jetblastdubai wrote:

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.

Reportedly, ORD and EWR will get the CRJ-550 first. At EWR, UA is trying to eliminate single-cabin RJ flying as DL and AA (to a lesser extent) have mostly accomplished across the river at JFK/LGA.

DEN will keep some 70-seat CR7s on the SkyWest CPA primarily for ASE service. No need to reduce capacity there, and the CR7 is the only feasible type in the UAX stable to operate in/out of ASE until airfield improvements are carried out. I don't believe the 550 (de-rated and lower gross weights) can make the longer hauls out of ASE, like SFO/LAX/IAH/ORD.

cosyr wrote:

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.

There will only be 1 FA on the CRJ-550... the thinking is that the self-service bar more or less replaces the FC flight attendant, who after the drink/snack pass up front will presumably be in the aisle with a cart doing the Y service. The reduction of 1 FA is part of fixed cost savings of the 550.

cosyr wrote:

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.

I think the idea behind the self serve bar is to allow F passengers to help themselves for the 30 or so minutes the attendant is serving Y. I don’t think Y is allowed to use it, although some in the forward rows may get away with it once the FA is behind their row.

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.

From what I remember hey are supposed to be based out of ORD and EWR...at least initially.

codc10 wrote:

I don't believe the 550 (de-rated and lower gross weights) can make the longer hauls out of ASE, like SFO/LAX/IAH/ORD.

There will only be 1 FA on the CRJ-550... the thinking is that the self-service bar more or less replaces the FC flight attendant, who after the drink/snack pass up front will presumably be in the aisle with a cart doing the Y service. The reduction of 1 FA is part of fixed cost savings of the 550.

Why would the 550 be limited weight wise? Is there a weight clause on the 50 seat planes with the pilot scope clause, like there is with the E2-175? Or is that just a way to keep operational costs down, to make this thing not quite as expensive to operate vs a CR2 or ERJ? I know that the idea of increased revenue from F seats should help offset some increase operational cost, but does anyone know what the difference in cost is to operate an empty CR2/ERJ vs a CR7?

cosyr wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I don't believe the 550 (de-rated and lower gross weights) can make the longer hauls out of ASE, like SFO/LAX/IAH/ORD.

There will only be 1 FA on the CRJ-550... the thinking is that the self-service bar more or less replaces the FC flight attendant, who after the drink/snack pass up front will presumably be in the aisle with a cart doing the Y service. The reduction of 1 FA is part of fixed cost savings of the 550.

Why would the 550 be limited weight wise? Is there a weight clause on the 50 seat planes with the pilot scope clause, like there is with the E2-175? Or is that just a way to keep operational costs down, to make this thing not quite as expensive to operate vs a CR2 or ERJ? I know that the idea of increased revenue from F seats should help offset some increase operational cost, but does anyone know what the difference in cost is to operate an empty CR2/ERJ vs a CR7?

Yes, the scope clause also contains an MTOW provision... so they have to paper de-rate the MTOW to be compliant with scope to count as a 50 seater.. otherwise, it still counts against the large 70-seater RJ.

Scarebus34 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I don't believe the 550 (de-rated and lower gross weights) can make the longer hauls out of ASE, like SFO/LAX/IAH/ORD.

There will only be 1 FA on the CRJ-550... the thinking is that the self-service bar more or less replaces the FC flight attendant, who after the drink/snack pass up front will presumably be in the aisle with a cart doing the Y service. The reduction of 1 FA is part of fixed cost savings of the 550.

Why would the 550 be limited weight wise? Is there a weight clause on the 50 seat planes with the pilot scope clause, like there is with the E2-175? Or is that just a way to keep operational costs down, to make this thing not quite as expensive to operate vs a CR2 or ERJ? I know that the idea of increased revenue from F seats should help offset some increase operational cost, but does anyone know what the difference in cost is to operate an empty CR2/ERJ vs a CR7?

Yes, the scope clause also contains an MTOW provision... so they have to paper de-rate the MTOW to be compliant with scope to count as a 50 seater.. otherwise, it still counts against the large 70-seater RJ.

Do you know what that will do to its range?

cosyr wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Why would the 550 be limited weight wise? Is there a weight clause on the 50 seat planes with the pilot scope clause, like there is with the E2-175? Or is that just a way to keep operational costs down, to make this thing not quite as expensive to operate vs a CR2 or ERJ? I know that the idea of increased revenue from F seats should help offset some increase operational cost, but does anyone know what the difference in cost is to operate an empty CR2/ERJ vs a CR7?

