sdh9 wrote:

NWAESC wrote:

They're paying them all their scheduled hours to stay home. CARES or not, that's a fantastic move, and I hope we'll see other carriers follow suit.

They have no choice if they take the grant money. Neither does any carrier. They will all take the grant money, so therefore the employees will collect a paycheck.

The carriers are not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. If there was no grant money, the picture would be completely different.

I appreciate that the carriers lobbied pretty hard for it, though.

That said, they don’t have to pay them to stay at home. Some are requiring employees to show up if they want to get paid.

+1

They also could be busting ho it a down to the contractual minimums-or even declaring Force Majeure- but that’s doesn’t seem to be happening here, eitherZ

NWAESC wrote:

+1

They also could be busting ho it a down to the contractual minimums-or even declaring Force Majeure- but that’s doesn’t seem to be happening here, eitherZ

United has already indicated that layoffs and/or furloughs are a strong possibility this fall. I would hold off on giving any carriers too much credit yet.

atcsundevil wrote:

NWAESC wrote:

+1

They also could be busting ho it a down to the contractual minimums-or even declaring Force Majeure- but that’s doesn’t seem to be happening here, eitherZ

United has already indicated that layoffs and/or furloughs are a strong possibility this fall. I would hold off on giving any carriers too much credit yet.

Oh, I know what’s coming on 10/1. Still, credit where credit’s due...

atcsundevil wrote:

NWAESC wrote:

+1

They also could be busting ho it a down to the contractual minimums-or even declaring Force Majeure- but that’s doesn’t seem to be happening here, eitherZ

United has already indicated that layoffs and/or furloughs are a strong possibility this fall. I would hold off on giving any carriers too much credit yet.

I give the airlines and the government credit for buying everyone some time to see how long this lockdown period lasts and what recovery might look like before committing to anything permanent.

United is no longer counting on demand rushing back quickly but they haven’t given up on being ready in case it does.

ryhops wrote:

NWAESC wrote:

Good on UA to keep everyone on the payroll!

(It is the American taxpayer keeping these employees on payroll.)

"Those" employees also pay American taxes.

Please try to get the thread back on topic. Discussion over the bailout package is best discussed in more appropriate threads.

✈️ atcsundevil

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Yes, I was just guessing if the MAX situation continues when the Coronavirus situation is winding down that maybe WN might need to retain aircraft instead of having to further reduce their fleet.

Of course, everyone has their fleets grounded, but after the virus situation is over, depending on demand (especially international demand), UA may have excess capacity with new units arriving and used units in the pipeline while WN will be reducing total fleet by lease returning units going to UA. Just a thought if that special, unlikely set of events take place.

Oops, with my post on 739s, I mistakenly talked about retiring 2008 738 units - that was an error and should have said 1998 units.

The WN B73G’s are a GECAS problem. WN already slowed the retirement down in January due to the MAX. They definitely are not going to lease them back. They already parked 50+ aircraft and I suspect they will park more.

4 WN B73G destined for UA have been through the lease return process already this year.

N7705A
N7706A
N7707C
N7708E

There are 4 more scheduled for lease return in 2020.

N7709A
N7710A
N7711N
N7712G

The remainder are deferred to 2021.

Alpine

https://viewfromthewing.com/united-airl ... a-flights/

UA looking into restarting China flights soon, good news

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

There is also a post dedicated to keeping track of stored mainline aircraft.

✈️ atcsundevil

LGeneReese wrote:

LGeneReese wrote:

78J
N13013 B1 BOE48 CHSCHS 31Mar

B2 BOE48 CHSCHS 3APR

789
N29978 shows RFD.. So will either craft actually deliver any time soon or just sit in a corner somewhere?

78J
N13013 C1 BOE48 6APR CHSCHS

Both now show RFD... now it’s just wait/see.

More network cuts, this time for LAX & SFO.

Effective Apr 12 for 3 week period.

LAXintl wrote:

More network cuts, this time for LAX & SFO.

Effective Apr 12 for 3 week period.

