Effective immediately, United has suspended its EWR-BOM service due to security concerns with overflying Iranian airspace. The suspension will last UFN, with no restart date given.

Seems a prudent decision...

So why don't they fly up over the 'stans like the used to?

AWACSooner wrote:

So why don't they fly up over the 'stans like the used to?

Pakistani airspace is still closed in certain areas.

DEL already suspended, now this. UA effectively is out of India.
Let see if SFO-DEL ever launches at this rate.

Scarebus34 wrote:

Effective immediately, United has suspended its EWR-BOM service due to security concerns with overflying Iranian airspace. The suspension will last UFN, with no restart date given.

Surprised they were still flying after the FAA issued warnings over a month ago.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/18/worl ... -gulf.html

United statement:



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9inSSeVUAAJwKF.jpg:large

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

LAXintl wrote:

DEL already suspended, now this. UA effectively is out of India.
Let see if SFO-DEL ever launches at this rate.

SFO-DEL does not need to fly over Iranian nor Pakistani air space so that should not be effected.

PAkistan kept hinting that airspace would reopen fully. I think this is why UA kept flying. Not with Iran flaring up, UA has no real option but to cancel. With UA shutting BOM/DEL and 9W shut down, boy is there a massive reduction in seats for US-India traffic

DDR wrote:

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

I'm going out on a limb here as well, but it seems that many here have forgotten about the historic events of the USS Vincennes. Drones getting shot down due to alleged incursions of air space may be just the tip of the iceberg--no point in being the "flying" duck during times of aggressive rhetoric...

I believe it’s prudent. The last thing we need is a repeat of MH17.

DDR wrote:

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

They did the work around which was stopping in Germany on the return flight which costing UA a fortune. With both Pakistani airspace close the only way this flight was getting to BOM nonstop to and from EWR was flying over Iran. With Iranian airspace now off the table this flight would need to make a tech stop in both directions which would increase the operating cost tremendously. Which the tensions rising between the US and Iran this is the right call by far, better to be safe than sorry customers can be re-accomodiated on Star Alliance partners through Europe, I'm sure many European Airlines are reconsidering flying over Iran especially after recent events with the unmanned drone being shot down and the uncertainty surrounding US's response. Better to keep civilian aircraft clear of the airspace until things cool off.

maxamuus wrote:

I believe it’s prudent. The last thing we need is a repeat of MH17.

Especially with a US airline. It would mean war, and a severe one at that.

behramjee wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

DEL already suspended, now this. UA effectively is out of India.
Let see if SFO-DEL ever launches at this rate.

SFO-DEL does not need to fly over Iranian nor Pakistani air space so that should not be effected.

if you even bother checking - SFO-DEL for Air India definitely goes through both Iran and Pakistan, and one can almost be sure that UA would have to do the same routing (or otherwise there's a high chance the plane can't make it).

Michael

Great Circle route over Dubai and Oman hence to Mumbai is barely any longer. Any reason for not so rerouting?

Could they sub in an alternate type (788?) that might have the legs to make the flight without overflying Iran or Pakistan? I realize that it would mean reduced capacity, but may be preferable to canceling the route altogether.

Looking at the Great Circle routing, EWR-RUH-BOM (which overflies neither country) is only 400mi longer than EWR-BOM. Seems like they must have something with legs for that...

frmrCapCadet wrote:

Great Circle route over Dubai and Oman hence to Mumbai is barely any longer. Any reason for not so rerouting?

Going south around Pakistan is ~1,000 miles further than the great circle distance of EWR-DEL. It's about 500mi further for EWR-BOM to go around Iran, but that route is longer in the first place so it must just put it over the top.