Yes, the scope clause also contains an MTOW provision... so they have to paper de-rate the MTOW to be compliant with scope to count as a 50 seater.. otherwise, it still counts against the large 70-seater RJ.

Do you know what that will do to its range?

Not sure. MTOW will be 65.0, 10.0 less than the CR7.

cosyr wrote:

Do you know what that will do to its range?

I think it's a material reduction in range. The airplane has to be about 10k lighter MGTOW (65k) than the standard CR7. You can reduce OEW a bit by taking out seats/crew, and 50 pax payload is lower, but with all seats occupied, most of that weight savings is coming from the airplane carrying less fuel. I think the objective is keep the CR5 on routes ~500nm or less.

codc10 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Do you know what that will do to its range?

I think it's a material reduction in range. The airplane has to be about 10k lighter MGTOW (65k) than the standard CR7. You can reduce OEW a bit by taking out seats/crew, and 50 pax payload is lower, but with all seats occupied, most of that weight savings is coming from the airplane carrying less fuel. I think the objective is keep the CR5 on routes ~500nm or less.

Bombardier's website lists its range as 1000 nm vs 1400 nm for a CRJ-700.
http://commercialaircraft.bombardier.co ... crj-series

Looking at UA's international network, they really seem to do well in Oneworld and Skyteam strongholds like LHR, AMS, HKG, PVG, SYD, and GRU. However, AA and DL seem to struggle a lot more in UA's each other's partner hubs (AA has little or no presence in FRA/MUC/BRU/ZRH/VIE, DL doesn't serve HKG or SIN, etc.). Domestically, though, UA seems to be the laggard in that regard. AA and DL have great service to UA hubs (look at AA's size in SFO, or DL's frequencies versus UA's in markets like ORD/MDW-ATL, ATL-SFO, DTW-SFO, etc.) while UA has only a token presence in hubs like ATL, CLT, DTW, MIA, MSP, etc. Is this something UA intends to catch up on as the domestic fleet grows?

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Domestically, though, UA seems to be the laggard in that regard. AA and DL have great service to UA hubs (look at AA's size in SFO, or DL's frequencies versus UA's in markets like ORD/MDW-ATL, ATL-SFO, DTW-SFO, etc.) while UA has only a token presence in hubs like ATL, CLT, DTW, MIA, MSP, etc. Is this something UA intends to catch up on as the domestic fleet grows?

But domestically, you have to account for the city size (passenger base) and how UA is serving them. A lot of the competitor hubs just don't have the large passenger market that UA hubs have: DTW, PHX, MSP, CLT, SLC. Those competitor hubs already have a large network of non-stop flights, and accounting for the lower PDEW from each hub, there's only a limited amount of passengers that UA can carry with decent yields from those hubs. Basically AA/DL can draw more passengers flying ex-UA hub (SFO-PHX/SLC-XXX) than UA can pull on ex-AA/DL hub (PHX/SLC-SFO-XXX).

I think where UA struggles more domestically, is that they don't have enough large planes (because of scope and limitations) flying into mid-size non-hub cities (MKE, STL, BNA, RDU,etc.).

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.

Pretty sure UA only had 12F/52J/88E+/222E. their 744 didn't have PE.

notconcerned wrote:

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Domestically, though, UA seems to be the laggard in that regard. AA and DL have great service to UA hubs (look at AA's size in SFO, or DL's frequencies versus UA's in markets like ORD/MDW-ATL, ATL-SFO, DTW-SFO, etc.) while UA has only a token presence in hubs like ATL, CLT, DTW, MIA, MSP, etc. Is this something UA intends to catch up on as the domestic fleet grows?

But domestically, you have to account for the city size (passenger base) and how UA is serving them. A lot of the competitor hubs just don't have the large passenger market that UA hubs have: DTW, PHX, MSP, CLT, SLC. Those competitor hubs already have a large network of non-stop flights, and accounting for the lower PDEW from each hub, there's only a limited amount of passengers that UA can carry with decent yields from those hubs. Basically AA/DL can draw more passengers flying ex-UA hub (SFO-PHX/SLC-XXX) than UA can pull on ex-AA/DL hub (PHX/SLC-SFO-XXX).

I think where UA struggles more domestically, is that they don't have enough large planes (because of scope and limitations) flying into mid-size non-hub cities (MKE, STL, BNA, RDU,etc.).

