319:
N833UA sked to exit DLH 2746/8Nov with 12F mod. So, DLH must be doing 12Fsaalong with SFO and LCQ.

avi8 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

More 787 routes announced from ORD.... PVG/PEK/GRU/HND.

PVG: mid-may
PEK: mid-june
GRU/HND: fall

I wonder where all those 777’s are going?

Where is IAH to PVG? Why UA wont add IAH to PVG? I heard Houston need Shanghai in the past and never serve.

Is there an opportunity for the ORD-HKG route to return with Boeing 787-9?

intotheair wrote:

Not exactly fleet-related, but some other sites are reporting that UA is getting ready to sell E+ as a separate booking class on some routes. Should be interesting to see whether that may also include some product enhancements....

I’m not sure if UA ought to consider E+ a separate booking class, I am sure that on Long Haul and UHL, that E+ should get something more than 4 to 5 inches of legroom.

Last weekend on a United transcontinental F (Polaris seat) on a 78J, the bare bones amenity kit, now in a frosted plastic zippered envelope, w eyeshades, ear plugs, toothbrush & mini mini toothpaste, lip balm + a postcard wasn’t so bad. If one is in E+ from EWR to Shanghai or SFO to LHR, USA to Oz, either a small essentials kit or basket of essentials to choose from would be greatly appreciated AND help make the “New Spirit of United” brand promise more true for more passengers. If comfort is E+ primary reason to be, provide additional comfort.
I get a 60¢ amity kit really adds up, offset the cost by selling some non-hard sell media space, Eg: Hertz, Bonvoy or even Buffalo Trace or Illy coffee.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Is there an opportunity for the ORD-HKG route to return with Boeing 787-9?

Yes, but not anytime soon. Even after AA dropped ORD-HKG the remaining market was still not enough to entice UA to stick it out.

HKG traffic is down from ALL U.S. cities, but when it eventually recovers and UA reconsiders ORD-HKG, UA's only practical aircraft will be the 787 given that the 787 is totally replacing the 777 in ORD.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Even after AA dropped ORD-HKG

AA never flew ORDHKG.

676 UAL2744 CXLD.

aircountry wrote:

avi8 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

More 787 routes announced from ORD.... PVG/PEK/GRU/HND.

PVG: mid-may
PEK: mid-june
GRU/HND: fall

I wonder where all those 777’s are going?

Where is IAH to PVG? Why UA wont add IAH to PVG? I heard Houston need Shanghai in the past and never serve.

UA states in a townhall that IAH won’t be getting any additional flights to Asia. I imagine that route will be flown at some point but it will be from MU.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

aircountry wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I wonder where all those 777’s are going?

Where is IAH to PVG? Why UA wont add IAH to PVG? I heard Houston need Shanghai in the past and never serve.

UA states in a townhall that IAH won’t be getting any additional flights to Asia. I imagine that route will be flown at some point but it will be from MU.

I would think UA would add IAD-PVG before IAH anyway.

N877UA leaving AMA tonight UA2721. This might be the quickest paint job they have done so far.

atcsundevil wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

UA states in a townhall that IAH won’t be getting any additional flights to Asia. I imagine that route will be flown at some point but it will be from MU.

I would think UA would add IAD-PVG before IAH anyway.

There's also that 2nd daily EWR-PVG that UA applied for a while ago, if that ever gets approved and comes to fruition.

AMollenhauer9 wrote:

N877UA leaving AMA tonight UA2721. This might be the quickest paint job they have done so far.

Next exCZ, N871UA, UA2732 ORDAMA 10NOV .. See if they do this one just as fast.

763 swap out N676UA LCQEWR with 674UA EWRLCQ didn’t happen due “unforeseen operational issues”... in other words something busted.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

UA states in a townhall that IAH won’t be getting any additional flights to Asia. I imagine that route will be flown at some point but it will be from MU.

