jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:52 pm

Quietly last month on 2 separate occasions and under the watchful eyes of FAA inspectors UA operated two routes under the ETOPS 240 authority. UA as people may or may not remember started this process last year when they applied for ETOPS 240 authority, as expected this process has taken quite some time and UA still has a ways to go before we are granted authority. From what I've seen in the reports the multiple live test flights on both days went according to plan, all of the planning and preparation paid off.
But it also got me thinking what current and/or future UA routes could benefit from ETOPS 240 authority because from what I've heard obtaining this authority is expensive but according to people involved in the project the expected fuel savings should be significant because it will grant UA authority to utilize more efficient routes.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:01 pm

codc10 wrote:
It’s a misconception that the additional 73Gs have anything to do with the MAX grounding. United has long been in the market for used (but not run-out) 737NGs and Southwest intended to unload the ex-FL 737s when they came off lease. The transaction has been in the works for months, if not closer to a year, and the capacity is needed for United’s growth plans well after the MAX returns to service.

Though it’s gone on for more than anyone anticipated, the grounding is still viewed as an aberration and nobody is making any *long-term* capacity decisions as a result.


Exactly. Logically, if this move were done because of the MAX grounding, then Southwest would be the last carrier to be giving up planes. But I assume what happened is Southwest decided they didn't want to renew the leases on these planes (probably by figuring they had enough MAX planes coming in to cover the capacity), notified the leasing company of such, and the leasing company then put the planes on the market, and UA came calling.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
x1234
Posts: 493
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:08 pm

jayunited, what routes is UA operating ETOPS 240 authority!? is it possibly AKL-SFO as I remember Air New Zealand got ETOPS 240 for a faster routing for AKL-LAX and eventually ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE (the South Pacific route between NZ & Chile/Argentina is the longest route over-water longest from a diversion airport). LATAM also has ETOPS 330 for SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL.
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:28 pm

x1234 wrote:
jayunited, what routes is UA operating ETOPS 240 authority!? is it possibly AKL-SFO as I remember Air New Zealand got ETOPS 240 for a faster routing for AKL-LAX and eventually ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE (the South Pacific route between NZ & Chile/Argentina is the longest route over-water longest from a diversion airport). LATAM also has ETOPS 330 for SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL.


IAH-SYD
 
snuggs28
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:29 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:37 pm

codc10 wrote:
x1234 wrote:
jayunited, what routes is UA operating ETOPS 240 authority!? is it possibly AKL-SFO as I remember Air New Zealand got ETOPS 240 for a faster routing for AKL-LAX and eventually ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE (the South Pacific route between NZ & Chile/Argentina is the longest route over-water longest from a diversion airport). LATAM also has ETOPS 330 for SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL.


IAH-SYD



Right! It is about being able to take more direct routes to destinations we already serve. SYD, SIN, DEL, BOM ETC... Right now we have to flight plan for 180 ETOPS requirements. Meaning at anyone point in a flight we cannot be more that 180 minutes from any diversion Airport. Hence the big weight restrictions on IAH-SYD as one example.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1479
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 2:45 pm

snuggs28 wrote:
codc10 wrote:
x1234 wrote:
jayunited, what routes is UA operating ETOPS 240 authority!? is it possibly AKL-SFO as I remember Air New Zealand got ETOPS 240 for a faster routing for AKL-LAX and eventually ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE (the South Pacific route between NZ & Chile/Argentina is the longest route over-water longest from a diversion airport). LATAM also has ETOPS 330 for SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL.


IAH-SYD



Right! It is about being able to take more direct routes to destinations we already serve. SYD, SIN, DEL, BOM ETC... Right now we have to flight plan for 180 ETOPS requirements. Meaning at anyone point in a flight we cannot be more that 180 minutes from any diversion Airport. Hence the big weight restrictions on IAH-SYD as one example.


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.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 3:36 pm

x1234 wrote:
jayunited, what routes is UA operating ETOPS 240 authority!? is it possibly AKL-SFO as I remember Air New Zealand got ETOPS 240 for a faster routing for AKL-LAX and eventually ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE (the South Pacific route between NZ & Chile/Argentina is the longest route over-water longest from a diversion airport). LATAM also has ETOPS 330 for SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL.


I can't disclose the exact routes as more test are yet to come but one was Pacific the other was Polar from 2 different hubs.
 
codc10
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:09 pm

jayunited wrote:
x1234 wrote:
jayunited, what routes is UA operating ETOPS 240 authority!? is it possibly AKL-SFO as I remember Air New Zealand got ETOPS 240 for a faster routing for AKL-LAX and eventually ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE (the South Pacific route between NZ & Chile/Argentina is the longest route over-water longest from a diversion airport). LATAM also has ETOPS 330 for SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL.


I can't disclose the exact routes as more test are yet to come but one was Pacific the other was Polar from 2 different hubs.


I'm not with the company so I'm not privy to any inside information, although I know there are certain airfields in Siberia and Mongolia that are nominally ETOPS alternates capable of handling 777s or 787s, but it is understood by pilots that they will not divert there except under the most extraordinarily dire of circumstances (e.g., airplane is on fire). Any other reason for diversion, including medical, would be better handled elsewhere.

Not sure if this has any bearing on the trials.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:11 pm

[twoid][/twoid]
jayunited wrote:
x1234 wrote:
jayunited, what routes is UA operating ETOPS 240 authority!? is it possibly AKL-SFO as I remember Air New Zealand got ETOPS 240 for a faster routing for AKL-LAX and eventually ETOPS 330 for AKL-EZE (the South Pacific route between NZ & Chile/Argentina is the longest route over-water longest from a diversion airport). LATAM also has ETOPS 330 for SCL-AKL/SYD/MEL.


I can't disclose the exact routes as more test are yet to come but one was Pacific the other was Polar from 2 different hubs.


Jay the 787 has been running ETOPS 240 for a couple years. We have unlimited authority in the South Pacific. The 777-300ER has also recently been given approval. It is not a secret anymore.

What you are seeing is the ETPOS 240 for the 787-10. Although UA has no intention of operating a -10 on a route that long it could be subbed in with weight restrictions if needed.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1717
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 4:11 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
codc10 wrote:
It’s a misconception that the additional 73Gs have anything to do with the MAX grounding. United has long been in the market for used (but not run-out) 737NGs and Southwest intended to unload the ex-FL 737s when they came off lease. The transaction has been in the works for months, if not closer to a year, and the capacity is needed for United’s growth plans well after the MAX returns to service.