True, one of the drawbacks of having hubs in large business and population centers is that there's more competition from both other hub carriers and non-hub carriers serving those cities as spokes, but cities like DTW/PHX/MSP/CLT/SLC are still decent-sized markets for domestic travel especially (they lag UA's hubs more for intercontinental premium travel), DFW is in the top 5 metro areas and ATL is in the top 10. So I would say UA still lags behind AA and DL in that sense, even when accounting for the comparative PDEW demand of their respective hubs.

And yes, absolutely agree on UA's weakness in mid-size non-hub cities as well. DL is really winning in this regard by "owning" spokes, and I hope UA can do the same as they grow their narrowbody fleet in the years to come. While UA hasn't shown interest in flying point-to-point routes from non-hub markets (and wisely so, as they have much more important places to grow for now), having stronger service from these markets to their hubs should really help with getting business contracts and frequent flyers versus the current low frequencies mostly on RJs.

xxcr wrote:

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.

Pretty sure UA only had 12F/52J/88E+/222E. their 744 didn't have PE.

Correct, so 374 on the 744 versus 350 on the 77W. Before the installation of PE, the 77W had 366 seats so it was nearly a 1-1 replacement for the 744.

Looks like 434UA A320 is scheduled to ferry to EWR. Not sure if it’s back in service or not

LAXintl wrote:

Peek at the CRJ550





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

I must say, for a RJ type I really have never liked flying on, she looks beautiful inside! Classy! Bravo United! It really looks like a cross between a private jet and passenger plane.
The one thing that always bothered me on a CRJ was that the window was always too low. I had to always lean downwards to look out of the window. So, my questions are: by any chance were the windows moved for the 550? And the other is, are those First Class seats a new seat design for UA? It’s not the A319/20-73G seat, and looks different from F seats on the E175s?
Regardless, if this is what I got from EWR for a 1 hour flight, I’d be VERY happy!

VC10er wrote:

So, my questions are: by any chance were the windows moved for the 550? And the other is, are those First Class seats a new seat design for UA?

The CRJ-550 is a CRJ-700 with different papers – the floor in both frames is slightly lower than the CRJ-200 to get the windows in the right place.

This is the same seating as the CRJ-700s.

jayunited wrote:

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.

Another reason for keeping the 777s and 763s at ORD is geography. ORD is a shorter TATL route to UA's destinations. The main advantage of the 787 doesn't kick in until longer range routes are utilized. Combine this with the gate issues at ORD leaves the 787 largely out of Chicago for now.

adamblang wrote:

VC10er wrote:

So, my questions are: by any chance were the windows moved for the 550? And the other is, are those First Class seats a new seat design for UA?

The CRJ-550 is a CRJ-700 with different papers – the floor in both frames is slightly lower than the CRJ-200 to get the windows in the right place.

This is the same seating as the CRJ-700s.

It's not just the floor height, but the windows are also higher as well. Bombardier made the CR1/CR2 from a private jet and I think they realized that the window height was a problem, so when they set out to stretch it to the CR7/9/10, they fixed this issue. This is evident if you look at the location of the windows relative to the cockpit windscreen (which if that needed to be higher should have been a red flag to engineers that the original windows were too low for comfort) and also their placement in the emergency wing exit doors (centered on the CR2, but toward the top on the CR7) I don't have measurements, but I believe they also made the windows slightly taller to compete more with Embraer. This is why Embraer's are my favorite planes, both ERJ-145 and E-Jets, beaten only by Gulfstreams, which I don't have the luxury of flying!

There are only two planes that I avoid flying at all reasonable cost, 777 in 10 across Y seating, and the CR2, although, at least the CR2 is for relatively short flights. I don't mind the CR7 at all though, because the windows are much nicer and the lower floor makes the cabin feel much more spacious and closer to an E-Jet.

cosyr wrote:

at least the CR2 is for relatively short flights. I don't mind the CR7 at all though, because the windows are much nicer and the lower floor makes the cabin feel much more spacious and closer to an E-Jet.

Unfortunately, UA is using the CR2 on flights which are not short. Our single daily STS-DEN flight is on a CR2 and often blocks at 3+ hours. We love having the DEN service but are praying for this to be upgauged to E75 service asap. STS is in the odd position of having one of the longest CR2 flights in the world (to DEN) and the shortest (to SFO).

SonomaFlyer wrote:

cosyr wrote:

at least the CR2 is for relatively short flights. I don't mind the CR7 at all though, because the windows are much nicer and the lower floor makes the cabin feel much more spacious and closer to an E-Jet.