What 6 cities will keep LAX flying, EWR, IAH, SFO, DEN, ORD, IAD?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Some news helicopter video here above IAD, showing a nearly empty parking lot and lots of United planes parked on the ramp and on the de-ice pads.

https://twitter.com/AdamTuss/status/1247619950723969026

N652UA 763 Hi J Polaris to exit HKG Apr 08

I hope that if the 777A models meet their end, N777UA is saved and put in a museum. Hopefully in her Battleship livery.

UA444 wrote:

I hope that if the 777A models meet their end, N777UA is saved and put in a museum. Hopefully in her Battleship livery.

It's a shame United doesn't operate a heritage museum like Delta. United doesn't seem to value their history to the same extent. Maybe Pima would take it, but presumably only if it's donated. I can't think of any other place that might take a 77A.

Ferried to Roswell today 4/8

B772 - N206UA
B763 - N642UA, N674UA, N675UA

atcsundevil wrote:

UA444 wrote:

I hope that if the 777A models meet their end, N777UA is saved and put in a museum. Hopefully in her Battleship livery.

It's a shame United doesn't operate a heritage museum like Delta. United doesn't seem to value their history to the same extent. Maybe Pima would take it, but presumably only if it's donated. I can't think of any other place that might take a 77A.

Does AA have one ...

LGeneReese wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

UA444 wrote:

I hope that if the 777A models meet their end, N777UA is saved and put in a museum. Hopefully in her Battleship livery.

It's a shame United doesn't operate a heritage museum like Delta. United doesn't seem to value their history to the same extent. Maybe Pima would take it, but presumably only if it's donated. I can't think of any other place that might take a 77A.

Does AA have one ...

Yes, the CR Smith museum in Fort Worth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

fun2fly wrote:

N652UA 763 Hi J Polaris to exit HKG Apr 08

Is that a test hop?
FR24 shows 11 on 2794
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n652ua

FR24Virus wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

N652UA 763 Hi J Polaris to exit HKG Apr 08

Is that a test hop?
FR24 shows 11 on 2794
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n652ua

Either it changed or I misread it. Either way, another one to storage. I wonder if anything will take it's place: 767, 777 or just save cash?

fun2fly wrote:

FR24Virus wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

N652UA 763 Hi J Polaris to exit HKG Apr 08

Is that a test hop?
FR24 shows 11 on 2794
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n652ua

Either it changed or I misread it. Either way, another one to storage. I wonder if anything will take it's place: 767, 777 or just save cash?

If the work has already been funded/$ committed it will carry on.. otherwise I think not so much likely.

Re: N777UA, YES, it belongs in a United Museum. #1 delivered 5/1995. (Pima already has a CX 777)
United really needs a museum, to showcase the Pride, History, Legacy and Education of the great company.
Look at what DL has done in ATL. Check out the you tube animation, and this was before they displayed their
747-400 and now a DC-6. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5s56IaWbSg
Check out: unitedmuseum.org

763:
N652UA sked to exit HKG 2794/11Apr with High J Polaris/PP

772:
N78009 sked to exit HKG 2784/11Apr in Polaris/PP

77W: Note several flights in/out of HKG with 77Ws, must be cargo

789:
N29961 exited VCV 2725/8Apr, can someone confirm EvoBlu or touch-up?
N17963 entered VCV 2744/8Apr, paint

For those interested below are cargo only ops routes planned through May. (in addition to the six-passenger routes)

Atlantic:
EWR-AMS
IAD-BRU
IAH-AMS
IAH-FRA
LAX-LHR
ORD-AMS
ORD-FRA
ORD-LHR
SFO-AMS
SFO-FRA
SFO-TLV

Pacific:
LAX-HKG
LAX-NRT-PVG
LAX-SYD
ORD-HKG
ORD-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-TPE
SFO-SYD

Latin:
IAD-SJU

Just Wing Paint for the 787-9's I think we stopped painting aircraft for now.

On a separate note. Does anyone have pics of Roswell with all the parked Aircraft?