Though it’s gone on for more than anyone anticipated, the grounding is still viewed as an aberration and nobody is making any *long-term* capacity decisions as a result.


Exactly. Logically, if this move were done because of the MAX grounding, then Southwest would be the last carrier to be giving up planes. But I assume what happened is Southwest decided they didn't want to renew the leases on these planes (probably by figuring they had enough MAX planes coming in to cover the capacity), notified the leasing company of such, and the leasing company then put the planes on the market, and UA came calling.


Yes. Plus, the UA executives said as much during the conference call when an analyst asked about this. The used aircraft additions have been going on for some time and are no deviation from the current management team's growth plan for the airline.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:02 pm

Take this with a massive grain of salt because this is literally an "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy, etc" kind of story and I have no intention of posting this in the actual MAX thread for fear of getting shredded.

But,

I picked up through the grapevine that some people in the aircraft design/manufacturing sector (and one large US-based manufacturer in particular) think the MAX has an inherent design flaw with the engines (or more precisely, the placement of the engines) which is severely disrupting the airflow over the wings. This airflow disruption is why the computers are constantly fighting to keep the thing in the air. They might be able to improve how the computers respond but the initial flaw is always going to be there. Long story short, these people think there's a chance the MAX might never fly again.

I personally find that really hard to believe but, I suppose anything is possible. In the unlikely event the MAX is permanently grounded, what will UA do? I suppose it depends a bit on what Boeing would do first but, UA has a lot of outstanding orders.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1084
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:06 pm

AviationAddict wrote:
Take this with a massive grain of salt because this is literally an "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy, etc" kind of story and I have no intention of posting this in the actual MAX thread for fear of getting shredded.

But,

I picked up through the grapevine that some people in the aircraft design/manufacturing sector (and one large US-based manufacturer in particular) think the MAX has an inherent design flaw with the engines (or more precisely, the placement of the engines) which is severely disrupting the airflow over the wings. This airflow disruption is why the computers are constantly fighting to keep the thing in the air. They might be able to improve how the computers respond but the initial flaw is always going to be there. Long story short, these people think there's a chance the MAX might never fly again.

I personally find that really hard to believe but, I suppose anything is possible. In the unlikely event the MAX is permanently grounded, what will UA do? I suppose it depends a bit on what Boeing would do first but, UA has a lot of outstanding orders.


I think if people at UA believed the theory you’re floating you’d see an extremely different posture from UA. I don’t think this view as being shared by many and thus everything you outlined has already been hashed out in the MAX thread so no need to hash it out in this one.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:06 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
Jay the 787 has been running ETOPS 240 for a couple years. We have unlimited authority in the South Pacific. The 777-300ER has also recently been given approval. It is not a secret anymore.

What you are seeing is the ETPOS 240 for the 787-10. Although UA has no intention of operating a -10 on a route that long it could be subbed in with weight restrictions if needed.


UA does not have ETOPS 240 authorization we just applied for authorization in April of 2018. Although the 789s and 77Ws are ETOPS 240 and I believe ETOPS 330 certified UA as an airline is not authorized to operate anything over ETOPS 180.
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:16 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
AviationAddict wrote:
Take this with a massive grain of salt because this is literally an "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy, etc" kind of story and I have no intention of posting this in the actual MAX thread for fear of getting shredded.

But,

I picked up through the grapevine that some people in the aircraft design/manufacturing sector (and one large US-based manufacturer in particular) think the MAX has an inherent design flaw with the engines (or more precisely, the placement of the engines) which is severely disrupting the airflow over the wings. This airflow disruption is why the computers are constantly fighting to keep the thing in the air. They might be able to improve how the computers respond but the initial flaw is always going to be there. Long story short, these people think there's a chance the MAX might never fly again.

I personally find that really hard to believe but, I suppose anything is possible. In the unlikely event the MAX is permanently grounded, what will UA do? I suppose it depends a bit on what Boeing would do first but, UA has a lot of outstanding orders.


I think if people at UA believed the theory you’re floating you’d see an extremely different posture from UA. I don’t think this view as being shared by many and thus everything you outlined has already been hashed out in the MAX thread so no need to hash it out in this one.



I’m not floating any theories, just repeating what I heard. As I stated I don’t believe it will happen. However, I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks UA’s contingency plan would be.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1341
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:05 pm

AviationAddict wrote:
Take this with a massive grain of salt because this is literally an "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy, etc" kind of story and I have no intention of posting this in the actual MAX thread for fear of getting shredded.

But,

I picked up through the grapevine that some people in the aircraft design/manufacturing sector (and one large US-based manufacturer in particular) think the MAX has an inherent design flaw with the engines (or more precisely, the placement of the engines) which is severely disrupting the airflow over the wings. This airflow disruption is why the computers are constantly fighting to keep the thing in the air. They might be able to improve how the computers respond but the initial flaw is always going to be there. Long story short, these people think there's a chance the MAX might never fly again.

I personally find that really hard to believe but, I suppose anything is possible. In the unlikely event the MAX is permanently grounded, what will UA do? I suppose it depends a bit on what Boeing would do first but, UA has a lot of outstanding orders.

Obviously, a rather extreme hypothetical, but just to take a stab at it. I would think that all Max customers would be offered very discounted prices on 737NG's, and UA would probably take a few to keep up their growth plans, but not so many for the purpose of retiring older frames. They might also supplement those with an A32xNEO order for some fuel efficiency and long term fleet planning, but the Airbus backlog would grow to a painful degree. Boeing would abandon their MAX and be forced to start designing the Clean sheet 737 replacement ASAP, so UA would probably want to be first in line for that plane, but it would be at least 2025 before that was realistically flying, and most likely would end any talk of the NMA/797 development.

In short, it would severely disrupt UA's long term fleet plans (and the entire airline industry's), but probably not hurt them too much in the short term.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 6:23 pm

AviationAddict wrote:
Take this with a massive grain of salt because this is literally an "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy, etc" kind of story and I have no intention of posting this in the actual MAX thread for fear of getting shredded.

But,

I picked up through the grapevine that some people in the aircraft design/manufacturing sector (and one large US-based manufacturer in particular) think the MAX has an inherent design flaw with the engines (or more precisely, the placement of the engines) which is severely disrupting the airflow over the wings. This airflow disruption is why the computers are constantly fighting to keep the thing in the air. They might be able to improve how the computers respond but the initial flaw is always going to be there. Long story short, these people think there's a chance the MAX might never fly again.