Unfortunately, UA is using the CR2 on flights which are not short. Our single daily STS-DEN flight is on a CR2 and often blocks at 3+ hours. We love having the DEN service but are praying for this to be upgauged to E75 service asap. STS is in the odd position of having one of the longest CR2 flights in the world (to DEN) and the shortest (to SFO).

Probably wont be seeing a 175 anytime soon... UA simply doesn't have enough of them.

Just saw this: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -dec-2019/

UA is going to put the B787-10 onto BOTH the PVG routes from SFO & LAX. Wouldn't this dilute yields to Shanghai as Y fare are ALREADY at historically low levels (<$800). I heard cargo is great out of PVG (electronics without the batteries) but how much cargo can the B787-10 carry more than the B787-9 does without hurting yields? Or is J class corporate demand so high that UA feels the need for more seats in this market? I feel the B787-10 can be used more profitably to Atlantic markets versus Pacific markets.

That is one long flight for 78X, especially westbound from LAX. Would think they would just consolidate their PVG operations from California at SFO, since AA, DL, and MU all operate LAX-PVG.

voxkel wrote:

That is one long flight for 78X, especially westbound from LAX. Would think they would just consolidate their PVG operations from California at SFO, since AA, DL, and MU all operate LAX-PVG.

I think DL, AA and MU should quit the route now that UA is flying the 787-10.

$800 seems profitable enough. Now let us talk about under $400.

According to the link, the 787-10 will only fly one route at a time, LAX until 31Jan with SFO starting 1Feb.

CriticalPoint wrote:

voxkel wrote:

That is one long flight for 78X, especially westbound from LAX. Would think they would just consolidate their PVG operations from California at SFO, since AA, DL, and MU all operate LAX-PVG.

I think DL, AA and MU should quit the route now that UA is flying the 787-10.

What's the logic behind that thought?

ITSTours wrote:

$800 seems profitable enough. Now let us talk about under $400.

$800 RT for routes that range between 6,150 and 6,500 miles served with newly financed equipment? A $0.063 yield? Profitable? No, or at least not unless the Business Class and Premium Economy fare environment is robust... which it isn't from either LAX or SFO to PVG at present.

I imagine UA can squeak by on SFO-PVG with something that loosely resembles a profit just on account of predominantly Tech-driven corporate traffic, but I'll bet AA, UA, and DL all bleed red on LAX-PVG given how badly MU and one-stops pollute the fare environment. Even on a nonstop basis, MU is running double daily 777-300ERs each with 52 industry competitive business class seats on them.

Awesome news for me! Upgrade city on LAX-PVG.

winginit wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

voxkel wrote:

That is one long flight for 78X, especially westbound from LAX. Would think they would just consolidate their PVG operations from California at SFO, since AA, DL, and MU all operate LAX-PVG.

I think DL, AA and MU should quit the route now that UA is flying the 787-10.

What's the logic behind that thought?

ITSTours wrote:

$800 seems profitable enough. Now let us talk about under $400.

$800 RT for routes that range between 6,150 and 6,500 miles served with newly financed equipment? A $0.063 yield? Profitable? No, or at least not unless the Business Class and Premium Economy fare environment is robust... which it isn't from either LAX or SFO to PVG at present.

I imagine UA can squeak by on SFO-PVG with something that loosely resembles a profit just on account of predominantly Tech-driven corporate traffic, but I'll bet AA, UA, and DL all bleed red on LAX-PVG given how badly MU and one-stops pollute the fare environment. Even on a nonstop basis, MU is running double daily 777-300ERs each with 52 industry competitive business class seats on them.

There isn’t any.....just like the post I quoted.

x1234 wrote:

I heard cargo is great out of PVG (electronics without the batteries) but how much cargo can the B787-10 carry more than the B787-9 does without hurting yields?

Why no electronics with batteries ?

x1234 wrote:

Just saw this: https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -dec-2019/

UA is going to put the B787-10 onto BOTH the PVG routes from SFO & LAX. Wouldn't this dilute yields to Shanghai as Y fare are ALREADY at historically low levels (<$800). I heard cargo is great out of PVG (electronics without the batteries) but how much cargo can the B787-10 carry more than the B787-9 does without hurting yields? Or is J class corporate demand so high that UA feels the need for more seats in this market? I feel the B787-10 can be used more profitably to Atlantic markets versus Pacific markets.