LAXintl wrote:

For those interested below are cargo only ops routes planned through May. (in addition to the six passenger routes)

Atlantic:
EWR-AMS
IAH-AMS
ORD-AMS
SFO-AMS

This makes me wonder if cargo has typically been a major part of UA's success in AMS as a non-Star hub market over the years... I remember plenty of people were surprised to see SFO-AMS come online, and also the 2nd EWR-AMS frequency that was originally planned for this summer. If UA generally generates lot of cargo revenue from AMS, that could help explain their strength there.

FSDan wrote:

This makes me wonder if cargo has typically been a major part of UA's success in AMS as a non-Star hub market over the years... I remember plenty of people were surprised to see SFO-AMS come online, and also the 2nd EWR-AMS frequency that was originally planned for this summer. If UA generally generates lot of cargo revenue from AMS, that could help explain their strength there.

AMS has long been one of the largest cargo gateways for Europe (#3 in 2019) thanks to an extensive road feeder network which helps distribute across the continent. Also probably helps the president of UA cargo since 2015 is the former head of cargo at KLM, so he certainly knows the market.

LAXintl wrote:

FSDan wrote:

This makes me wonder if cargo has typically been a major part of UA's success in AMS as a non-Star hub market over the years... I remember plenty of people were surprised to see SFO-AMS come online, and also the 2nd EWR-AMS frequency that was originally planned for this summer. If UA generally generates lot of cargo revenue from AMS, that could help explain their strength there.

AMS has long been one of the largest cargo gateways for Europe (#3 in 2019) thanks to an extensive road feeder network which helps distribute across the continent. Also probably helps the president of UA cargo since 2015 is the former head of cargo at KLM, so he certainly knows the market.

Very interesting!

So what do people think UA will actually fly later this summer w/r/t international? I'm looking at almost-wide open J award availability on SFO-Europe in September. I'm tempted to book, but some routes like SFO-ZRH and SFO-MUC I have a feeling may not actually come back this year. I'm not jazzed about booking either if it's on a crummy 789 with the old diamond seats. SFO-LHR on a 77W or 772 with Polaris seems like a safer bet.

intotheair wrote:

SFO-LHR on a 77W or 772 with Polaris seems like a safer bet.

I certainly feel better about SFO-LHR (or FRA) than I do about any newer, seasonal service.

LAXintl wrote:

For those interested below are cargo only ops routes planned through May. (in addition to the six-passenger routes)

LAX-NRT-PVG
ORD-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-TPE

Do we know the reason for the stop in NRT on the China and Taiwan flights? Is this crewing-related like we saw with the GUM stop for XMN/HKG Polaris conversions?

adamblang wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

For those interested below are cargo only ops routes planned through May. (in addition to the six-passenger routes)

LAX-NRT-PVG
ORD-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-TPE

Do we know the reason for the stop in NRT on the China and Taiwan flights? Is this crewing-related like we saw with the GUM stop for XMN/HKG Polaris conversions?

Definitely the case for PVG. UA/ALPA do not want to lay over crews in China. TPE might be a demand issue (e.g. not enough cargo for a dedicated flight).

adamblang wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

For those interested below are cargo only ops routes planned through May. (in addition to the six-passenger routes)

LAX-NRT-PVG
ORD-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-TPE

Do we know the reason for the stop in NRT on the China and Taiwan flights? Is this crewing-related like we saw with the GUM stop for XMN/HKG Polaris conversions?

It is crew-related.

codc10 wrote:

Definitely the case for PVG. UA/ALPA do not want to lay over crews in China. TPE might be a demand issue (e.g. not enough cargo for a dedicated flight).

From my understanding there is a regulatory compliance concern as well.

FSDan wrote:

This makes me wonder if cargo has typically been a major part of UA's success in AMS as a non-Star hub market over the years... I remember plenty of people were surprised to see SFO-AMS come online, and also the 2nd EWR-AMS frequency that was originally planned for this summer. If UA generally generates lot of cargo revenue from AMS, that could help explain their strength there.

AMS is a large cargo facility but the reason UA pre-COVID-19 was able to add SFO and a second EWR flight was because Kirby renegotiated UA's outdated JV agreement with both LH and AC. In fact if you are a UA employee I would urge you to Flying Together and back to an early winter 2018 town hall meeting Kirby held at SFO where he talked about why and how UA was able to grow and add flights to non-STAR hubs. He talked about how the original JV UA negotiated from a position of weakness which gave LH and AC an edge and UA had to funnel more passengers onto those carriers via Cananda or LH's FRA/MUC hubs.

UA is a passengers airline cargo is not a huge factor in deciding what routes to launch. The only reason UA is running cargo charters is because there is money to be made and the reason there is money to be made is because cargo carriers can not keep up with demand which has contributed higher prices providing UA an opportunity.

codc10 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

For those interested below are cargo only ops routes planned through May. (in addition to the six-passenger routes)

LAX-NRT-PVG
ORD-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-PVG
SFO-NRT-TPE

Do we know the reason for the stop in NRT on the China and Taiwan flights? Is this crewing-related like we saw with the GUM stop for XMN/HKG Polaris conversions?

Definitely the case for PVG. UA/ALPA do not want to lay over crews in China. TPE might be a demand issue (e.g. not enough cargo for a dedicated flight).

UA already had crews laying over in PVG. The first ORD-PVG charter that operated some time ago left with 8 flight crew members deadheading. The problem coming out of China right now is most of the cargo UA is shipping out are medial supplies. Of those medical supplies the heaviest piece of equipment are the ventilators the remaining PPE while the total numbers are impressive the overall weight needed simply isn't there. Looking at a 789 our load planners only have 5 PMC positions to clear minimum tail weight and on a 77W they only have 6 positions clear min tail. On these cargo charters out of Asia our load planners are seeing minimum tail weights around 27,000-32,000 pounds do to the high fuel loads. NRT on the other hand has always been a huge cargo hub for UA, so has China (pre COVID-19), but now the difference is weight versus volume. Coming out of NRT we are still shipping PMC's that weigh over 10,000 pounds. Compared to PVG where those medical supplies take up a lot of volume but don't have the weight needed to clear minimum tail weight. What many people may not know is a few weeks ago UA operated a few cargo charter nonstop out of PVG, however it was a disaster because our load planners had to leave a majority of the forward cargo compartment empty leaving much needed PPE on the ground because we couldn't clear minimum tail weight with cargo, it is a balancing act. When a customer charters a flight the last thing they want to see when they sign in to track their shipment is over half of their shipment was left behind. Customers don't care about minimum tail weight that is the airlines job to figure that out, all they want to know is why is that an aircraft they chartered was allowed to leave with more than half of the shipment being left behind.

Keep in mind the fuel required to get these charters from point A to point B, and when we are talking about Asia all of the required fuel can't fit in the wings. While the required fuel isn't as much as it would be on a normally full passenger flight with bags and cargo, there is still a tremendous amount of fuel in the center tank. Any one who had done weight and balance or has knowledge of it understands that at a certain point the amount of fuel in the center tank can actually raise your minimum tail weight because the fuel in the center tank starts pushing the aircraft into a nose heavy condition. Without any passengers to hold the tail down our load planners need heavy PMCs that weigh a lot to clear min tail, while the lighter PMC that take up a lot of volume can be loaded up front.

jayunited wrote:

codc10 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

Do we know the reason for the stop in NRT on the China and Taiwan flights? Is this crewing-related like we saw with the GUM stop for XMN/HKG Polaris conversions?

Definitely the case for PVG. UA/ALPA do not want to lay over crews in China. TPE might be a demand issue (e.g. not enough cargo for a dedicated flight).

UA already had crews laying over in PVG. The first ORD-PVG charter that operated some time ago left with 8 flight crew members deadheading. The problem coming out of China right now is most of the cargo UA is shipping out are medial supplies. Of those medical supplies the heaviest piece of equipment are the ventilators the remaining PPE while the total numbers are impressive the overall weight needed simply isn't there. Looking at a 789 our load planners only have 5 PMC positions to clear minimum tail weight and on a 77W they only have 6 positions clear min tail. On these cargo charters out of Asia our load planners are seeing minimum tail weights around 27,000-32,000 pounds do to the high fuel loads. NRT on the other hand has always been a huge cargo hub for UA, so has China (pre COVID-19), but now the difference is weight versus volume. Coming out of NRT we are still shipping PMC's that weigh over 10,000 pounds. Compared to PVG where those medical supplies take up a lot of volume but don't have the weight needed to clear minimum tail weight. What many people may not know is a few weeks ago UA operated a few cargo charter nonstop out of PVG, however it was a disaster because our load planners had to leave a majority of the forward cargo compartment empty leaving much needed PPE on the ground because we couldn't clear minimum tail weight with cargo, it is a balancing act. When a customer charters a flight the last thing they want to see when they sign in to track their shipment is over half of their shipment was left behind. Customers don't care about minimum tail weight that is the airlines job to figure that out, all they want to know is why is that an aircraft they chartered was allowed to leave with more than half of the shipment being left behind.

Keep in mind the fuel required to get these charters from point A to point B, and when we are talking about Asia all of the required fuel can't fit in the wings. While the required fuel isn't as much as it would be on a normally full passenger flight with bags and cargo, there is still a tremendous amount of fuel in the center tank. Any one who had done weight and balance or has knowledge of it understands that at a certain point the amount of fuel in the center tank can actually raise your minimum tail weight because the fuel in the center tank starts pushing the aircraft into a nose heavy condition. Without any passengers to hold the tail down our load planners need heavy PMCs that weigh a lot to clear min tail, while the lighter PMC that take up a lot of volume can be loaded up front.

Fascinating insight!! I appreciate that tremendously!

jay, that's a great rundown of the situation with light loads on a long haul. I just wonder how other flights UA has flown in and out of Mod or maint in HKG or XMN are handled. I know UA tries to make a swap in Asia to a regular flight to minimize long ferries, but tracking the fleet for a few years, there have been lots of ferries in and out of mod that have flown to/from as far as ORD, IAH or EWR. Do these ferries have to take ballast in the back bins? Maybe the lack of any load reduces the fuel requirement? Or, maybe cargo is loaded since there's always a lot coming out of Asia, but westbounds should be more critical with longer flight times and probably little cargo demand.

The simple question on the operation that left half the load behind is why not fuel stop the aircraft in ANC or SEA (could be a crew issue, but maybe a crew could have deadheaded to ANC or SEA to pick up the second leg).

I worked weight and balance in the 70's on KLM aircraft and don't recall issues on passenger/freighters/combis with wing mounted engines (DC8, 747), but KLM always had great cargo loads and AMS wasn't that far from ORD. A couple of times the DC-10 had balance minor issues.

codc10 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

SFO-LHR on a 77W or 772 with Polaris seems like a safer bet.

I certainly feel better about SFO-LHR (or FRA) than I do about any newer, seasonal service.

The one I wonder about too is SFO-CDG. It's still near impossible to find saver J award availability on that route, even for this August and September. I don't know whether that's a sign that the route is still selling well or if they've maybe zeroed it out. It was a route that PMUA has cut in tough times before.

UAX Update:

Two-Cabin Express Fleet Updates:

Compared to both mainline and 50-seat fleets, the 70 and 76 seat Express Fleets are more active now. SkyWest and Mesa especially are using almost all frames on a slow rotation. Republic has parked more frames and is using the remaining more frequently. The list below is all 2-cabin Express Fleet parked. Every other frame is still active or in for routine maintenance.

OO E175:
BOI: 106, 108, 116, 120, 122, 131, 134, 146, 149, 168
BNA: 114, 141, 142, 143
FAT: 203 (will be heading to BOI)
COS: 145, 213

YV E175:
OKC: 302, 309
IAH: 322, 324, 333, 337

YX E175:
CMH: 721, 727, 728, 740, 752
SDF: 741, 742
IND: 722, 723, 749
PIT: 733

EV E175:
BOI: 601, 624
OKC: 621
N625UX now flying for SkyWest (1st frame transferred)

YX E170:
SDF: 632, 645, 648, 651, 855, 861
CMH: 633, 636, 637, 649, 654
PIT: 863
IND: 631, 635, 641, 656, 657, 856, 858, 859, 864, 979

YV CR7:
TUS: 509, 521
IAD: 511, 512
OKC: 502

OO CR7: All flying

G7 CR5: All flying

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jay, that's a great rundown of the situation with light loads on a long haul. I just wonder how other flights UA has flown in and out of Mod or maint in HKG or XMN are handled. I know UA tries to make a swap in Asia to a regular flight to minimize long ferries, but tracking the fleet for a few years, there have been lots of ferries in and out of mod that have flown to/from as far as ORD, IAH or EWR. Do these ferries have to take ballast in the back bins? Maybe the lack of any load reduces the fuel requirement? Or, maybe cargo is loaded since there's always a lot coming out of Asia, but westbounds should be more critical with longer flight times and probably little cargo demand.

UA does not operated scheduled or charter service out of XMN, there are times when ballast is necessary if that is case what UA has done in the past is send an empty pallet stack. Also for aircraft going to/from XMN for Polaris/PE modification if the aircraft is nose heavy load planners can ask the dispatcher to lower the fuel. If that doesn't work or the dispatcher says no what UA has done is fill up the potable water tanks to 100%, we are talking about 270 gallons and those tanks are located behind the wings which helps the tail weight. If after all of this we still need weight then empty pallet stacks are loaded. Since you have worked the ramp you know what pallet stacks are and depending on how many boards are stacked they can be quite heavy.

Having said that and keeping in line with the cargo theme Kirby today on a call talked about the fact that the recovery will take much longer than anyone anticipated. With that in mind UA will not need as many widebodies in passenger revenue service. So far there is still no public talk of mass retirements (although they maybe discussing it privately) what this call focused on was cargo. Right now because of reduced passengers service and the fact that cargo carriers can not keep up with demand, shipping prices are sky high and Kirby wants a bigger piece of the profits. What Kirby has tasked our engineering team and our weight and balance team with is to come up with solutions for how UA could load cargo above the wing. Now before I go further let me say this UA is not interested in permanent conversions and there are no plans at this time to launch a dedicated cargo fleet. What Kirby wants to know is how UA can carry cargo above the wing with the seats installed and/or with the seats removed. Keep in mind the floor of a passengers jet is not reinforced like a cargo jet. Also before this can go forward how to accurately account for the placement of the weight above the wing using our current weight and balance system (if our weight and balance system can be modified at all). Lastly how would cargo be 100% secured above the wing with the seats installed and without the seats installed.

Again this was just brought up today and UA is simply exploring the idea of temporarily loading cargo above the wing no final decision has been made one way or the other. In the interim what we do know is this UA will not need 190+ widebodies in passenger service once the pandemic part of this crisis is over. We also know that after 2020 UA has no additional widebody deliveries on the books until the A359 order in 2027 which presents challenges. As far as widebody retirements go I get the feeling UA might retire a small portion of the fleet, but place a larger portion of the widebody fleet into long term storage. I think Kirby is hesitant to discuss retirements publicly because if UA retires a significant portion of our widebody fleet and the recovery really starts to take off in 2022 UA could once again find itself at a real disadvantage seeing that we have no future widebody deliveries scheduled until 2027.

United is slowly beginning to add back some international capacity.

Starting May 4th the following additional flights will begin operating:
ORD-LHR -- daily
EWR-AMS -- daily
IAD-FRA -- daily

Starting May 5th
IAH-EZE -- 3 x weekly

Planned seasonal service EWR-PRG/KEF/ARN/PMO has been cancelled.

Scarebus34 wrote:

United is slowly beginning to add back some international capacity.

Starting May 4th the following additional flights will begin operating:
ORD-LHR -- daily
EWR-AMS -- daily
IAD-FRA -- daily

Starting May 5th
IAH-EZE -- 3 x weekly

The 3 European routes were planned to operate as cargo only services anyhow, so now they will allow some pax on board.

New is the EZE flight.

319:
N811UA sked to exit LCQ 2763/11Apr with 12F mod complete

772:
N76021 sked to exit HKG 2796/13Apr with Polaris/PP
Remaining in Mod:
XMN: N783UA (along with 788 N29907 & 789 N15969)
HKG: N76010/N78013/N77022 (763 mod lines halted)
Remaining for future Mod entry: N77014

Looks like UA moved EWR - Asia flights up to resuming May 21st. Seems that Europe begins in waves starting in May.

