drerx7 wrote:

I noticed a few different domestic/regional widebody flights outside of hub-hub runs like LAS etc. for September...how reliable is that schedule at this point? What are some regional widebody routes penciled in so far?

The vast majority of the domestic schedule is only reliable through Labor Day right now, although widebodies might be scheduled farther out than the general schedule, not entirely sure.

jayunited wrote:

The response was UA is studying the proposed AA/B6 codeshare closely. If approved UA does expect regulators to require both airlines to give up valuable slots and gates at JFK. At which point UA fully intends to submit its application to snap up as many slots and gate as we can to get us back into JFK in a meaningful way.

Not to veer too far off the topic at hand but but I'm sure someone on here knows the answer.

It's been mentioned on a-net that "someone" returned 70 slots at JFK. Assuming this statement is true, whether it's 70 slots by one carrier or 70 slots from multiple carriers, but if these slots were returned to the Port Authority, wouldn't they be able to be picked up by anyone at any time....possibly for free? Gates are a whole other issue but I would think that if the Port Authority wanted to monetize these returned/unused slots, they would bend over backwards to make gates available somewhere on the airfield so that the carrier that acquires them can actually use them and pay the associated fees to the Port.

I snagged this snippet from another thread and thought this question might be better addressed in this thread.

drerx7 wrote:

I noticed a few different domestic/regional widebody flights outside of hub-hub runs like LAS etc. for September...how reliable is that schedule at this point? What are some regional widebody routes penciled in so far?

UA hasn't updated it's schedule past September 7th. Anything, domestic at least, past that point is the pre-Covid schedule.

jetblastdubai wrote:

jayunited wrote:

The response was UA is studying the proposed AA/B6 codeshare closely. If approved UA does expect regulators to require both airlines to give up valuable slots and gates at JFK. At which point UA fully intends to submit its application to snap up as many slots and gate as we can to get us back into JFK in a meaningful way.

Not to veer too far off the topic at hand but but I'm sure someone on here knows the answer.

It's been mentioned on a-net that "someone" returned 70 slots at JFK. Assuming this statement is true, whether it's 70 slots by one carrier or 70 slots from multiple carriers, but if these slots were returned to the Port Authority, wouldn't they be able to be picked up by anyone at any time....possibly for free? Gates are a whole other issue but I would think that if the Port Authority wanted to monetize these returned/unused slots, they would bend over backwards to make gates available somewhere on the airfield so that the carrier that acquires them can actually use them and pay the associated fees to the Port.

I snagged this snippet from another thread and thought this question might be better addressed in this thread.

There is going to be so many slots available at jfk next year. I am not sure why they need to wait for regulators? Who is going to be flying full schedule at JFK?

tphuang wrote:

There is going to be so many slots available at jfk next year. I am not sure why they need to wait for regulators? Who is going to be flying full schedule at JFK?

There were slots available pre-COVID but they were all either early morning or late evening slots, from mid-morning through early evening there were no slots available.

Which brings up the question is JFK strict on the use it or loose it rule? I 100% agree no one will be flying a full schedule at JFK in 2021 but doesn't necessarily mean airlines will be forced to return those unused slots to JFK. Also if JFK does strictly enforce the use it or loose it rule there is nothing preventing an airline like B6 for example from requesting an exemption citing the coronavirus as the reason.

jayunited wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There is going to be so many slots available at jfk next year. I am not sure why they need to wait for regulators? Who is going to be flying full schedule at JFK?

There were slots available pre-COVID but they were all either early morning or late evening slots, from mid-morning through early evening there were no slots available.

Which brings up the question is JFK strict on the use it or loose it rule? I 100% agree no one will be flying a full schedule at JFK in 2021 but doesn't necessarily mean airlines will be forced to return those unused slots to JFK. Also if JFK does strictly enforce the use it or loose it rule there is nothing preventing an airline like B6 for example from requesting an exemption citing the coronavirus as the reason.

I would think it has the same rules as lga, at least 80% usage. And they both have slot waiver at the moment. Who knows how long that will last. All the lcc are eager for the lga waiver to end.

I am still under the belief that aa has already released a bunch of slots at jfk or done a smaller slot lease or sale with JetBlue already. I recall a few months ago spirit filed complaint about airlines at jfk not fully utilizing their slots. Which forced JetBlue to ramp up its pre covid summer schedule. United could certainly do the same here.