Load factors have been growing steadily for the past few years even though ticket prices are around $800 dollars for coach. However what people are missing is this the 789 still has the diamond seats in business class, and isn't very competitive against AA's 789s or DL's A359s both of which have their own version of premium economy. Putting the 78J on this route allows UA step up its game in a very important market, it give passengers the true Polaris business class seat, and equally as important UA finally will have Premium Plus on this route. Also a few additional seats in coach will have little effect on yields but more importantly the 78J operational cost are not much higher than those found on the 789.
As far as cargo the 78J can carry 2 additional 96 inch PMC,s but your information about electronics traveling without the batteries is incorrect. There are a lot of lithium batteries being shipped in the cargo hold on all UA flights out of China.

winginit wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

voxkel wrote:

That is one long flight for 78X, especially westbound from LAX. Would think they would just consolidate their PVG operations from California at SFO, since AA, DL, and MU all operate LAX-PVG.

I think DL, AA and MU should quit the route now that UA is flying the 787-10.

What's the logic behind that thought?

ITSTours wrote:

$800 seems profitable enough. Now let us talk about under $400.

$800 RT for routes that range between 6,150 and 6,500 miles served with newly financed equipment? A $0.063 yield? Profitable? No, or at least not unless the Business Class and Premium Economy fare environment is robust... which it isn't from either LAX or SFO to PVG at present.

I imagine UA can squeak by on SFO-PVG with something that loosely resembles a profit just on account of predominantly Tech-driven corporate traffic, but I'll bet AA, UA, and DL all bleed red on LAX-PVG given how badly MU and one-stops pollute the fare environment. Even on a nonstop basis, MU is running double daily 777-300ERs each with 52 industry competitive business class seats on them.

Makes no sense...UA must be doing well on this route or they would not add more $800 seats via the 78J an a/c many point out could work on many lanes. I've flown this route and there is a lot of competition so UA would not add capacity if there weren't demand for it.

There is a lot of capacity between the LAX and SFO area and PVG = really amazing.

zeke wrote:

x1234 wrote:

I heard cargo is great out of PVG (electronics without the batteries) but how much cargo can the B787-10 carry more than the B787-9 does without hurting yields?

Why no electronics with batteries ?

For the same reason you are not allowed to pack a laptop in your checked bags. Lithium-Ion batteries can be unstable and are a fire risk, and they have been banned from the belly.

cosyr wrote:

For the same reason you are not allowed to pack a laptop in your checked bags. Lithium-Ion batteries can be unstable and are a fire risk, and they have been banned from the belly.

That is news to me. I can carry tonnes of electronics constraining batteries contained within equipment. Not unusual to carry pallets of phones and tablets.

There is a difference between Lithium ion batteries and lithium metal. As well as a difference between carrying batteries contained within equipment (cars,tablets,phones,computers) and carrying just batteries.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the airlines does not carry batteries within equipment? This is permitted by IATA.

zeke wrote:

cosyr wrote:

For the same reason you are not allowed to pack a laptop in your checked bags. Lithium-Ion batteries can be unstable and are a fire risk, and they have been banned from the belly.

That is news to me. I can carry tonnes of electronics constraining batteries contained within equipment. Not unusual to carry pallets of phones and tablets.

There is a difference between Lithium ion batteries and lithium metal. As well as a difference between carrying batteries contained within equipment (cars,tablets,phones,computers) and carrying just batteries.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the airlines does not carry batteries within equipment? This is permitted by IATA.

Check the second section "Batteries" on this page: https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/tr ... erous.html The policy seems to be 'lightly' enforced for passenger luggage, but is would definitely be enforced for cargo. Also, there is a note at the top of the checked bag page: https://www.united.com/web/en-us/conten ... spx?POS=US

zeke wrote:

cosyr wrote:

For the same reason you are not allowed to pack a laptop in your checked bags. Lithium-Ion batteries can be unstable and are a fire risk, and they have been banned from the belly.

That is news to me. I can carry tonnes of electronics constraining batteries contained within equipment. Not unusual to carry pallets of phones and tablets.

There is a difference between Lithium ion batteries and lithium metal. As well as a difference between carrying batteries contained within equipment (cars,tablets,phones,computers) and carrying just batteries.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the airlines does not carry batteries within equipment? This is permitted by IATA.