CaliguyNYC wrote:

PAkistan kept hinting that airspace would reopen fully. I think this is why UA kept flying. Not with Iran flaring up, UA has no real option but to cancel. With UA shutting BOM/DEL and 9W shut down, boy is there a massive reduction in seats for US-India traffic

AI last month suspended BOM-JFK-BOM service and instead combined that route with their BOM-EWR-BOM route.
AI's DEL-JFK and DEL-ORD flights have to stop in VIE for fuel and a crew change, AI's DEL-IAD route has been stoping in BOM for fuel but now that might have to be routed over to VIE to refuel and a crew change or AI may choose to suspend it for the time being especially if they choose to avoid Iranian airspace. AI's DEL-SFO does not overfly Pakistani or Iranian airspace however the return leg SFO-DEL flies over Iran. It will be interesting to see what if anything AI does with this routes if (again) they choose to avoid Iranian airspace.

Bottom line if this situation in the Iran goes badly travel between the US, India and perhaps other parts of the world will be greatly effected.

behramjee wrote:

SFO-DEL does not need to fly over Iranian nor Pakistani air space so that should not be effected.

Take a look at FR24. Last few weeks AI SFO-DEL has operated daily right down central Iran and across Gulf of Oman just off the Pakistan coast.

DDR wrote:

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

I'm going out on a limb here and saying the route is profitable when it runs non-stop, and major disruptions with no end in sight such as this make it unprofitable.

Additionally, we have just begun peak summer travel season- there is no slack in the fleet or crew availability to be adding extra short stopping in Europe.

nycilley02 wrote:

Could they sub in an alternate type (788?) that might have the legs to make the flight without overflying Iran or Pakistan? I realize that it would mean reduced capacity, but may be preferable to canceling the route altogether.

Looking at the Great Circle routing, EWR-RUH-BOM (which overflies neither country) is only 400mi longer than EWR-BOM. Seems like they must have something with legs for that...

It's not an aircraft limitation. The 77W has amazing legs.
These are the limiting priorities at hand:
1. Safety
2. Safety
3. Safety
4. Crew legality due to flight duty FAR 117 limits
5. Economics

With tensions escalating exponentially between the US and Iran, it is wise to avoid the area all together. As the sole US passenger carrier in the region, it's prudent we prioritize was important first and foremost. That is safety for our passengers and our crews. We do not want to be involved in any incident which may start a global conflict.

We as an airline have exhausted all options and when the time to throw the towel comes, we had to do it. I applaud all the pilots, flight attendants, dispatchers and NOC personnel involved in the process over the last few months.

DDR wrote:

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

Ditto. It's a 777-300ER on the route. Can't it fly above or below Iranian airspace to get to India? I would think it has the range to do so.

I've always been curious about how EWR-BOM performs considering how DL and AA both failed in India and then CO stuck around in the Mid-2000s. Maybe too many seats to fill on the 773ER maybe killing the yields? For years it was operated by a 772ER. And tourism between NJ and India is high so it could be a route with junk fares but IDK.

I cannot help but wonder if fares were raised significantly for Polaris and PE that the absolute MUST Business fliers would pay up vs no go? Raise fares only a bit for Economy. The economic implications on businesses could far exceed $2k (whatever) more per Polaris.
Video calls may help a bit for a number of people, many multinational companies require those visits on both sides. I can’t imagine Star being able to accommodate the initial surge.

On another note: it is terrifying from a geopolitical standpoint. Please no more wars.

N649DL wrote:

DDR wrote:

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

Ditto. It's a 777-300ER on the route. Can't it fly above or below Iranian airspace to get to India? I would think it has the range to do so.

I've always been curious about how EWR-BOM performs considering how DL and AA both failed in India and then CO stuck around in the Mid-2000s. Maybe too many seats to fill on the 773ER maybe killing the yields? For years it was operated by a 772ER. And tourism between NJ and India is high so it could be a route with junk fares but IDK.

Above Iran, you got Pakistan in the way and the country isn't letting transits through that part (forget about transiting through China).

Below Iran, you got Iraq and Syria in the way - outbound may be fine but inbound is a dud, too much detour in that case.

Michael

N649DL wrote:

DDR wrote:

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

Ditto. It's a 777-300ER on the route. Can't it fly above or below Iranian airspace to get to India? I would think it has the range to do so.

Above or below??!? I assume you mean east or west of Iran, in which case you have Iraq or Pakistan.