I think UA did a great job in explaining why for the time being IAH will not see any additional flights to Asia, just look at what happened to AA’s ORD-Asia flights after their DFW Asia gateway was up and running.

If UA does received approval for their second daily EWR-PVG route then that will be the next route after that I think like someone else stated IAD-PVG would come before IAH-PVG. I’ll even go a step further and say if UA continues to grow DEN I think there is a possibility in the future of a DEN-PVG flight before a IAH-PVG flight.

jayunited wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

UA states in a townhall that IAH won’t be getting any additional flights to Asia. I imagine that route will be flown at some point but it will be from MU.

I think UA did a great job in explaining why for the time being IAH will not see any additional flights to Asia, just look at what happened to AA’s ORD-Asia flights after their DFW Asia gateway was up and running.

If UA does received approval for their second daily EWR-PVG route then that will be the next route after that I think like someone else stated IAD-PVG would come before IAH-PVG. I’ll even go a step further and say if UA continues to grow DEN I think there is a possibility in the future of a DEN-PVG flight before a IAH-PVG flight.

IAD I can see but not DEN. IAH has a high J component and a large local market to China. DEN has neither and would depend solely on connections. That brings nothing that SFO and ORD don’t already provide.

But I already know UAs justification for why they won’t expand IAH-Asia. That’s why I said MU would be the ones to fly it.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

UA states in a townhall that IAH won’t be getting any additional flights to Asia. I imagine that route will be flown at some point but it will be from MU.

I think UA did a great job in explaining why for the time being IAH will not see any additional flights to Asia, just look at what happened to AA’s ORD-Asia flights after their DFW Asia gateway was up and running.

If UA does received approval for their second daily EWR-PVG route then that will be the next route after that I think like someone else stated IAD-PVG would come before IAH-PVG. I’ll even go a step further and say if UA continues to grow DEN I think there is a possibility in the future of a DEN-PVG flight before a IAH-PVG flight.

IAD I can see but not DEN. IAH has a high J component and a large local market to China. DEN has neither and would depend solely on connections. That brings nothing that SFO and ORD don’t already provide.

But I already know UAs justification for why they won’t expand IAH-Asia. That’s why I said MU would be the ones to fly it.

I think UA picking a second EWR flight vs. IAD or other hubs tells you all you need to know about the viability of those markets. I was surprised it wasn't IAD to round out its service to APAC, but EWR and SFO daily double must be the way to go.

fun2fly wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I think UA did a great job in explaining why for the time being IAH will not see any additional flights to Asia, just look at what happened to AA’s ORD-Asia flights after their DFW Asia gateway was up and running.

If UA does received approval for their second daily EWR-PVG route then that will be the next route after that I think like someone else stated IAD-PVG would come before IAH-PVG. I’ll even go a step further and say if UA continues to grow DEN I think there is a possibility in the future of a DEN-PVG flight before a IAH-PVG flight.

IAD I can see but not DEN. IAH has a high J component and a large local market to China. DEN has neither and would depend solely on connections. That brings nothing that SFO and ORD don’t already provide.

But I already know UAs justification for why they won’t expand IAH-Asia. That’s why I said MU would be the ones to fly it.

I think UA picking a second EWR flight vs. IAD or other hubs tells you all you need to know about the viability of those markets. I was surprised it wasn't IAD to round out its service to APAC, but EWR and SFO daily double must be the way to go.

MU has openly expressed interest in IAH going so far as to release a schedule. It just fell through for the time being.

But as this thread is about UA, I understand why they want to keep it to just NRT from IAH. My main beef with them in regards to IAH has nothing to do with international service, but rather it being underutilized domestically.

It’s difficult to pinpoint a “tipping point” for United at except possibly the exit of Smisek. Even then it took a few of years for United to “feel” positive change, and especially for “my” airport, EWR, to feel open, welcoming, modern enough and convenient.