Big difference if you’re carrying pallets of charged vs uncharged batteries. Also, if they’re connected to a device and charged they can swell in certain circumstances. I’m sure your airline hauls a lot of electronics freight from China so maybe they found a way to get more comfortable with it.

cosyr wrote:

zeke wrote:

cosyr wrote:

For the same reason you are not allowed to pack a laptop in your checked bags. Lithium-Ion batteries can be unstable and are a fire risk, and they have been banned from the belly.

That is news to me. I can carry tonnes of electronics constraining batteries contained within equipment. Not unusual to carry pallets of phones and tablets.

There is a difference between Lithium ion batteries and lithium metal. As well as a difference between carrying batteries contained within equipment (cars,tablets,phones,computers) and carrying just batteries.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the airlines does not carry batteries within equipment? This is permitted by IATA.

Check the second section "Batteries" on this page: https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/tr ... erous.html The policy seems to be 'lightly' enforced for passenger luggage, but is would definitely be enforced for cargo. Also, there is a note at the top of the checked bag page: https://www.united.com/web/en-us/conten ... spx?POS=US

There must be some sort of different policy for maybe only cargo aircraft or we are missing something. Because there is no way things like iPhones, iPads, laptops and etc are built in Asia/India without batteries and get batteries in the US.

763:
N686UA entered MCO 2718/6Aug, exited 2752/8Aug, unknown maint.

77W:
N2747U entered HKG 2807/9Aug, don't see a departure from HKG, maint?

ikolkyo wrote:

cosyr wrote:

zeke wrote:

That is news to me. I can carry tonnes of electronics constraining batteries contained within equipment. Not unusual to carry pallets of phones and tablets.

There is a difference between Lithium ion batteries and lithium metal. As well as a difference between carrying batteries contained within equipment (cars,tablets,phones,computers) and carrying just batteries.

Do you have any evidence to suggest the airlines does not carry batteries within equipment? This is permitted by IATA.

Check the second section "Batteries" on this page: https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/tr ... erous.html The policy seems to be 'lightly' enforced for passenger luggage, but is would definitely be enforced for cargo. Also, there is a note at the top of the checked bag page: https://www.united.com/web/en-us/conten ... spx?POS=US

There must be some sort of different policy for maybe only cargo aircraft or we are missing something. Because there is no way things like iPhones, iPads, laptops and etc are built in Asia/India without batteries and get batteries in the US.

Nothing in that policy prevents normal consumer electronics as checked baggage.

Personal devices (except for e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers) installed with a lithium battery of less than 100 watt hours are permitted in carry-on and checked baggage.

Anyone know when UA will announce new international service for 2020?

timberwolf24 wrote:

Anyone know when UA will announce new international service for 2020?

There isn't new service guaranteed... perhaps we will see an evaluation of the new PRG/NAP service and see if its continued or swapped out for something else. I don't expect new destinations added to ORD, it would likely be another seasonal destination to EWR/IAD.

timberwolf24 wrote:

Anyone know when UA will announce new international service for 2020?

If you are looking for or expecting an AA style type announcement for 2020 I think you are in for disappointment. It's easy to forget UA has launched quite a few international routes this year, we still have a few more launches this year and next year.
SFO-MEL 3x weekly, seasonal
SFO-DEL seasonal (may go year around some time in 2020)
SFO-MUC, year around service (4 or 5x weekly from mid January through March)
LAX-HND,
EWR-HND,
EWR-CPT, seasonal 3x weekly,
EWR-PVG, (if DOT grants approval for 2x daily double)

United has a total of 28 additional Boeing frames on order from 77Ws, to 78Js, and 789s but deliveries are spread out starting from Q4 2019 through Q1 2023. We are going to see increased frequencies to cities already served, connecting hubs with existing international destinations, launching all new destinations, but it is going to be spread out over a period of time between Q4 2019 and Q1 2023.

Outside of the list above I think what we are looking at for spring/summer 2020 is the return of SFO-AMS. In addition EWR-NAP, EWR-PRG, EWR-OPO, EWR-VCE, EWR-ATH, EWR-KEF, IAD-BCN, and ORD-FCO might have their seasons starting earlier next year.

Looking even deeper into 2020 I think come Q3 or Q4 2020 IAD-TLV will go daily. So far all that UA has stated on SFO-DEL is that demand is strong than they predicted. I think UA sticks with the 3x weekly seasonal service for 2019/2020 but will resume the route in either Q3 or Q4 however instead of 3x weekly the route will be daily.