I think if United wants to go back into jfk, slots would not be the biggest concern. Being stuck in terminal 1, facing strong competition, low corporate demand and dl possibly retaliating on ewr lax would be bigger concerns.

tphuang wrote:

jayunited wrote:

tphuang wrote:

There is going to be so many slots available at jfk next year. I am not sure why they need to wait for regulators? Who is going to be flying full schedule at JFK?

There were slots available pre-COVID but they were all either early morning or late evening slots, from mid-morning through early evening there were no slots available.

Which brings up the question is JFK strict on the use it or loose it rule? I 100% agree no one will be flying a full schedule at JFK in 2021 but doesn't necessarily mean airlines will be forced to return those unused slots to JFK. Also if JFK does strictly enforce the use it or loose it rule there is nothing preventing an airline like B6 for example from requesting an exemption citing the coronavirus as the reason.

I would think it has the same rules as lga, at least 80% usage. And they both have slot waiver at the moment. Who knows how long that will last. All the lcc are eager for the lga waiver to end.

I am still under the belief that aa has already released a bunch of slots at jfk or done a smaller slot lease or sale with JetBlue already. I recall a few months ago spirit filed complaint about airlines at jfk not fully utilizing their slots. Which forced JetBlue to ramp up its pre covid summer schedule. United could certainly do the same here.

I think if United wants to go back into jfk, slots would not be the biggest concern. Being stuck in terminal 1, facing strong competition, low corporate demand and dl possibly retaliating on ewr lax would be bigger concerns.

One thing to clear up with the NK lawsuit is that JFK is not involved. NK is actually suing the DOT regarding WN’s departure from EWR and where the slots went. United of course sided with the DOT to prevent delays and for other obvious reasons.

Nicknuzzii wrote:

tphuang wrote:

jayunited wrote:

There were slots available pre-COVID but they were all either early morning or late evening slots, from mid-morning through early evening there were no slots available.

Which brings up the question is JFK strict on the use it or loose it rule? I 100% agree no one will be flying a full schedule at JFK in 2021 but doesn't necessarily mean airlines will be forced to return those unused slots to JFK. Also if JFK does strictly enforce the use it or loose it rule there is nothing preventing an airline like B6 for example from requesting an exemption citing the coronavirus as the reason.

I would think it has the same rules as lga, at least 80% usage. And they both have slot waiver at the moment. Who knows how long that will last. All the lcc are eager for the lga waiver to end.

I am still under the belief that aa has already released a bunch of slots at jfk or done a smaller slot lease or sale with JetBlue already. I recall a few months ago spirit filed complaint about airlines at jfk not fully utilizing their slots. Which forced JetBlue to ramp up its pre covid summer schedule. United could certainly do the same here.

I think if United wants to go back into jfk, slots would not be the biggest concern. Being stuck in terminal 1, facing strong competition, low corporate demand and dl possibly retaliating on ewr lax would be bigger concerns.

One thing to clear up with the NK lawsuit is that JFK is not involved. NK is actually suing the DOT regarding WN’s departure from EWR and where the slots went. United of course sided with the DOT to prevent delays and for other obvious reasons.

No, there was apparently a separate complaint filed at Port Authority about carriers not using their all their slots (completely unrelated to EWR). As long as other airlines don't complain, I suspect PA will not force airlines to release slots. Although in this case, I think a bunch of slots have already been returned. Whether or not they work for UA is a different question altogether.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

319:
N874UA, Ex China Southern B-6021 exited XMN Induction 2703/16Jul, enroute SFO via NRT & ANC

And has now arrived at GYR after spending the last 6 days at SFO:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N874UA

audidudi wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

319:
N874UA, Ex China Southern B-6021 exited XMN Induction 2703/16Jul, enroute SFO via NRT & ANC

And has now arrived at GYR after spending the last 6 days at SFO:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N874UA

The UA interior is completely installed. All it will need is a paint job and it’s ready to go.... But for now it’s just going to sit at GYR for who knows how long....

This is unprecedented. Worse than 9/11.

CRJ5000 wrote:

With nearly every industry decimated with no end in sight, I don't see how the government can throw more money at the airlines.
Yes, it's an election year, however the 99% of people who aren't in aviation are generally VERY put off by corporate bailouts, and for the most part have a very negative view of airlines in the first place. Go read comments on news articles, social media, etc regarding the airline portion of the CARES act and payroll protection grants. Nearly all of them are opposed. Would you really want to bailout the industry again a month before the election to appease 1% and alienate the other 99%?