Pakistan is out of the question at the moment, which is why they are flying over Iran in the first place. When Pakistan airspace reopens then this situation will cease to be an issue and everything will return to normal.

Flying over Iran added about 500 miles to the route over Pakistan, moving further west to fly over Iraq would add further distance again, probably another 200-300 miles. Presumably this is the straw that pushed it too far.

The option of going over Saudi is interesting, although note that it would have to stay further south than the optimal route to avoid Syria. That no airline is currently using this route from India would suggest that there is some sort of geo-political limitation.

The short answer is that there is no easy route from the North East to India at the moment. Europe isn't as impacted as the shorter distance isn't pushing range.

eamondzhang wrote:

N649DL wrote:

DDR wrote:

I'm going out on limb here, but if this flight was highly profitable, I think UA would have come up with a way to make the flight work.

Ditto. It's a 777-300ER on the route. Can't it fly above or below Iranian airspace to get to India? I would think it has the range to do so.

I've always been curious about how EWR-BOM performs considering how DL and AA both failed in India and then CO stuck around in the Mid-2000s. Maybe too many seats to fill on the 773ER maybe killing the yields? For years it was operated by a 772ER. And tourism between NJ and India is high so it could be a route with junk fares but IDK.

Above Iran, you got Pakistan in the way and the country isn't letting transits through that part (forget about transiting through China).

Below Iran, you got Iraq and Syria in the way - outbound may be fine but inbound is a dud, too much detour in that case.

Michael

Yeah not worth the risk with flying over Pakistan or Syria to get to BOM from EWR right now. Is there a reason why UA doesn't go over the top like they do on EWR-HKG?

However checking out UAL 48 the other night, it flew over the Nordic Counties and then Russia and then cut right through the risky territory. Couldn't they shift it further east to fly over Mongolia and China and such to get to BOM? 773ER should have the range for it, as inefficient as it might sound compared to this: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KEWR/VABB

N649DL wrote:

Yeah not worth the risk with flying over Pakistan or Syria to get to BOM from EWR right now. Is there a reason why UA doesn't go over the top like they do on EWR-HKG?

However checking out UAL 48 the other night, it flew over the Nordic Counties and then Russia and then cut right through the risky territory. Couldn't they shift it further east to fly over Mongolia and China and such to get to BOM? 773ER should have the range for it, as inefficient as it might sound compared to this: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KEWR/VABB

I believe China doesn't allow because of military airspace and/or mountain restrictions.

Basically, one way to India is though Pakistan. That option was banned after they did strikes on each other.
The second way is through Iran and/or skirting Turkey, Syria and Iraq. So that's off the table now.

N649DL wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Ditto. It's a 777-300ER on the route. Can't it fly above or below Iranian airspace to get to India? I would think it has the range to do so.

I've always been curious about how EWR-BOM performs considering how DL and AA both failed in India and then CO stuck around in the Mid-2000s. Maybe too many seats to fill on the 773ER maybe killing the yields? For years it was operated by a 772ER. And tourism between NJ and India is high so it could be a route with junk fares but IDK.

Above Iran, you got Pakistan in the way and the country isn't letting transits through that part (forget about transiting through China).

Below Iran, you got Iraq and Syria in the way - outbound may be fine but inbound is a dud, too much detour in that case.

Michael

Yeah not worth the risk with flying over Pakistan or Syria to get to BOM from EWR right now. Is there a reason why UA doesn't go over the top like they do on EWR-HKG?

However checking out UAL 48 the other night, it flew over the Nordic Counties and then Russia and then cut right through the risky territory. Couldn't they shift it further east to fly over Mongolia and China and such to get to BOM? 773ER should have the range for it, as inefficient as it might sound compared to this: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KEWR/VABB

No. The reason why is complicated but I'll give the basics.
In short, the main reason why is the Himalayan Mountains are too high, and the lack of airway structure over the entirety of the Tibet plateau prohibits flights across SW China and Nepal. Flights would have to go via Myanmar (Burma) then Bangladesh, which is extremely cost prohibitive.

Take a look at the World High Chart over at http://Www.skyvector.com
It will give you a clear picture of the issues.

The one airway that does cross into Nepal, wouldn't meet FAA regulatory TCDP (Terrain Clearance Depressurization requirements)

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.

N649DL wrote:

eamondzhang wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Ditto. It's a 777-300ER on the route. Can't it fly above or below Iranian airspace to get to India? I would think it has the range to do so.

I've always been curious about how EWR-BOM performs considering how DL and AA both failed in India and then CO stuck around in the Mid-2000s. Maybe too many seats to fill on the 773ER maybe killing the yields? For years it was operated by a 772ER. And tourism between NJ and India is high so it could be a route with junk fares but IDK.

Above Iran, you got Pakistan in the way and the country isn't letting transits through that part (forget about transiting through China).

Below Iran, you got Iraq and Syria in the way - outbound may be fine but inbound is a dud, too much detour in that case.

Michael

Yeah not worth the risk with flying over Pakistan or Syria to get to BOM from EWR right now. Is there a reason why UA doesn't go over the top like they do on EWR-HKG?

However checking out UAL 48 the other night, it flew over the Nordic Counties and then Russia and then cut right through the risky territory. Couldn't they shift it further east to fly over Mongolia and China and such to get to BOM? 773ER should have the range for it, as inefficient as it might sound compared to this: https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL ... /KEWR/VABB

There's a massive thing called the Himalayan Mountains that plays a massive role in route planning here. There was a previous thread that explained, in detail, that there are certain aircraft safety equipment specs needed to operate over this mountain range (specifically, O2 requirements). So, no, one does not simply shift flight plans on a whim when it comes to overflying Tibet.

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.

It is what it is. I have been living and breathing this stuff for my entire career. There is a whole complex process of analysis that most average enthusiasts have no idea that goes on. That's why guys like me exist here hahaha

The amount of planning and procedures involved in this would blow the average Joe's mind. It's truly a fascinating career.

The NYT just published a article claiming the Trump Administration had approved strikes in Iran Thursday. With that information, it definitely makes sense to suspend flights thru the area.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/20/world/middleeast/iran-us-drone.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

OneSexyL1011 wrote:

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.

It is what it is. I have been living and breathing this stuff for my entire career. There is a whole complex process of analysis that most average enthusiasts have no idea that goes on. That's why guys like me exist here hahaha

The amount of planning and procedures involved in this would blow the average Joe's mind. It's truly a fascinating career.

Thanks for that tidbit, I didn't think about the Himalayas being in the way.

Out of curiosity, why was UA so quick to introduce EWR-BOM to the 773ER with only a few frames delivered back about 2 years ago? It seemed like an odd fit at the time, IMHO. Figure if they're backing out like this (it could be aircraft economics as well, IDK) it almost seems like they jumped the gun on a larger aircraft and could've used it elsewhere. The 772ER with the GE engines and more compact 2-2-2 BusinessFirst cabin seemed like a better fit.


In fact, when my Sister had her 2nd wedding in India my Dad and his GF both got upgraded to Business (off season) with using CPUs or RPUs (whatever UAL calls them) the night before. On the way back my Dad's seat overheated from the IFE system and he inhaled all these fumes while sleeping and then switched him to another seat. I was surprised they didn't divert quite frankly.

I don't work in the industry but always thought EWR-BOM was around for local O&D out of NJ to India for tourism (NJ has a large Indian population, my Brother-in-Law being one of them) and connectivity via the large EWR to the rest of the US. UA just dumping it entirely sounds like they just threw in the towel completely and used this as the final excuse.

**Note I could be completely wrong on the above but it's just a theory.

So looks like there is a ban on flying over Iran for US airlines - hence UA’s cancellation
The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration on Thursday issued an emergency order prohibiting U.S. operators from flying in an overwater area of Tehran-controlled airspace over the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf of Oman due to heightened tensions

https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/nationa ... t_BAYBrand

Makes sense why United did what it just did...

WWads wrote:

maxamuus wrote:

I believe it’s prudent. The last thing we need is a repeat of MH17.

Especially with a US airline. It would mean war, and a severe one at that.