Looking forward to 2021 if IAD-TLV goes daily in 2020 then there there is a change we probably will see another hub connected to TLV. The two hubs at the top of that list in my opinion are either ORD or LAX. I can see a case being made for both of these hubs but I would expect UA to only choose one not both to launch new service.

Also we still are in the mist of Polaris/PE installation I think there will be some sort of small announcement for 2020 but I'd wager there will be an even bigger announcement for 2021 because UA will be at full strength meaning except for frames out of service for heavy maintenance UA will have its entire international widebody fleet at its disposal.

Scarebus34 wrote:

timberwolf24 wrote:

Anyone know when UA will announce new international service for 2020?

There isn't new service guaranteed... perhaps we will see an evaluation of the new PRG/NAP service and see if its continued or swapped out for something else. I don't expect new destinations added to ORD, it would likely be another seasonal destination to EWR/IAD.

The seasonal flights have been successful, and with more 787s and 777s joining the fleet (plus the completion of 777/763 Polaris mods) there will be some more frames available for the S20 schedule. I'd be surprised if United didn't announce some new flying in the next few weeks... last year the big announcement for this summer was on 8/30.

GoSharks wrote:

ikolkyo wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Check the second section "Batteries" on this page: https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/tr ... erous.html The policy seems to be 'lightly' enforced for passenger luggage, but is would definitely be enforced for cargo. Also, there is a note at the top of the checked bag page: https://www.united.com/web/en-us/conten ... spx?POS=US

There must be some sort of different policy for maybe only cargo aircraft or we are missing something. Because there is no way things like iPhones, iPads, laptops and etc are built in Asia/India without batteries and get batteries in the US.

Nothing in that policy prevents normal consumer electronics as checked baggage.

Personal devices (except for e-cigarettes and personal vaporizers) installed with a lithium battery of less than 100 watt hours are permitted in carry-on and checked baggage.

Im not talking about passenger luggage, I’m talking cargo shipments of these devices for consumers to buy in store and etc.

Gosh, in roughly 10/12 posts my gears are turning on a number of topics.

1: The first time I had a branding project from Embraer, the E175-95 has been launched and put into service for a very short time. They still had the E145 line open and I was given a private tour by the client. I had learned a thousand things on that project. One that stood out as they briefed us on their strengths and weaknesses, was window alignment. They were very proud of their windows vs CRJ’s, and it really wasn’t until they mentioned it among many other things, I recall thinking “RIGHT! I do always have to lean down and forward to look out the window vs the E145. Which also have large windows relatively also. (They were such an awesome client, all of them, because even one of their most senior engineers was on the team and had designed a lot of both series, they were like his babies and knew ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about them, what made each unique and great, where every weakness was- not mechanical weakness, but were the competitors had a leg up, where they had a leg up)

The 78X to PVG, first I thought she couldn’t do over the Pacific? I guess I had the wrong impression! So, being an EWR person, I was overjoyed having read so often that the 78X would be “TATL MONSTER” and so perfect for LHR where competition is so tough, (having flown her 4x now) a UA 787-10 was so much nicer than anything ever before to LHR on United. (And not just LHR)
So, with only 14 coming so far, and now spreading them out, what’s the likelihood of UA adding to the 14?
(Again: I who knows nothing or not much when it comes to hard facts and data) United I believe has 5 LHR flights a day, all 763’s, except for the morning flight which is a 764. I have often opted for the day flight despite it’s a day killer, because I cannot do: fly, land, shower, meeting, client dinner. It was either arrive the morning before day of business or get in late the night before business and get a good sleep in my hotel. However, since I was awake all the way, that is when the new Polaris seat is most desirable. (So easy to get spoiled, the diamond seat was just fine for many years, now they look so sad)
So: is a 787-10 top off order highly likely or with more and more refurbished 772’s starting revenue service, might they wind up doing EWR, IAD, ORD-LHR? Or is that too many seats for UA fighting against BA, AA, DL, VA and/or other?
My last thought is: is the BA A319 from London City to JFK in all J still flying? Making money? It is a unique offer, especially for Financial Industry
people.
My thought/idea would be that with EWR being so close to NYC’s financial district, AND with a number of those financial institutions expanding and building towers on the NJ side of the Hudson being even closer- could UA do it? Maybe even add IAD/London City?