I personally find that really hard to believe but, I suppose anything is possible. In the unlikely event the MAX is permanently grounded, what will UA do? I suppose it depends a bit on what Boeing would do first but, UA has a lot of outstanding orders.



Sounds like the original problem for which MCAS was designed, run through several rounds of the telephone game.

If the engines were “severely disrupting airflow over the wings” then it’s hard to see the MAX delivering the efficiency that it has.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:35 pm

jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Jay the 787 has been running ETOPS 240 for a couple years. We have unlimited authority in the South Pacific. The 777-300ER has also recently been given approval. It is not a secret anymore.

What you are seeing is the ETPOS 240 for the 787-10. Although UA has no intention of operating a -10 on a route that long it could be subbed in with weight restrictions if needed.


UA does not have ETOPS 240 authorization we just applied for authorization in April of 2018. Although the 789s and 77Ws are ETOPS 240 and I believe ETOPS 330 certified UA as an airline is not authorized to operate anything over ETOPS 180.


This is incorrect the 787 has been operating ETOPS 240 for at least a year probably closer to 2. Just take a look at some of the IAH-SYD OFPs. I have some to prove it.

Now we are not authorized to use it throughout the world but have unlimited authority to use it in the South Pacific and on a case by case basis to use it in POLAR. I’m 99% certain the 777-300 is there same. If you have access reference the 787 FM and look at the bulletins and chapter 3-1.
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 7:49 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
AviationAddict wrote:
Take this with a massive grain of salt because this is literally an "I heard from a guy who heard from a guy, etc" kind of story and I have no intention of posting this in the actual MAX thread for fear of getting shredded.

But,

I picked up through the grapevine that some people in the aircraft design/manufacturing sector (and one large US-based manufacturer in particular) think the MAX has an inherent design flaw with the engines (or more precisely, the placement of the engines) which is severely disrupting the airflow over the wings. This airflow disruption is why the computers are constantly fighting to keep the thing in the air. They might be able to improve how the computers respond but the initial flaw is always going to be there. Long story short, these people think there's a chance the MAX might never fly again.

I personally find that really hard to believe but, I suppose anything is possible. In the unlikely event the MAX is permanently grounded, what will UA do? I suppose it depends a bit on what Boeing would do first but, UA has a lot of outstanding orders.



Sounds like the original problem for which MCAS was designed, run through several rounds of the telephone game.

If the engines were “severely disrupting airflow over the wings” then it’s hard to see the MAX delivering the efficiency that it has.


The telephone game is exactly what it is, lol. I think I was about the 4th person down the chain. Like I said, I really don't think it's going to happen but considering how much we like to postulate on the fleet in this thread I thought it would be interesting to consider the "doomsday" theory, if you will.
 
aviator96
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 8:04 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Fri Aug 02, 2019 8:45 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
Jay the 787 has been running ETOPS 240 for a couple years. We have unlimited authority in the South Pacific. The 777-300ER has also recently been given approval. It is not a secret anymore.

What you are seeing is the ETPOS 240 for the 787-10. Although UA has no intention of operating a -10 on a route that long it could be subbed in with weight restrictions if needed.


UA does not have ETOPS 240 authorization we just applied for authorization in April of 2018. Although the 789s and 77Ws are ETOPS 240 and I believe ETOPS 330 certified UA as an airline is not authorized to operate anything over ETOPS 180.


This is incorrect the 787 has been operating ETOPS 240 for at least a year probably closer to 2. Just take a look at some of the IAH-SYD OFPs. I have some to prove it.

Now we are not authorized to use it throughout the world but have unlimited authority to use it in the South Pacific and on a case by case basis to use it in POLAR. I’m 99% certain the 777-300 is there same. If you have access reference the 787 FM and look at the bulletins and chapter 3-1.


The 777 is also ETOPS 240 since May. This allows for both flights over the Pacific and Polar regions. A pilot bulletin was issued marking the authorization. Approved aircraft are the -200B/C and -300.
 
SyracuseAvGeek
Posts: 442
Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:37 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:28 am

Pictures have just surfaced of United’s second Boeing 737Max9 to wear their new livery, looks like the tail number (if I’m reading it correctly) is N37521. The pictures are definitely better than of the first Max9 wearing the livery, quality of the picture that is.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0sB30th-7w ... pohvohe5ru

Have they completely done away letters following the registration for their mainline aircraft? I’m sure they have ran out of ‘UA’ tail numbers by now
"I haven't been everywhere yet, but it's on my list."
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 3845
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:32 am

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:
Pictures have just surfaced of United’s second Boeing 737Max9 to wear their new livery, looks like the tail number (if I’m reading it correctly) is N37521. The pictures are definitely better than of the first Max9 wearing the livery, quality of the picture that is.

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0sB30th-7w ... pohvohe5ru

Have they completely done away letters following the registration for their mainline aircraft? I’m sure they have ran out of ‘UA’ tail numbers by now


The 737s and 787s are following CO’s system, while the 77W and the new (used) A319/320 are following a N1234U system.
Lighten up while you still can, don't even try to understand, just find a place to make your stand and take it easy
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 5:33 am

Unless UA doesn't allow diversions to some airports on polar services, Great Circle Mapper shows no restriction for ETOPS 180 over the polar region. The only issue would be on IAH-SYD, SFO-AKL, SFO-PPT and winds could allow faster routings through the restricted area of ETOPS 180, 207 or 240 on at least some days.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:28 pm

codc10 wrote:
It’s a misconception that the additional 73Gs have anything to do with the MAX grounding. United has long been in the market for used (but not run-out) 737NGs and Southwest intended to unload the ex-FL 737s when they came off lease. The transaction has been in the works for months, if not closer to a year, and the capacity is needed for United’s growth plans well after the MAX returns to service.

Though it’s gone on for more than anyone anticipated, the grounding is still viewed as an aberration and nobody is making any *long-term* capacity decisions as a result.