For the rest of April, United from EWR will be only flying domestically to other hubs.

Routes to be operated from EWR:

DEN (8 weekly), FRA, LHR, and TLV (1 daily each). IAD (20 weekly), IAH and SFO (2 daily each), LAX (13 weekly)

Also, ORD to LGA is 13 weekly.

FRA, LHR, and TLV may have some flights as cargo only.

jayunited wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

jay, that's a great rundown of the situation with light loads on a long haul. I just wonder how other flights UA has flown in and out of Mod or maint in HKG or XMN are handled. I know UA tries to make a swap in Asia to a regular flight to minimize long ferries, but tracking the fleet for a few years, there have been lots of ferries in and out of mod that have flown to/from as far as ORD, IAH or EWR. Do these ferries have to take ballast in the back bins? Maybe the lack of any load reduces the fuel requirement? Or, maybe cargo is loaded since there's always a lot coming out of Asia, but westbounds should be more critical with longer flight times and probably little cargo demand.

UA does not operated scheduled or charter service out of XMN, there are times when ballast is necessary if that is case what UA has done in the past is send an empty pallet stack. Also for aircraft going to/from XMN for Polaris/PE modification if the aircraft is nose heavy load planners can ask the dispatcher to lower the fuel. If that doesn't work or the dispatcher says no what UA has done is fill up the potable water tanks to 100%, we are talking about 270 gallons and those tanks are located behind the wings which helps the tail weight. If after all of this we still need weight then empty pallet stacks are loaded. Since you have worked the ramp you know what pallet stacks are and depending on how many boards are stacked they can be quite heavy.

Having said that and keeping in line with the cargo theme Kirby today on a call talked about the fact that the recovery will take much longer than anyone anticipated. With that in mind UA will not need as many widebodies in passenger revenue service. So far there is still no public talk of mass retirements (although they maybe discussing it privately) what this call focused on was cargo. Right now because of reduced passengers service and the fact that cargo carriers can not keep up with demand, shipping prices are sky high and Kirby wants a bigger piece of the profits. What Kirby has tasked our engineering team and our weight and balance team with is to come up with solutions for how UA could load cargo above the wing. Now before I go further let me say this UA is not interested in permanent conversions and there are no plans at this time to launch a dedicated cargo fleet. What Kirby wants to know is how UA can carry cargo above the wing with the seats installed and/or with the seats removed. Keep in mind the floor of a passengers jet is not reinforced like a cargo jet. Also before this can go forward how to accurately account for the placement of the weight above the wing using our current weight and balance system (if our weight and balance system can be modified at all). Lastly how would cargo be 100% secured above the wing with the seats installed and without the seats installed.

Again this was just brought up today and UA is simply exploring the idea of temporarily loading cargo above the wing no final decision has been made one way or the other. In the interim what we do know is this UA will not need 190+ widebodies in passenger service once the pandemic part of this crisis is over. We also know that after 2020 UA has no additional widebody deliveries on the books until the A359 order in 2027 which presents challenges. As far as widebody retirements go I get the feeling UA might retire a small portion of the fleet, but place a larger portion of the widebody fleet into long term storage. I think Kirby is hesitant to discuss retirements publicly because if UA retires a significant portion of our widebody fleet and the recovery really starts to take off in 2022 UA could once again find itself at a real disadvantage seeing that we have no future widebody deliveries scheduled until 2027.

Hi jayunited - just a word of thanks and appreciation for always sharing your insights with us; I always find your posts truly fascinating, interesting, and informative. Sending you best wishes and much health all the way from Tokyo!

aemoreira1981 wrote:

For the rest of April, United from EWR will be only flying domestically to other hubs.

Routes to be operated from EWR:

DEN (8 weekly), FRA, LHR, and TLV (1 daily each). IAD (20 weekly), IAH and SFO (2 daily each), LAX (13 weekly)

Also, ORD to LGA is 13 weekly.

FRA, LHR, and TLV may have some flights as cargo only.

Thanks for looking up the schedules!

EWR-ORD up to three times a day and a daily cargo only EWR-AMS are also operating.