Last: Don’t get me wrong, as I travel alone for biz, the refurbished 763’s are Devine!

cosyr wrote:

Check the second section "Batteries" on this page: https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/tr ... erous.html The policy seems to be 'lightly' enforced for passenger luggage, but is would definitely be enforced for cargo. Also, there is a note at the top of the checked bag page: https://www.united.com/web/en-us/conten ... spx?POS=US

You are trying to apply baggage rules and restrictions to cargo and they are not the same.
Lithium-Ion Batteries also known by this code UN 3480 can be transported in the cargo hold on passenger aircraft under special provison A201but each individual airline has to follow strict rules before they can be granted an exemption. First and foremost passenger airlines are not allowed to ship any lithium-ion batteries that have exceeded 30% of their design capacity, meaning the batteries can not contain a charge greater than 30%. In United's case theses batteries have never been charged (in fact it is my understanding that most passenger airlines who accept these batteries as cargo do so with batteries that have never been charged). Next in order to be granted an exemption IATA states governing bodies ( in our case that would be the FAA and DOT) must look at the the following things: the capabilities of the operator, the capabilities of all the aircraft and aircraft systems in the fleet, packing and packaging (there are strict rules on how these batteries must be packed and the type of packaging that must be used), quantity of batteries and cells, containment and loading containers, specific hazardous and safety risk associated with different types of batteries and cells, chemical composition of the batteries.

VC10er wrote:

Gosh, in roughly 10/12 posts my gears are turning on a number of topics.

1: The first time I had a branding project from Embraer, the E175-95 has been launched and put into service for a very short time. They still had the E145 line open and I was given a private tour by the client. I had learned a thousand things on that project. One that stood out as they briefed us on their strengths and weaknesses, was window alignment. They were very proud of their windows vs CRJ’s, and it really wasn’t until they mentioned it among many other things, I recall thinking “RIGHT! I do always have to lean down and forward to look out the window vs the E145. Which also have large windows relatively also. (They were such an awesome client, all of them, because even one of their most senior engineers was on the team and had designed a lot of both series, they were like his babies and knew ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING about them, what made each unique and great, where every weakness was- not mechanical weakness, but were the competitors had a leg up, where they had a leg up)

The 78X to PVG, first I thought she couldn’t do over the Pacific? I guess I had the wrong impression! So, being an EWR person, I was overjoyed having read so often that the 78X would be “TATL MONSTER” and so perfect for LHR where competition is so tough, (having flown her 4x now) a UA 787-10 was so much nicer than anything ever before to LHR on United. (And not just LHR)
So, with only 14 coming so far, and now spreading them out, what’s the likelihood of UA adding to the 14?
(Again: I who knows nothing or not much when it comes to hard facts and data) United I believe has 5 LHR flights a day, all 763’s, except for the morning flight which is a 764. I have often opted for the day flight despite it’s a day killer, because I cannot do: fly, land, shower, meeting, client dinner. It was either arrive the morning before day of business or get in late the night before business and get a good sleep in my hotel. However, since I was awake all the way, that is when the new Polaris seat is most desirable. (So easy to get spoiled, the diamond seat was just fine for many years, now they look so sad)
So: is a 787-10 top off order highly likely or with more and more refurbished 772’s starting revenue service, might they wind up doing EWR, IAD, ORD-LHR? Or is that too many seats for UA fighting against BA, AA, DL, VA and/or other?
My last thought is: is the BA A319 from London City to JFK in all J still flying? Making money? It is a unique offer, especially for Financial Industry
people.
My thought/idea would be that with EWR being so close to NYC’s financial district, AND with a number of those financial institutions expanding and building towers on the NJ side of the Hudson being even closer- could UA do it? Maybe even add IAD/London City?

Last: Don’t get me wrong, as I travel alone for biz, the refurbished 763’s are Devine!

I can say for certain that we probably wont see the 78J going to LHR from EWR or ORD. UA is reconfiguring some 763s to the "High J" config for EWR/ORD-LHR. As for IAD I dont think they will put them out of there because with only 24 frames it would be hard to schedule a IAD-LHR because you need the plane to do a swap to one of the major 78J hubs. The reason it works for LAX,EWR, amd SFO is that they have common destinations as well as some service between them.

PMCO 772 Refurb N78002 Set to Leave HKG Aug 13 - exactly two months in mod.

N685UA 763 ex-HA test flight tomorrow.

With RDU getting a United Club, will BNA see one anytime soon?

fun2fly wrote:

PMCO 772 Refurb N78002 Set to Leave HKG Aug 13 - exactly two months in mod.

772:
N78005 sked to enter HKG 895/11Aug for Polaris/PE