1989worstyear
Posts: 640
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:10 am

Does a anyone know where the extra 77W will end up?
Stuck at age 15 thanks to the certification date of the A320-200 and my parents' decision to postpone having a kid by 3 years. At least there's Dignitas...
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:53 am

airzim wrote:
Which is exactly in the spot over the Gulf of Oman where the Iranians shot down the US drone; this time.


No it is not, geography may not be your strong area. The Global Hawk got shot down over international waters just to the south of Bandar Abbas, the headquarters of the Iranian Navy. Very nearby where the US shot down Iran Air Flight 655.

The suggested route through UAE and Oman a much further south, in magenta, Iranian Airspace marked, as well as the approximate position of the Global Hawk shoot down.

Image

airzim wrote:
These drones have nearly the same wing span as a 747, and fly at altitudes similar to commercial traffic.


They do not have the wingspan of a 747, more like a 757. There was a commercial airliner just 45 nm away at the time it got shot down.

airzim wrote:
I think it’s entirely reasonable for a US company, with consultation and considerations with relevant authorities to make the decision not to fly in this particular region at this time.


I think that is fair, just own the decision and don't lie about it.

airzim wrote:
I’m not really understanding all the pushback from you.


My "push-back" is all the lies that have been told on this thread about technical reasons why the flight cannot go from Pakistan Airspace closures, 77W not having the performance, FAR regulations would be busted, or crew duty limits. All of this has been debunked as being false. If they have made an internal assessment fair enough, but don't go around and make public statements like Pakistan Airspace is closed when your aircraft have been flying though it, and anyone with a a little bit of effort looking at FR24 can see that.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
avier
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:38 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:26 am

UA 77W parked in BOM after suspension of flights between US-India. Wonder what happens to this bird.

Image
Source: ET Journo- Tarun Shukla
 
YIMBY
Posts: 629
Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2016 4:32 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:41 am

jayunited wrote:
Planes4you wrote:
I agree with judge1310 but I have to ask would it be possible for BOM-NRT-EWR?


If UA wanted to operate a one stop flight they most certainly could do that but are additional cost associated with operating a one stop flight. Look at UA's over all international long haul network and show me where you see any one stop flights. There is a reason airlines are moving more and more towards nonstop flights cost is a huge factor and many people prefer nonstop over one stop.

People seem to forget just a few months ago for 4-5 straight weeks UA operated both DEL-EWR and BOM-EWR with a tech stop in Germany the cost of that tech stop was huge. To get around the tech stop for BOM-EWR UA began flying over Iran. Now with Pakistan airspace still closed and Iranian airspace no longer available UA the only choice is to suspend service. The reason EWR-DEL-EWR was suspended was because the tech stop meant the route was no longer profitable the same applies to EWR-BOM-EWR.


Actually a scheduled fuel stop can save money (and certainly environment) because you have to burn less fuel to carry fuel. There are many variables, though, and ad hoc changes always cost a lot.

The real point is that some passengers pay premium to get a direct non-stop flight and you will lose them. Most cost-sensitive pax anyway travel through an intermediate hub since it is cheaper and UA does offer its feed (no idea what fraction).
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14320
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:19 am

Another possible issue for UA and other operators is availability and access to diversion airports and their routes in case of an emergency if used alternative routes.
As to reassignment of the 77W, perhaps a swap out for the summer on the LAX or EWR-LHR route to increase capacity on a high demand route.
 
avier
Posts: 915
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2018 12:38 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 12:28 pm

avier wrote:
UA 77W parked in BOM after suspension of flights between US-India. Wonder what happens to this bird.

Image
Source: ET Journo- Tarun Shukla


Ok, it just departed to Honolulu from Mumbai. Very interesting routing. BOM-HNL-EWR.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/ua2823
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 3138
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:27 pm

Zeke - appreciate your posts here. Incidentally the suggested route confirms my 'string and a 16 inch globe' guesstimate. UA seems to have realized that all US planes should stay out of what could become war zones.

ps - hoping saner voices cool this whole thing down, even saner voices from unexpected sources.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:44 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
Heard unconfirmed sayings that UA48 was near where the drome was shot down at the time - if true this explains why UA suspends the route immediately with a 77W (N2644U) still sitting in BOM at this moment. The plane is planning a ferry to HNL tomorrow afternoon local time.

Michael


Not true. The flight plan filed went right over Iran and nowhere near the Strait of Hormuz where the aforementioned incident occurred...

Thanks, I saw UA48's path but not sure about where the drone was downed and hence what I said.

Cheers
Michael
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1349
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 1:52 pm

YYZflyboy wrote:
If anything, SQ and CX are going to benefit from this issue of closure to Iranian airspace. No need to fly over Iran to get to Hong Kong or Singapore.

SQ literally flies over Iran right now for most of its Western & Southern European flights - LHR, FRA, CDG, ZRH, IST you name it. And it still does.

At the time I typed this they have SQ326 and SQ391 over Iran right now, with SQ318 just passed through it, and five more (SQ327, SQ335, SQ345, SQ355, and SQ25) heading towards Iran.

CX though usually uses China for most if not all of its European flights so this does have zero impact on their ops.

Michael
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 602
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:51 pm

zeke wrote:
airzim wrote:
Which is exactly in the spot over the Gulf of Oman where the Iranians shot down the US drone; this time.


No it is not, geography may not be your strong area. The Global Hawk got shot down over international waters just to the south of Bandar Abbas, the headquarters of the Iranian Navy. Very nearby where the US shot down Iran Air Flight 655.

The suggested route through UAE and Oman a much further south, in magenta, Iranian Airspace marked, as well as the approximate position of the Global Hawk shoot down.

Image

airzim wrote:
These drones have nearly the same wing span as a 747, and fly at altitudes similar to commercial traffic.


They do not have the wingspan of a 747, more like a 757. There was a commercial airliner just 45 nm away at the time it got shot down.

airzim wrote:
I think it’s entirely reasonable for a US company, with consultation and considerations with relevant authorities to make the decision not to fly in this particular region at this time.


I think that is fair, just own the decision and don't lie about it.

airzim wrote:
I’m not really understanding all the pushback from you.


My "push-back" is all the lies that have been told on this thread about technical reasons why the flight cannot go from Pakistan Airspace closures, 77W not having the performance, FAR regulations would be busted, or crew duty limits. All of this has been debunked as being false. If they have made an internal assessment fair enough, but don't go around and make public statements like Pakistan Airspace is closed when your aircraft have been flying though it, and anyone with a a little bit of effort looking at FR24 can see that.


So the Global Hawk was shot down 21 miles from the Iranian coast, and closer to Iran than to any other country, is that right? Now let us suppose a $180 million Iranian Global Hawk, just 21 miles from Norfolk, Virgina. What does anyone think would happen to such a winged automat? So and you blame Iran?
 
x1234
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:54 pm

The 77W just entered Chinese airspace and it basically flying BOM-PVG-HNL-EWR with a refueling stop in HNL (long way around).
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 794
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 3:59 pm

x1234 wrote:
The 77W just entered Chinese airspace and it basically flying BOM-PVG-HNL-EWR with a refueling stop in HNL (long way around).