I remember when TA, TB & TC were built (although TC lay unfinished and dormant for a long time) shortly after the 3 Terminals were built 1973 I recall (albeit 13 years old) how sad I was to see it. “It looked like the 1970’s in 1970’s” which was odd, because in every other era of “design & style” usually everything from architecture to clothing looks awesome as “it” is on trend. Eg; Chrysler Building, Art Deco in 1930 must have awe striking, TWA JFK Terminal 1962 in 60’s mod, etc, etc. The new Newark airport in Earth tone browns and tan looked dated and dingy since the ribbon cutting (not like how cool Denver was, etc.

Short of leveling TC and starting over, (in my personal opinion) TC looks and functions as great as it can AFTER 9 coats of white paint new decent lighting, major structural work, new restaurants, new gate area seating with iPods, the amazing Polaris Lounge (although the United Club situation is now a crisis!) Terminal C, for a renovation of an icky structure, is IMHO now very nice.

Would I be accurate if I used 2 solid years of investment being experienced by passengers, be they Economy or First, from domestic to International and Polaris, Blue Card to Global Services, as a measure? OR is it really closer to 1 year?

ADDING TO EWR TC ARE MANY NEW aircraft, or refurbished aircraft and improved customer service, new exciting routes, a dedicated fleet of High J 763 to LHR, (all the new restaurants and retail shops) gate seating w iPads and the enormous NYC Ad blitz, and probably a lot of behind the scenes efforts for corporate contracts....so:

My basic overarching question is, ARE THERE ANY METRICS YET for everything invested so far over the past 1 or 2 years? Have they translated into factual, statistical increases in passenger traffic, financial gains and improved opinion surveys? Are UA’s goals for EWR being met, especially INCREASED pax from NYC being evidenced? (given United ads are unavoidable if you walk down a street in NYC with your eyes open!)

Anecdotally speaking: every one I know has now heard of “Polaris” and I’m often asked what is it, exactly!?! But even if people don’t know much, my friends have a positive curiosity about Polaris.

What spurred this curiosity is, I met Jill Kaplan who is the United Top Exec for EWR/NYC, at a cocktail event but didn’t get a chance to grill her!

Thanks/thoughts?

VC10er wrote:

intotheair wrote:

Not exactly fleet-related, but some other sites are reporting that UA is getting ready to sell E+ as a separate booking class on some routes. Should be interesting to see whether that may also include some product enhancements....

I’m not sure if UA ought to consider E+ a separate booking class, I am sure that on Long Haul and UHL, that E+ should get something more than 4 to 5 inches of legroom.

Last weekend on a United transcontinental F (Polaris seat) on a 78J, the bare bones amenity kit, now in a frosted plastic zippered envelope, w eyeshades, ear plugs, toothbrush & mini mini toothpaste, lip balm + a postcard wasn’t so bad. If one is in E+ from EWR to Shanghai or SFO to LHR, USA to Oz, either a small essentials kit or basket of essentials to choose from would be greatly appreciated AND help make the “New Spirit of United” brand promise more true for more passengers. If comfort is E+ primary reason to be, provide additional comfort.
I get a 60¢ amity kit really adds up, offset the cost by selling some non-hard sell media space, Eg: Hertz, Bonvoy or even Buffalo Trace or Illy coffee.

It's funny, I just read an article today on (One Mile at a Time? Maybe) that suggested UA may be considering a separate booking class for E+. They say they found it on some booking sites, but not yet on United.com, as B fare. I have mixed feelings. If they did that, would it still be free for Premiers? If it is, is it considered an upgrade? Do you have to upgrade to it first before upgrading to First? Will this lead to a smaller E+ section for higher prices? UA's E+ section has always been bigger than DL or AA, and DL has a separate booking class for Y+.

