jetblastdubai wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I think it looks terrific at night too, against a dark sky. Unfortunately it seems a lot of pilots don't turn the logo lights on. Or the bulbs are burned out.

Years ago we (ORD ATC) were told that UA had decided to disconnect the logo lights on the entire fleet because they were actually an MEL item if INOP but if they were purposely disconnected it wasn't an issue. We had questioned UA ops with it because the Battleship gray liver absolutely sucked for tower controllers to visually identify UA planes at night or in low vis conditions. We used to joke that the official color of the planes was "wet concrete".

Can someone confirm if this fact/urban legend is still valid?

IIRC, it was a cost saving measure. Even 'purposely disconnected' would require a MEL/Placard stating so. They just wouldn't be turned on. Looks like subUAL all have LOGO lights. IIRC, American actually removed them to save money years ago......

Logo Lights IPC
Airbus A-319/-320, ALL Effectivity 001999
Boeing 747-222 ALL Effectivity 001999
Boeing 757-222 ALL Effectivity 501557 101500 548999
Boeing 767-322 ALL Effectivity 641663 051149 157640 664999 684999 001999
Boeing 777-222/-222ER Effectivity 001999

Further Airbus Effectivity
LOGO LIGHT INSTL Effectivity
459499
801855
866884
888899
901950

STT757 wrote:

Pinto wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Maybe UA should use the DCA and LGA slots to
launch DCA-LGA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Won't happen because that would hurt DCA-EWR

It looks like DCA-CLE may be going away, replaced by additional DCA-EWR flights.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... spurt/amp/

UA currently has 8 daily DCA-EWR and 5 daily DCA-CLE. They expanding DCA-EWR to 13 daily, so there goes the 5 daily DCA-CLE.

What will they do with the LGA-CLE slots, perhaps expand LGA-IAD from 4 to 9 daily? Or maybe LGA-IAD 7 daily and put the other frequencies into ORD, DEN or IAH?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I would think they would just evenly distribute them between IAD and ORD, with 1 or 2 extra daily DEN and IAH each. I don't think UA is looking to do anything dramatic at LGA.

maximairways wrote:

With UA adding BTV-DEN, SYR-DEN, and going 2x on BDL-DEN this summer, BUF&ROC-DEN seem like a natural fit.

UA would never do that ........ BUF has f9 and WN already having daily service. Price wise, UA probly does not want to compete with the ULCCs.


Major airlines DO NOT like expanding routes at BNIA. The classic hub and spoke model.

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

maximairways wrote:

With UA adding BTV-DEN, SYR-DEN, and going 2x on BDL-DEN this summer, BUF&ROC-DEN seem like a natural fit.

UA would never do that ........ BUF has f9 and WN already having daily service. Price wise, UA probly does not want to compete with the ULCCs.


Major airlines DO NOT like expanding routes at BNIA. The classic hub and spoke model.

What time of the year does UA operate DEN-BTV? I was just in BTV over the summer and there was definitely no N/S service to Denver.

N649DL wrote:

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

maximairways wrote:

With UA adding BTV-DEN, SYR-DEN, and going 2x on BDL-DEN this summer, BUF&ROC-DEN seem like a natural fit.

UA would never do that ........ BUF has f9 and WN already having daily service. Price wise, UA probly does not want to compete with the ULCCs.


Major airlines DO NOT like expanding routes at BNIA. The classic hub and spoke model.

What time of the year does UA operate DEN-BTV? I was just in BTV over the summer and there was definitely no N/S service to Denver.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mynbc5 ... n/26046909


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

maximairways wrote:

With UA adding BTV-DEN, SYR-DEN, and going 2x on BDL-DEN this summer, BUF&ROC-DEN seem like a natural fit.

UA would never do that ........ BUF has f9 and WN already having daily service. Price wise, UA probly does not want to compete with the ULCCs.


Major airlines DO NOT like expanding routes at BNIA. The classic hub and spoke model.

Sure they would. UA can connect BUF to ASE/EGE/GUC/MTJ/JAC/DRO......etc SW and F9 do not fly into the mountains.

CriticalPoint wrote:

SW and F9 do not fly into the mountains.

And I hope they (or any airline) never do!!

