cosyr wrote:

intotheair wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

UA looking to raise more money and is seeking to $3bn through an enhanced equipment trust certificate (EETC) issuance, which is secured on a collateral pool of spare parts, spare engines and aircraft, currently valued at $5.8bn.

The collateral package comprises ALL of UA spare parts inventory, 99 spare engines representing all of the airline’s spare engines, and 352 aircraft across 11 variants, which has represents 43% of United’s mainline operating fleet.

Here is the prospectus
https://ir.united.com/static-files/fac0 ... 5d0f6be01b

Fascinating to see what these planes are worth. Some of those 77As have a value barely above $1 million, and also interesting to see how much more valuable the GE-powered 77Es are than the PW ones.

Remembering back to my Accounting classes in grad school (it's a bit foggy, so don't take me as an expert), but they may not be able to value some assets higher if they have already depreciated them in years past, or they might be subject to higher taxes on something equivalent to a sales gain in value. If they were actually selling the planes, the increased value would more than make up for the taxes on that increased value of a depreciated asset, but as they are only leveraging their value for credit, they would be paying a chunk of the money they need to borrow in taxes.

If someone else is currently a tax professional, feel free to clean up the mess that I just wrote.

They can value the assets at a higher value than what they have them listed as on the books, they will just need to book the gain and pay taxes on that gain if they sell the asset. Re the values of some of the aircraft, i agree with you that its interesting to look at.

AASAP777 wrote:

AA had service from both SAL and SJO to LAX, but with separate flights. AA798 was SAL-LAX and AA928 SJO-LAX.

How did AA fly to these stations ?
757 service ?

SJOtoLIR wrote:

AASAP777 wrote:

AA had service from both SAL and SJO to LAX, but with separate flights. AA798 was SAL-LAX and AA928 SJO-LAX.

How did AA fly to these stations ?
757 service ?

Yes, estimado tico. Both of them with 757. And both of them with daily service.

Saludos!

atcsundevil wrote:

I had no idea that their Moody's credit rating dropped to Ba2 (considered "junk" in the non investment grade/speculative category). American is sitting just below at Ba3 and Delta only just in the prime category.

U.S. airlines being in the junk bond/speculative ratings categories isn't new. DL had climbed out not that long ago only to fall back down in Covid. IIRC only WN, AS and DL began Covid as investment-grade. January 15, 2020, Moody's affirmed a rating of Ba2 on UA, two notches below the bottom of investment grade. EETCs can carry higher ratings than senior unsecured debt. Barron's cited an analyst not impressed with UA's attempt to use an EETC for this tranche.

https://www.barrons.com/articles/united ... 1603209959

Let's see if this goes through and what kind of interest rate(s) they'll be paying.

I wouldn't say it is a crippling debt load, yet. American's at $50bn probably is. It is a concerning sum though. It all depends on the terms, and when it matures. I am sure the company will be looking to restructure some of the debt when they can achieve better rates and more favorable terms.

I wonder if some of this recent offering will go to paying off some of the higher interest accumulated from earlier in the crisis?

LAXintl wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

There are some old aircraft in there. One might recall that UA tried to collateralize this bunch of aircraft before (before they did the MileagePlus loan) and decided to pull the offering when it looked like rates might be 11.75% annually.

https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/ ... ering.aspx

Do you want to lend money against a 26-year-old 757? Not me.

Indeed.

The Financial Times takes a similar view with an apt title. After this there wont be much left to mortgage as they are throwing in just about anything random they can as collateral.

United throws ‘kitchen sink’ at investors to secure $3bn borrowing
https://www.ft.com/content/b11a4b7f-b18 ... 922db6d731

In good news though they managed a 6% interest rate, far better than last time when creditors wanted 10%+ (Though as the article mentions investment-grade corporate bonds are closer to 2% yield today).
Also Goldman Sachs agreed to provide a liquidity line to cover 18-months of interest payments.