You are correct, I was under the misconception that UA would have many more MAX’s than they have grounded now by November and this acquisition was to offset that. Thanks!
And actually that makes me happy because when the 150 737MAX’s are cleared, and delivered and flying revenue flights, these 70-something 73Gs will still be in the fleet. Between the new MAX’s and these used and refurbished 73G’s and used but refurbished Airbuses (and I lost track of the current grand total of new (but used) narrow bodies, UA’s domestic fleet will have grown enormously (on top of the current 737-8/900’s and old UA A319/20s (a handful I know will leave the fleet, but I don’t remember how many very old sUA Airbuses are being retired)

It is amazing (and in a way scary how fast life ‘flies’ by) that I enrolled in MileagePlus in 1991. I started a new job that year that required a lot of flying and United was the airline of choice at my new job. Since then, it’s really mind blowing to think about United’s fleet back then. The 747 ruled, but so did 767s, 757s, 727s, 3 holers and 737s. All consistent “Saul Bass” livery, JFK , then the the introduction of the 777. “MSN in the Air”. Then ever changing liveries, interiors, seating (especially First and Biz), Star Alliance formation, Global Services, etc. United’s been in a state of flux for a long, long time. The CO merger was the most impactful change of all, and now the creation of a fundamentally brand new airline, but with a legacy name! Almost nothing of “United 1991” remains, perhaps “1K”. I cannot recall when my last good Channel 9 experience was? I think the huge fleet of 747s is what I miss most.
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:02 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Unless UA doesn't allow diversions to some airports on polar services, Great Circle Mapper shows no restriction for ETOPS 180 over the polar region. The only issue would be on IAH-SYD, SFO-AKL, SFO-PPT and winds could allow faster routings through the restricted area of ETOPS 180, 207 or 240 on at least some days.


There are a lot of restrictions with Polar. For example United prohibits the use of airports that are true (not mag) forETOPS alternates. That really limits the selection especially when big air masses roll in. ETOPS 180 will work most days and when it doesn’t United now has ETOPS 207 and ETOPS 240 in their back pocket.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13832
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:13 pm

When the 737Max returns to service what are the chances Boeing offers United a deal for a big order similar to IAG. UA has been trying to grow their domestic Mainline fleet for a couple years now , mostly through used A319s and 73Gs. An order of 150 - 200 73Max would go a long way to growing the fleet and providing a replacement for their oldest A320s which are going to reach 30 years of service in 2023.

United needs a large order like this to catch up to AA and DL’s domestic fleets. The used A319s and 73Gs are helping, but it’s a slow process. Also Boeing needs a large sale to help restore confidence in the program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 5432
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:08 pm

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.
 
UAinAUS
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2016 8:11 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:54 pm

UAX Update:

CR2:
N868AS left ExpressJet and is now flying Skywest for UAX

CR7:
N156GJ back in revenue service

CR5:
N157GJ ferried TUS to STL
N162GJ ferried AMA for paint
N161GJ ferried AMA to TUS for CR5 interior
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 3:58 pm

STT757 wrote:
When the 737Max returns to service what are the chances Boeing offers United a deal for a big order similar to IAG. UA has been trying to grow their domestic Mainline fleet for a couple years now , mostly through used A319s and 73Gs. An order of 150 - 200 73Max would go a long way to growing the fleet and providing a replacement for their oldest A320s which are going to reach 30 years of service in 2023.

United needs a large order like this to catch up to AA and DL’s domestic fleets. The used A319s and 73Gs are helping, but it’s a slow process. Also Boeing needs a large sale to help restore confidence in the program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



I’m curious if they’d ever consider the MAX 8. The Airbuses and the 73Gs/738s are among the oldest types in the fleet and it seems like down the road they could end up with a big seat gap between the E175s and the 737-900ERs / MAX 9s. I’m guessing they don’t want/need a one-for-one replacement of the A320s and 738s but I would think a modest fleet of MAX 8 sized aircraft would be good.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 2618
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:12 pm

AviationAddict wrote:
STT757 wrote:
When the 737Max returns to service what are the chances Boeing offers United a deal for a big order similar to IAG. UA has been trying to grow their domestic Mainline fleet for a couple years now , mostly through used A319s and 73Gs. An order of 150 - 200 73Max would go a long way to growing the fleet and providing a replacement for their oldest A320s which are going to reach 30 years of service in 2023.

United needs a large order like this to catch up to AA and DL’s domestic fleets. The used A319s and 73Gs are helping, but it’s a slow process. Also Boeing needs a large sale to help restore confidence in the program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



I’m curious if they’d ever consider the MAX 8. The Airbuses and the 73Gs/738s are among the oldest types in the fleet and it seems like down the road they could end up with a big seat gap between the E175s and the 737-900ERs / MAX 9s. I’m guessing they don’t want/need a one-for-one replacement of the A320s and 738s but I would think a modest fleet of MAX 8 sized aircraft would be good.


Apparently they are getting some MAX 8s, fleet numbers and such have been assigned. It was talked about further up this thread.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:07 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
This is incorrect the 787 has been operating ETOPS 240 for at least a year probably closer to 2. Just take a look at some of the IAH-SYD OFPs. I have some to prove it.

Now we are not authorized to use it throughout the world but have unlimited authority to use it in the South Pacific and on a case by case basis to use it in POLAR. I’m 99% certain the 777-300 is there same. If you have access reference the 787 FM and look at the bulletins and chapter 3-1.



I don't have access to the 787 FM but I do have the internal documentation showing UA first applied for ETOPS 240 authorization on April 17, 2018. According to the documentation (which I can not post because it isn't on any public website) UA is the the first and only US carrier to seek ETOPS 240 authorization so the FAA is being extremely demanding and thorough in this process. UA along with the FAA conducted multiple table top exercises, last year and UA expects to receive final approval. If final approval is granted according to the internal documentation ETOPS 240 would eliminate the need to block any seats during winter ops on SFO-SIN and UA would be able to sell up to an additional 40 seats on the 789 flying IAH-SYD from mid-December through Feburary.

Looking at IATA 2018/19 winter operation UA was still blocking seats in January and February on the SFO-SIN leg and we were still blocking seats on the IAH-SYD leg as well. If we already have ETOPS 240 authorization and were actually flying these routes then why was UA still blocking seats last winter on both these legs and why then do we expect different results in winter 2019/2020. I can only go by what I'm seeing and the information I'm seeing is leading me to believe UA still does not have ETOPS 240 authority but we expect to have this authority in time for the upcoming winter season.
Full disclosure UA still knows we will have to block some seats on IAH-SYD from mid-December through February but the expectation going into the winter season this year is we will be able to sell up to 40 additional seats on the outbound leg.
Last edited by jayunited on Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:19 pm

jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
This is incorrect the 787 has been operating ETOPS 240 for at least a year probably closer to 2. Just take a look at some of the IAH-SYD OFPs. I have some to prove it.