Buffalomatt1027 wrote:

maximairways wrote:

With UA adding BTV-DEN, SYR-DEN, and going 2x on BDL-DEN this summer, BUF&ROC-DEN seem like a natural fit.

UA would never do that ........ BUF has f9 and WN already having daily service. Price wise, UA probly does not want to compete with the ULCCs.


Major airlines DO NOT like expanding routes at BNIA. The classic hub and spoke model.

You regularly spout that line very assertively, two things.

1) DEN is a UA hub, so that would be a hub and spoke.(See similarly sized BDL where F9, WN, and UA all serve DEN)
2) You cant say all airlines blanket do one thing, and never anything else. We've seen DL add LGA and BOS in the last 5 years, AA add DFW and MIA for a short period.

Stop spouting your opinion as a definitive fact.

STT757 wrote:

Pinto wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Maybe UA should use the DCA and LGA slots to
launch DCA-LGA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Won't happen because that would hurt DCA-EWR

It looks like DCA-CLE may be going away, replaced by additional DCA-EWR flights.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... spurt/amp/

UA currently has 8 daily DCA-EWR and 5 daily DCA-CLE. They expanding DCA-EWR to 13 daily, so there goes the 5 daily DCA-CLE.

What will they do with the LGA-CLE slots, perhaps expand LGA-IAD from 4 to 9 daily? Or maybe LGA-IAD 7 daily and put the other frequencies into ORD, DEN or IAH?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

CLE-DCA is still bookable at 5x daily through the entire schedule. If the route was being eliminated in favor of EWR-DCA I imagine they would have taken these flights out of the schedule.

avtcle wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Pinto wrote:

Won't happen because that would hurt DCA-EWR

It looks like DCA-CLE may be going away, replaced by additional DCA-EWR flights.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... spurt/amp/

UA currently has 8 daily DCA-EWR and 5 daily DCA-CLE. They expanding DCA-EWR to 13 daily, so there goes the 5 daily DCA-CLE.

What will they do with the LGA-CLE slots, perhaps expand LGA-IAD from 4 to 9 daily? Or maybe LGA-IAD 7 daily and put the other frequencies into ORD, DEN or IAH?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

CLE-DCA is still bookable at 5x daily through the entire schedule. If the route was being eliminated in favor of EWR-DCA I imagine they would have taken these flights out of the schedule.

It’s pretty easy to re route 145s.....it’s only 50 passengers.

CriticalPoint wrote:

avtcle wrote:

STT757 wrote:

It looks like DCA-CLE may be going away, replaced by additional DCA-EWR flights.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... spurt/amp/

UA currently has 8 daily DCA-EWR and 5 daily DCA-CLE. They expanding DCA-EWR to 13 daily, so there goes the 5 daily DCA-CLE.

What will they do with the LGA-CLE slots, perhaps expand LGA-IAD from 4 to 9 daily? Or maybe LGA-IAD 7 daily and put the other frequencies into ORD, DEN or IAH?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

CLE-DCA is still bookable at 5x daily through the entire schedule. If the route was being eliminated in favor of EWR-DCA I imagine they would have taken these flights out of the schedule.

It’s pretty easy to re route 145s.....it’s only 50 passengers.

For July alone that could be 15,000+, not such an easy task...

avtcle wrote:

STT757 wrote:

Pinto wrote:

Won't happen because that would hurt DCA-EWR

It looks like DCA-CLE may be going away, replaced by additional DCA-EWR flights.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thepointsg ... spurt/amp/

UA currently has 8 daily DCA-EWR and 5 daily DCA-CLE. They expanding DCA-EWR to 13 daily, so there goes the 5 daily DCA-CLE.

What will they do with the LGA-CLE slots, perhaps expand LGA-IAD from 4 to 9 daily? Or maybe LGA-IAD 7 daily and put the other frequencies into ORD, DEN or IAH?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

CLE-DCA is still bookable at 5x daily through the entire schedule. If the route was being eliminated in favor of EWR-DCA I imagine they would have taken these flights out of the schedule.

Here is the thing though, looking at March it looks like EWR-DCA is increased to 9x daily, and during that time CLE-DCA is decreased to 4x daily and kept at 4x daily through May. So it seems that, at least in part, they aren't worried about cutting CLE-DCA flights (albeit only one flight for now).