United now flies to Shanghai (PVG) with the 787-10 once a week (78X,) and they will soon start serving Auckland (AKL) with the 78X, replacing the 777-300ER currently on the route. The 78X is the least-capable variant of the 787 series when it comes to range, with an advertised range of 11910km. Typically, airliners do not fly anywhere near their advertised range on regular flights without payload restrictions and given the range of the 78X, and SFO-PVG comes in at 10182km, not to mention it is battling headwinds in this westbound flight. SFO-AKL comes in at 10509km of distance, and again, it will battling headwinds flying westbound. Although the 78X will be able to fly with a full load of passengers, will it come at the expense of passenger baggage and belly freight? I hope I can receive comments from experts who are educated on this subject matter.

Here are some links for reference.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KSFO/ZSPD
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N12006
https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... f-13sep19/
https://simpleflying.com/united-airline ... ng-787-10/

Maybe cargo demand is low on the days the 78J covers it. And as far as PVG is concerned, maybe the trade war is bringing down demand and thus the smaller aircraft.

Where did the AKL 77W get relocated to?

Rarely are we in the Jet Stream going over North Pacific and Auckland is more south west and the winds are typically light. The 787-10 will do just fine. It’s been doing EWR -TLV all winter and that DOES fight the Jet going west.

United has the data and from what I have heard from UA the -10 is performing better than advertised.

I think this just adds to the growing evidence that the -10 is going to be the sleeper hit of the 787 family. Like the 300ER, the -10 is apparently more capable and more flexible than most of us expected. It could even shape up to be a 77W replacement for a number of carriers that don't need the range and weight of the 778 or the capacity of the 779.

I just flew on a 789 from SFO-HND, and that plane was pretty beaten up! the right wing was covered in speed tape, i guess to cover up all the areas where the paint was peeling, and the interior..........not good either. My PTV was broken and J had their screens off for majority of the flight due to a technical issue.

i'm sure this will all be fixed once it goes in for paint and polaris retrofit.
it was aircraft #3960

LAXdude1023 wrote:

aircountry wrote:

avi8 wrote:

I wonder where all those 777’s are going?

Where is IAH to PVG? Why UA wont add IAH to PVG? I heard Houston need Shanghai in the past and never serve.

UA states in a townhall that IAH won’t be getting any additional flights to Asia. I imagine that route will be flown at some point but it will be from MU.

I remembered that China Eastern Airlines applied DOT to get approve to serve IAH and it never serve.

CriticalPoint wrote:

United has the data and from what I have heard from UA the -10 is performing better than advertised.

I've heard that as well

aerokiwi wrote:

I think this just adds to the growing evidence that the -10 is going to be the sleeper hit of the 787 family. Like the 300ER, the -10 is apparently more capable and more flexible than most of us expected. It could even shape up to be a 77W replacement for a number of carriers that don't need the range and weight of the 778 or the capacity of the 779.

Having just flown the 787-10 last weekend (both ways) on UA EWR/LAX, in a “Polaris” seat, it was the best transcontinental flights of my whole life of trans-cons. (Service, food & FA’s were great) but being an airplane nut, I made sure to walk in a full circle, down to the very back and back up. I was actually taken aback by her length. Once I opened the mesh curtain I was seriously very surprised to see how far the aisle went back! (what is the 78-10’s length vs a 772?
The plane was 100% full, the passengers in PE looked very comfortable, E+ seemed filled with happy looking people (I realize that 4.5 to 5.5 hours is not difficult though) and regular Economy was - well- regular Economy. Regardless she was a beauty inside nose to tail, and FAR bigger than I had ever imagined and very “open” feeling with high ceilings and giant windows.

Also, I was very impressed with the new UA IFE. The content and features are fabulous as is the intuitive navigation. THANK GOD the Star Wars safety video was not trying too hard to be “funny or over done” - I came to loathe them! How far we’ve come from overhead projectors!

Does anyone think that UA will make top off orders beyond the current 14 firm orders? (Do they have all 14 delivered?) given that the 787-10 is exceeding expectations?