Now we are not authorized to use it throughout the world but have unlimited authority to use it in the South Pacific and on a case by case basis to use it in POLAR. I’m 99% certain the 777-300 is there same. If you have access reference the 787 FM and look at the bulletins and chapter 3-1.



I don't have access to the 787 FM but I do have the internal documentation showing UA first applied for ETOPS 240 authorization on April 17, 2018. According to the documentation (which I can not post because it isn't on any public website) UA is the the first and only US carrier to seek ETOPS 240 authorization so th eFAA is being extremely demanding and thorough in this process. UA along with the FAA conducted multiple table top exercises, last year and UA expects to receive final approval. If final approval is granted according to the internal documentation ETOPS 240 would eliminate the need to block any seats on during the winter on SFO-SIN and UA would be able to sell up to an additional 40 seats IAH-SYD from mid-December through Feburary.

Looking at IATA 2018/19 winter operation UA was still blocking seats in January and February on the SFO-SIN leg and we were still blocking seats on the IAH-SYD leg as well. If we already have ETOPS 240 authorization and were actually flying these routes then why was UA still blocking seats last winter on both these legs and why then do we expect different results in winter 2019/2020. I can only go by what I'm seeing and the information I'm seeing is leading me to believe UA still does not have ETOPS 240 authority but we expect to have this authority in time for the upcoming winter season.
Full disclosure UA still knows we will have to block some seats on IAH-SYD from mid-December through February but the expectation going into the winter season this year is we will be able to sell up to 40 additional seats on the outbound leg.


Jay I respect you buddy, and look forward to your posts. I don’t know what to tell you. I have flown ETOPS 240 and there was no FAA oversite that I was aware of.....as far as my manual, pilot bulletins and training are concerned I’m allowed to do it.

I won’t keep beating this dead horse. We have a Willis tower person saying no based on documents and you have a 787 pilot who has actually been dispatched and flown ETOPS 240 at United.

Either the was FAA watching me from OKC and I didn’t know it or it we are approved either way it is happening when it is bennificial.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 7:23 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:
jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
This is incorrect the 787 has been operating ETOPS 240 for at least a year probably closer to 2. Just take a look at some of the IAH-SYD OFPs. I have some to prove it.

Now we are not authorized to use it throughout the world but have unlimited authority to use it in the South Pacific and on a case by case basis to use it in POLAR. I’m 99% certain the 777-300 is there same. If you have access reference the 787 FM and look at the bulletins and chapter 3-1.



I don't have access to the 787 FM but I do have the internal documentation showing UA first applied for ETOPS 240 authorization on April 17, 2018. According to the documentation (which I can not post because it isn't on any public website) UA is the the first and only US carrier to seek ETOPS 240 authorization so th eFAA is being extremely demanding and thorough in this process. UA along with the FAA conducted multiple table top exercises, last year and UA expects to receive final approval. If final approval is granted according to the internal documentation ETOPS 240 would eliminate the need to block any seats on during the winter on SFO-SIN and UA would be able to sell up to an additional 40 seats IAH-SYD from mid-December through Feburary.

Looking at IATA 2018/19 winter operation UA was still blocking seats in January and February on the SFO-SIN leg and we were still blocking seats on the IAH-SYD leg as well. If we already have ETOPS 240 authorization and were actually flying these routes then why was UA still blocking seats last winter on both these legs and why then do we expect different results in winter 2019/2020. I can only go by what I'm seeing and the information I'm seeing is leading me to believe UA still does not have ETOPS 240 authority but we expect to have this authority in time for the upcoming winter season.
Full disclosure UA still knows we will have to block some seats on IAH-SYD from mid-December through February but the expectation going into the winter season this year is we will be able to sell up to 40 additional seats on the outbound leg.


Jay I respect you buddy, and look forward to your posts. I don’t know what to tell you. I have flown ETOPS 240 and there was no FAA oversite that I was aware of.....as far as my manual, pilot bulletins and training are concerned I’m allowed to do it.

I won’t keep beating this dead horse. We have a Willis tower person saying no based on documents and you have a 787 pilot who has actually been dispatched and flown ETOPS 240 at United.

Either the was FAA watching me from OKC and I didn’t know it or it we are approved either way it is happening when it is bennificial.


I respect and appreciate your input as well like I said I can only go by what I'm seeing but you are a pilot out there in the real world so I'll take your word that UA is already flying ETOPS 240.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 78
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:19 pm

jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
jayunited wrote:


I don't have access to the 787 FM but I do have the internal documentation showing UA first applied for ETOPS 240 authorization on April 17, 2018. According to the documentation (which I can not post because it isn't on any public website) UA is the the first and only US carrier to seek ETOPS 240 authorization so th eFAA is being extremely demanding and thorough in this process. UA along with the FAA conducted multiple table top exercises, last year and UA expects to receive final approval. If final approval is granted according to the internal documentation ETOPS 240 would eliminate the need to block any seats on during the winter on SFO-SIN and UA would be able to sell up to an additional 40 seats IAH-SYD from mid-December through Feburary.

Looking at IATA 2018/19 winter operation UA was still blocking seats in January and February on the SFO-SIN leg and we were still blocking seats on the IAH-SYD leg as well. If we already have ETOPS 240 authorization and were actually flying these routes then why was UA still blocking seats last winter on both these legs and why then do we expect different results in winter 2019/2020. I can only go by what I'm seeing and the information I'm seeing is leading me to believe UA still does not have ETOPS 240 authority but we expect to have this authority in time for the upcoming winter season.
Full disclosure UA still knows we will have to block some seats on IAH-SYD from mid-December through February but the expectation going into the winter season this year is we will be able to sell up to 40 additional seats on the outbound leg.


Jay I respect you buddy, and look forward to your posts. I don’t know what to tell you. I have flown ETOPS 240 and there was no FAA oversite that I was aware of.....as far as my manual, pilot bulletins and training are concerned I’m allowed to do it.

I won’t keep beating this dead horse. We have a Willis tower person saying no based on documents and you have a 787 pilot who has actually been dispatched and flown ETOPS 240 at United.

Either the was FAA watching me from OKC and I didn’t know it or it we are approved either way it is happening when it is bennificial.