Looks like whatever changes they are planning to make haven't happened yet, as EWR-DCA was also supposed to go all CRJ550 as well which it has not. There was no timetable given, meaning it could be anytime from March-Early June since they said the changes would come about in the "spring." More than likely it will be May or later, since there aren't many CRJ550s being routed through EWR yet.

If they are increasing EWR-DCA to 13 daily, which they made a large talking point at the media show they did (see below), the only options would be to cut hub-DCA flying or cut CLE-DCA so it makes sense why people would assume CLE-DCA would be in danger.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

CriticalPoint wrote:

avtcle wrote:

CLE-DCA is still bookable at 5x daily through the entire schedule. If the route was being eliminated in favor of EWR-DCA I imagine they would have taken these flights out of the schedule.

It’s pretty easy to re route 145s.....it’s only 50 passengers.

For July alone that could be 15,000+, not such an easy task...

Quite easy actually, considering the size of the EWR hub and 6 or so months of lead in time.

CALTECH wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

Yes they are still in the fleet and operational.

And still have the same performance limitations.

,

Yup, 737-900 was a stretch of the -800 with no increase in gross weight. The -900ER was a stretched -800 on steroids, compared to the -900. # 412 was in MCO with a pretty new glossy paint job.

UAL..................................................................................UAL.....................................UAL
Boeing 737-900ER...........................versus.....................Boeing 737-900...................Boeing 737-800
42.10 m.........138 ft 1 in....................length......................42.10 m........138 ft 1 in
35.80 m.........117 ft 5 in....................wingspan.................35.80 m........117 ft 5 in
125.00 m2.....1,345 ft2......................wing area................125.00 m2....1,345 ft2
12.50 m.........41 ft.............................height......................12.50 m........41 ft
2........................................................engines....................2
126 kN...........28,400 lbf....................thrust per engine.....121 kN..........27,300 lbf
252 kN...........56,800 lbf....................total thrust...............242 kN..........54,600 lbf
85,130 kgs....187,700 lbs..................MTOW....................79,000 kgs....174,200 lbs ....(UAL 737-800 174,200)
5,990 km.......3,235 nm.....................range.......................5,084 km.......2,745 nm
M0.791.............................................cruise speed............M0.785
UAL 179...........................................capacity....................UAL 179 ...............................(UAL 737-800 166 )

There are two big issues with the -900, a low Zero Fuel Weight limit of 140.3 (the -9ER is 149.3) and a low Max Landing Weight of 147.3 (the -9ER is 157.3). Both of these issues were fixed on the -9ER -- I'm pretty sure it was the first Boeing airplane to get the -ER designation without a corresponding increase in fuel capacity.

sdh9 wrote:

There are two big issues with the -900, a low Zero Fuel Weight limit of 140.3 (the -9ER is 149.3) and a low Max Landing Weight of 147.3 (the -9ER is 157.3). Both of these issues were fixed on the -9ER -- I'm pretty sure it was the first Boeing airplane to get the -ER designation without a corresponding increase in fuel capacity.

Exactly the lower MZFW and MLW are the source of the problems UA experiences with this aircraft.

On intra-Texas routes if the flight is full with 179 passengers, 150 bags and 3,500 pounds of cargo you might be able to squeak by if the dispatcher doesn't have to carry an alternate. If an alternate is required either at the departure or arrival airport this 900 could be weight restricted because your bumping up against the max landing weight do to the fuel requirement for the alternate. In some cases when the forecast call for widespread weather across Texas its not unusual to see an intra-Texas flight carry 2 alternates. When 2 alternates become necessary that is when I start seeing reports of passengers and bags being left behind.

The second issue is MZFW on a route like IAH-SEA if a 900 is on this route the landing weight isn't the issue the MZFW is. What I didn't know when I was on the ramp but found out later is even though the 737NGs have a larger wingspan compared to the A319/20, the A319/20 carries more fuel in the wing tanks compared to the 737NG. Those smaller wing tanks really hurt the 900 on longer routes because the fuel in the center tank really eats into the available ZFW.

Interesting Paul's Trip Report yesterday on UA 752 to Hawaii. It did not go well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsSUW2eJj8

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat? When I flew EVA TPE-YYZ last year, I was initially annoyed to learn that they had moved my assigned seat back a row, away from my wife, but when I got on the plane, I learned it was because the recline was not working. Maybe UA would block Polaris seats for long haul, but it seems like they should have alerted Paul for this shorter flight, and at least made him aware of the situation to make a choice. Does anyone know what UA's general policy is, or if they have one?

cosyr wrote:

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat?

Yes and no. It all depends on the specifics of the failure and the aircraft MEL. Once the legalities are considered, then it's a passenger service issue.

In this example, it would have been a different outcome had the seat been stuck in the reclined position.

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

✈️ atcsundevil

cosyr wrote:

...Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat?

Generally, if the seat can be locked in the upright position, it can be occupied, but who wants to ride in that seat any significant distance (hello, non-revs if the CSA is sharp)? If it won't stay upright, then it can't (again, in general).

airplanedriver6 wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat?

Yes and no. It all depends on the specifics of the failure and the aircraft MEL. Once the legalities are considered, then it's a passenger service issue.

In this example, it would have been a different outcome had the seat been stuck in the reclined position.

cosyr wrote:

Interesting Paul's Trip Report yesterday on UA 752 to Hawaii. It did not go well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsSUW2eJj8

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat? When I flew EVA TPE-YYZ last year, I was initially annoyed to learn that they had moved my assigned seat back a row, away from my wife, but when I got on the plane, I learned it was because the recline was not working. Maybe UA would block Polaris seats for long haul, but it seems like they should have alerted Paul for this shorter flight, and at least made him aware of the situation to make a choice. Does anyone know what UA's general policy is, or if they have one?

Quick question judging from the video would you say the video that this flight (UA 1684 SFO-LIH) operated on October 20, 2019?

I'm asking because if that is the date I would like any other UA insider on this thread to look at this flight in history. I am see a problem with this person's story if this flight UA1684 operated on October 20, 2019. I would like to know if any other UA insider can spot the problem as well.
What is equally perplexing is UA still compensated this passenger which if I have the correct date October 20, 2019 his entire story could be a complete frabrication.

I don't want to defend UA just yet because I'm not sure I have the correct date and I would love it if another UA insider would take a look in history and see if they can spot the same problem if the date is correct.

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Interesting Paul's Trip Report yesterday on UA 752 to Hawaii. It did not go well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsSUW2eJj8

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat? When I flew EVA TPE-YYZ last year, I was initially annoyed to learn that they had moved my assigned seat back a row, away from my wife, but when I got on the plane, I learned it was because the recline was not working. Maybe UA would block Polaris seats for long haul, but it seems like they should have alerted Paul for this shorter flight, and at least made him aware of the situation to make a choice. Does anyone know what UA's general policy is, or if they have one?

Quick question judging from the video would you say the video that this flight (UA 1684 SFO-LIH) operated on October 20, 2019?

I'm asking because if that is the date I would like any other UA insider on this thread to look at this flight in history. I am see a problem with this person's story if this flight UA1684 operated on October 20, 2019. I would like to know if any other UA insider can spot the problem as well.
What is equally perplexing is UA still compensated this passenger which if I have the correct date October 20, 2019 his entire story could be a complete frabrication.

I don't want to defend UA just yet because I'm not sure I have the correct date and I would love it if another UA insider would take a look in history and see if they can spot the same problem if the date is correct.

Was 3/0107 in SFO that day????

I'm looking at public not UA sources BTW.

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Interesting Paul's Trip Report yesterday on UA 752 to Hawaii. It did not go well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsSUW2eJj8

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat? When I flew EVA TPE-YYZ last year, I was initially annoyed to learn that they had moved my assigned seat back a row, away from my wife, but when I got on the plane, I learned it was because the recline was not working. Maybe UA would block Polaris seats for long haul, but it seems like they should have alerted Paul for this shorter flight, and at least made him aware of the situation to make a choice. Does anyone know what UA's general policy is, or if they have one?

Quick question judging from the video would you say the video that this flight (UA 1684 SFO-LIH) operated on October 20, 2019?

I'm asking because if that is the date I would like any other UA insider on this thread to look at this flight in history. I am see a problem with this person's story if this flight UA1684 operated on October 20, 2019. I would like to know if any other UA insider can spot the problem as well.
What is equally perplexing is UA still compensated this passenger which if I have the correct date October 20, 2019 his entire story could be a complete frabrication.

I don't want to defend UA just yet because I'm not sure I have the correct date and I would love it if another UA insider would take a look in history and see if they can spot the same problem if the date is correct.

If you're going by the part in the video where he compares prices, it could just be an example. He often does fake booking examples in videos to show tips for how to save money. If he said something, maybe he misspoke about the date, as he edits videos after he returns from multi-leg trips. I've been watching his videos for a while, and he rarely talks about compensation for negative experiences, so I think any accusations of fraud might be a little over the top. I doubt that he traveled with his own "Seat is inoperable" sticker and staged a whole youtube video for $200.

I am excited to see what international expansion UA has planned for this year. As a loyal UA flyer, I am also interested to see what enhancements, changes and reductions they do in their service, hard product, or route network. Good luck to UA for the year!

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Interesting Paul's Trip Report yesterday on UA 752 to Hawaii. It did not go well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsSUW2eJj8

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat? When I flew EVA TPE-YYZ last year, I was initially annoyed to learn that they had moved my assigned seat back a row, away from my wife, but when I got on the plane, I learned it was because the recline was not working. Maybe UA would block Polaris seats for long haul, but it seems like they should have alerted Paul for this shorter flight, and at least made him aware of the situation to make a choice. Does anyone know what UA's general policy is, or if they have one?

Quick question judging from the video would you say the video that this flight (UA 1684 SFO-LIH) operated on October 20, 2019?

I'm asking because if that is the date I would like any other UA insider on this thread to look at this flight in history. I am see a problem with this person's story if this flight UA1684 operated on October 20, 2019. I would like to know if any other UA insider can spot the problem as well.
What is equally perplexing is UA still compensated this passenger which if I have the correct date October 20, 2019 his entire story could be a complete frabrication.

I don't want to defend UA just yet because I'm not sure I have the correct date and I would love it if another UA insider would take a look in history and see if they can spot the same problem if the date is correct.

His description says October 11th, 2019 UA1684.

ikolkyo wrote:

jayunited wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Interesting Paul's Trip Report yesterday on UA 752 to Hawaii. It did not go well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHsSUW2eJj8

Is it normal procedure to let someone occupy an inoperable seat? When I flew EVA TPE-YYZ last year, I was initially annoyed to learn that they had moved my assigned seat back a row, away from my wife, but when I got on the plane, I learned it was because the recline was not working. Maybe UA would block Polaris seats for long haul, but it seems like they should have alerted Paul for this shorter flight, and at least made him aware of the situation to make a choice. Does anyone know what UA's general policy is, or if they have one?

Quick question judging from the video would you say the video that this flight (UA 1684 SFO-LIH) operated on October 20, 2019?

I'm asking because if that is the date I would like any other UA insider on this thread to look at this flight in history. I am see a problem with this person's story if this flight UA1684 operated on October 20, 2019. I would like to know if any other UA insider can spot the problem as well.
What is equally perplexing is UA still compensated this passenger which if I have the correct date October 20, 2019 his entire story could be a complete frabrication.

I don't want to defend UA just yet because I'm not sure I have the correct date and I would love it if another UA insider would take a look in history and see if they can spot the same problem if the date is correct.

His description says October 11th, 2019 UA1684.

He probably has his dates a bit messed up then as 0107 flew EWR-LAS-EWR-EDI on the 11th. 0107 did fly SFO-LIH on October 13th however...

If I changed time zones as much as he does I wouldn't know what day it was either

Wondering how the 737-800 that suffered a broken leg (er...main landing gear) in Denver a couple weeks back is doing? I think it was N87513...but not positive. Back in the air yet?

jayunited wrote:

Quick question judging from the video would you say the video that this flight (UA 1684 SFO-LIH) operated on October 20, 2019?

I'm asking because if that is the date I would like any other UA insider on this thread to look at this flight in history. I am see a problem with this person's story if this flight UA1684 operated on October 20, 2019. I would like to know if any other UA insider can spot the problem as well.
What is equally perplexing is UA still compensated this passenger which if I have the correct date October 20, 2019 his entire story could be a complete frabrication.

I don't want to defend UA just yet because I'm not sure I have the correct date and I would love it if another UA insider would take a look in history and see if they can spot the same problem if the date is correct.

I don't think he would have anything to gain by fabricating a story. I've watched his videos for at least a couple of years now, and I've never known him to be sensationalist with his reports. He pays for all of his trips, and he never seems to be one of the YouTuber types who coordinate ahead of time with the airline. He also wouldn't gain anything if his issue has already been resolved with United. I've been on inop'ed F/J seats at least twice on UA in the past decade, so it's far from outside the realm of possibility.

kd9gy wrote:

Wondering how the 737-800 that suffered a broken leg (er...main landing gear) in Denver a couple weeks back is doing? I think it was N87513...but not positive. Back in the air yet?

Looks like it's still in DEN...

319:
N879UA sked to enter LCQ 2742/6Jan, assume paint (LCQ has 2 bay paint hanger)

763:
N654UA entered LCQ paint 2741/6Jan

772:
N223UA sked to exit XMN 2733/7Jan, already has Polaris
N785UA sked to exit XMN 2739/8Jan, shows maint only due to seat map and shorter visit in XMN

77W:
N2333U sked to exit XMN 2752/8Jan

788:
N27908 sked to exit XMN 2738/8Jan with Polaris/PP. Might be interesting how UA sked this aircraft since it has 6 fewer J seats and could have issues floating with other 788s..

United1 wrote:

He probably has his dates a bit messed up then as 0107 flew EWR-LAS-EWR-EDI on the 11th. 0107 did fly SFO-LIH on October 13th however...

If I changed time zones as much as he does I wouldn't know what day it was either

Exactly the plane numbers don't match I don't see an MEL regarding a seat out of service (which would be required) on either flight that was operated on the 11 or the 13 of October. Then in his review on Simply Flying he stated the flight was delayed out of SFO by 45 minutes and arrived 30 minutes late into LIH however, neither the flight on the 11th or thet 13th of October left late and they both arrived early.
https://simpleflying.com/flight-review- ... -to-lihue/

Now the flight on October 20th did have a first class seat out of service but the problem with the flight on the 20th of October was ther were only 13 passengers in first class, while coach had 76 total passengers. Again different plane number and again flight departed on-time and arrived early into LIH.

I guess without kowing the exact date of travel its impossible to do any type of meaniful research. With the information provided in both the YouTube video and on Simply Flying's website it raises a lot of qestions do to the inconsistencies providing a date along with all the other information provided could have been helpful.

For those of you who are not UA insiders don't take my my word for it just a simple search on flightaware.com (you can see 3 months worth of departures) will give you some information. The final passenger counts and what would have been active MEL's at the time would not be visible but you could see for most of October UA1684 SFO-LIH arrived either ontime or early. October 10 there was a last minute plane change and the flight arrived 4 hours late but the flight operated on a 753 which has no lie flat seats.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

319:
N879UA sked to enter LCQ 2742/6Jan, assume paint (LCQ has 2 bay paint hanger)

763:
N654UA entered LCQ paint 2741/6Jan

772:
N223UA sked to exit XMN 2733/7Jan, already has Polaris
N785UA sked to exit XMN 2739/8Jan, shows maint only due to seat map and shorter visit in XMN

77W:
N2333U sked to exit XMN 2752/8Jan

788:
N27908 sked to exit XMN 2738/8Jan with Polaris/PP. Might be interesting how UA sked this aircraft since it has 6 fewer J seats and could have issues floating with other 788s..

A319
N879UA almost certainly for paint... No reason for MX. Interesting given all previous ex-CZ (almost all NBs in-fact) have gone to AMA. It’s all the same vender, IAC.

United possibly should expand in Newark, especially their regional service. Maybe to like 500-700 flights a day.

ddaly241 wrote:

United possibly should expand in Newark, especially their regional service. Maybe to like 500-700 flights a day.

UA can't really expand the number of flights much at EWR partly because of lack of gate space but mostly because EWRs runways/airspace can't handle an increased number of flights. UA is expanding the number of seats they offer by upgauging the size of aircraft they use at EWR and shifting some regional flights to IAD so they can add mainline service to other cities.

airboss787 wrote:

I am excited to see what international expansion UA has planned for this year. As a loyal UA flyer, I am also interested to see what enhancements, changes and reductions they do in their service, hard product, or route network. Good luck to UA for the year!

I don't think UA will announce much more at this point for international expansion...but you never know, SFO-DUB was announced as a standalone announcement in late December.

Yeah you're right, EWR is a huge mess right now, but once they get the new terminal 1 built, and possibly a new terminal 2, then united could hopefully expand in EWR.

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

ddaly241 wrote:

Yeah you're right, EWR is a huge mess right now, but once they get the new terminal 1 built, and possibly a new terminal 2, then united could hopefully expand in EWR.

The number of flights currently being operated is roughly the maximum the airport can handle. They pretty much run the airport right at the max arrival acceptance rate most of the time on most days, and they do so purposely to limit competition. EWR isn't as much of a mess as LGA, but the AAR isn't something that can really increase without more runways. New terminals won't change the AAR, only pavement will. EWR has either miles-in-trail restrictions or metering for the majority of the day as it is, and things tend to turn to mush when there's weather. Their only realistic option for expansion is to use larger aircraft. If they try to expand the number of flights beyond what they currently operate, they risk EWR becoming slot controlled again, which is specifically something UA is hoping to avoid.

atcsundevil wrote:

If they try to expand the number of flights beyond what they currently operate, they risk EWR becoming slot controlled again, which is specifically something UA is hoping to avoid.

I wouldn't be quite as sure about that. If UA can get to a point where they're in a hugely dominant position at EWR and the airport is such a cluster that the FAA finally has to reimpose slots, the FAA effectively slams the door shut on any additional competition that might want to challenge them. According to wiki, UA currently has 65% share at EWR. AA is 69% at MIA and 90% at CLT. DL is 72% at ATL.

Not only would this help UA maintain their market share at EWR but it would also stop the trickle of new, competing flights coming in that add to the already horrible congestion issues that hurt UA the most. UA runs a connecting hub so they rely more on on-time connections to maintain their operation. The carriers that only O&D in EWR are hurt far less if their flights are delayed.

With IAD finally open for business down the road, I don't think UA would be too terribly upset if slots were once again placed on EWR.

jayunited wrote:

United1 wrote:

He probably has his dates a bit messed up then as 0107 flew EWR-LAS-EWR-EDI on the 11th. 0107 did fly SFO-LIH on October 13th however...

If I changed time zones as much as he does I wouldn't know what day it was either

Exactly the plane numbers don't match I don't see an MEL regarding a seat out of service (which would be required) on either flight that was operated on the 11 or the 13 of October. Then in his review on Simply Flying he stated the flight was delayed out of SFO by 45 minutes and arrived 30 minutes late into LIH however, neither the flight on the 11th or thet 13th of October left late and they both arrived early.
https://simpleflying.com/flight-review- ... -to-lihue/

Now the flight on October 20th did have a first class seat out of service but the problem with the flight on the 20th of October was ther were only 13 passengers in first class, while coach had 76 total passengers. Again different plane number and again flight departed on-time and arrived early into LIH.

I guess without kowing the exact date of travel its impossible to do any type of meaniful research. With the information provided in both the YouTube video and on Simply Flying's website it raises a lot of qestions do to the inconsistencies providing a date along with all the other information provided could have been helpful.

For those of you who are not UA insiders don't take my my word for it just a simple search on flightaware.com (you can see 3 months worth of departures) will give you some information. The final passenger counts and what would have been active MEL's at the time would not be visible but you could see for most of October UA1684 SFO-LIH arrived either ontime or early. October 10 there was a last minute plane change and the flight arrived 4 hours late but the flight operated on a 753 which has no lie flat seats.

I checked the flight log data on FlightAware against what was shown on the IFE screen (10:08 mark in the video) and flight 1684 on 13-Oct matches it almost perfectly (immaterial discrepancies). The estimated arrival time on the IFE screen at 500 mi out shows an early arrival not a late arrival which contradicts the narrative in his video. The departure gate number shown in the video (88 ---- 4:17 mark in the video) matches what flight aware says for the 13-October flight as well. Arrival gate (10 -- 10:36 mark in the video) matches FlightAware's records too. Can't say with 100% certainty that 13-October was his date of travel but I'd say the odds are 98%+ at this point that he flew that day on N14107.