It's not 1%, it is over 7.5 %, and those are high paying jobs with a lot of mortgages, car payments........

Agree that bailouts are not the way to go, the government is printing money it doesn't have.......

" 2016, the total U.S. economy generated $18.6 trillion
in value-added economic activity and supported 144.3
million jobs
. At the same time, civil aviation directly or
indirectly supported:
• $1.8 trillion in total economic activity,
• 10.9 million jobs, and
• contributed 5.2 percent of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). "

UAX Update:

CR5 Correction:
N541GJ parked at STL
N542GJ is flying
N503GJ returned to flying

CR2:
N408AW returned to flying
N418AW returned to flying
N470ZW returned to flying
N863AS returned to flying

Any updates on the SFO - HKG - SIN restart? Maybe the better question is whether or not there have been any updates on HKG’s COVID testing requirements for crew members that would allow for the flights to restart?

I think UA should return to JFK once the 737 MAX 10 are delivered. Since UA has 100 737 MAX 10s on order with 50 of them being in Polaris-configuration that will replace both the 752 on the transcon UA could fly them out from SFO/LAX-JFK/EWR/BOS leaving the A321XLR to do the international 752´s job. As for Terminal space UA could use T7 after BA moves to T8.

UA857 wrote:

I think UA should return to JFK once the 737 MAX 10 are delivered. Since UA has 100 737 MAX 10s on order with 50 of them being in Polaris-configuration that will replace both the 752 on the transcon UA could fly them out from SFO/LAX-JFK/EWR/BOS leaving the A321XLR to do the international 752´s job. As for Terminal space UA could use T7 after BA moves to T8.

Supposedly T7 is being ripped down so T5 can be expanded. I don't know whether or not UA will re-enter JFK although there may be some opportunities too in the near future. The rest of what you wrote with the 737-10s taking over on transcontinental routes and the A321XLRs replacing 752s on international flights was UAs plan pre-Covid19 at least.

Thanks for the responses to my scheduling question... do yall know when the next schedule update will occur?

UA857 wrote:

I think UA should return to JFK once the 737 MAX 10 are delivered. Since UA has 100 737 MAX 10s on order with 50 of them being in Polaris-configuration that will replace both the 752 on the transcon UA could fly them out from SFO/LAX-JFK/EWR/BOS leaving the A321XLR to do the international 752´s job. As for Terminal space UA could use T7 after BA moves to T8.

Since they are closing JFK totally as a MX base I would assume that there are no plans in the future to add flights into JFK

We was told in TechOps, that JFK is the only line base that will be closed. As it only takes care of 3rd party MX issues. We were also told that back shops in SFO could be closing, with the exception the landing gear & engine shops will remain open.

On the same call they said UA was looking at ways to get back into JFK. If we get slots back in JFK and reopen the line base. The MX that are displaced would be the 1st to get recalled before it’s opened up system wide for open positions.

windy95 wrote:

Since they are closing JFK totally as a MX base I would assume that there are no plans in the future to add flights into JFK

At JFK UA MX is a 3rd party vendor we have (had) contracts to perform maintenance for other airlines. Right now because of COVID there isn't a whole lot of work but the closing of the base has no bearing on UA's desire to get back into JFK with our own metal. United made it clear on the call and in the town hall that they want back in at JFK. Kirby and his team believes we can get back in, in a meaningful way (whatever that means in terms of routes) but for now United is waiting to see what becomes of this purposed AA/B6 codeshare and what the requisite fallout will be.

United is also talking about scaling back at SFO again another based where in addition to caring for UA aircraft they also provide maintenance to other airlines. I think if there is a scale down at SFO it would only be temporary for sure nothing permanent, but still no one likes to see things like this happening. But we have to keep in mind United Technical Operations has contracts with over 43 customers from around the world to perform maintenance here in the U.S. at places like JKF and SFO, and again the fallout from COVID has resulted less business with some airlines suspending operations to the U.S. completely. As much as I hate seeing this happen it isn't unexpected because the workload isn't there especially from those foreign carriers.

FlyingElvii wrote:

jayunited wrote:

windy95 wrote:

Since they are closing JFK totally as a MX base I would assume that there are no plans in the future to add flights into JFK

At JFK UA MX is a 3rd party vendor we have (had) contracts to perform maintenance for other airlines. Right now because of COVID there isn't a whole lot of work but the closing of the base has no bearing on UA's desire to get back into JFK with our own metal. United made it clear on the call and in the town hall that they want back in at JFK. Kirby and his team believes we can get back in, in a meaningful way (whatever that means in terms of routes) but for now United is waiting to see what becomes of this purposed AA/B6 codeshare and what the requisite fallout will be.

United is also talking about scaling back at SFO again another based where in addition to caring for UA aircraft they also provide maintenance to other airlines. I think if there is a scale down at SFO it would only be temporary for sure nothing permanent, but still no one likes to see things like this happening. But we have to keep in mind United Technical Operations has contracts with over 43 customers from around the world to perform maintenance here in the U.S. at places like JKF and SFO, and again the fallout from COVID has resulted less business with some airlines suspending operations to the U.S. completely. As much as I hate seeing this happen it isn't unexpected because the workload isn't there especially from those foreign carriers.

Is Oakland still open?

OAK MTC was closed during UAs bankruptcy case.

I just find it so, so satisfying seeing them actively and bluntly say they want back at JFK, when everyone here said it was the smartest, best thing they could’ve ever done and those that disagreed with it were harassed into oblivion. They don’t need JFK! They have EWR all to themselves and if you do this or go this way, you can get to lower Manhattan 3/10ths of a second faster from EWR! EWR is in New York! Then Scott Kirby enters the picture and on day 1 basically said they were brain dead for that decision.

Have they taken down their smug “JFK, you seem so distant” ads around NYC? Might want to take care of that before you go begging at the front door.

UA444 wrote:

I just find it so, so satisfying seeing them actively and bluntly say they want back at JFK, when everyone here said it was the smartest, best thing they could’ve ever done and those that disagreed with it were harassed into oblivion. They don’t need JFK! They have EWR all to themselves and if you do this or go this way, you can get to lower Manhattan 3/10ths of a second faster from EWR! EWR is in New York! Then Scott Kirby enters the picture and on day 1 basically said they were brain dead for that decision.

Personally I still believe it was the right decision for UA at the time. You have to look at where UA was when the decision was made to leave JFK. We had a serious shortage of narrow bodies, the sCO 752 were still being heavily utilized on many TATL routes out of EWR with only a handful of spares sitting around. We still had the domestic 763s also known as the ghetto birds, premium customers flying into and out of EWR to both SFO and LAX were demanding the same level of service that customers were getting flying into and out of JFK instead of the hodgepodge of service which included just about every single narrowbody in UA fleet. And finally it was no secret that UA was loosing money at JFK and needed to stop the bleeding. The results of that decision speak for themselves, pre-COVID UA's EWR-SFO-EWR route was one of the top 5 most profitable routes in America and in the top 10 most profitable routes in the World, while LAX-EWR-LAX was one of the top 10 most profitable routes in America. UA went from a money loosing operation at both EWR and JFK and quickly turned EWR-SFO and EWR-LAX into some of our most profitable routes pre-COVID.

Kirby comes in and says it was a mistake and that is fine everyone is entitled to their opinion. But remember when Kirby joined UA we had more narrow bodies in the form of 739NGs, the ghetto birds had been reconfigured and refreshed nose to tail with included diamond lie flats seats and deployed on many TATL routes freeing up many of those valuable sCO 752s. The domestic 77HD fleet had grown from 5 frames to 19 frames freeing up even more narrow bodies. And finally premium service had expanded to UA's SFO-BOS-SFO route. A lot of things happened between the time UA left JFK and Kirbys arrival at UA.

The is no question the merger was screwed up from the beginning and mistakes were made. UA squandered opportunities, and wasted billions of dollars and perhaps Kirby would have handled things differently from the start of the merger if he were here. But by the time UA made the decision to leave JFK the train had already left the station and UA was loosing premium customers in New York City. This is especially true at JFK where UA was loosing corporate clients and business travelers in general to Kirby over at American Airlines. We can't forget about a surging and very dangerous Delta Airlines who went for UA's juggler on both the JFK-SFO and JFK-LAX routes. Standing and fighting AA and DL at JFK simply wasn't an option and UA didn't have the liquidity to stomach the losses. I can't tell you the number of corporate clients UA lost when Delta decided to offer for a limited time a status match through their Sky Miles program. That was probably one of the biggest f*** you's Delta gave United, and there was nothing UA could do about it because we didn't have the money or the aircraft to stand and fight, retreat to the relative safety of EWR was UA's only option.

Don’t hear much about how things are with their Guam hub, curious as to how much of a schedule they’re running to HNL, other islands and Japan ?

At the moment, quite busy, with the addition of special charter flights and other sorties. Still a pretty active operation as UA is a vital inter-island link.

CALAV8R wrote:

At the moment, quite busy, with the addition of special charter flights and other sorties. Still a pretty active operation as UA is a vital inter-island link.

Are you looking at another airport? Most routes are cancelled and at most half a dozen United flights a day.

b747400erf wrote:

CALAV8R wrote:

At the moment, quite busy, with the addition of special charter flights and other sorties. Still a pretty active operation as UA is a vital inter-island link.

Are you looking at another airport? Most routes are cancelled and at most half a dozen United flights a day.

It certainly looks like flights are operating to LAX, SFO, HKG, HNL, SPN, NRT, ROR, and SIN some with multiple 777/787.

swacle wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

CALAV8R wrote:

At the moment, quite busy, with the addition of special charter flights and other sorties. Still a pretty active operation as UA is a vital inter-island link.

Are you looking at another airport? Most routes are cancelled and at most half a dozen United flights a day.

It certainly looks like flights are operating to LAX, SFO, HKG, HNL, SPN, NRT, ROR, and SIN some with multiple 777/787.

I said half a dozen flights a day. That is not "quite busy" and active and their most popular inter island link flight the island hopping 737 to Honolulu has been cancelled since early June.

swacle wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

CALAV8R wrote:

At the moment, quite busy, with the addition of special charter flights and other sorties. Still a pretty active operation as UA is a vital inter-island link.

Are you looking at another airport? Most routes are cancelled and at most half a dozen United flights a day.

It certainly looks like flights are operating to LAX, SFO, HKG, HNL, SPN, NRT, ROR, and SIN some with multiple 777/787.

SIN? Don't think so. Source?

Coal wrote:

swacle wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

Are you looking at another airport? Most routes are cancelled and at most half a dozen United flights a day.

It certainly looks like flights are operating to LAX, SFO, HKG, HNL, SPN, NRT, ROR, and SIN some with multiple 777/787.

SIN? Don't think so. Source?

I see that United operated UAL2861 on a 787 this past Wednesday, Sunday, and Friday from GUM-SIN but I don't think it's a regularly scheduled flight and can't find it on the schedule going forward.

https://flightaware.com/live/findflight ... ation=WSSS

swacle wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

CALAV8R wrote:

At the moment, quite busy, with the addition of special charter flights and other sorties. Still a pretty active operation as UA is a vital inter-island link.

Are you looking at another airport? Most routes are cancelled and at most half a dozen United flights a day.

It certainly looks like flights are operating to LAX, SFO, HKG, HNL, SPN, NRT, ROR, and SIN some with multiple 777/787.

A lot of this is cargo and/or repositioning from maintenance. UA doesn't fly nonstop to GUM from LAX, SIN, or SFO.

[quote="b747400erf
I said half a dozen flights a day. That is not "quite busy" and active and their most popular inter island link flight the island hopping 737 to Honolulu has been cancelled since early June.[/quote]

Actually the island hopper (HNL-MAJ-KWA-KSI-PNI-TKK-GUM) still operates but it currently it only runs 1x monthly in fact it operated last week. No tourist are allowed as this time residents only and only essential travel is permitted. But it is still operating and there were a hand full of passengers on the flight this past week and a lot of freight. In addition to the island hopper the mini hopper (TKK-PNI) still operates at 1x monthly as well with the same restrictions as the full island hopper. Starting in August service to NRT will resume, and UA will also resume service to SPN at 3x weekly, ROR at 2x monthly and YAP at 1x monthly and of course GUM-HNL service continued to operate throughout this crisis.

This is all in addition to UA operating cargo only flights to SFO, LAX, PVG, PEK, HKG, SIN, and NRT on 787/777s. So on some days GUM may only work 6 or 7 flights in a day on other days they could work 12-14 flights total if you include cargo only flights. Prior to COVID UA's operation at GUM averaged between 10-14 inbounds/outbounds per day depending on the season and the day of the week.

Have Guam changed its policy on Chinese Hong Kong passport holder following the decision at Washington D.C.?

Since the start of this covid situation, GUM-HNL has remained daily and SPN and NRT were 3x a week. In August, NRT goes back to daily (just 196/197 for now). As jayunited mentioned, the hopper and mini-hopper were both 1x a month, YAP 1x, and ROR 2x. That still remains the case for now subject to the island governments allowing regular traffic again. MNL sees 3-4x weekly with only cargo in both directions since starting back up in June.