IMHO, I think one day she will be perfect in a High J configuration for LHR, once the High J 763’s need replacing (with a few additional rows of PE also) and by then UA would have built the FF base to fill her!

I can’t remember exactly, but I think I saw the 787-10 doing SFO-PVG yesterday but they were blocking a considerable amount of seats.

Are these maybe being scheduled to fill in for Polaris/PP retrofits on the -8/-9s?

VC10er wrote:

Once I opened the mesh curtain I was seriously very surprised to see how far the aisle went back! (what is the 78-10’s length vs a 772?

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/777-200ER/787-10/

209' vs 224'. 787-10 is 15 feet longer nose to tail. -10 has a MTOW approx 100,000lbs LESS than a 772 and carries pretty close to the same number of pax (depending on config) close to 7,000 miles.

It's a game-changer for sure.

763:
N676UA now sked to exit LCQ 2748/11Nov in EvoBluGlobe livery
No replacement aircraft seen heading to LCQ paint shop yet.

jetblastdubai wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Once I opened the mesh curtain I was seriously very surprised to see how far the aisle went back! (what is the 78-10’s length vs a 772?

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/777-200ER/787-10/

209' vs 224'. 787-10 is 15 feet longer nose to tail. -10 has a MTOW approx 100,000lbs LESS than a 772 and carries pretty close to the same number of pax (depending on config) close to 7,000 miles.

It's a game-changer for sure.

Interesting!!! THANK YOU! So compared to the A350-9 that United will eventually take, vs the 787-10:

1: I assume the A350-9 has much longer range?
2: Passenger count difference (roughly as it depends on how UA configured the A350-9)
3: which is longer? (I assume the A350 is wider?)

Last, do you think Boeing will find a way to bump up the 787-10’s range over time, Eg: 787-10ER???

Big Smiles!!! Thanks

xxcr wrote:

75407608_422601632016889_133237479024099328_n (2).jpg

I just flew on a 789 from SFO-HND, and that plane was pretty beaten up! the right wing was covered in speed tape, i guess to cover up all the areas where the paint was peeling, and the interior..........not good either. My PTV was broken and J had their screens off for majority of the flight due to a technical issue.

i'm sure this will all be fixed once it goes in for paint and polaris retrofit.
it was aircraft #3960

...and? I flew HND-SFO a few days ago on a 789 and it was great, my PTV worked well (great film selection!) and as far as I noticed, everything worked as expected.

A one-off experience doesn't a whole fleet make.

ericm2031 wrote:

I can’t remember exactly, but I think I saw the 787-10 doing SFO-PVG yesterday but they were blocking a considerable amount of seats.

Are these maybe being scheduled to fill in for Polaris/PP retrofits on the -8/-9s?

They are scheduled a few days a week and no seats are being held.

VC10er wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Once I opened the mesh curtain I was seriously very surprised to see how far the aisle went back! (what is the 78-10’s length vs a 772?

http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/777-200ER/787-10/

209' vs 224'. 787-10 is 15 feet longer nose to tail. -10 has a MTOW approx 100,000lbs LESS than a 772 and carries pretty close to the same number of pax (depending on config) close to 7,000 miles.

It's a game-changer for sure.

Interesting!!! THANK YOU! So compared to the A350-9 that United will eventually take, vs the 787-10:

1: I assume the A350-9 has much longer range?
2: Passenger count difference (roughly as it depends on how UA configured the A350-9)
3: which is longer? (I assume the A350 is wider?)

Last, do you think Boeing will find a way to bump up the 787-10’s range over time, Eg: 787-10ER???

Big Smiles!!! Thanks

I’m not an engineer so I can’t answer your question directly. However, the -10 has the ability to carry the same amount of fuel as the -9. Right now we can’t top it off because there is not enough room between the Max Zero Fuel Weight (MZFW) and the Max Takeoff Weight (MTOW).