I respect and appreciate your input as well like I said I can only go by what I'm seeing but you are a pilot out there in the real world so I'll take your word that UA is already flying ETOPS 240.



Jay,

As a non 787 pilot, I can look up the bulletin, 19-09 , 207- and 240- minute ETOPs. Date 3 May 2019. It’s in the 787 Flight Manual.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sat Aug 03, 2019 10:33 pm

EssentialBusDC wrote:
jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:

Jay I respect you buddy, and look forward to your posts. I don’t know what to tell you. I have flown ETOPS 240 and there was no FAA oversite that I was aware of.....as far as my manual, pilot bulletins and training are concerned I’m allowed to do it.

I won’t keep beating this dead horse. We have a Willis tower person saying no based on documents and you have a 787 pilot who has actually been dispatched and flown ETOPS 240 at United.

Either the was FAA watching me from OKC and I didn’t know it or it we are approved either way it is happening when it is bennificial.


I respect and appreciate your input as well like I said I can only go by what I'm seeing but you are a pilot out there in the real world so I'll take your word that UA is already flying ETOPS 240.



Jay,

As a non 787 pilot, I can look up the bulletin, 19-09 , 207- and 240- minute ETOPs. Date 3 May 2019. It’s in the 787 Flight Manual.


Oh okay the documentation I'm looking at was dated last year but the most recent one was dated August 1, 2019 stating we expect approval but I guess we already have it and are flying ETOPS 240. Thank you I appreciate your post.

I guess winter 2019/2020 will tell if it is worth it especially if everything works out how UA expects it to; no seats blocked on SFO-SIN and the ability to sell up to 40 additional seats on the IAH-SYD leg.
 
AviationAddict
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2006 2:37 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:33 am

ikolkyo wrote:
AviationAddict wrote:
STT757 wrote:
When the 737Max returns to service what are the chances Boeing offers United a deal for a big order similar to IAG. UA has been trying to grow their domestic Mainline fleet for a couple years now , mostly through used A319s and 73Gs. An order of 150 - 200 73Max would go a long way to growing the fleet and providing a replacement for their oldest A320s which are going to reach 30 years of service in 2023.

United needs a large order like this to catch up to AA and DL’s domestic fleets. The used A319s and 73Gs are helping, but it’s a slow process. Also Boeing needs a large sale to help restore confidence in the program.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



I’m curious if they’d ever consider the MAX 8. The Airbuses and the 73Gs/738s are among the oldest types in the fleet and it seems like down the road they could end up with a big seat gap between the E175s and the 737-900ERs / MAX 9s. I’m guessing they don’t want/need a one-for-one replacement of the A320s and 738s but I would think a modest fleet of MAX 8 sized aircraft would be good.


Apparently they are getting some MAX 8s, fleet numbers and such have been assigned. It was talked about further up this thread.


Could be wrong but I thought that was just a small handful that had been dumped by another airline. To my knowledge they haven’t actually ordered any MAX 8s yet.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 12:44 am

I who know nothing! I am assuming that it’s 40 Economy Blocked seats. QUESTION: as per the high premium 767, could a 789 add more Polaris and Premium Economy, E+ and shrink Economy to save weight: sell more premium seats?
That said I always wonder if a Polaris seat just adds back the weight of 40 Y pax?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
User avatar
PacoMartin
Posts: 163
Joined: Sun May 27, 2018 8:18 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:29 am

STT757 wrote:
United needs a large order like this to catch up to AA and DL’s domestic fleets. The used A319s and 73Gs are helping, but it’s a slow process.


Of the four major airlines United has the smallest and oldest single aisle fleet . As far as I can tell no airline orders more than 50 single aisle jets in one year. Yet surprisingly according to BTS data United has the largest network of the four airlines.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Posts: 2168
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:30 am

VC10er wrote:
I who know nothing! I am assuming that it’s 40 Economy Blocked seats. QUESTION: as per the high premium 767, could a 789 add more Polaris and Premium Economy, E+ and shrink Economy to save weight: sell more premium seats?
That said I always wonder if a Polaris seat just adds back the weight of 40 Y pax?


The airplane is limited by MTOW. It doesn’t matter where those 40 passengers would have sat, it’s the weight of 40 passengers that must be removed to make “room” for the weight of the extra fuel being carried. Of course, UA would rather sell all of the J seats (and eventually, PE seats) and lose the lowest-fare Y passengers, but it’s not a requirement.
The plural of Airbus is Airbuses. Airbii is not a word.
There is no 787-800, nor 787-900 or 747-800. It's 787-8, 787-9, and 747-8.
A321neoLR is also unnecessary. It's simply A321LR.
Airplanes don't have isles, they have aisles.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:14 am

VC10er wrote:
I who know nothing! I am assuming that it’s 40 Economy Blocked seats. QUESTION: as per the high premium 767, could a 789 add more Polaris and Premium Economy, E+ and shrink Economy to save weight: sell more premium seats?
That said I always wonder if a Polaris seat just adds back the weight of 40 Y pax?


There are several weights for aircraft. Seats are included in the empty weight. Then there is the Zero fuel weight that’s the max load before you add the required gas. Then there’s the max weight. weight restrictions can be affected by lots of things but 40 people is 40 people it doesn’t matter what seat they occupy.

With ETOPS 240 you take fuel off the plane and that ups the max Zero Fuel Weight therefore limiting restrictions.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 3:43 am

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
 
jayunited
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:58 pm

VC10er wrote:
I who know nothing! I am assuming that it’s 40 Economy Blocked seats. QUESTION: as per the high premium 767, could a 789 add more Polaris and Premium Economy, E+ and shrink Economy to save weight: sell more premium seats?
That said I always wonder if a Polaris seat just adds back the weight of 40 Y pax?


I think the 40 additional seats UA executives are referring to would be possible in near perfect conditions.
In my opinion I don't see UA gaining enough of an advantage to get 40 additional passengers. I'm thinking UA will at least gain 20 seats nightly and on those days where the upper level winds behave we might be able to squeeze on 30 additional passengers onto the flight. I will admit I don't fully understand the inner workings of ETOPS 240 as it relates to fuel savings especially seeing you are further away from a suitable airport. But 40 additional passengers at winter weights which is 198 pounds per person equals an additional 7,920 pounds of human beings then we also have to take into account those 40 passenger will have at least 1 piece of checked luggage.

