in going from 2-2-2 to the Polaris configuration) when they are increasing it everywhere else.

Peek at the CRJ550





https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ap ... he-crj550/

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Why is UA reducing the Polaris seat count on the 787-8 mods (28 vs. 36)? It seems like the trend at UA is to go for larger premium cabins across the fleet. The 787-8 currently flies some high-premium routes like IAD-LHR, SFO-ZRH, and DEN-FRA. Would a less premium-heavy aircraft open up some routes to less premium destinations like Southeast Asia, with larger volumes of Y seats counteracting the low yields?

I think the more premium routes will transition to 789, and the 788 can be deployed to more seasonal, leisure-oriented routes or markets with lower premium demand. I wonder if the new configuration 788 would be the right platform for UA to take nonstop into SFO-MNL, or re-enter SFO-BKK? SFO-PPT and CTU seem like no-brainers to keep the 788.

ordbosewr wrote:

So, yes, technically UA has gates that they could use for 787's, but not all widebody gates are created equally. Because of this, UA is leaving the 767's at ORD to allow them to optimize the gate utilization at ORD.

Exactly. The thing to keep in mind is that United's operation, at the time T1 was designed, was heavy on DC-8/DC-10/767, so aside from gates to support the 747 operation, there were a lot of FAA ADG Group IV gates. 777/787 can only park at Group V gates (like 747), so operating those types in lieu of 767s limits flexibility in parking positions unless adjacent gates are to be blocked, which is a suboptimal solution at a time when ORD gates are at a premium.

As UA increases 787 operations at EWR, I wonder if 764s will start to migrate to ORD.

LAXintl wrote:

Peek at the CRJ550

For the pax, this plane ought to offer a pretty sweet ride.

Has there been any indication on markets UA intends to focus this model on so as to offer a consistent level of service in some dedicated markets or will they end up being scattered around the country at random? I would think that there are some smaller markets that tend to produce slightly more premium customers per capita than others. XNA, RST and the Colorado ski resorts come to mind.

On the downside, with the reduced seating, it's probably not the best A/C to load up at capacity-challenged airports. Might as well just put them all at IAD and let them run high(er) frequency service up and down the coast. 50 pax with relatively few checked bags should allow for some pretty quick turns if necessary.

jetblastdubai wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Peek at the CRJ550

For the pax, this plane ought to offer a pretty sweet ride.

Has there been any indication on markets UA intends to focus this model on so as to offer a consistent level of service in some dedicated markets or will they end up being scattered around the country at random? I would think that there are some smaller markets that tend to produce slightly more premium customers per capita than others. XNA, RST and the Colorado ski resorts come to mind.

On the downside, with the reduced seating, it's probably not the best A/C to load up at capacity-challenged airports. Might as well just put them all at IAD and let them run high(er) frequency service up and down the coast. 50 pax with relatively few checked bags should allow for some pretty quick turns if necessary.

I am really surprised by the level of detail they put into the self service area. I was convinced they would do these conversions as cheaply as possible, as they hoped to convert them back to 70 pax as soon as a new pilot agreement was signed (not saying whether that is likely, just that I thought that would be mgmt's hope). This makes me think, in addition to being a space taker, the thought might be a food option in place of the 2nd Flight Attendant. 2 FA's are technically not necessary with 50 pax, and I hadn't thought until now that UA might reduce crew accordingly. Does anyone know if this self serve bar is intended just for F? Even if Y is 'allowed' to use it, I think it will probably feel off limits for most, like a forward lav on a mainline plane.