As a UA ramp rat, the cargo flights have been a blessing in disguise. We don't have our usual schedule but the multitude of B77Ws and B787s keep us busy. We currently connect SFO and LAX to TPE/PVG/SIN/HKG.

We were also getting ferry trips for XMN and HKG early in the covid crisis when airframes were still up for Polaris upgrades until those stopped. The recent B788s didn't stop here.

Coal wrote:

swacle wrote:

b747400erf wrote:

Are you looking at another airport? Most routes are cancelled and at most half a dozen United flights a day.

It certainly looks like flights are operating to LAX, SFO, HKG, HNL, SPN, NRT, ROR, and SIN some with multiple 777/787.

SIN? Don't think so. Source?

They have been flying cargo flights GUM-SIN. Check Flightaware

My brother-in-law just transferred to GUM for a three year commitment. Was driving the A320 series and made the switch to the 73 just for this. Was there only about a month and bam furlough notice (he says a min of three months - anyone hired 2016 or later got one). He said United will move them back stateside at least (that's what he says anyway - does he have that in writing is another issue LOL!)

Would he and his family still get the travel benefits? How about my in-laws? Just curious that's all.

All UA employees now are on the same contract GUM ORD IAH all the same pay the GUM letter gives pilot a pay year advance but the company can modify it as needed ..same seniority lots as all the other pilots

The below story shows that UA and NZ have traded LHR slots with
UA dropping 11pm arvl, adding 1050am arrival
UA dropping 11:05pm dept, adding 320pm departure.
These would seem to be superior times, but does it mean the AM eastbound from IAD or EWR would be cancelled?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... p=12364828

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The below story shows that UA and NZ have traded LHR slots with
UA dropping 11pm arvl, adding 1050am arrival
UA dropping 11:05pm dept, adding 320pm departure.
These would seem to be superior times, but does it mean the AM eastbound from IAD or EWR would be cancelled?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... p=12364828

Pre-COVID I thought UA latest departure left LHR around 8:30PM heading to EWR? I also thought our AM departures from the US arrived at LHR around 9PM? I could be wrong but I don't remember an 11:05pm departure out of LHR or an 11pm arrival on UA.

jayunited wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The below story shows that UA and NZ have traded LHR slots with
UA dropping 11pm arvl, adding 1050am arrival
UA dropping 11:05pm dept, adding 320pm departure.
These would seem to be superior times, but does it mean the AM eastbound from IAD or EWR would be cancelled?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... p=12364828

Pre-COVID I thought UA latest departure left LHR around 8:30PM heading to EWR? I also thought our AM departures from the US arrived at LHR around 9PM? I could be wrong but I don't remember an 11:05pm departure out of LHR or an 11pm arrival on UA.

In all my years in flying UA in and out of LHR (since 1995) I have never seen a 11.05pm departure, that has to be an error.

I know we hashed this out a year or so ago but I can't find it –

Does the NZ/UA JV cover only NZ<->US service or does it extend to transportation continuing on to Europe?

codc10 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

The below story shows that UA and NZ have traded LHR slots with
UA dropping 11pm arvl, adding 1050am arrival
UA dropping 11:05pm dept, adding 320pm departure.
These would seem to be superior times, but does it mean the AM eastbound from IAD or EWR would be cancelled?
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indust ... p=12364828

Those slot times don't match any existing UA service... I believe UA has some legacy slots from the Pan Am deal that have been leased/traded to other carriers over the years. I wonder if this could be one of those slot pairs? The times are illogical for (resumed) NZ-metal service without a 24:05 RON, though... very interesting. A 3:20pm departure slot fills a midday gap in the LHR-EWR schedule, or could potentially result in a retimed UA SFO-LHR-SFO service to better connect with UA/NZ SFO-AKL-SFO.

NZ is not resuming LHR service. They announced the intention to withdraw from LHR completely earlier this year.

11pm is one time when LHR slots are freely available. I suspect UA have obtained the slots to swap with NZ, which NZ will immediately surrender back to the slot coordinator. Probably a legal reason behind it so it's technically a slot swap

So on the united 763, in the back left there are crew rest seats in coach with leg rests. They're only available to purchase on shorter non intl flights, but I am not aware of any flights they have with the 763 domestically. Does anyone know of any?







I know they fly the 752, 753 and 772 domestically. But I haven't seen the 763 and really want to try out these interesting seats. The only seats in coach with leg rests.

Yes.