I'm not seeing 40 passengers I think 20 maybe 25 is a more realistic number for the IAH-SYD leg during winter ops. I don't know maybe a pilot can chime in with input as to how much fuel UA will actually save on these long haul routes that are operating under ETOPS 240 authorization.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 560
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:36 pm

jayunited wrote:
VC10er wrote:
I who know nothing! I am assuming that it’s 40 Economy Blocked seats. QUESTION: as per the high premium 767, could a 789 add more Polaris and Premium Economy, E+ and shrink Economy to save weight: sell more premium seats?
That said I always wonder if a Polaris seat just adds back the weight of 40 Y pax?


I think the 40 additional seats UA executives are referring to would be possible in near perfect conditions.
In my opinion I don't see UA gaining enough of an advantage to get 40 additional passengers. I'm thinking UA will at least gain 20 seats nightly and on those days where the upper level winds behave we might be able to squeeze on 30 additional passengers onto the flight. I will admit I don't fully understand the inner workings of ETOPS 240 as it relates to fuel savings especially seeing you are further away from a suitable airport. But 40 additional passengers at winter weights which is 198 pounds per person equals an additional 7,920 pounds of human beings then we also have to take into account those 40 passenger will have at least 1 piece of checked luggage.

I'm not seeing 40 passengers I think 20 maybe 25 is a more realistic number for the IAH-SYD leg during winter ops. I don't know maybe a pilot can chime in with input as to how much fuel UA will actually save on these long haul routes that are operating under ETOPS 240 authorization.


Without getting into an ETOPS class here are the basics.

You are correct we are further from our Alternates but that is a good thing. It allows us to straighten out our route. We can use Hilo as an ETOPS alternate for 180 but then we need to coast out between SAN and LAX. we can also use Hilo for 240 and we can coast out between Cabo and puerto Vallarta. You can already see the fuel savings there.

We have ETOPS CRITICAL POINTS 8-)......we are given a critical point analysis and it tells us our estimated fuel at that LAT/LONG and required fuel to the alternate in a worst case scenario. Usually at your first CP you have significantly more gas than you need because you still 10-12 hours to fly. The margin slowly closes the further into the flight you get. Sometimes at the last CP you will not have enough gas to make your Alternate so they will add gas to make it work, this is not common.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 2:51 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
VC10er wrote:
I who know nothing! I am assuming that it’s 40 Economy Blocked seats. QUESTION: as per the high premium 767, could a 789 add more Polaris and Premium Economy, E+ and shrink Economy to save weight: sell more premium seats?
That said I always wonder if a Polaris seat just adds back the weight of 40 Y pax?


The airplane is limited by MTOW. It doesn’t matter where those 40 passengers would have sat, it’s the weight of 40 passengers that must be removed to make “room” for the weight of the extra fuel being carried. Of course, UA would rather sell all of the J seats (and eventually, PE seats) and lose the lowest-fare Y passengers, but it’s not a requirement.


Ok, perhaps I did not articulate myself or my thoughts or idea well. I was thinking that a 789 configured differently to carry at least 40 passengers less, but instead of blocking seats, add more Polaris seats, add more Premium Economy seats and perhaps E+ and greatly reduce the amount of Economy seats -yes, it would be a create a sub 789 fleet (similar to the 2 different 767 configurations). Still save the weight of 40 seats blocked off but by using the floor space for more Premium seats.
Again: I am VERY FAR from an expert, but if there were more Premium seats which take up more space, reducing 40 or so less total passengers - “could” that mean the 789 when full has 40 something less passengers (or reach the required weight reduction), but more revenue seats sold at a higher price (example 8 or 9 rows of Purple Premium Economy seats) more E+ (Maybe more Polaris too)- there would not be a need to block seats and have them fly empty.
What I don’t know is: do the Polaris and Purple Premium Economy seats weigh so much more, that the weight reduction achieved by blocking 40 pax is only replaced by additional premium seat weight? So, in the end the 789 actually weighs about the same as 40 blocked, empty seats? Or could it even weigh more than 40 passengers and their luggage?
In short: could a high Premium, lower density 789 actually be filled with higher revenue paying passengers and save enough weight (like the old “all business class” Singapore A340-500 flying nonstop SIN-EWR)
(???)
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4042
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:52 pm

On a whole different topic than a ULH 789.

Once United has ALL of its MAX’s, ALL its new (used) narrow bodies- minus the retirements, and gets to scale on its domestic fleet, with DL, AA & Southwest and the others, will United have the routes, slots, frequencies and enough stroopwaffles? Today it seems like almost every major airport is choking already with congestion.

I don’t know the number, I couldn’t even take a shot at the math. But, I’d guess UA will have close to 200 to 250 narrow body aircraft over and above what they already have today. How do they schedule so many new aircraft into the skies, so many seats added to the skies, when everyone else seems so far ahead?
To Most the Sky is The Limit, For me, the Sky is Home.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 397
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 7:28 pm

VC10er wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
sketch wrote:
Southwest cabin is all economy, and apparently 31" pitch on the 737-700 (32" on everything else). United apparently uses 30" pitch in economy on their 737-700.

I'd assume United will just replace it all with their standard config but you never know. At least, I don't know.


The cabin refit is pretty straight forward and quick to accomplish. The longest part of the indoc process is getting the aircraft up to United's maintenance requirements and paperwork compliance. This will be easier with the WN aircraft than CZ A319s as they are already compliant with FAA requirements (that is NOT to say that the Chinese aircraft are not maintained well, just that the regulatory requirements vary)


THANK YOU SO MUCH! I guess each of us have specific or particular interests of the many different ways we love airplanes and the aviation business as a whole. One of my top interests is “branding” overall (not just livery) and watching how well an airline executed their branding- from aesthetics, to message, quality of execution and consistency. I happen to really like the new Priestman-Goode designed interiors for UA, and happen to really dislike the old standard solid blue grey “everything”, such as a 737-8/900, or 752 or 764 is today. It’s so boring and simply reinforces United’s (soon to be old) ordinariness, lack of style.
BUT, when I have been on the new (used) renovated A319s that got the FULL treatment inside, I personally was so impressed by how new, modern and stylish it is- not overboard in styling, but tailored and classy. (Ex: Lufthansa is so perfectly consistent and branded, you do, as a pax, get the sense of how proud LH is of being LH)
Back to United, the few 763s that have been refurbished I’ve flown, the new 763s look, feel and smell factory new. The well done branding inside makes United look proud to be United, and really says “a new United is coming”People are truly astonished when I tell them roughly how old that 767 actually is!