Well the last time tensions were this high, ironically, it was the US that ended up shooting down an Iranian passenger aircraft.

N649DL wrote:

OneSexyL1011 wrote:

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.

It is what it is. I have been living and breathing this stuff for my entire career. There is a whole complex process of analysis that most average enthusiasts have no idea that goes on. That's why guys like me exist here hahaha

The amount of planning and procedures involved in this would blow the average Joe's mind. It's truly a fascinating career.

Thanks for that tidbit, I didn't think about the Himalayas being in the way.

Out of curiosity, why was UA so quick to introduce EWR-BOM to the 773ER with only a few frames delivered back about 2 years ago? It seemed like an odd fit at the time, IMHO. Figure if they're backing out like this (it could be aircraft economics as well, IDK) it almost seems like they jumped the gun on a larger aircraft and could've used it elsewhere. The 772ER with the GE engines and more compact 2-2-2 BusinessFirst cabin seemed like a better fit.


In fact, when my Sister had her 2nd wedding in India my Dad and his GF both got upgraded to Business (off season) with using CPUs or RPUs (whatever UAL calls them) the night before. On the way back my Dad's seat overheated from the IFE system and he inhaled all these fumes while sleeping and then switched him to another seat. I was surprised they didn't divert quite frankly.

I don't work in the industry but always thought EWR-BOM was around for local O&D out of NJ to India for tourism (NJ has a large Indian population, my Brother-in-Law being one of them) and connectivity via the large EWR to the rest of the US. UA just dumping it entirely sounds like they just threw in the towel completely and used this as the final excuse.

**Note I could be completely wrong on the above but it's just a theory.

No offense, but I think youre completely wrong about the above. If anything, I was surprised it took so long for UA to put a 77W on the route.

I've taken it twice, and have family who ahve taken it as well.

Here's just a few (admittedly anectdotal or general) datapoints:

1.) Not only does the NY.NJ area have a giant Indian comunity, it has a largely significantly wealthy one, wealthy enough to pay for flying non-stop and the premium UA has been able to consistently command over AI and the ME3/EU - by the way, this extends to also flying out family from India (e.g. the old 'Indian Aunties' stuff) and having them fly J if they can afford it

2.) Mumbai is India's central business hub and there is significant front of the plane paid-J demand from large corporates / financial firms that will fly non-stop - this is the same market DL is hoping to regain a piece of

3.) I would fully expect this route to return right after Iranian and/or Pakistani airspace is deemed safe. UA/CO didn't keep this alive so long for no reason. They've survived oil spikes, etc. I don't think at all they were looking for an excuse to axe the route

4.) When UA first ordered the 77W the idea was to base it out of Newark; now this was before Kirby came on board (there's a really interesting interview with the old head of Network planning that lays this all out). That changed to SFO, but it makes complete sense to match the size/efficiency of the 77W with this route

N649DL wrote:

OneSexyL1011 wrote:

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.

It is what it is. I have been living and breathing this stuff for my entire career. There is a whole complex process of analysis that most average enthusiasts have no idea that goes on. That's why guys like me exist here hahaha

The amount of planning and procedures involved in this would blow the average Joe's mind. It's truly a fascinating career.

Thanks for that tidbit, I didn't think about the Himalayas being in the way.

Out of curiosity, why was UA so quick to introduce EWR-BOM to the 773ER with only a few frames delivered back about 2 years ago? It seemed like an odd fit at the time, IMHO. Figure if they're backing out like this (it could be aircraft economics as well, IDK) it almost seems like they jumped the gun on a larger aircraft and could've used it elsewhere. The 772ER with the GE engines and more compact 2-2-2 BusinessFirst cabin seemed like a better fit.


In fact, when my Sister had her 2nd wedding in India my Dad and his GF both got upgraded to Business (off season) with using CPUs or RPUs (whatever UAL calls them) the night before. On the way back my Dad's seat overheated from the IFE system and he inhaled all these fumes while sleeping and then switched him to another seat. I was surprised they didn't divert quite frankly.

I don't work in the industry but always thought EWR-BOM was around for local O&D out of NJ to India for tourism (NJ has a large Indian population, my Brother-in-Law being one of them) and connectivity via the large EWR to the rest of the US. UA just dumping it entirely sounds like they just threw in the towel completely and used this as the final excuse.

**Note I could be completely wrong on the above but it's just a theory.

UA did not throw in the towel on the route...it's a mere suspension due to potential conflict. People, people, people! In aviation we do NOT operate in a vacuum; we have to consider all parameters before starting, resuming, continuing, suspending, and/or terminating service. Look at the case of BA into Islamabad for an example. History repeats itself and, trust me, when a global airline like UA *suspends* (not END) service somewhere, there has to be compelling reasons/evidence for us to do so. Most folks here don't realise how hard it is to substitute aircraft onto a route: one has to first submit an application to the local governing body regarding any up/down-gauge of equipment, in some countries such application has to be put out in public notice, and then the local government has to approve such changes.

So no, UA could not just sub in a different aircraft type because they feel like it; and no, the flight plan can't just be shifted + or - 500-1000nm to avoid certain airspaces; and no, temporary suspension of service does not necessarily portend an eventual termination of service; etc. etc. etc.

Can they fly a polar route to BOM then go down through Pakistan, exit Pakistan where Indian flights are allowed then onto BOM. Or through enter Pakistan where Indian bound flights are allowed, into Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and etc?

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

LH658 wrote:

Can they fly a polar route to BOM then go down through Pakistan, exit Pakistan where Indian flights are allowed then onto BOM. Or through enter Pakistan where Indian bound flights are allowed, into Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, and etc?

No because 99% of Pakistani Airspace is still closed to commercial traffic. I would imagine normally they can.

Michael

dmstorm22 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

OneSexyL1011 wrote:

It is what it is. I have been living and breathing this stuff for my entire career. There is a whole complex process of analysis that most average enthusiasts have no idea that goes on. That's why guys like me exist here hahaha

The amount of planning and procedures involved in this would blow the average Joe's mind. It's truly a fascinating career.

Thanks for that tidbit, I didn't think about the Himalayas being in the way.

Out of curiosity, why was UA so quick to introduce EWR-BOM to the 773ER with only a few frames delivered back about 2 years ago? It seemed like an odd fit at the time, IMHO. Figure if they're backing out like this (it could be aircraft economics as well, IDK) it almost seems like they jumped the gun on a larger aircraft and could've used it elsewhere. The 772ER with the GE engines and more compact 2-2-2 BusinessFirst cabin seemed like a better fit.


In fact, when my Sister had her 2nd wedding in India my Dad and his GF both got upgraded to Business (off season) with using CPUs or RPUs (whatever UAL calls them) the night before. On the way back my Dad's seat overheated from the IFE system and he inhaled all these fumes while sleeping and then switched him to another seat. I was surprised they didn't divert quite frankly.

I don't work in the industry but always thought EWR-BOM was around for local O&D out of NJ to India for tourism (NJ has a large Indian population, my Brother-in-Law being one of them) and connectivity via the large EWR to the rest of the US. UA just dumping it entirely sounds like they just threw in the towel completely and used this as the final excuse.

**Note I could be completely wrong on the above but it's just a theory.

No offense, but I think youre completely wrong about the above. If anything, I was surprised it took so long for UA to put a 77W on the route.

I've taken it twice, and have family who ahve taken it as well.

Here's just a few (admittedly anectdotal or general) datapoints:

1.) Not only does the NY.NJ area have a giant Indian comunity, it has a largely significantly wealthy one, wealthy enough to pay for flying non-stop and the premium UA has been able to consistently command over AI and the ME3/EU - by the way, this extends to also flying out family from India (e.g. the old 'Indian Aunties' stuff) and having them fly J if they can afford it

2.) Mumbai is India's central business hub and there is significant front of the plane paid-J demand from large corporates / financial firms that will fly non-stop - this is the same market DL is hoping to regain a piece of

3.) I would fully expect this route to return right after Iranian and/or Pakistani airspace is deemed safe. UA/CO didn't keep this alive so long for no reason. They've survived oil spikes, etc. I don't think at all they were looking for an excuse to axe the route