All told this makes $22bil United has raised in the last 7-months. One heck of a pile of debt to dig out of.

I think UA is now somewhere near $32B dollars in debt, like you stated that is a staggering number. But all 3 of the US3 are up to their eyeballs in debt I think DL is somewhere around $26B in debt and who knows how much AA is in.

I know what UA told employees during the earnings live event but we really need to get our daily cash burn rate down.


In other UA news on today October 21st UA is beta testing a global health app on flights between the UK and the U.S.

For now the test was conducted on UA's LHR-EWR flight, it was 100% voluntary, passengers were not required to participate.

Volunteers were given a COVID test by certified lab the test results were then uploaded to the app on their smartphone. Passengers also completed the required health screening questions on their smartphone. Once the test result and the questionnaire are done the app generates a QR code that is scanned by airline staff (before boarding) and border officials (upon arrival). The CDC is working with their counterpart in the UK the aim is to hopefully reopen the border between these two countries, and to perhaps expand this to other countries.

The app eventually could be use to upload vaccination recorded.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-heal ... SKBN2760HI

I may be going out on a limb here but I think in 2021 if people want to travel internationally they will need to show a negative COVID test or show they have been vaccinated (once available). I think this will be the new norm for all of 2021. Perhaps in 2022 countries may fully reopen meaning passengers will no longer need to show a negative test or vaccination records.

A few random tidbits from pilot update.

> November system block hours 43.6% of 2019 numbers and thats with a ton of widebody cargo flying.

> Expect flying to return fastest and built around the 737 and 787 fleets. Airbus, 756, and 777 flying will be tied more to overall market demand and fleets that will see the most swings in usage.

> Should crew members test positive in PVG, United will seek to have them return to the US via a medical transport company.

LAXintl wrote:

A few random tidbits from pilot update.

> November system block hours 43.6% of 2019 numbers and thats with a ton of widebody cargo flying.

> Expect flying to return fastest and built around the 737 and 787 fleets. Airbus, 756, and 777 flying will be tied more to overall market demand and fleets that will see the most swings in usage.

> Should crew members test positive in PVG, United will seek to have them return to the US via a medical transport company.

Another tidbit from the pilot update give us a lot of insight into UA's spring/summer 2021 plans at least for ORD

In the update it stated when international travel or demand returns to ORD it will be mostly on 787s in 2021.

Correct me if I'm wrong the 756 fleet should include 763s. Like you pointed out the 777 and 756s will maintain the status quo unless there is a sizable uptick in demand. I took that to mean that is is possible that a large portion of our 77E and 763/752 fleet could remain parked for most of 2021 I just depends on demand.

Also in another tidbit UA is telling pilots that barring some seismic shift that really sets our country back significantly and this industry back even further than where we are now there will be NO pilot involuntary furloughs come June 2021. After accounting for the P-VSL and the mandatory retirement age of 65 UA will be able to avoid involuntary furloughs next year as well. However things do get a bit mirky when they start talking about 'do over' and displacement bids. I'm not a pilot I don't want to say the wrong thing, so maybe a UA pilot can comment on what the do over is and on any potential displacement bid and the effects of both on pilots.

LAXintl wrote:

A few random tidbits from pilot update.

> November system block hours 43.6% of 2019 numbers and thats with a ton of widebody cargo flying.

> Expect flying to return fastest and built around the 737 and 787 fleets. Airbus, 756, and 777 flying will be tied more to overall market demand and fleets that will see the most swings in usage.

> Should crew members test positive in PVG, United will seek to have them return to the US via a medical transport company.

Could you please clarify what flying they are talking about in your second point?

Also, I thought there were more A320s flying than 738's flying now - are the former going back into storage? Most are from the core 90s (1993-97).

More pilot update info...

"The information contained in this publication may be confidential. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of this message is prohibited."

Remember when they used to publish the fleet allocation chart...and now they don't because people shared it online even though it had the above statement on it.

Tiredofhumanity wrote:

Could you please clarify what flying they are talking about in your second point?