I was worried that given the urgent need for these 737s due to the MAX delays, that UA would fly them with WN interiors but with UA seats, only adding more inconsistencies.

So, thanks again!


I agree. They did a really nice job on the 763 refurbs. They look like a new aircraft and the colors/styles speak very well for the brand.
 
Pinto
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:48 pm

VC10er wrote:
hOMSaR wrote:
VC10er wrote:
I who know nothing! I am assuming that it’s 40 Economy Blocked seats. QUESTION: as per the high premium 767, could a 789 add more Polaris and Premium Economy, E+ and shrink Economy to save weight: sell more premium seats?
That said I always wonder if a Polaris seat just adds back the weight of 40 Y pax?


The airplane is limited by MTOW. It doesn’t matter where those 40 passengers would have sat, it’s the weight of 40 passengers that must be removed to make “room” for the weight of the extra fuel being carried. Of course, UA would rather sell all of the J seats (and eventually, PE seats) and lose the lowest-fare Y passengers, but it’s not a requirement.


Ok, perhaps I did not articulate myself or my thoughts or idea well. I was thinking that a 789 configured differently to carry at least 40 passengers less, but instead of blocking seats, add more Polaris seats, add more Premium Economy seats and perhaps E+ and greatly reduce the amount of Economy seats -yes, it would be a create a sub 789 fleet (similar to the 2 different 767 configurations). Still save the weight of 40 seats blocked off but by using the floor space for more Premium seats.
Again: I am VERY FAR from an expert, but if there were more Premium seats which take up more space, reducing 40 or so less total passengers - “could” that mean the 789 when full has 40 something less passengers (or reach the required weight reduction), but more revenue seats sold at a higher price (example 8 or 9 rows of Purple Premium Economy seats) more E+ (Maybe more Polaris too)- there would not be a need to block seats and have them fly empty.
What I don’t know is: do the Polaris and Purple Premium Economy seats weigh so much more, that the weight reduction achieved by blocking 40 pax is only replaced by additional premium seat weight? So, in the end the 789 actually weighs about the same as 40 blocked, empty seats? Or could it even weigh more than 40 passengers and their luggage?
In short: could a high Premium, lower density 789 actually be filled with higher revenue paying passengers and save enough weight (like the old “all business class” Singapore A340-500 flying nonstop SIN-EWR)
(???)


When UA announced the "High J" 767-300ERs Oscar commented how adding sub fleets can be tricky. The reason that UA is doing them for the 763s is that when they are all done they will most likely be all operating Tran Atlantic flights. This mean that they need 1 aircraft per route.
UA will probably not make a 789 sub fleet because scheduling would be challenging. UA would have to rework flight times as most of the ULHs leave late at night meaning there would be low utilization during the day, minus the morning SFO-SIN.
The other reason that having the a sub fleet (the Premium A350-900ULRs) works for SQ is because they just have the one hub at SIN. At best you have flights from 2 hubs and no easy swap point for the aircraft unless you ran domestic SFO-IAH. I think it would be unlikely for them to setup the sub fleet to go IAH-SYD-SFO as that would help the IAH route but cut seats from the SFO route. Also with that then you have the LAX-SYD.
So while you gain the seat on IAH-SYD you loose the extra seats on any other routes you put that plane on.

The new Polairs 789s will have 5 less seats then the current ones so the will likely still have to hold seats.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 2894
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:49 pm

763:
N685UA, former N590HA did a test hop at HKG 8/5. Based on test hops take n by N684UA and N686UA, would expect HKG exit within about 10 days. This would place all 3 ex-HA units into service in 76L High J/PE configuration.
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:58 pm

jayunited wrote:
CriticalPoint wrote:
This is incorrect the 787 has been operating ETOPS 240 for at least a year probably closer to 2. Just take a look at some of the IAH-SYD OFPs. I have some to prove it.

Now we are not authorized to use it throughout the world but have unlimited authority to use it in the South Pacific and on a case by case basis to use it in POLAR. I’m 99% certain the 777-300 is there same. If you have access reference the 787 FM and look at the bulletins and chapter 3-1.



I don't have access to the 787 FM but I do have the internal documentation showing UA first applied for ETOPS 240 authorization on April 17, 2018. According to the documentation (which I can not post because it isn't on any public website) UA is the the first and only US carrier to seek ETOPS 240 authorization so the FAA is being extremely demanding and thorough in this process. UA along with the FAA conducted multiple table top exercises, last year and UA expects to receive final approval. If final approval is granted according to the internal documentation ETOPS 240 would eliminate the need to block any seats during winter ops on SFO-SIN and UA would be able to sell up to an additional 40 seats on the 789 flying IAH-SYD from mid-December through Feburary.

Looking at IATA 2018/19 winter operation UA was still blocking seats in January and February on the SFO-SIN leg and we were still blocking seats on the IAH-SYD leg as well. If we already have ETOPS 240 authorization and were actually flying these routes then why was UA still blocking seats last winter on both these legs and why then do we expect different results in winter 2019/2020. I can only go by what I'm seeing and the information I'm seeing is leading me to believe UA still does not have ETOPS 240 authority but we expect to have this authority in time for the upcoming winter season.
Full disclosure UA still knows we will have to block some seats on IAH-SYD from mid-December through February but the expectation going into the winter season this year is we will be able to sell up to 40 additional seats on the outbound leg.

ETOPS 240 has been in use on select flights for well over a year.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23641
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:06 pm

Ref 240 ETOPS discussion.

787 fleet was authorized back in 2018

777B/C and -300s received updated authority this year.

207/240 ETOPS usage as following:


▪ 207-minute ETOPS may only be used in the North Pacific and may only be used when dispatch utilizing a lower AOA (area of operation) is not possible.
▪ 240-minute ETOPS may only be used north of the equator in the north polar area and in the Pacific Ocean when dispatch utilizing a lower AOA (area of operation) is not possible.
▪ 240-minute ETOPS may be used when dispatched south of the equator to Australia, New Zealand, and Polynesia on an unlimited authority.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 3495
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: United Fleet/Network Thread - 2019

Mon Aug 05, 2019 3:17 pm

The fleet changes and fleet status posts at the start of this thread have been updated.

✈️ atcsundevil

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

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

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

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

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

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

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

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos