Should we expect the fleet to be repainted more rapidly due to the virus?

There also needs to be available open paint bays. It’s not like planes are just painted while parked out on the tarmac.

The disappearance of the lighted up "Polaris" plaque in the business class cabin and at the boarding door shows me United is already watering down the Hard product of this awesome seat. The lighted up Polaris Plaque is on the Low-J 767s and some of the earlier 77Ws. But the retrofitted 772s/Hi-J 767s/787s/ newer 77Ws all not having that stylish plaque shows a lack of caring in my honesty. Why is there no mood lighting either on the retrofitted birds?

dmstorm22 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

They are running major mileage bonuses for trips bought and flown over the next few months. Especially if you purchase a PREMIUM seat.
I feel bad for all travel and hospitality businesses.

I'm far from a germaphobe- but it's even crossed my mind to bring antiseptic wipes.

Last, for those who lost their GS status for 2020, UA has provided a purchase and fly by April 30th a certain about to get your GS back. It will be far more difficult to reach that spend goal when one can find a RT from EWR to BOM RT for $3500 in Polaris!

I do wonder if this persists a long time if UA is forced to let people carry-over their status for 2021, or at least relax some of the requirements.

There's a lot of people (like me) who don't spend nearly enough for GS, but are generally right in the 1K range who may not travel as much if my company freezes travel, making qualifying for 1K a challenge - especially given the new focus on $ over all.

Obviously individual cases won't do it, but if enough complain I can see something happening - especially if this lasts through the summer season.

I was GS last year but didn't make the cut for 2020. However I got an email from United saying if I spent and flew $18,000 worth by end of April my GS would be restored. That would normally be easy for me given my job. But the fares are so low on many flights it will be more difficult. EWR to BOM was only $3,400 RT in Polaris on a 77W! My RT 787-10 EWR/LAX was only about $1300? BUT, I think I will get that giant mileage bonus.

I'm not a germaphobe at all!!! But it would be my luck to be first in Manhattan. I was 32 back in 1992 when I got a DVT from flying. I was in the hospital for a week! (also the doctor’s treated me like patient Zero for Flight related blood clots)
So, am I crazy to bring Clorox wipes with me? They were about $5.99 for the travel size on Amazon, today the same item I bought about 2 months ago is now $44!

I'm I silly for NOT being afraid?

738:
N12218 exited AMA 2706/5Mar in EvoBlu livery

Why doesn’t Oscar Munoz paint an aircraft in the retro Battleship “Worldwide Service” livery or the “Rising Blue”?

Because it would defeat the one airline campaign. Maybe if folks weren’t so polarizing with their former airlines of preference we would have had a couple by now!

And no you aren’t silly for not being afraid. The hype train has derailed.

blacksoviet wrote:

Why doesn’t Oscar Munoz paint an aircraft in the retro Battleship “Worldwide Service” livery or the “Rising Blue”?

Completely agree...I was in DEN Tues and saw the 747 retro BA livery...wow. Had as many people looking at that as the Star Wars UA 737 a few gates down.

fun2fly wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

Why doesn’t Oscar Munoz paint an aircraft in the retro Battleship “Worldwide Service” livery or the “Rising Blue”?

Completely agree...I was in DEN Tues and saw the 747 retro BA livery...wow. Had as many people looking at that as the Star Wars UA 737 a few gates down.

Yes, but BA has their own retro themes and from mergers from back in the 70's. You'll notice, they don't have a British Midland theme or even a British Caledonian livery. AA is the only airline that is celebrating recent mergers, and that is because they have so many work groups to represent. UA just has two very large groups, and some people's resentment is just starting to ease.

fun2fly wrote:

blacksoviet wrote:

Why doesn’t Oscar Munoz paint an aircraft in the retro Battleship “Worldwide Service” livery or the “Rising Blue”?

Completely agree...I was in DEN Tues and saw the 747 retro BA livery...wow. Had as many people looking at that as the Star Wars UA 737 a few gates down.

I went through DEN on Wednesday. They actually parked the UA retrojet next to the CO retrojet. There were a few employees trying to take picture, but with the gate angles, it wasn't ideal. Very cool to see though.

ual4life wrote:

Because it would defeat the one airline campaign. Maybe if folks weren’t so polarizing with their former airlines of preference we would have had a couple by now!

And no you aren’t silly for not being afraid. The hype train has derailed.

Sad but true. The Battleship livery also represents a particularly turbulent period for United (ESOP, SFH, 9/11, Ch. 11), inclusive of a time where thousands of current employees made tremendous concessions and simultaneously lost pensions, share value, etc.

The distant retro-liveries create more touchy-feely nostalgia, combined with the fact that very few present employees (probably none in the case of the CO retrojet) were actually around for those respective eras.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

319:
N895UA entered SFO 2055/28Feb, exited 685/3Mar in 16F config
N897UA exited LCQ 2759/11Feb in 16F config.
N898UA exited LCQ 2750/17Feb in 16F config

789:
N29977 sked first revenue flight 1981/6Mar ORD-SFO

for the A319 F mod, dont you mean 12F config?

scairbus wrote:

For the first time in a long time, an upgrade is looking like it’s going to clear on my way home this Friday (I’m a 1K based in SFO, used to GS destroying any hope). I’d upfare if it weren’t for more seats coming available the closer I get to the flight.

This and $20 fares from Alaska tonight... this is not good at all for the airlines.

I easily spend the 1k PQD/PQP, but not if 6 months of flying is cut out (my company has suspended all internal travel).

lol, i know your pain!! im also 1K and SFO based.

I noticed UA has a 772 scheduled for EWR-TPA-EWR starting March 29, also looks like more 757's between EWR/IAD and TPA. Anyone have a list of upgauged routes? I'm guessing this will be temporary, maybe 30 days at least to start out.

Nobody seems to be up in arms about other retro liveries.



Painting up a Flying Blue, a Battleship Gray, some of the meatball liveries would be fun.

It's amazing how much buzz a specialty livery does...there had to be 30 people taking pics of the Star Wars plane. That's one's special with the interior. Some retro interiors on these to match the outside would be way too sweet!

UAX Update:

CR5:
N511GJ entered revenue service with GoJet
N534GJ entered revenue service with GoJet
28 total CR5s in service

adamblang wrote:

Nobody seems to be up in arms about other retro liveries.



Painting up a Flying Blue, a Battleship Gray, some of the meatball liveries would be fun.

Those two liveries are from before the careers of any current employees. They are for fun, they don't represent a different time that employees "remember fondly." Someday we may see meatballs and UA's orange livery, but I doubt it for now.

cosyr wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Nobody seems to be up in arms about other retro liveries.



Painting up a Flying Blue, a Battleship Gray, some of the meatball liveries would be fun.

Those two liveries are from before the careers of any current employees. They are for fun, they don't represent a different time that employees "remember fondly." Someday we may see meatballs and UA's orange livery, but I doubt it for now.

The meatball scheme comes from the Lorenzo era it would not go over well at all.

CriticalPoint wrote:

cosyr wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Nobody seems to be up in arms about other retro liveries.



Painting up a Flying Blue, a Battleship Gray, some of the meatball liveries would be fun.

Those two liveries are from before the careers of any current employees. They are for fun, they don't represent a different time that employees "remember fondly." Someday we may see meatballs and UA's orange livery, but I doubt it for now.

The meatball scheme comes from the Lorenzo era it would not go over well at all.

Certainly not “from” the Lorenzo era, but the red meatball (as opposed to the original black tail logo in the ~1968 Saul Bass “Contrails” scheme) undoubtedly came to symbolize it.

Way too soon for tulips and meatballs!

As much as I love the tulip, I've got some amazing memorabilia with it: Evo blue is an ”OK” livery when it comes to BRAND STRATEGY and not design. It is not for me (a 58 year old) who's put in my 3 million miles...it's for the next generation of business fliers who do not know who Farrah Fawcett was, or even Donna Summer and do not even recall much of any president before GWB (maybe a bit of Bill Clinton)

A brand can only look backwards for supporting historical roots when it has achieved its FORWARD VISION!

VC10er wrote:

N649DL wrote:

AaronPGH wrote:

Agreed. Would have loved to see Sky Interior bins/lighting like some of the DL 752s, but this works for the remaining 4-5 years.

Also not replacing the overhead panels and exit signs. The best benefit is for coach passengers with updated IFE.

It's a "Meh" upgrade at best. If they brought more 757s in from the desert and did the same, I'd be a little more excited. Delta's retrofit of the 757s has been far more impressive. AA's Y seats on the refurbishment of the 757 with AA seem to have more padding than UA as well.

Did Delta’s 752’s have an equal amount of life left as UA’s 752’s?

I who know nothing: I wonder how many years of take of and landings can UA actually get out of their 752’s before they are overall just too old and fatigued to safely keep flying?

Also, over the past handful of years since UA had its FIRST TRUE Polaris seat flying (I assume that was the first 77W?) Has Delta undergone a ”similar in magnitude” fleet refurbishment as UA has been doing with their enormous fleet of wide-body aircraft, Polaris Lounges, new UC clubs, new gate areas etc.

It just ”seems” (and naturally I could be wrong) that United required an absolutely enormous and hugely expensive and massive logistical plan to refurb EVERYTHING ”BIG” by the end of 2020 or Q1 of 2021 AND acquired ”how many?” 77W’s, 789’s and 78-10’s and 3 used 763’s in total which all together cost???
Perhaps a line needed to be drawn at making the 752’s look brand new inside from a sky ceiling, new First Class and lavatories down to the newest ashtrays?
They held on for so long waiting for Boeing to provide the answer aircraft (797).

So, realistically: how long can UA’s 752’s keep flying? Is it 5 years? 10 years?

to be real? There IS no life limit on many commercial airplanes. It only depends on how much you're willing to spend at every heavy check starting with the C-checks, And how much more you're willing to spend at the D-check/ Overhaul,, Other than that? It's parts availability and Expense.

strfyr51 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

N649DL wrote:

Also not replacing the overhead panels and exit signs. The best benefit is for coach passengers with updated IFE.

It's a "Meh" upgrade at best. If they brought more 757s in from the desert and did the same, I'd be a little more excited. Delta's retrofit of the 757s has been far more impressive. AA's Y seats on the refurbishment of the 757 with AA seem to have more padding than UA as well.

Did Delta’s 752’s have an equal amount of life left as UA’s 752’s?

I who know nothing: I wonder how many years of take of and landings can UA actually get out of their 752’s before they are overall just too old and fatigued to safely keep flying?

Also, over the past handful of years since UA had its FIRST TRUE Polaris seat flying (I assume that was the first 77W?) Has Delta undergone a ”similar in magnitude” fleet refurbishment as UA has been doing with their enormous fleet of wide-body aircraft, Polaris Lounges, new UC clubs, new gate areas etc.

It just ”seems” (and naturally I could be wrong) that United required an absolutely enormous and hugely expensive and massive logistical plan to refurb EVERYTHING ”BIG” by the end of 2020 or Q1 of 2021 AND acquired ”how many?” 77W’s, 789’s and 78-10’s and 3 used 763’s in total which all together cost???
Perhaps a line needed to be drawn at making the 752’s look brand new inside from a sky ceiling, new First Class and lavatories down to the newest ashtrays?
They held on for so long waiting for Boeing to provide the answer aircraft (797).

So, realistically: how long can UA’s 752’s keep flying? Is it 5 years? 10 years?

to be real? There IS no life limit on many commercial airplanes. It only depends on how much you're willing to spend at every heavy check starting with the C-checks, And how much more you're willing to spend at the D-check/ Overhaul,, Other than that? It's parts availability and Expense.

Whatever DL did, they obviously took their NW Best Practices and completely gutted them and retrofitted them with AVOD nose to tail with new overheads and sidewalls, etc. Some even have no winglets so if you're onboard the aircraft, you would assume it's brand new. They're paid off, and it's even mentioned this week that if the Coronavirus hit travel demand, they'd be the first to be parked. However it's not likely as the M88s and M90s will go first.

UA in 2012-2013 did the same thing as DL with 15 selected frames for the PS operation, then left JFK (and now only 13 in operation) making it a really odd sub-fleet as they have different engines than the ex-CO fleet. Some are newer (built 1997-1999) others are over 30 years-old. My issue is UA didn't onboard many of these high J 757s for domestic operations for backup and they always seem to be having issues. Whereas, DL did this for much of their 757 domestic operations (most delivered between 1990 and 2001) after UA sold 30 of them to FedEx for quick cash. The oldest variants from 1989-1990 at DL are in a VIP / NBA charter configuration (swapped them out for the former NW 319s going back to domestic instead) but are in low cycle mode with 72 F seats.

UA still have some stored should they need them (the MAX ban being a significant drag for them) but seem to be most focused on maintaining their 763 fleet for Polaris. They keep changing their mind about how this will go, but I'm thinking it's likely with the 3 ex-HA frames now active, all 38 will stay around for a while.

319:
Oops, N895/897/898UA aere in 12F config.
N802UA exited LCQ 2747/6Mar in 12F config.
N892UA sked to exit SFO 2337/8Mar with 12F config.

772:
N797UA sked to exit XMN 2689/7Mar in Polaris/PP config.

CriticalPoint wrote:

cosyr wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Nobody seems to be up in arms about other retro liveries.



Painting up a Flying Blue, a Battleship Gray, some of the meatball liveries would be fun.

Those two liveries are from before the careers of any current employees. They are for fun, they don't represent a different time that employees "remember fondly." Someday we may see meatballs and UA's orange livery, but I doubt it for now.

The meatball scheme comes from the Lorenzo era it would not go over well at all.

The “meatball” was Saul Bass logo (same guy as the Tulip) it rolled out under Robert Six in 1968, the same era as CO first Pacific Ops.

Frank was in his late 20s and not remotely involved.

codc10 wrote:

ual4life wrote:

Because it would defeat the one airline campaign. Maybe if folks weren’t so polarizing with their former airlines of preference we would have had a couple by now!

And no you aren’t silly for not being afraid. The hype train has derailed.

Sad but true. The Battleship livery also represents a particularly turbulent period for United (ESOP, SFH, 9/11, Ch. 11), inclusive of a time where thousands of current employees made tremendous concessions and simultaneously lost pensions, share value, etc.

The distant retro-liveries create more touchy-feely nostalgia, combined with the fact that very few present employees (probably none in the case of the CO retrojet) were actually around for those respective eras.

United was by far the best airline in the 1990s, IMO, and immensely enjoyable as a customer. That was a time when the airline grew, especially abroad, took on many modern aircraft like the 744, 319/320, and 777. The product back then was really good and they were truly a global airline and innovative one. Things like e-tickets, easy checkin, founding Star Alliance, launching the 777, new DEN, and Shuttle (which was enormously successful prior to 9/11). Regardless of how 9/11 hurt UA and helped steer them to a Ch11, I’ve never once talked to a UA employee in my travels that didn’t love United. Certain CEOs? Maybe. But they loved UA.

I didn’t like the Battleship when it came out and I would never choose it over the Rainbow livery, but at this point I’d give a kidney to see even a shred of UA.

UA444 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

ual4life wrote:

Because it would defeat the one airline campaign. Maybe if folks weren’t so polarizing with their former airlines of preference we would have had a couple by now!

And no you aren’t silly for not being afraid. The hype train has derailed.

Sad but true. The Battleship livery also represents a particularly turbulent period for United (ESOP, SFH, 9/11, Ch. 11), inclusive of a time where thousands of current employees made tremendous concessions and simultaneously lost pensions, share value, etc.

The distant retro-liveries create more touchy-feely nostalgia, combined with the fact that very few present employees (probably none in the case of the CO retrojet) were actually around for those respective eras.

United was by far the best airline in the 1990s, IMO, and immensely enjoyable as a customer. That was a time when the airline grew, especially abroad, took on many modern aircraft like the 744, 319/320, and 777. The product back then was really good and they were truly a global airline and innovative one. Things like e-tickets, easy checkin, founding Star Alliance, launching the 777, new DEN, and Shuttle (which was enormously successful prior to 9/11). Regardless of how 9/11 hurt UA and helped steer them to a Ch11, I’ve never once talked to a UA employee in my travels that didn’t love United. Certain CEOs? Maybe. But they loved UA.

I didn’t like the Battleship when it came out and I would never choose it over the Rainbow livery, but at this point I’d give a kidney to see even a shred of UA.

I am not beholden to liveries and symbolism, but you’re missing a major point if you simply gloss over the long-term structural issues that led to United’s bankruptcy... it wasn’t just 9/11.

United’s employees sacrificed tremendous promised value in the form of the failed ESOP, post-9/11 concessions and canceled pensions that were directly tied to management incompetence.

United management rode the 90s boom times HARD... and the fall was indicative of it. Sadly it was born by the rank-and-file, not the people who sold them down the river.

codc10 wrote:

UA444 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Sad but true. The Battleship livery also represents a particularly turbulent period for United (ESOP, SFH, 9/11, Ch. 11), inclusive of a time where thousands of current employees made tremendous concessions and simultaneously lost pensions, share value, etc.

The distant retro-liveries create more touchy-feely nostalgia, combined with the fact that very few present employees (probably none in the case of the CO retrojet) were actually around for those respective eras.

United was by far the best airline in the 1990s, IMO, and immensely enjoyable as a customer. That was a time when the airline grew, especially abroad, took on many modern aircraft like the 744, 319/320, and 777. The product back then was really good and they were truly a global airline and innovative one. Things like e-tickets, easy checkin, founding Star Alliance, launching the 777, new DEN, and Shuttle (which was enormously successful prior to 9/11). Regardless of how 9/11 hurt UA and helped steer them to a Ch11, I’ve never once talked to a UA employee in my travels that didn’t love United. Certain CEOs? Maybe. But they loved UA.

I didn’t like the Battleship when it came out and I would never choose it over the Rainbow livery, but at this point I’d give a kidney to see even a shred of UA.

I am not beholden to liveries and symbolism, but you’re missing a major point if you simply gloss over the long-term structural issues that led to United’s bankruptcy... it wasn’t just 9/11.

United’s employees sacrificed tremendous promised value in the form of the failed ESOP, post-9/11 concessions and canceled pensions that were directly tied to management incompetence.

United management rode the 90s boom times HARD... and the fall was indicative of it. Sadly it was born by the rank-and-file, not the people who sold them down the river.

I don’t disagree that 9/11 was not the crux of their problems, they had costs that soared above the rest of the industry and it came back to bite them when the good times ended. There was already signs of it in late 2000 and early 2001 with many Asian counties’ economies declining and the .com bubble bursting, both of which affected UA disproportionately.

But I still believe that the BK could’ve either been avoided or at least delayed if not for 9/11 and the downturn that ensued. Either giving them more time in order to right the ship without the BK or some sort of wake up call that something needed to be done and fast. Perhaps some of the hardships the front line employees had to endure don’t happen or are lessened in this timeline.

https://youtu.be/V2GWidUjvRY

Tilton at 16 minutes basically describes how they aspired to be the “high cost carrier” prior to 9/11 and the BK.

789
N29978 B1 7Mar CHSCHS.
N29975 Still layed up in ORD with the busted wing... Boeing Team working hard at it I hear.

April Coronavirus cuts from SFO I have seen:

All down to 1x daily
IND-SFO
PIT-SFO
CLE-SFO
STL-SFO
RDU-SFO
PHL-SFO
TPA-SFO

Down to 2x Daily
MCO-SFO

Suspended
MSY-SFO
XNA-SFO
FLL-SFO

Other changes, I saw:
SFO-SEA -1
SEA-EWR -1
SEA-IAH -1
SEA-ORD -2
SEA-DEN -1
SFO-DEN -1
MCO-DEN -2
TPA-DEN -1
SFO-LAS -2
SFO-ORD -2
SFO-DFW -1
EWR-FCO down to 2x weekly
EWR-MXP decreased down to 1x weekly (Not sure on this one)

Lots of others, the OAG thread is going to be long tomorrow

Midwestindy wrote:

April Coronavirus cuts from SFO I have seen:

All down to 1x daily
IND-SFO
PIT-SFO
CLE-SFO
STL-SFO
RDU-SFO
PHL-SFO
TPA-SFO

Down to 2x Daily
MCO-SFO

Suspended
MSY-SFO
XNA-SFO
FLL-SFO

Other changes, I saw:
SFO-SEA -1
SEA-EWR -1
SEA-IAH -1
SEA-ORD Only 2x daily
SEA-DEN -1
SFO-DEN -1 or -2
MCO-DEN -2
TPA-DEN -1
SFO-LAS -2
SFO-ORD -2
SFO-DFW -1
EWR-FCO down to 2x weekly
EWR-MXP decreased down to 1x weekly (Not sure on this one)

Lots of others, the OAG thread is going to be long tomorrow

There are a good number of reductions for April out of IAD as well. It seems many markets are losing one frequency there for the month.

Does anyone have a full list?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Does anyone have a full list?

I have a feeling a full list is going to be excruciatingly long....

Midwestindy wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Does anyone have a full list?

I have a feeling a full list is going to be excruciatingly long....

Where did you get your information? I’m looking for EWR based routes if you could help!

Not surprised to see SFO hit hard. United has lost its Asian presence which helped support connections. Also, many tech companies are able to allow work from home in SFO and around the country. We are being allowed to work from home no questions asked so we do not need to travel or use planes. I think some companies are finally realizing you do not have to be in an office or on a plane somewhere for a meeting to be productive.

I Would not be surprised to see more cuts from UA to SEA and SFO if COVID 19 continues to spread, Very sad to see United's network be greatly affected by this downturn. Will take much longer than a month to recover business travel which I am already sure UA management knows. I am surprised United is not doing any promotions beside no change fees for flights booked in March to get people traveling again with COVID 19 and the economic downturn.

TYSflyer wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

April Coronavirus cuts from SFO I have seen:

All down to 1x daily
IND-SFO
PIT-SFO
CLE-SFO
STL-SFO
RDU-SFO
PHL-SFO
TPA-SFO

Down to 2x Daily
MCO-SFO

Suspended
MSY-SFO
XNA-SFO
FLL-SFO

Other changes, I saw:
SFO-SEA -1
SEA-EWR -1
SEA-IAH -1
SEA-ORD Only 2x daily
SEA-DEN -1
SFO-DEN -1 or -2
MCO-DEN -2
TPA-DEN -1
SFO-LAS -2
SFO-ORD -2
SFO-DFW -1
EWR-FCO down to 2x weekly
EWR-MXP decreased down to 1x weekly (Not sure on this one)

Lots of others, the OAG thread is going to be long tomorrow

There are a good number of reductions for April out of IAD as well. It seems many markets are losing one frequency there for the month.

No kidding...

So far I see:

IAD-EWR -4
IAD-SFO -2
IAD-LAX -2
IAD-DEN -2
IAD-CHS -2
IAD-IAH -1
IAD-BOS -1
IAD-DTW -1
IAD-TYS -1
IAD-PIT -1
IAD-BUF -1
IAD-AVL -1
IAD-SAV -1
IAD-ORF -1
IAD-RIC -1
IAD-MDT -1
IAD-SYR -1
IAD-ROC -1
IAD-ALB -1
IAD-ITH -1
IAD-MHT -1
IAD-CHO -1
IAD-BVT -1

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Does anyone have a full list?

I have a feeling a full list is going to be excruciatingly long....

Where did you get your information? I’m looking for EWR based routes if you could help!

Using "Flightsfrom" to compare new schedules with old

EWR-IAD -3
EWR-LAS -3
EWR-LAX -3
EWR-SFO -3
EWR-MIA -2
EWR-PIT -2
EWR-BNA -1
EWR-CLE -1
EWR-CMH -1
EWR-DEN -1
EWR-DFW -1
EWR-DTW -1
EWR-OMA -1
EWR-ORD -1
EWR-PDX -1
EWR-PHX -1
EWR-RDU -1
EWR-SEA -1
Ran out of energy

*EWR-SLC gone for April

Pi7472000 wrote:

Not surprised to see SFO hit hard. United has lost its Asian presence which helped support connections. Also, many tech companies are able to allow work from home in SFO and around the country. We are being allowed to work from home no questions asked so we do not need to travel or use planes. I think some companies are finally realizing you do not have to be in an office or on a plane somewhere for a meeting to be productive.

I Would not be surprised to see more cuts from UA to SEA and SFO if COVID 19 continues to spread, Very sad to see United's network be greatly affected by this downturn. Will take much longer than a month to recover business travel which I am already sure UA management knows. I am surprised United is not doing any promotions beside no change fees for flights booked in March to get people traveling again with COVID 19 and the economic downturn.

Can you imagine what AS is thinking in SEA (not to mention DL). UA at least has options to reallocate capacity. Maybe not great options. AS is kind of screwed if gets much worse in the SEA region.

On April 14 only, PIT-SFO is strangely down to zero nonstops to SFO. I was scheduled on one and just had to move it to Monday night. Funny that our SFO-TPE leg is still fine but not the domestic portion.

tpaewr wrote:

The “meatball” was Saul Bass logo (same guy as the Tulip) it rolled out under Robert Six in 1968, the same era as CO first Pacific Ops.

Frank was in his late 20s and not remotely involved.

That's correct, but the original Bass tail logo was a black ball (there was also minor use of a red ball). It was during the Lorenzo era that the tail logo changed from the black ball to the a red ball, also known as the meatball.

So for many CO employees, the red ball / meatball is very symbolic of the Lorenzo era and all the bad times and corporate greed that it represented.

AaronPGH wrote:

On April 14 only, PIT-SFO is strangely down to zero nonstops to SFO. I was scheduled on one and just had to move it to Monday night. Funny that our SFO-TPE leg is still fine but not the domestic portion.

Taiwan has been relatively in touched by Coronavirus. Only 40-50 cases.

Leaked documents from Boeing show that UA will operate 50, yes 50, of their Max 10s in a premium configuration with 22 lie flat seats in a reverse herringbone arrangement. The aircraft will also feature closets and a lavatory in between the business and economy cabins. What routes do you think the aircraft will fly besides EWR- SFO/LAX? Will such are premium configuration offer an extended range opening up the possibility of transatlantic flights?

https://pointmetotheplane.boardingarea. ... -10-fleet/

This is not new news. The 737-MAX10 is the designated 757 replacement for UA's transcon service other than the 772s/77Ws/787-10s that are also flown on select flights. As for TATL, unlikely the MAX10 will appear on thin TATL routes. UA ordered the A321XLR and that's likely going to be the plane for such routes.

Cointrin330 wrote:

This is not new news. The 737-MAX10 is the designated 757 replacement for UA's transcon service other than the 772s/77Ws/787-10s that are also flown on select flights. As for TATL, unlikely the MAX10 will appear on thin TATL routes. UA ordered the A321XLR and that's likely going to be the plane for such routes.

Did you know they were going offer all direct aisle access seats before this? We’re you anticipating this many premium seats? Did you know that the configuration was going to give the aircraft a range boost?

Regardless of this premium heavy config it will be not enough for a reasonable, secured year-round transatlantic range.

i don’t dispute that the graphic contained in the blog post is legit, but there’s a lot of incorrect information in that post.

In addition to the usual transcon markets we know 737-10s will be placed on, this is going to be an incredible aircraft for routes like SFO-BOS/DCA, EWR-SAN/SEA, or ORD-ANC. I’m willing to bet they’re peeking into a whole bunch of new domestic routes for it, perhaps down south from IAH too.

Looks like this will be the Thompson Vantage Solo seats? Nice to have direct aisle access and more "foot cubby space" for sleeping, but boarding will be somewhat awkward with standing and sitting passengers directly looking at each other.