The -10 could fly to SIN but would need to remove pax to do it. So the question is what could Boeing do to raise the MTOW? Do they need to add another axel? But I also wonder how much the current wing could lift? And it could be as simple as flight testing and paperwork.

avi8 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

More 787 routes announced from ORD.... PVG/PEK/GRU/HND.

PVG: mid-may
PEK: mid-june
GRU/HND: fall

I wonder where all those 777’s are going?

Hopefully Polaris mods. Those are likely the sCO 777s that are used out of ORD on long hauls now that the 744s are gone. Those interiors haven't had much of an update in almost a decade at this point.

VC10er wrote:

Does anyone think that UA will make top off orders beyond the current 14 firm orders? (Do they have all 14 delivered?)

Planespotters.net says 9 of 14 at this time. https://www.planespotters.net/airline/United-Airlines

The fleet updates, fleet status, and repaint status posts at the start of this thread have been updated.

✈️ atcsundevil

EWR peps... do your magic! 676 is underway as 2748!

ocaviation wrote:

EWR peps... do your magic! 676 is underway as 2748!

Will be arriving long after dark... looks to be hanging around EWR for a few days until off to MAD on Wednesday. Subject to change, of course.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

763:
N676UA now sked to exit LCQ 2748/11Nov in EvoBluGlobe livery
No replacement aircraft seen heading to LCQ paint shop yet.

N674UA is sch UA2758 EWRLCQ 12NOV... Same ac they tried to swap with couple days ago..

codc10 wrote:

ocaviation wrote:

EWR peps... do your magic! 676 is underway as 2748!

Will be arriving long after dark... looks to be hanging around EWR for a few days until off to MAD on Wednesday. Subject to change, of course.

Change has been subjected.... now UA687 EWRIAH UA62 GRU 12NOV. See if that sticks or not..

FlyHossD wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

CDG still scheduled to operate on 777 next summer.

Yeah but that is only for 3-4 months of the year the remainder of the time its a 763. Also right now its way to early to say if ORD-CDG will in fact operate as a 77E next summer or if there will be a change of equipment as the summer 2020 schedule hasn't been finalized yet.

So where are the 777s displaced off ORD routes going? EWR? IAD? To where...?

SFO has been seeing increased 772s over the last few years. For example, PEK, PVG, and HKG have all seen increased 772 flights while 789s and 77Ws have been pulled off and moved to other routes. The new EWR-HND flight will be on a 772, so that's another one needed. I could also see one or two expansions yet to be announced before S20 - for example, IAD-TLV might yet go daily instead of 3x weekly.

And as others have mentioned, Polaris mods come into play. Both for the 772 fleet itself, and as the 789 fleet starts getting retrofitted the 772s might take over some more 789 routes (SFO-MUC, SFO-ICN, etc.).

319:
N877UA first revenue flight moved up to 1220/11Nov, in air now

Ok - my entry for all time dumbest question.

What does the “CA 777” on United service carts stand for? I used to think it was a holdover from Continental carts that fit in a 777 but I can’t imagine why almost ever cart i e ever seen on a united plane would be a continental 777 holdover.

tax1k wrote:

Ok - my entry for all time dumbest question.

What does the “CA 777” on United service carts stand for? I used to think it was a holdover from Continental carts that fit in a 777 but I can’t imagine why almost ever cart i e ever seen on a united plane would be a continental 777 holdover.

UAs CA777 carts existed long before the merger with CO. There are a couple of flyer talk threads that don't specifically answer the question but the "777" part has to do with the length of the cart.

Interior seating, one side is Empire, other side is Rebel....
Came to Orlando last week for a Disney Event....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oc3A8VS6yA

CALTECH wrote:

Interior seating, one side is Empire, other side is Rebel....
Came to Orlando last week for a Disney Event....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... e=emb_logo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Oc3A8VS6yA

This is a 787-800 in Star Wars paint, am I correct?

If it is: did they change the First Class seat on them?