The HNL-EWR leg is being sold by UA.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/tomorrow- ... 50k-miles/
Boiler Up!
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 4:45 pm

zeke wrote:
airzim wrote:
Which is exactly in the spot over the Gulf of Oman where the Iranians shot down the US drone; this time.


No it is not, geography may not be your strong area. The Global Hawk got shot down over international waters just to the south of Bandar Abbas, the headquarters of the Iranian Navy. Very nearby where the US shot down Iran Air Flight 655.

The suggested route through UAE and Oman a much further south, in magenta, Iranian Airspace marked, as well as the approximate position of the Global Hawk shoot down.

Image

airzim wrote:
These drones have nearly the same wing span as a 747, and fly at altitudes similar to commercial traffic.


They do not have the wingspan of a 747, more like a 757. There was a commercial airliner just 45 nm away at the time it got shot down.

airzim wrote:
I think it’s entirely reasonable for a US company, with consultation and considerations with relevant authorities to make the decision not to fly in this particular region at this time.


I think that is fair, just own the decision and don't lie about it.

airzim wrote:
I’m not really understanding all the pushback from you.


My "push-back" is all the lies that have been told on this thread about technical reasons why the flight cannot go from Pakistan Airspace closures, 77W not having the performance, FAR regulations would be busted, or crew duty limits. All of this has been debunked as being false. If they have made an internal assessment fair enough, but don't go around and make public statements like Pakistan Airspace is closed when your aircraft have been flying though it, and anyone with a a little bit of effort looking at FR24 can see that.


What is the point of your arguing? And what did United lie about?

The internal audit said no more. We are done. FAA imposed restrictions in the region. As a US Flag carrier, its a risk that we (United) are not willing to take. What other non-US carriers choose to do it up to them and their respective governments. We have flown every available route that was allowed per NOTAM and restrictions. This isn't about routes anymore. Its about common sense. End of discussion.
You're trying to split hairs and being overly technical about stuff you do not fully understand. I mean no offense, but these decisions are analyzed by professionals who have been doing this their entire careers. Decades upon decades of experience in risk assessment and planning within the region (and globe), constant communication with the FAA and DOD. Not some arm chair airliners.net poster.

I bet if United didn't stop flying and something catastrophic happened we'd be seeing threads on why United was negligent and killed people for not stopping service. :banghead:
 
User avatar
readytotaxi
Posts: 6641
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2006 2:09 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:39 pm

Web500sjc wrote:
x1234 wrote:
The 77W just entered Chinese airspace and it basically flying BOM-PVG-HNL-EWR with a refueling stop in HNL (long way around).



The HNL-EWR leg is being sold by UA.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/tomorrow- ... 50k-miles/

Might as well try and make some cash if you gotta fly the route.
you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
Growing older, but not up.
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 2104
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:15 pm

UA's reroute of EWR/BOM is not just a tech stop in HNL, it's a RON with crew change.
https://www.staradvertiser.com/2019/06/ ... -airspace/
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 9257
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:40 pm

spinotter wrote:
So the Global Hawk was shot down 21 miles from the Iranian coast, and closer to Iran than to any other country, is that right? Now let us suppose a $180 million Iranian Global Hawk, just 21 miles from Norfolk, Virgina. What does anyone think would happen to such a winged automat? So and you blame Iran?


Which part of territorial waters is unclear to you?
I have a three post per topic limit. You're welcome to have the last word.
 
x1234
Posts: 506
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:55 pm

Wow that flight actually has passengers on it. If they wanted to AVOID Iranian airspace they could have flown via Saudi Arabia/Egyptian airspace into Greek EU airspace and overnight in FRA/MUC instead of HNL. That would have been MUCH faster.
 
STLflyer
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:08 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:23 pm

x1234 wrote:
Wow that flight actually has passengers on it. If they wanted to AVOID Iranian airspace they could have flown via Saudi Arabia/Egyptian airspace into Greek EU airspace and overnight in FRA/MUC instead of HNL. That would have been MUCH faster.


I was wondering that too. The 777 has the legs to get anywhere in Europe completely avoiding both Iranian and Pakistani airspace, why not just do that? Land for an hour or two for refueling and a crew change. Would be a lot shorter, and it's probably no more difficult to get a relief 777 crew to somewhere in Europe than to HNL for the flight to EWR.

I understand the potential visa issues - passengers on the plane may not have visas for the EU, so flying BOM - somewhere in the US avoids that. But a tech stop shouldn't require all pax to have visas.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:44 pm

STLflyer wrote:
x1234 wrote:
Wow that flight actually has passengers on it. If they wanted to AVOID Iranian airspace they could have flown via Saudi Arabia/Egyptian airspace into Greek EU airspace and overnight in FRA/MUC instead of HNL. That would have been MUCH faster.


I was wondering that too. The 777 has the legs to get anywhere in Europe completely avoiding both Iranian and Pakistani airspace, why not just do that? Land for an hour or two for refueling and a crew change. Would be a lot shorter, and it's probably no more difficult to get a relief 777 crew to somewhere in Europe than to HNL for the flight to EWR.

I understand the potential visa issues - passengers on the plane may not have visas for the EU, so flying BOM - somewhere in the US avoids that. But a tech stop shouldn't require all pax to have visas.


Again, let me repeat:

In my previous posts I stated that Saudi Arabian airspace is off-limits for UAL operations.

The entire middle East is closed due to the advisory and prohibitive NOTAMS issued. Both UA and the FAA will no longer allow US carrier operations over Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf.

So NO. We couldn't go via Europe.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:27 pm

zeke wrote:
My "push-back" is all the lies that have been told on this thread about technical reasons why the flight cannot go from Pakistan Airspace closures, 77W not having the performance, FAR regulations would be busted, or crew duty limits. All of this has been debunked as being false. If they have made an internal assessment fair enough, but don't go around and make public statements like Pakistan Airspace is closed when your aircraft have been flying though it, and anyone with a a little bit of effort looking at FR24 can see that.


There are 3 routes open that airlines can use to get to/from India. I've been told by dispatchers here at UA who have actually worked this flight there are 2 routes that are eastbound and 1 westbound route. The 2 eastbound routes route the aircraft over the Gulf of Oman, Oman, Dubai and other countries you have already suggested this route. The west bound route forces you to either enter or exit Pakistani airspace in the northwest via Iranian airspace. The problem is this to even get to the one westbound route Pakistani route UA would have to utilize Iranian airspace which is no longer allowed. The second option the 2 eastbound routes over Dubai and Oman require an aircraft to cross the Gulf of Oman and again US flagged carriers can not flyover the the northern region of the Gulf of Oman.

The route that you have suggested in this post is routes the aircraft futher to the south avoiding the northern region of the Gulf of Oman and puts the aircraft much closer to Abu Dhabi that route which avoids the now restricted area increases the fuel required which will eat away at passenger payload (because on that route the flight is weight restricted to passsenger and bags only both on the outbound and inbound). Secondly and more importantly on the return BOM-EWR the block time would exceed 17 hours not the 15 hours 30 minutes you suggested earlier in this thread which by the way is the normal flight flight time for UA49 BOM-EWR. Now that we have a block time of at least 17 hours do to the extensive reroute you now need to take into account that it takes at least 30-40 minutes on a good day for UA49 to get airborne out of India. Some days that flight sits in line for the runway an hour it becomes clear how easily UA49 can and has in the past exceed CCO. Again none of what you have suggested is new UA has been operating UA49 under these conditions since Feburary and we've had to cancel UA49 on multiple occasions since February because CCO was exceed waiting in line to take off..

The operating empty weight of UA's 77Ws is 388,761 the required fuel load for the route you have suggest is at least (on the low end) 315,000 pounds for UA49, BOM-EWR. The OEW and the required fuel equals 703,761 the MTOG is 775,000. This only leave UA 71,239 pounds for passengers and bags and with DEL being suspended BOM was going out full. UA's 77W seat 350 passengers the weight of those passengers is 58,544 the weight of 500 bags at 30 pounds each (I'm not going to include any heavy bags which by the way there are always heavy bags out of India) but the weight of 500 standard weight bags is 15,000 pounds. When we combine the weight of the passenger and bags we have already exceed the MTOG of a 77W and that is with near perfect conditions. Now make the temp 28-31 degrees Celsius out of BOM because that is the normal temp we see this time of year when UA49 is scheduled to depart then lets add in a 2mph tail wind (its not uncommon for BOM to have the airport set up to take off with a tail wind) what happens to the MTOG then under those normal operating conditions. We also face the same conditions out of EWR but this year thanks to the cool spring and summer the temp out of EWR hasn't been our main problem our main problems out of EWR is wet runway conditions and taking off with tail winds because again EWR will not turn the airport around for a 2-3 mph tail wind.

No disrespect to you and your experience at which ever airline you work for but would hope that you would at least understand and that there is a difference between you plugging in fictional numbers into your system and what UA dispatchers who actually working the flight plug in theirs. Having seen the reports from February when all this mess started and having talked with actual dispatchers and giving you all the information that I can (I can't post internal reports) I can tell you this with the new FAA restrictions concerning Iranian airspace and the northern region of the Gulf of Oman there is no way for UA to operate EWR-BOM-EWR nonstop with any type of respectable payload. To say that UA is lying to its customers or people on this thread are lying is a very strong statement a statement that has absolutely no foundation in facts but based based purely on your opinion.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:59 pm

jayunited wrote:
zeke wrote:
My "push-back" is all the lies that have been told on this thread about technical reasons why the flight cannot go from Pakistan Airspace closures, 77W not having the performance, FAR regulations would be busted, or crew duty limits. All of this has been debunked as being false. If they have made an internal assessment fair enough, but don't go around and make public statements like Pakistan Airspace is closed when your aircraft have been flying though it, and anyone with a a little bit of effort looking at FR24 can see that.


There are 3 routes open that airlines can use to get to/from India. I've been told by dispatchers here at UA who have actually worked this flight there are 2 routes that are eastbound and 1 westbound route. The 2 eastbound routes route the aircraft over the Gulf of Oman, Oman, Dubai and other countries you have already suggested this route. The west bound route forces you to either enter or exit Pakistani airspace in the northwest via Iranian airspace. The problem is this to even get to the one westbound route Pakistani route UA would have to utilize Iranian airspace which is no longer allowed. The second option the 2 eastbound routes over Dubai and Oman require an aircraft to cross the Gulf of Oman and again US flagged carriers can not flyover the the northern region of the Gulf of Oman.

The route that you have suggested in this post is routes the aircraft futher to the south avoiding the northern region of the Gulf of Oman and puts the aircraft much closer to Abu Dhabi that route which avoids the now restricted area increases the fuel required which will eat away at passenger payload (because on that route the flight is weight restricted to passsenger and bags only both on the outbound and inbound). Secondly and more importantly on the return BOM-EWR the block time would exceed 17 hours not the 15 hours 30 minutes you suggested earlier in this thread which by the way is the normal flight flight time for UA49 BOM-EWR. Now that we have a block time of at least 17 hours do to the extensive reroute you now need to take into account that it takes at least 30-40 minutes on a good day for UA49 to get airborne out of India. Some days that flight sits in line for the runway an hour it becomes clear how easily UA49 can and has in the past exceed CCO. Again none of what you have suggested is new UA has been operating UA49 under these conditions since Feburary and we've had to cancel UA49 on multiple occasions since February because CCO was exceed waiting in line to take off..

The operating empty weight of UA's 77Ws is 388,761 the required fuel load for the route you have suggest is at least (on the low end) 315,000 pounds for UA49, BOM-EWR. The OEW and the required fuel equals 703,761 the MTOG is 775,000. This only leave UA 71,239 pounds for passengers and bags and with DEL being suspended BOM was going out full. UA's 77W seat 350 passengers the weight of those passengers is 58,544 the weight of 500 bags at 30 pounds each (I'm not going to include any heavy bags which by the way there are always heavy bags out of India) but the weight of 500 standard weight bags is 15,000 pounds. When we combine the weight of the passenger and bags we have already exceed the MTOG of a 77W and that is with near perfect conditions. Now make the temp 28-31 degrees Celsius out of BOM because that is the normal temp we see this time of year when UA49 is scheduled to depart then lets add in a 2mph tail wind (its not uncommon for BOM to have the airport set up to take off with a tail wind) what happens to the MTOG then under those normal operating conditions. We also face the same conditions out of EWR but this year thanks to the cool spring and summer the temp out of EWR hasn't been our main problem our main problems out of EWR is wet runway conditions and taking off with tail winds because again EWR will not turn the airport around for a 2-3 mph tail wind.

No disrespect to you and your experience at which ever airline you work for but would hope that you would at least understand and that there is a difference between you plugging in fictional numbers into your system and what UA dispatchers who actually working the flight plug in theirs. Having seen the reports from February when all this mess started and having talked with actual dispatchers and giving you all the information that I can (I can't post internal reports) I can tell you this with the new FAA restrictions concerning Iranian airspace and the northern region of the Gulf of Oman there is no way for UA to operate EWR-BOM-EWR nonstop with any type of respectable payload. To say that UA is lying to its customers or people on this thread are lying is a very strong statement a statement that has absolutely no foundation in facts but based based purely on your opinion.


I just want to shed a tear because this is the most beautiful post I have ever seen on A.net. You sir, are 100% spot on with everything you have said.

We have subject matter experts with direct knowledge of the operation giving factual information here because we know it affects a lot of people directly (as much as can be divulged) and people STILL think the airline is making stuff up to stop flying for whatever ludacris reason.

It boggles my mind really. Nobody here really understands the nature of these flights, and what kind of preparation goes into them. The individuals with the tribal knowledge and experience are some of the best in the industry. I applaud the dispatchers, flight crews, and other NOC personnel for their hard work and dedication over the last few months.

I say bravo to my fellow coworkers!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14320
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jun 22, 2019 10:03 pm

This is not the first time a USA airline had to go 'the long way around' due to hostilities to get 'home'. The link is to great story of a PanAm 'clipper' that got stuck in New Zealand just after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese in WWII.
https://medium.com/s/story/the-long-way ... 4ca734c6bb
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 11:19 am

jayunited wrote:
There are 3 routes open that airlines can use to get to/from India. I've been told by dispatchers here at UA who have actually worked this flight there are 2 routes that are eastbound and 1 westbound route


I dont know what you have been told exactly, only what you have written. You can track west of BOM into the Oman FIR then into UAE FIR without entering the Gulf of Oman or the Karachi FIR or Tehran FIR. Many aircraft use this route every day, eg GF57 https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flig ... 7#210061c9

Image

jayunited wrote:
The west bound route forces you to either enter or exit Pakistani airspace in the northwest via Iranian airspace. The problem is this to even get to the one westbound route Pakistani route UA would have to utilize Iranian airspace which is no longer allowed.


This is false, US carriers are permitted to overfly Iran over land, they are just not permitted in the Tehran FIR over water in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, this is the actual NOTAM.

A0019/19 NOTAMN Q) KICZ/QRDLP/IV/NBO/AE/000/999/
A) KICZ PART 1 OF 2
B) 1906210148
C) PERM
E) SECURITY..UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PROHIBITION AGAINST CERTAIN FLIGHTS IN THE OVERWATER AREA OF THE TEHRAN FLIGHT INFORMATION REGION (FIR) (OIIX) ABOVE THE PERSIAN GULF AND GULF OF OMAN ONLY.

jayunited wrote:
The second option the 2 eastbound routes over Dubai and Oman require an aircraft to cross the Gulf of Oman and again US flagged carriers can not flyover the the northern region of the Gulf of Oman.


You do not enter the Tehran FIR going westbound over water on my suggested route, this is not prohibited.

jayunited wrote:
The route that you have suggested in this post is routes the aircraft futher to the south avoiding the northern region of the Gulf of Oman and puts the aircraft much closer to Abu Dhabi that route which avoids the now restricted area increases the fuel required which will eat away at passenger payload (because on that route the flight is weight restricted to passsenger and bags only both on the outbound and inbound).


I ran the flight plan over the route with a 77W yesterday, 14:50 eastbound and 15:30 west-bound. Actually shorter than some of the UA flown trips.

jayunited wrote:
Secondly and more importantly on the return BOM-EWR the block time would exceed 17 hours not the 15 hours 30 minutes you suggested earlier in this thread which by the way is the normal flight flight time for UA49 BOM-EWR. Now that we have a block time of at least 17 hours do to the extensive reroute you now need to take into account that it takes at least 30-40 minutes on a good day for UA49 to get airborne out of India. Some days that flight sits in line for the runway an hour it becomes clear how easily UA49 can and has in the past exceed CCO. Again none of what you have suggested is new UA has been operating UA49 under these conditions since Feburary and we've had to cancel UA49 on multiple occasions since February because CCO was exceed waiting in line to take off..


I just reran the flight plan, great circle distance 6774 nm, ground distance 7325 nm, air distance 7518 nm, average wind 260/15, Average headwind 13 kts, Average ISA +11. Flight time 15:16.

I dont know if this is a FRMS or non FRMS, assuming worst case it is a non FRMS, non acclimated, with class 1 rest they can do 16:30 with a 11:20 pm departure. Options available include changing the schedule to earlier in the day to get up to 18:30, or use FRMS, with FRMS they can go over 20 hours.

jayunited wrote:
The operating empty weight of UA's 77Ws is 388,761


They are very heavy compared to ours.

jayunited wrote:
the required fuel load for the route you have suggest is at least (on the low end) 315,000 pounds for UA49, BOM-EWR.

Total fuel would be about 320000 lb on the plan I just ran.

jayunited wrote:
The OEW and the required fuel equals 703,761 the MTOG is 775,000. This only leave UA 71,239 pounds for passengers and bags and with DEL being suspended BOM was going out full.


Supply and demand, charge more for tickets.

jayunited wrote:
UA's 77W seat 350 passengers the weight of those passengers is 58,544 the weight of 500 bags at 30 pounds each (I'm not going to include any heavy bags which by the way there are always heavy bags out of India) but the weight of 500 standard weight bags is 15,000 pounds. When we combine the weight of the passenger and bags we have already exceed the MTOG of a 77W and that is with near perfect conditions. Now make the temp 28-31 degrees Celsius out of BOM because that is the normal temp we see this time of year when UA49 is scheduled to depart then lets add in a 2mph tail wind (its not uncommon for BOM to have the airport set up to take off with a tail wind) what happens to the MTOG then under those normal operating conditions. We also face the same conditions out of EWR but this year thanks to the cool spring and summer the temp out of EWR hasn't been our main problem our main problems out of EWR is wet runway conditions and taking off with tail winds because again EWR will not turn the airport around for a 2-3 mph tail wind.


Yawn, very boring stuff. UA could pay for the thrust bump, alternate CG, and configure the aircraft for ULH. Why can they get it right on EWR to HKG and stuff up so much on this route.

jayunited wrote:
No disrespect to you and your experience at which ever airline you work for but would hope that you would at least understand and that there is a difference between you plugging in fictional numbers into your system and what UA dispatchers who actually working the flight plug in theirs.


None taken, but the system I am using is hardly fictional, it does ULH flight planning on 77Ws and A350s every day, on much longer flights.

jayunited wrote:
I can tell you this with the new FAA restrictions concerning Iranian airspace and the northern region of the Gulf of Oman there is no way for UA to operate EWR-BOM-EWR nonstop with any type of respectable payload.


Just to be clear, the FAA has not said UA cannot overfly Pakistan and then into Iran over land like they have been doing, only over the Gulf of Oman in Tehran Airspace.

If UA has made a commercial decision, that is fine, but stop the B/S excuses and just say so.

Image

jayunited wrote:
To say that UA is lying to its customers or people on this thread are lying is a very strong statement a statement that has absolutely no foundation in facts but based based purely on your opinion.


Let me be very clear then an re-post the full UA statement posted LAXintl by earlier in this thread. You will see they have stated "continued closure of Pakistani airspace", it is not closed, UA has been flying through it. Anyone looking at FR24 can see that.

If what LAXintl was not a "United Statement", please take it up with them, not me.

United statement:

India service suspended until 9/1
Given current events in the Middle East and the continued closure of Pakistani airspace, we have decided to suspend our service between EWR and BOM (Mumbai) and DEL (New Delhi) in India, resuming on Sept. 1, 2019 (eastbound).
General managers of our India stations have remained in close touch with affected employees as we have made our recent service adjustments and are reaching out to update them on these latest changes. Our Flight Operations and Inflight Services Crew Scheduling teams are contacting all pilots and flight attendants who are scheduled to operate these flights.
We are also contacting our customers to update them and assist those who may need to make other travel arrangements, including rebooking on other airlines or offering full refunds. Additionally, we will remain in close contact with relevant government authorities throughout the suspension in order to provide our customers with the latest updates and most efficient travel experience under these circumstances.



They have used similar words for the closure of DEL

"DEL service suspended until July
Due to seasonal winds and the continued closure of Pakistani airspace, we’re currently unable to operate our flights between New York/Newark (EWR) and New Delhi (DEL) while meeting crew flying time requirements. Beginning April 5, in order to minimize the inconveniences for our customers, we will suspend the service until July 2 for eastbound flights and July 3 for westbound flights. We’ll continue to closely monitor this situation and remain in contact with U.S. government authorities and our international partners. We’re also reaching out directly to our customers booked on these flights to provide alternative travel options, including rebooking on other airlines or offering full refunds. We will continue to operate our nonstop flights from New York/Newark to Mumbai (BOM)."


from https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united- ... ept-3.html
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
ltbewr
Posts: 14320
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:27 pm

As noted earlier, it isn't just UA that is affected, but FedEx, Atlas and other USA based freight carriers losing the ability to operate direct or non-stop flights to/from the USA or even via Europe or even Dubai due to the regional flight airspace bans.

As to going via Europe to India for USA means changing flights in Europe, during a busy leisure travel time in the summer so tight availability of seats, longer overall travel times and likely higher fares. That also means higher costs and longer delivery times for time-sensitive cargo.

There is also the reality that USA citizen travelers won't want to take the very rare chance of a flight operating over Iranian airspace and having to divert due to a mx problem into Tehran airport. Beyond the risks to USA citizens, other sanctions by the USA have made it a nightmare, as we have seen earlier this year, to get parts to fix broken aircraft that had to divert to Tehran airport.

Alternative routes for UA and other USA airlines to avoid Iranian and other regional airspace restrictions present crew time, logistical, flyover fee costs, security restrictions (like with Russia and China where the USA has seen increasing political issues with).
 
voxkel
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:17 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 2:32 pm

Apparently UA decided to fly N2644U BOM-HNL-SFO, arriving in SFO early morning local time. Does anyone know why? Could this be because many pax were anyways collecting to places in the interior US?

Also I know there are reasons, but just curious as to why they didn't just operate nonstop BOM-SFO on the 77W. Could it be crew restrictions? AI has done DEL-SFO on the 77W before, and the routing over Myanmar makes the flight from BOM not much longer.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:27 pm

Zeke I've given you all the information that I've been given and LAXintl's post that you referenced is true UA did post that on Flying Together and I think United Hub. Like I stated in my last post dispatchers here have already said there is one route airlines can use over Pakistan (you highlighted it in green) that is the only route available over Pakistan but as you noted you can only enter or depart Pakistani airspace through Iranian Airspace (depending of whether you are travel to or from BOM). From what I've been told by several people here at the NOC UA is not allowed to enter Iranian Airspace. I know what the NOTAM states that you've posted several times, I've read the FAA advisory. International airlines are able to utilize Iranian airspace but I've told for the time being UA can not enter Iranian airspace.
You want to continue to stay UA is lying that is your opinion which I respectfully disagree with you. Why UA is staying internally we can not enter Iranian airspace I don't know I don't have access to that Information. But as the only US flagged carrier which was carrying almost 350 passengers daily each way since the suspension of DEL service if they are telling dispatchers and employees at the NOC we can not utilize Iranian airspace think they have some very good reasons for saying we can not use Iranian airspace. You might be willing to take the risk, the airline you work for (which you won't say) might be willing to take the risk but UA isn't. And with all the moves UA has made in India announcing SFO-DEL (supposed to start later this year) and announcing the start of codesharing with Vistara there has to be some very compelling reasons why UA is staying we can not use Iranian airspace at this time and why the powers that be feel the best and safest course of action is to suspend service to India.

I appreciate you running the numbers using your airlines dispatch system and I'm not quite sure why your numbers again are so different from UA's actual numbers and flight times for UA49 out of BOM when utilizing a flight plan that completely avoid both Pakistani, Iranian airspace, Gulf of Oman airspace. How you are coming up with 15:35 block time routing the aircraft over Oman, Abu Dhabi and UA is showing block time son this route of 17 hours or longer and has had flights cancel because CCO was exceed while sitting in line for the runway I don't know. I can't explain the discrepancy but you want to say UA is lying to its passengers and can fly EWR-BOM-EWR safely, while not exceeding CCO and still make a profit, okay I give up.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2268
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 3:40 pm

voxkel wrote:
Apparently UA decided to fly N2644U BOM-HNL-SFO, arriving in SFO early morning local time. Does anyone know why? Could this be because many pax were anyways collecting to places in the interior US?

Also I know there are reasons, but just curious as to why they didn't just operate nonstop BOM-SFO on the 77W. Could it be crew restrictions? AI has done DEL-SFO on the 77W before, and the routing over Myanmar makes the flight from BOM not much longer.


There was only 16 passengers remaining with the flight overnight all other had been re-accommodated on other UA flights out of HNL to the mainland. With only 16 passengers left and they could be accommodated today, UA utilized N2644UA to cover for N213UA which was on maintenance instead of letting UA396 SFO-HNL which had 350 passenger booked cancel, UA utilized the 77W for this flight to give maintenance time to fix N213UA which will maintenance ferry to SFO later today.
 
hohd
Posts: 768
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:03 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:17 pm

UA can theoretically still fly nonstop EWR-BOM even with all the restrictions, but they cannot on BOM-EWR. Rather than canceling the flight is it that unprofitable that they cannot absorb the one tech stop costs on the outbound ? AI is flying nonstop both directions on the EWR-BOM-EWR flight.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 5:47 pm

OneSexyL1011 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
zeke wrote:
My "push-back" is all the lies that have been told on this thread about technical reasons why the flight cannot go from Pakistan Airspace closures, 77W not having the performance, FAR regulations would be busted, or crew duty limits. All of this has been debunked as being false. If they have made an internal assessment fair enough, but don't go around and make public statements like Pakistan Airspace is closed when your aircraft have been flying though it, and anyone with a a little bit of effort looking at FR24 can see that.


There are 3 routes open that airlines can use to get to/from India. I've been told by dispatchers here at UA who have actually worked this flight there are 2 routes that are eastbound and 1 westbound route. The 2 eastbound routes route the aircraft over the Gulf of Oman, Oman, Dubai and other countries you have already suggested this route. The west bound route forces you to either enter or exit Pakistani airspace in the northwest via Iranian airspace. The problem is this to even get to the one westbound route Pakistani route UA would have to utilize Iranian airspace which is no longer allowed. The second option the 2 eastbound routes over Dubai and Oman require an aircraft to cross the Gulf of Oman and again US flagged carriers can not flyover the the northern region of the Gulf of Oman.

The route that you have suggested in this post is routes the aircraft futher to the south avoiding the northern region of the Gulf of Oman and puts the aircraft much closer to Abu Dhabi that route which avoids the now restricted area increases the fuel required which will eat away at passenger payload (because on that route the flight is weight restricted to passsenger and bags only both on the outbound and inbound). Secondly and more importantly on the return BOM-EWR the block time would exceed 17 hours not the 15 hours 30 minutes you suggested earlier in this thread which by the way is the normal flight flight time for UA49 BOM-EWR. Now that we have a block time of at least 17 hours do to the extensive reroute you now need to take into account that it takes at least 30-40 minutes on a good day for UA49 to get airborne out of India. Some days that flight sits in line for the runway an hour it becomes clear how easily UA49 can and has in the past exceed CCO. Again none of what you have suggested is new UA has been operating UA49 under these conditions since Feburary and we've had to cancel UA49 on multiple occasions since February because CCO was exceed waiting in line to take off..

The operating empty weight of UA's 77Ws is 388,761 the required fuel load for the route you have suggest is at least (on the low end) 315,000 pounds for UA49, BOM-EWR. The OEW and the required fuel equals 703,761 the MTOG is 775,000. This only leave UA 71,239 pounds for passengers and bags and with DEL being suspended BOM was going out full. UA's 77W seat 350 passengers the weight of those passengers is 58,544 the weight of 500 bags at 30 pounds each (I'm not going to include any heavy bags which by the way there are always heavy bags out of India) but the weight of 500 standard weight bags is 15,000 pounds. When we combine the weight of the passenger and bags we have already exceed the MTOG of a 77W and that is with near perfect conditions. Now make the temp 28-31 degrees Celsius out of BOM because that is the normal temp we see this time of year when UA49 is scheduled to depart then lets add in a 2mph tail wind (its not uncommon for BOM to have the airport set up to take off with a tail wind) what happens to the MTOG then under those normal operating conditions. We also face the same conditions out of EWR but this year thanks to the cool spring and summer the temp out of EWR hasn't been our main problem our main problems out of EWR is wet runway conditions and taking off with tail winds because again EWR will not turn the airport around for a 2-3 mph tail wind.

No disrespect to you and your experience at which ever airline you work for but would hope that you would at least understand and that there is a difference between you plugging in fictional numbers into your system and what UA dispatchers who actually working the flight plug in theirs. Having seen the reports from February when all this mess started and having talked with actual dispatchers and giving you all the information that I can (I can't post internal reports) I can tell you this with the new FAA restrictions concerning Iranian airspace and the northern region of the Gulf of Oman there is no way for UA to operate EWR-BOM-EWR nonstop with any type of respectable payload. To say that UA is lying to its customers or people on this thread are lying is a very strong statement a statement that has absolutely no foundation in facts but based based purely on your opinion.


I just want to shed a tear because this is the most beautiful post I have ever seen on A.net. You sir, are 100% spot on with everything you have said.

We have subject matter experts with direct knowledge of the operation giving factual information here because we know it affects a lot of people directly (as much as can be divulged) and people STILL think the airline is making stuff up to stop flying for whatever ludacris reason.

It boggles my mind really. Nobody here really understands the nature of these flights, and what kind of preparation goes into them. The individuals with the tribal knowledge and experience are some of the best in the industry. I applaud the dispatchers, flight crews, and other NOC personnel for their hard work and dedication over the last few months.

I say bravo to my fellow coworkers!


Cheers and kudos to you all! We (industry professionals) totally appreciate and understand why folks are so interested in our business. It seems more and more these days, however, that certain "armchair CEOs" think they "know" better than the pros. We could *literally* provide the numbers, the statistics, the policies, and regulations to them but they'd continue to doubt us and, in some instances, call us liars. I don't know about the lot of you, but getting that kind of feedback time after time makes me not want to provide insight and invite thoughtful and respectful discussion anymore.
 
Lootess
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun May 13, 2018 6:15 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:34 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
I find it mind-numbing that so many folks on here seem to think that professional network planners haven't considered all possible avenues (running algorithms with data feed, as an example) to make a flight be viable.


Kind of hilarious you get the arm-chair planners that say oh just add 500 more miles in this direction. Yeah, well you're not paying the fuel bill are you? Or the idea of how much longer each stage length could get. Then the possible stop-over on the way back. Everything in this scenario could push a slightly profitable flight into the red.
 
BenflysDTW
Posts: 282
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:39 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sun Jun 23, 2019 10:42 pm

The flights will become much less attractive when the added flying time is presented.

I posted this in video form, so in case you are curious you can check it out.

https://youtu.be/tZnkdWTaOxs

Flights seem to be bookable from September’s 1st as of me looking on United.com last night.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 12:05 am

jayunited wrote:
You might be willing to take the risk, the airline you work for (which you won't say) might be willing to take the risk but UA isn't.

It's no secret around here that he works for CX.
 
CaliguyNYC
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:27 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 2:52 pm

voxkel wrote:
Also echoing some earlier posts, UA seems to know their stuff regarding route planning. Take a look at the flights they have started the past couple years, and AFAIK none of them were flops (many are very successful). I wouldn't question too much their intentions, especially in this case.

It boggles my mind that AI is still deciding to operate these DEL-VIE-ORD/JFK flights. Everyone on 101/127 is essentially a layover/connecting passenger, no one travels nonstop (or solely between DEL-VIE and VIE-ORD, for example), aka no true O/D traffic. I would imagine given a similar fare, most would flock to LH DEL-MUC-ORD or EK DEL-DXB-ORD and the likes over AI DEL-VIE-ORD. (The same is true for JFK.) It costs a lot to fuel two planes daily at an airport where the flights cannot board/disembark any passengers. UA in theory could have done the same but IMO did the logical decision to just suspend the route all together. Many people underestimate the technical expenses of a fuel stop, not to mention the lowered desirability due to the flight no longer being nonstop.

The logical decision for AI would be to route JFK/ORD through BOM. If you have to take a fuel stop, might as well do it at a place where you don't need to worry about 5th freedom rights and can can capitalize on O/D demand. Why AI does not allow bookings for BOM-IAD, I don't know. To be fair, this is the same airline that thought running LHR-EWR was a good idea lol.


Isn't it just a tech stop in VIE - so not similar to a connecting pax. One reason people fly AI is that they don't have to get off the plane and deal with connection. So still true. Also AI arrives at Del in the afternoon (rather than midnight) so many people use the AI flight to connect to domestic flights or drive to neighboring regions. Still all possible. The VIE stop is annoying but still benefits for many
 
hohd
Posts: 768
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:03 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:03 pm

AI is flying non stop EWR-BOM-EWR most of the days, big difference is UA cannot overfly Iran at least for a while. My question if these tensions between Trump admin and Iran continues for many months or even a year and Pakistan continues its restriction which is likely as they keep saying they want some deal with India, then would UA simply abandon this route (also EWR-DEL too) or will they look at alternatives. .
 
CaliguyNYC
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:27 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 5:14 pm

hohd wrote:
AI is flying non stop EWR-BOM-EWR most of the days, big difference is UA cannot overfly Iran at least for a while. My question if these tensions between Trump admin and Iran continues for many months or even a year and Pakistan continues its restriction which is likely as they keep saying they want some deal with India, then would UA simply abandon this route (also EWR-DEL too) or will they look at alternatives. .


Maybe the US & others will pressure PAK to open its airspace. PAK is using its airspace to get concessions from India. It is really dangerous to do that. It opens the door for India to do similar petty things. Net net the military incident is long over. So airspace should open
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 13990
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:04 pm

jayunited wrote:
You want to continue to stay UA is lying that is your opinion which I respectfully disagree with you.


I don’t need you, you are also saying Pakistani airspace is not closed.

jayunited wrote:
Like I stated in my last post dispatchers here have already said there is one route airlines can use over Pakistan (you highlighted it in green) that is the only route available over Pakistan but as you noted you can only enter or depart Pakistani airspace through Iranian Airspace (depending of whether you are travel to or from BOM).


jayunited wrote:
You might be willing to take the risk, the airline you work for (which you won't say) might be willing to take the risk but UA isn't.


I haven’t been talking about DEL, that is not the topic of this thread. The suggested route BOM-EWR eluded to earlier is similar to what we fly HKG-DXB vv, and what Fedex is flying DXB-HKG west of BOM over the Arabian Sea. I have no issues flying that route.

jayunited wrote:
I appreciate you running the numbers using your airlines dispatch system and I'm not quite sure why your numbers again are so different from UA's actual numbers and flight times for UA49 out of BOM when utilizing a flight plan that completely avoid both Pakistani, Iranian airspace, Gulf of Oman airspace. How you are coming up with 15:35 block time routing the aircraft over Oman, Abu Dhabi and UA is showing block time son this route of 17 hours or longer and has had flights cancel because CCO was exceed while sitting in line for the runway I don't know.


For your system to say it is taking 17 hrs to do the route I suggested the average headwind for the entire flight has to be over 50 kts. That is just not the case. I wish you realise it is very easy for a person like myself to check such claims.

http://brunnur.vedur.is/flugkort/vindak ... 0_0900.png

jayunited wrote:
I can't explain the discrepancy but you want to say UA is lying to its passengers and can fly EWR-BOM-EWR safely, while not exceeding CCO and still make a profit, okay I give up.


There is numerous discrepancies all through this thread of reasons why UA could not do the flight. None of which have been shown to have a factual basis.

From what I can see the decision is a commercial on, which I accept and any public company should be making if the numbers don’t add up. But to try and dress up a commercial decision as being a technical one is poor form.

Let me put this another way, DL have a 20:30 extendable to 22:30 4 crew FRMS capability. If UA does not have the same ability, that is the fault of UA. Then again, this is the same airline that does EWR-HKG, and flew LAX-SIN with some flight times over 18 hours. The story does not add up.

I am saying Pakistani airspace is not closed, there are route restrictions, however route restrictions are not uncommon. You also claim your dispatches have also told you that some routes are open in Pakistan. I don’t see how other US carriers (as well as heaps of other airlines) are flying from Mumbai FIR direct into the Muscat FIR vv however UA cannot (the old only 3 ways out of BOM tall story you posted earlier). Southern Air SOO7930 have an aircraft going eastbound just south of Muscat towards BOM right now. Other US carriers are doing it. FedEx goes westbound HKG-DXB.

To try and suggest that other airlines that carry on business are less safe because of the course UA has taken is ridiculous.
Human rights lawyers are "ambulance chasers of the very worst kind.'" - Sky News
 
sonicruiser
Posts: 529
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 6:38 pm

CaliguyNYC wrote:
Maybe the US & others will pressure PAK to open its airspace. PAK is using its airspace to get concessions from India. It is really dangerous to do that. It opens the door for India to do similar petty things. Net net the military incident is long over. So airspace should open


Actions have consequences. India should've thought of that before they decided to strike. If this airspace ban is what has it takes to make them back down, then it is a good thing. There have been no strikes since then so it seems to be working.
 
WPvsMW
Posts: 2104
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:40 pm

I agree with Zeke... UA is (trying) to cloak a commercial decision as one driven by airspace restrictions.
 
TryToFlySomeday
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Mon Jun 24, 2019 11:16 pm

Pakistan reportedly said to India they refuse to open up airspace until India makes a promise to “not repeat Balakot”. I think India will say something along the lines of “haha no”, and soon UA will permanently cancel EWR-BOM and EWR-DEL, and DL will cancel JFK-BOM plans and reroute everyone via AMS/CDG.

Pakistan however left the western border open, because they don’t border India on the western border. It’s Afghanistan and obviously, Iran. I think AI can get away with going into Pakistan via Balochistan and continue to EWR.
Pakistan's aviation sector is coming back. It won't be as strong as our eastern neighbor, nowhere close, but it's going to grow over time. Stand by and watch.

Born to Pakistani parents near ORD; raised and based near ORD.
 
yashk
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 2:45 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Tue Jun 25, 2019 12:30 am

TryToFlySomeday wrote:
Pakistan reportedly said to India they refuse to open up airspace until India makes a promise to “not repeat Balakot”. I think India will say something along the lines of “haha no”, and soon UA will permanently cancel EWR-BOM and EWR-DEL, and DL will cancel JFK-BOM plans and reroute everyone via AMS/CDG.

Pakistan however left the western border open, because they don’t border India on the western border. It’s Afghanistan and obviously, Iran. I think AI can get away with going into Pakistan via Balochistan and continue to EWR.

AI is already flying DEL-IAD non stop (longer than DEL-JFK/ORD). If UA pulls out permanently, AI would be able to get higher yields and maybe load restricted non stops might be profitable for them.

It might even make sense for AI to increase service on BOM-EWR.

On a separate note, it has been mentioned countless number of times that an ULH is extremely expensive cause you burn fuel to carry fuel in the initial stages. Also non stops only work if they are able to command a premium. So why does a tech stop increase costs - should it not make the flight cheaper to operate? Is the fuel saving and extra load carrying ability enough to compensate for higher landing / crew charges?
 
CaliguyNYC
Posts: 1093
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:27 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Tue Jun 25, 2019 6:36 pm

sonicruiser wrote:
CaliguyNYC wrote:
Maybe the US & others will pressure PAK to open its airspace. PAK is using its airspace to get concessions from India. It is really dangerous to do that. It opens the door for India to do similar petty things. Net net the military incident is long over. So airspace should open


Actions have consequences. India should've thought of that before they decided to strike. If this airspace ban is what has it takes to make them back down, then it is a good thing. There have been no strikes since then so it seems to be working.


So you want India to use its airspace as a weapon? What about water? Etc Etc Etc. It would be never ending. There is a reason countries don't play these games with each other. India struck terrorist camps. Let Pak and India discuss that and leave commercial aviation out of this. Let Imran say what ever he wants to his people - Pak won - what ever. No one in India cares. Just deescalate and move on.

I will point out that Iran has not closed its airspace to the US and the US has crippling sanctions with Iran. Again there is a reason countries try to limit these types of altercations.
 
yashk
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 2:45 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:32 pm

Can people at UA give some insight on the SFO-DEL flight - in case Pakistan airspace does not open. Would UA still operate that flight? Can UA’s 789 follow AIs path on SFO-DEL?
 
maint123
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jul 13, 2019 12:12 am

sonicruiser wrote:
CaliguyNYC wrote:
Maybe the US & others will pressure PAK to open its airspace. PAK is using its airspace to get concessions from India. It is really dangerous to do that. It opens the door for India to do similar petty things. Net net the military incident is long over. So airspace should open


Actions have consequences. India should've thought of that before they decided to strike. If this airspace ban is what has it takes to make them back down, then it is a good thing. There have been no strikes since then so it seems to be working.

Their have been no major terrorist strikes since the punishment meted out to Pakistan. I think India will take it, since prior to the punitive surgical strikes, every second day, terrorist attacks were taking place.
Financially, Pakistan needs the overflying usd fees more than India needs the foreign exchange, since India has forex of around 430 b usd while Pakistan has 7 b usd. You can see the Pakistani prime minister flying around various countries pleading for money to pay their debts.
And as discussed in this thread, security is more important than profits.
India should take a decision based on security rather than economics.
 
sibibom
Posts: 411
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:04 am

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jul 13, 2019 2:34 am

maint123 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:
CaliguyNYC wrote:
Maybe the US & others will pressure PAK to open its airspace. PAK is using its airspace to get concessions from India. It is really dangerous to do that. It opens the door for India to do similar petty things. Net net the military incident is long over. So airspace should open


Actions have consequences. India should've thought of that before they decided to strike. If this airspace ban is what has it takes to make them back down, then it is a good thing. There have been no strikes since then so it seems to be working.

Their have been no major terrorist strikes since the punishment meted out to Pakistan. I think India will take it, since prior to the punitive surgical strikes, every second day, terrorist attacks were taking place.
Financially, Pakistan needs the overflying usd fees more than India needs the foreign exchange, since India has forex of around 430 b usd while Pakistan has 7 b usd. You can see the Pakistani prime minister flying around various countries pleading for money to pay their debts.
And as discussed in this thread, security is more important than profits.
India should take a decision based on security rather than economics.


Well wrong, there have been multiple terrorist attacks since the Air Strikes, nothing major though, but multiple lives have been lost....
 
TryToFlySomeday
Posts: 308
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:51 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:29 am

sibibom wrote:
maint123 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:

Actions have consequences. India should've thought of that before they decided to strike. If this airspace ban is what has it takes to make them back down, then it is a good thing. There have been no strikes since then so it seems to be working.

Their have been no major terrorist strikes since the punishment meted out to Pakistan. I think India will take it, since prior to the punitive surgical strikes, every second day, terrorist attacks were taking place.
Financially, Pakistan needs the overflying usd fees more than India needs the foreign exchange, since India has forex of around 430 b usd while Pakistan has 7 b usd. You can see the Pakistani prime minister flying around various countries pleading for money to pay their debts.
And as discussed in this thread, security is more important than profits.
India should take a decision based on security rather than economics.

Problem with that is that the airspace could remain closed for Imran Khan’s entire term then. He wants India to make a promise that they likely never will — remove their fighter jets from airbases before the airspace opens. Pakistan recently rejected India’s request to open airspace and told them that, according to some Indian and Pakistani online newspapers.
What are the chances that Modi budges and removes fighter jets from airbases? Not happening.
Pakistan should simply ask India for help with counterterrorism, as they’d both benefit. Lives stop being lost on Indian side (which would be ideal), and Pakistani image doesn’t go down globally (again, also ideal)
UA and DL should expect a complete pull-out of India, and AI should expect longer flight times to EWR/JFK/IAD/ORD
Pakistan's aviation sector is coming back. It won't be as strong as our eastern neighbor, nowhere close, but it's going to grow over time. Stand by and watch.

Born to Pakistani parents near ORD; raised and based near ORD.
 
maint123
Posts: 186
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 4:18 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jul 13, 2019 3:33 am

sibibom wrote:
maint123 wrote:
sonicruiser wrote:

Actions have consequences. India should've thought of that before they decided to strike. If this airspace ban is what has it takes to make them back down, then it is a good thing. There have been no strikes since then so it seems to be working.

Their have been no major terrorist strikes since the punishment meted out to Pakistan. I think India will take it, since prior to the punitive surgical strikes, every second day, terrorist attacks were taking place.
Financially, Pakistan needs the overflying usd fees more than India needs the foreign exchange, since India has forex of around 430 b usd while Pakistan has 7 b usd. You can see the Pakistani prime minister flying around various countries pleading for money to pay their debts.
And as discussed in this thread, security is more important than profits.
India should take a decision based on security rather than economics.


Well wrong, there have been multiple terrorist attacks since the Air Strikes, nothing major though, but multiple lives have been lost....

Well I am in the effected area, so I would have to disagree. The intensity has come down significantly as the strikes have effected a behavioural change in the pak army. I won't derail this thread but suffice to say that the strikes were long due and can't be gauged through economic lens solely. May their be more.
 
User avatar
OneSexyL1011
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:10 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Sat Jul 13, 2019 11:34 pm

yashk wrote:
Can people at UA give some insight on the SFO-DEL flight - in case Pakistan airspace does not open. Would UA still operate that flight? Can UA’s 789 follow AIs path on SFO-DEL?

Unless Pakistan openes it's airspace, this route is 100% dead before it's even launched.

I would bet my money on this route being canceled if Pakistan isn't open by October.

To answer your question about the 787-9 the answer is yes the 787 can make the run. The issue would be FAR 117 crew limitation. Without Iran/Pakistan overflight it's non-starter. Just too much flight time.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23833
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:32 am

Suspension extended.


Due to the continued restriction of Pakistani airspace, we are extending our suspension of service between EWR and BOM (Mumbai) and DEL (New Delhi) until Oct. 26, 2019 (eastbound). We are continuing to keep employees at our stations in India, as well as affected crew members, updated as we make service adjustments.

We are contacting our customers to update them and assisting those who may need to make other travel arrangements, including rebooking on other airlines or offering full refunds. We will remain in close contact with relevant government authorities in order to provide our customers with the latest updates and most efficient travel experience under these circumstances.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 932
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:45 am

LAXintl wrote:
Suspension extended.


Due to the continued restriction of Pakistani airspace, we are extending our suspension of service between EWR and BOM (Mumbai) and DEL (New Delhi) until Oct. 26, 2019 (eastbound). We are continuing to keep employees at our stations in India, as well as affected crew members, updated as we make service adjustments.

We are contacting our customers to update them and assisting those who may need to make other travel arrangements, including rebooking on other airlines or offering full refunds. We will remain in close contact with relevant government authorities in order to provide our customers with the latest updates and most efficient travel experience under these circumstances.


So this does not have anything to due with flying over Iran anymore? Since there is no mention of this.
If Iran is not the issue anymore, they could have restarted EWR-BOM. Looks like UA is permanently closing BOM and is just blaming the restriction of Pakistani airspace.
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 932
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: UA suspends BOM service effective immediately

Tue Jul 16, 2019 1:59 am

Also, Pakistan just reopened its airspace. Now we will know if UA really restarts BOM nd DEL.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1427075

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