I'm not a UA insider but is there no way to query the ID written on the INOP maintenance sticker to see what it comes back as tagged to (3540528 --- 5:29 mark in the video). Now that we are pretty confident that it is N14107, maybe take a look at its maintenance history and see if seat 4F had issues (4:13 mark in the video confirms the seat as does his entrance to the cabin)

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

SFO is rebuilding T1 and has plans for a T2 to T3 connector. I’ve heard UA will pursue T2 gates once AA consolidates in the rebuilt T1.

SFOtoORD wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

SFO is rebuilding T1 and has plans for a T2 to T3 connector. I’ve heard UA will pursue T2 gates once AA consolidates in the rebuilt T1.

There is also a longer range plan to add a new Int’l concourse H as well as an addition to concourse F. I think the net is around 12 additional gates.

Is ua going to ever take delivery of those 4 former shaheen airbus A319’s stored at GYR

drmlnr1 wrote:

Is ua going to ever take delivery of those 4 former shaheen airbus A319’s stored at GYR

I believe the plan is to get most, if not all, of the ex-CZ craft inducted first. Alternatively I’ve also heard these others may be just for spare parts.

738
N18220 UA2740 IAHAMA... Third in for EvoBlu in one day.. Other two at LCQ.. Off to a good start...

SFOtoORD wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

SFO is rebuilding T1 and has plans for a T2 to T3 connector. I’ve heard UA will pursue T2 gates once AA consolidates in the rebuilt T1.

I've already heard that the T2 gates are a done deal. They're just waiting for the connector to be finished, which they are obviously pushing. UA will get AA's old gates when they move to T1B.

KLMatSJC wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

SFO is rebuilding T1 and has plans for a T2 to T3 connector. I’ve heard UA will pursue T2 gates once AA consolidates in the rebuilt T1.

I've already heard that the T2 gates are a done deal. They're just waiting for the connector to be finished, which they are obviously pushing. UA will get AA's old gates when they move to T1B.

I think they made a good case that they would need some extra gates, since they will lose some mid construction of any expansions of F. Obviously, no airport wants to put all their eggs in one basket, but I think SFO and UA both suffered when they had their spat about gates in the 90's and UA gave up E and downsized SFO ops. It took decades to get them back and once they did, SFO has never been stronger as an airport.

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

New gates for UA (and all others) are in the final stages of design for ORD. With the runway reconfiguration almost complete, once the new gates are constructed, ORD will be ready for some serious growth. But that is a few years down the road.

320:
N486UA entered AMA 2737/6Jan,paint - EvoBlu paint program back in full swing

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

UA has ordered 186 737Max* aircraft - 14 737-Max9s have been delivered. Once the Max aircraft return to service, I'd expect an as rapid as possible delivery schedule. Of course, the flip side of that is the question of how many older Airbus' and 37NGs will be phased out? Still, given a good economy, I'd expect plenty of growth with the large number of 737Max aircraft to be delivered.

*IIRC, it's 100 Max10s, 61Max9s and 25 others - apparently Max8s.

SFOtoORD wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

SFO is rebuilding T1 and has plans for a T2 to T3 connector. I’ve heard UA will pursue T2 gates once AA consolidates in the rebuilt T1.

Not sure if this was discussed in last years post, does SFO have room for another interntional terminal? I remember reading somewhere that SFO was restricted when it comes to international slots?

xxcr wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

How is UA going to grow at EWR / ORD / SFO until new gates are built? DEN / IAD / IAH are logically growth points. Where will the planes come from?

SFO is rebuilding T1 and has plans for a T2 to T3 connector. I’ve heard UA will pursue T2 gates once AA consolidates in the rebuilt T1.

Not sure if this was discussed in last years post, does SFO have room for another interntional terminal? I remember reading somewhere that SFO was restricted when it comes to international slots?

The new T1B will have swing gates. The eventual remodel of T3F will also include them as well. The Master Plan calls for a Concourse H which would be built between 101 and Concourse G, which will allow for 6 narrowbodies or 3 widebodies. This would total an increase of up to 20 international gates (assuming all are filled by narrowbodies).