I have asked why those First Class seats (unlike the 737-900) are SO BAD, and a few people explained that at the time they were ordered by CO, that CO was going through a fiscal rough patch, and had to select the least expensive seat available for F. (I guess that makes sense , I believe that is 12 First seats per 738 x 141? = 1692 F Seats: which could really add up if the 737-900 seat was $5k more per seat? FYI: I haven’t the first clue what an off the shelf F seat or F pair would or could cost across the spectrum of manufacturers)

I’m a person who actually “really” likes the NEW PriestmanGoode seats found on the Airbuses and 73G’s. I love the reclining feature with the butt cushion that slides forward and the storage & power- great headrest and are good looking. (ESPECIALLY when they are fitted on a refurbished Ex- CZ A319, bc I love how tasteful the new interior NB design looks)

Why is it that UA is not “at least” changing the First Class seat on the 737-800’s? (and/or -900 too, although while inconsistent, the 900’s are MUCH more comfortable)

If the reason are: A) United has enough on their plates already with all the WB’s being refurbished, Polaris Lounges, new UC’s, new gate areas etc. B) the 737-800s are too old to invest in? C) the 73MAX issue disallows for any NBs to be taken out of service, D) the NEW F SEAT is very expensive (because I assume they are a bespoke design, and were designed specifically for UA and are not “modified” off-the-shelf seats?

Why am I SO obsessed about the UA 738 F seat? My business pays for Domestic First once my “Regional Upgrades” run out, and I fly a lot. However I find the
737-800 to be pervasive on my UA domestic flights
(FOR EX: I am flying today EWR to DEN and taking the 6:30PM as it’s on a 752 w Diamond Lie Flats, although 6:30PM gets me into DEN a bit late!) but I’d rather get in late for my meeting tomorrow than fly earlier on a 738. Then flying home Thursday on the 8:15AM because it’s a 752- earlier than I desire, BUT I’m staying at the new “Jetson’s Westin” at DEN which is a CRAZY expensive hotel BTW, totally amazing, but VERY expensive for an airport hotel. Eg: a regular king bed room is about $500! (Although if you get a room w great runway views, it’s pretty FAB!)

UAX Update:

E75SC:
N614UX entered revenue service 6Nov
N615UX enters revenue service with ExpressJet 13Nov
N616UX enters revenue service with ExpressJet 13Nov

CR7:
N171GJ exited service in prep for CR5 mod
N175GJ exited service in prep for CR5 mod

United1 wrote:

tax1k wrote:

Ok - my entry for all time dumbest question.

What does the “CA 777” on United service carts stand for? I used to think it was a holdover from Continental carts that fit in a 777 but I can’t imagine why almost ever cart i e ever seen on a united plane would be a continental 777 holdover.

UAs CA777 carts existed long before the merger with CO. There are a couple of flyer talk threads that don't specifically answer the question but the "777" part has to do with the length of the cart.

It’s an old internal code that existed before the merger it allows the caterer to know the type of cart that need to be used. Take for instance a Polaris/PE 77E and a IPTE 77E and a GE 77E customers only see notice that the aircraft is a 777 but to our caters they need to know what type of 77E it is because the catering carts used on the Polaris/PE 77E do not fit on the IPTE 77E or the GE 77E. The same is true of the IPTE 77E and GE 77E they each have their own specific catering carts. As the entire 77E fleet is reconfigured to Polaris/PE UA replacing the old outdated carts with the new galley carts that will fit any Polaris/PE 77E regardless of the engine type. Harmonization is coming along but this has been a problem for UA ever since the merger or I should say ever since UA started cross utilizing the 77Es. However this problem is limited to just this fleet type outside of the 757 the 777 was the only fleet type both UA and CO had and the 752 galley carts could be intermixed between UA and CO because they are all the same size, the 777 carts are not all the same size but once Polaris/PE is done they all will be the same size.