4.) When UA first ordered the 77W the idea was to base it out of Newark; now this was before Kirby came on board (there's a really interesting interview with the old head of Network planning that lays this all out). That changed to SFO, but it makes complete sense to match the size/efficiency of the 77W with this route

Disclaimer: I already pointed out that I don't work in the industry so if I'm wrong, whatever. However, what I can also tell you about this route:

1. EWR-BOM was actually one of the earlier 773ER route implementations for the new hard product. IIRC, there weren't many since it was a slow roll out and few planes but EWR-BOM made the cut.

2. Yes, there are a lot of rich Indian people in NJ but knowing my Brother-In-Law and my Sister, they buy a ticket based on cost of ticket to India. Not to say the whole Indian population in NJ is like this but typically if it isn't the cheapest option, they won't fly it. Giant Indian population or not, US carriers flying to India over the last decade have been highly problematic and have been mostly dropped. And I typically b*tch the two of them out because they always fly ME3 to get there.

3. The 773ER from the 772ER was an influx in seat configuration compared to the former. Perhaps the J-Cabin space was ready for the route and coach wasn't based on capacity (or vise-versa).

4. So, I've heard this "Mystery" and/or "Fake News" corporate contract thing before on other routes but who exactly? Deloitte? One or more of the "Big 4" firms?" with Data Warehouses in India? I would just love to know because I've seen this theory float around before with zero evidence.

5. Fly Over Pakistani Airspace? Seriously? I actually avoided going to India because I didn't want to fly over that country since Indian's and Pakistani's tend to hate each other.

6. There is a TON of competition flying to India out EWR and JFK. High Indian population doesn't matter, just ask how Alitalia does with NJ having a high Italian Population. Or even how SAS flies to all 3 Scandinavian countries from EWR right now (and on and off since the Early 1990s) with a relatively low Scandinavian population in NJ (or diluted since there are so many people there.) Population density doesn't really matter, especially on a ULH route. The only big exception relating to NJ (I grew up there) would be TAP or LOT.

OneSexyL1011 wrote:

nycilley02 wrote:

Could they sub in an alternate type (788?) that might have the legs to make the flight without overflying Iran or Pakistan? I realize that it would mean reduced capacity, but may be preferable to canceling the route altogether.

Looking at the Great Circle routing, EWR-RUH-BOM (which overflies neither country) is only 400mi longer than EWR-BOM. Seems like they must have something with legs for that...

It's not an aircraft limitation. The 77W has amazing legs.
These are the limiting priorities at hand:
1. Safety
2. Safety
3. Safety
4. Crew legality due to flight duty FAR 117 limits
5. Economics

With tensions escalating exponentially between the US and Iran, it is wise to avoid the area all together. As the sole US passenger carrier in the region, it's prudent we prioritize was important first and foremost. That is safety for our passengers and our crews. We do not want to be involved in any incident which may start a global conflict.

We as an airline have exhausted all options and when the time to throw the towel comes, we had to do it. I applaud all the pilots, flight attendants, dispatchers and NOC personnel involved in the process over the last few months.

We are still trying to get a crew that's stuck there home from the 19th I believe...

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.

THIS.

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

Or BOM-HKG-EWR?

If the situation with Iran continues maybe the US and others should pressure Pakistan to open up parts of its airspace to commercial flights.
The route is clearly doable without overflying Iran at all.


http://weekendblitz.0g2y9hcyenagyt19l.m ... WR-BOM.jpg

Planes4you wrote:

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

One of the major problems with stopovers like this is crew legality. While the pax may be on the ground for an hour, two hours tops, there would have to be a crew swap of both pilots and flight attendants. That's a lot of extra pay and hotel rooms. There are also fees UA would incur just for landing at NRT or HKG, availability of slots for the landing and departure, deadheading crews in seats that could've been sold, etc.

If it were economical, why wouldn't UA do it?

maxamuus wrote:

I believe it’s prudent. The last thing we need is a repeat of MH17.

More like a repeat of Iran Air 655