Also, I thought there were more A320s flying than 738's flying now - are the former going back into storage? Most are from the core 90s (1993-97).

"We expect flying to return fastest on the 737 and 787 fleets. The return of 756, 320 and 777 flying will be more closely tied to how and where overall travel demand returns."

On the Airbus fleet, they previously leaned heavily on the fleet (esp A319) during the early months of the pandemic, but in August stated they would shift block hours towards 737 headed into winter, and that is what we are seeing in the schedules now.
I am sure there are staffing/training, maintenance, and other cost considerations involved here. Suppose 737 fleet is also the most flexible offering the widest range of seat capacity versions.

Tkt96 wrote:

More pilot update info...

"The information contained in this publication may be confidential. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of this message is prohibited."

Remember when they used to publish the fleet allocation chart...and now they don't because people shared it online even though it had the above statement on it.

All of this information is available for ALL employees to see.

Nothing confidential has been disclosed at all.

jayunited wrote:

Tkt96 wrote:

More pilot update info...

"The information contained in this publication may be confidential. Any unauthorized use, dissemination or copying of this message is prohibited."

Remember when they used to publish the fleet allocation chart...and now they don't because people shared it online even though it had the above statement on it.

All of this information is available for ALL employees to see.

Nothing confidential has been disclosed at all.

Uh, there is a difference between ALL employees and the internet at large.

Tkt96 absolutely has a point.

Anyone in an over staffed position might want to heed that advice, as the social media violations might land you on the exit interview carpet. Unless you can find the information outside of company channels, just don’t do it.

jayunited wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Also in another tidbit UA is telling pilots that barring some seismic shift that really sets our country back significantly and this industry back even further than where we are now there will be NO pilot involuntary furloughs come June 2021. After accounting for the P-VSL and the mandatory retirement age of 65 UA will be able to avoid involuntary furloughs next year as well. However things do get a bit mirky when they start talking about 'do over' and displacement bids. I'm not a pilot I don't want to say the wrong thing, so maybe a UA pilot can comment on what the do over is and on any potential displacement bid and the effects of both on pilots.

The Covid loa in the pilot contract cancelled several displacements. The do over allows pilots in fleets that had displacements that were not canceled get to redo their displacement bid to fleets and seats that were previously unavailable due to other displacements.

LAXintl wrote:

All told this makes $22bil United has raised in the last 7-months. One heck of a pile of debt to dig out of.

Either UA has a very bright outlook on the industry in the near future and they're hoping to be one of the first ones out of "pit row" when things start getting back to normal or they're just swinging for the fences planning for more government money or BK to sort things out. That's just a staggering amount of money when you consider that the entire industry is still hemorrhaging.

Everyone hates seeing jobs lost but how much longer can airlines keep from furloughing certain employee groups when revenue is a fraction of what's needed to even break even, much less make a profit? Paying people a guaranteed amount even when there is no work to do cannot continue indefinitely.

UAX Update:

E145:
N11544 exited fleet, stored IGM
N17560 exited fleet, stored IGM

E145XR:
N14153 entered service with CommutAir
N14158 ferried YQB
N11164 exited fleet, stored IGM
N12201 exited fleet, stored IGM

CR2:
N447AW returned to flying with Air Wisconsin

Okay guys, we're getting a little sidetracked here. Yes, any current employees should, as good practice, be conscious of the things they discuss and choose to post. Posting confidential information is clearly not advisable. I am very sensitive as to the discussions I will engage in (or even moderate, in some cases) if it relates to my job, and I believe that most users here who discuss matters related to their employment exercise appropriate discretion.

That said, please avoid specific criticisms of users who are choosing to post potentially internal content, whether they are current employees or not. It is their prerogative to post information they have access to, so long as the information does not present a risk to security, health, and safety, or can clearly result in harm, it isn't our place to moderate, nor is it anyone else's to decide what shouldn't be shared. Let's just stick to the discussion. If someone is choosing to take a risk, then attacking them for it isn't likely to deter them.

✈️ atcsundevil

jetblastdubai wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

All told this makes $22bil United has raised in the last 7-months. One heck of a pile of debt to dig out of.

Either UA has a very bright outlook on the industry in the near future and they're hoping to be one of the first ones out of "pit row" when things start getting back to normal or they're just swinging for the fences planning for more government money or BK to sort things out. That's just a staggering amount of money when you consider that the entire industry is still hemorrhaging.

How does raising $22 billion translate into having a bright outlook or waiting for more government money or bankruptcy to "sort things out?" Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong...but your comment seems to contradict itself?

ericm2031 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

All told this makes $22bil United has raised in the last 7-months. One heck of a pile of debt to dig out of.

Either UA has a very bright outlook on the industry in the near future and they're hoping to be one of the first ones out of "pit row" when things start getting back to normal or they're just swinging for the fences planning for more government money or BK to sort things out. That's just a staggering amount of money when you consider that the entire industry is still hemorrhaging.

How does raising $22 billion translate into having a bright outlook or waiting for more government money or bankruptcy to "sort things out?" Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong...but your comment seems to contradict itself?

It’s a lot brighter than not being able to raise the money

ericm2031 wrote:

How does raising $22 billion translate into having a bright outlook or waiting for more government money or bankruptcy to "sort things out?" Maybe I'm reading your comment wrong...but your comment seems to contradict itself?

If the $22 billion credit line is tapped into, it will need to be paid back. At the rate the industry is losing money, the turnaround will need to be robust and long-lasting to say the least. UA seems to have mortgaged a substantial amount of their assets just to stay afloat for the short term or at least long enough to outlast a competitor.

If air travel rebounds the financial risk will have been worth it. If air travel demand doesn't rebound soon enough and UA isn't able to service this new debt what are their options other than more government (taxpayer) money or reorganization?

MaxQ, yes it is impressive that UA is able to secure this amount of credit. This leads me to believe that the some in the banking/airline industry are betting on a swift recovery. It's still going to take a lot of time and effort to recoup the losses from the past few months and get back into positive territory while at the same time making additional loan payments.

UA 1741....LAX 08.15.....16.00 SJO
UA 2065....SJO 16.55.....21.25 LAX
Effective: December 19. 7x weekly, 738

The southbound path on UA LAX-SJO is not working as daylight schedule.
Both DL LAX-SJO and B6 LAX-SJO will be deployed as red-eyes.
Too much competition for the LAX-SJO sector from December: Delta, Alaska, jetBlue and United !
On the other hand, UA will be attendinng very well the US - Costa Rica market: Houston, New York/Newark, Chicago **, Washington **, Los Angeles, Denver and San Francisco.

** Prior to the Covid-19 crisis.

MAX 9:
N37504 - Back in GYR as of 18-Oct after receiving upgrades
N37506 - Back in GYR as of 10-Oct after receiving upgrades

Interesting development, UA is extending their new p2p routes through Early April, most running 4x weekly for Jan/Feb & going back daily in March

Interesting charter operations this weekend.
Presume for SF 49ers. 772PW N795UA - 10/23 SFO-SJC-BED-BOS, 10/25 BOS-BED-SFO. Bedford is NW of BOS while Foxboro is SW of BOS. BED has a 7,011 foot runway.
Another one it appears a 772PW - 10/23 Ferries EWR-CLE, Browns to CVG, then ferry ORD, reverse pattern on Sunday. Browns at CVG.
772PW - 10/22 IAH-TUS-HOP-IAH, 10/24 IAH-MCI-DEN, 10/25 DEN-MCI-IAH Chiefs at Broncos

Because of Star Alliance connections at JNB could UA fly the 77W on EWR-JNB or would UA have to weight restrict the aircraft cause EWR-JNB 66 nmi shorter than EWR-HKG and SAA flies JFK-JNB on the A346 which has similar range to the 77W. Any thoughts?

EWR to JNB is fine. JNB to EWR would take some restrictions due to high altitude and hot temps in summer. DL was flying 777Ls to ATL, but now adds a stop in CPT for its A359 flights.

A346 is four engine, which is generally better for hot and high conditions.

UA857 wrote:

Because of Star Alliance connections at JNB could UA fly the 77W on EWR-JNB or would UA have to weight restrict the aircraft cause EWR-JNB 66 nmi shorter than EWR-HKG and SAA flies JFK-JNB on the A346 which has similar range to the 77W. Any thoughts?

I don't know how many Star Alliance connections there will be at JNB. South African Airways isn't operating many (if any) flights right now and is going through restructuring.

Noted on APC that Air Wisconsin is at 7,000 block hours for November and December. Not expecting an increase beyond that any time soon. Company OK until Feb 2023, when the UA Contract extension is due. Quick figuring says around 230 block hours per day average, but I am sure most of that will be bunched around the holidays.

ADent wrote:

EWR to JNB is fine. JNB to EWR would take some restrictions due to high altitude and hot temps in summer. DL was flying 777Ls to ATL, but now adds a stop in CPT for its A359 flights.

A346 is four engine, which is generally better for hot and high conditions.

Is the 789 the only plane that can do this route?

With SQ relaunching nonstop SIN-NYC 3X weekly in anticipation of growing demand and cargo and idea if UA is relaunchng SFO-SIN with passengers soon and/or convert its GUM -SIN cargo service to passengers too? Did SQ choose to restart NYC over SFO because they felt UA was relaunching it soon?

UA857 wrote:

ADent wrote:

EWR to JNB is fine. JNB to EWR would take some restrictions due to high altitude and hot temps in summer. DL was flying 777Ls to ATL, but now adds a stop in CPT for its A359 flights.

A346 is four engine, which is generally better for hot and high conditions.

Is the 789 the only plane that can do this route?

The PIP'd 789 is the only UA aircraft that can do the route nonstop with a meaningful payload.

andrew1996 wrote:

With SQ relaunching nonstop SIN-NYC 3X weekly in anticipation of growing demand and cargo and idea if UA is relaunchng SFO-SIN with passengers soon and/or convert its GUM -SIN cargo service to passengers too? Did SQ choose to restart NYC over SFO because they felt UA was relaunching it soon?

Regular visits to Singapore or transit connections are not allowed for U.S. citizens. Only those U.S. citizens who are also Singapore permanent residents are allowed to enter.
Additionally, U.S. crews must quarantine in their rooms at an airport hotel including twice-daily medical checks.

The lack of open travel to Singapore and heavy U.S. point of sale dependence makes United resuming service not very viable, unlike SQ which can carry Singaporean locals and connecting nationals from about 20 approved connecting markets via SIN.

A look at the future from a townhall this week

Q. What do we anticipate future travel demand will look like?
A. While we can’t predict the future – especially given the recent rise in COVID-19 cases in some regions, key corporate demand is still down more than 90% from pre-COVID levels. We are however confident that demand will return when a vaccine is widely available and quarantine restrictions are relaxed around the world. Personal relationships and doing business in person is still critically important and there will be pent up demand that United will be ready to recapture. In the interim, we are absolutely going to respond to smaller glimmers of positive travel demand as opportunities arise. As an example there aren’t as tight of travel restrictions to Mexico and some Latin American markets, creating an opportunity to add new capacity. Additionally, a lot of upcoming seasonal flying is being done from not just our active bases, but for example, Pittsburgh to Fort Myers so that we can directly capture customers seeking to get out there and enjoy some vacation time.

adamblang wrote:

UA857 wrote:

ADent wrote:

EWR to JNB is fine. JNB to EWR would take some restrictions due to high altitude and hot temps in summer. DL was flying 777Ls to ATL, but now adds a stop in CPT for its A359 flights.

A346 is four engine, which is generally better for hot and high conditions.

Is the 789 the only plane that can do this route?

The PIP'd 789 is the only UA aircraft that can do the route nonstop with a meaningful payload.

What was part of the PIP for UA’s 789?

ILikeTrains wrote:

adamblang wrote:

UA857 wrote:

Is the 789 the only plane that can do this route?

The PIP'd 789 is the only UA aircraft that can do the route nonstop with a meaningful payload.

What was part of the PIP for UA’s 789?

From Cranky Flyer:

There are two routes here that are ultra-long haul and until recently, United didn’t have the airplanes to make them work. But, Patrick explained to me that United is doing some modification work to its 787-9 aircraft. Specifically, it has increased engine thrust and altered the fuel management system to squeeze more range out of the fleet. (Both of these are software changes.). Eventually this will be on the entire 787-9 fleet, but for now it will be a subfleet.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Interesting charter operations this weekend.
Presume for SF 49ers. 772PW N795UA - 10/23 SFO-SJC-BED-BOS, 10/25 BOS-BED-SFO. Bedford is NW of BOS while Foxboro is SW of BOS. BED has a 7,011 foot runway.
Another one it appears a 772PW - 10/23 Ferries EWR-CLE, Browns to CVG, then ferry ORD, reverse pattern on Sunday. Browns at CVG.
772PW - 10/22 IAH-TUS-HOP-IAH, 10/24 IAH-MCI-DEN, 10/25 DEN-MCI-IAH Chiefs at Broncos

49ers owner Jed York owns a facility in Bedford and the team uses it often when playing East coast games to get better acclimated to time change. They did it when the played the Giants and Jete.

This thread is about the United Fleet, Network, and Liveries, not a discussion on theoretical aircraft designs. Please stay on topic.

✈️ atcsundevil

So in the current environment with loads on the upswing, will it be upgauges or frequency additions first? I’m guessing leisure travel is not as frequency driven, just availabilty.

So I know that UA has not specifically confirmed any retirements due to COVID yet, but looking at this picture from Roswell (https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/-/6189725/L) there is a 752 in the top left with its engines removed. I know that UA was retiring PW 752s prior to COVID, and there are also many retired AA MD80's, but there are also a lot of short term stored UA and AA aircraft mixed in with the retired planes. I also cannot read the reg on that particular plane.

andrew1996 wrote:

With SQ relaunching nonstop SIN-NYC 3X weekly in anticipation of growing demand and cargo and idea if UA is relaunchng SFO-SIN with passengers soon and/or convert its GUM -SIN cargo service to passengers too? Did SQ choose to restart NYC over SFO because they felt UA was relaunching it soon?

From the U.S. the only people allowed to enter Singapore are residents or those who have duel citizenship.

At this point in time there is no way for UA to eliminate the tech stop in GUM on our cargo flights, because our flight crew members are allowed entry into Singapore.

Also from the thread devoted to this topic it seems like SQ is launching this route primarily because they have a cargo contract not because there are a ton of passengers needing to travel between NYC and Singapore.

sldispatcher wrote:

So in the current environment with loads on the upswing, will it be upgauges or frequency additions first? I’m guessing leisure travel is not as frequency driven, just availabilty.

This is just my opinion but I think there is a 50/50 chance that UA might continue upguages, going from a 738 to a 739ER, or from a A319 to an A320 or we may not see any upgugages.

Now that we have the results of the DOD test which demonstrates how safe the air is on airplanes, and with customers being more comfortable on fuller aircraft I think UA is getting a bit more comfortable with fuller aircraft and we might see less upguages especially with WN no longer blocking seats starting December 1st. Remember UA did a lot of upguaging as a means of social distancing. For a few months (June-August) UA kept saying fewer than 10% of all our flights departed over 70% capacity. However in September we started to see an increase in demand especially out of DEN and IAH and there were plenty of flights out of these two hubs that exceed 70% capacity in September. I think (again only my opinion) but I think we are moving away from the strategy of upguaging and just letting the flight operate with the scheduled equipment.

We are still informing passengers if their flight is over 70% capacity but the number of passengers who voluntarily change their flight from what I've heard is miniscule.

From the employees earning live event Kirby did state he wasn't looking to grow the airline again until next year beginning around Spring Break.

If there is a sizable increase in demand and UA sees an opportunity UA may added frequency in November and December. If we do add frequency in December I would expect a lot of it to be pulled down once we hit January. I think UA may get back to growing the airline in the Spring of 2021 but only if there is a viable vaccine, and only if there is some signs of the vaccine being distributed.

jayunited wrote:

Now that we have the results of the DOD test which demonstrates how safe the air is on airplanes,

Lets not fall to the PR talking pieces the airline industry wants you to believe. The test was extremely narrow with increasing flaws being pointed out including by an infectious diseases specialist who took part. Study also provides zero insight into the remainder of the air travel process from ground transportation, to airports, etc.

The subject we can be discussed in another thread in greater detail if you want.

jayunited wrote:

If there is a sizable increase in demand and UA sees an opportunity UA may added frequency in November and December. If we do add frequency in December I would expect a lot of it to be pulled down once we hit January. I think UA may get back to growing the airline in the Spring of 2021 but only if there is a viable vaccine, and only if there is some signs of the vaccine being distributed.

I see United chasing random opportunity here and there, but with COVID cases on the rise again and corporate travel deep in the doldrums don't think there will be many opportunities worth throwing assets and cost at.
Focus this winter must be on minimizing cash bleed in what is already a seasonally weaker period.

jayunited wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

With SQ relaunching nonstop SIN-NYC 3X weekly in anticipation of growing demand and cargo and idea if UA is relaunchng SFO-SIN with passengers soon and/or convert its GUM -SIN cargo service to passengers too? Did SQ choose to restart NYC over SFO because they felt UA was relaunching it soon?

From the U.S. the only people allowed to enter Singapore are residents or those who have duel citizenship.

At this point in time there is no way for UA to eliminate the tech stop in GUM on our cargo flights, because our flight crew members are allowed entry into Singapore.

Also from the thread devoted to this topic it seems like SQ is launching this route primarily because they have a cargo contract not because there are a ton of passengers needing to travel between NYC and Singapore.

I think flight crews from USA (and elsewhere) are all allowed into SIN but have to stay in the airport hotel so I thought GUM was more of a stop to ensure a full payload of cargo can be flown down to SG as opposed to crew issues. Are these flights full of cargo or is the cargo load also pretty low? I suppose they probably are also selling space to like Fedex, DHL etc and possibly to Canada bound cargo space. I know SIN was never really a cargo focus for UA given all the payload restrictions UA1/29 used to face

cosyr wrote:

So I know that UA has not specifically confirmed any retirements due to COVID yet, but looking at this picture from Roswell (https://www.airliners.net/photo/-/-/6189725/L) there is a 752 in the top left with its engines removed. I know that UA was retiring PW 752s prior to COVID, and there are also many retired AA MD80's, but there are also a lot of short term stored UA and AA aircraft mixed in with the retired planes. I also cannot read the reg on that particular plane.

That may be one of the RR power aircraft as it has a satellite dome (or whatever the proper name of that thing is) on the top of the fuselage. I don't think the PW powered 752's have those unless they were retrofitted when they started putting a better WiFi system into those aircraft. Even if it is a RR powered 752 it doesn't mean it was retired...UA could have just needed a spare engine.

United restarts IAD-TLV tonight. UA72 departs IAD tonight at 6:05 PM and lands at TLV at 10:45 AM tomorrow.

jayunited wrote:

We are still informing passengers if their flight is over 70% capacity but the number of passengers who voluntarily change their flight from what I've heard is miniscule.

I think that is because it just isn't practical to change flights. I took a round trip last month, with 4 flights that all ended up about 90% full. I got the email that I could change my flights if I was uncomfortable with that, but what used to be 15-16 flights a day from SYR was down to just 4. All of those flights would be 80-100% full for most of the next week, so what flight do you change to?

I'm not blaming UA for the full flights, or the lack of them...COVID. But offering passengers the opportunity to change flights when they're over 70% is a joke compared with blocking middle seats. Especially now that UA eliminated change fees, the 70% policy is next to useless if you're concerned about density. Right now, you're either comfortable flying or your not. Keeping middle seats open, might make more people comfortable, but would obviously make every flight more expensive to operate. No good answer.

As an aside, a woman on my first flight of that trip did have a panic attack, and got off the plane before we left the gate. I don't know if it was because of density, the fact that someone else chose to sit in her seat before she boarded, or just a fear of flying unrelated to COVID.

LAXintl wrote:

jayunited wrote:

Now that we have the results of the DOD test which demonstrates how safe the air is on airplanes,

Lets not fall to the PR talking pieces the airline industry wants you to believe. The test was extremely narrow with increasing flaws being pointed out including by an infectious diseases specialist who took part. Study also provides zero insight into the remainder of the air travel process from ground transportation, to airports, etc.

The subject we can be discussed in another thread in greater detail if you want.

We can agree to just disagree on this topic. There is no such thing as zero risk I will give you that, but with the current mask mandate I'm very much comfortable on an aircraft as I am anywhere there is a crowd because I follow the CDC guidelines to the letter. If you believe air travel isn't safe during COVID I respect your opinion. However there are people on both side of this issue who come up with data to support their point of view, and I will leave it there.

LAXintl wrote:

jayunited wrote:

If there is a sizable increase in demand and UA sees an opportunity UA may added frequency in November and December. If we do add frequency in December I would expect a lot of it to be pulled down once we hit January. I think UA may get back to growing the airline in the Spring of 2021 but only if there is a viable vaccine, and only if there is some signs of the vaccine being distributed.

I see United chasing random opportunity here and there, but with COVID cases on the rise again and corporate travel deep in the doldrums don't think there will be many opportunities worth throwing assets and cost at.
Focus this winter must be on minimizing cash bleed in what is already a seasonally weaker period.

I 100% agree with what you are saying here which is why I stated any additional frequency added in December (if it happens) would be pulled down in January. I'm not expecting UA to get back into growth mode until Q2 2021 but only if there is a vaccine. Even then if there is a vaccine I don't expect UA to fly more than 55% of our pre-COVID schedule in all of 2021.

Has Skywest cancelled everything in and out of Denver for this evening for the most part due to the snow? Seeing tons of OO flights on behalf of UAX were cancelled yesterday, and there are lots of repositioning flights scheduled to accommodate Monday morning turns. Even showing one going BHM-SJC on a CRJ7

andrew1996 wrote:

I think flight crews from USA (and elsewhere) are all allowed into SIN but have to stay in the airport hotel so I thought GUM was more of a stop to ensure a full payload of cargo can be flown down to SG as opposed to crew issues. Are these flights full of cargo or is the cargo load also pretty low? I suppose they probably are also selling space to like Fedex, DHL etc and possibly to Canada bound cargo space. I know SIN was never really a cargo focus for UA given all the payload restrictions UA1/29 used to face

I'm not sure if you are a UA employee or not but if you are log on to Flying Together and search entry requirements around the world. Then search for Singapore, afterwards go down to crew exemption and you will see there are no crew exemptions for schedule layovers. Flight crews and cabin crews who are not Singapore citizens or hold dual citizenship will NOT be allowed entry into Singapore. The only exception is if the aircraft has a maintenance issue that can't be fixed before the crew times out then the flight and cabin crew would then be escorted to the Crowne Plaza Hotel Changi Airport. They are then confined to their individual rooms until departure. If you are not a UA employee then perhaps doing a Google search will help clear this up for you.

United Airlines cannot schedule a layover in Singapore and without the ability to have our crews layover we can not resume nonstop flights to SIN from SFO.