DylanHarvey wrote:

lga31vfr wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Per the press release, JNB-EWR will be "the only roundtrip, nonstop service from the United States to Johannesburg by a U.S carrier." Seems like a very specifically targeted statement...

yup. Unfortunately, there's not much DL can do other then eat crow. Having to fly JNB via CPT because they don't have the right plane puts them at a disadvantage. Just curious, other than the 77L, what plane can make JNB to ATL non stop, filled with cargo and people?

This has nothing to do with the right plane. JNB-ATL is a route that goes over 17 hours in the winter, it is over an hour longer than JNB-JFK and JNB-EWR, closed to an hour and a half on bad days. The 77L is the only one that can make it, and it wasn’t easy, it stopped A LOT in Florida or SJU for fuel in the winter, in a Delta thread the average payload was stated to be about 32 to 35 tons. If you read more into the technical aspect if the temperature was to drop even just a degree that kid can multiple passengers or even metric tons of cargo. 400 to 500 nautical miles makes a huge difference on a performance marginal route like this. Filled with cargo and people was an over estimation, That’s 32 to 35 tons of payload would easily drop under 30 with a few degree temperature change or wind change which would mean not a full board of passengers. I think the high gross weight 346 could make it, and that is it. The highest yields are in the winter which also means the weather is the worst across the ocean and the Cape Town stop completely illuminates the chance for a fuel stop as the flight is around an hour shorter.

thats very interesting. Thanks for that info. Sounds like the only way DL will fly NS to JNB will have to be out of JFK.\

lga31vfr wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

lga31vfr wrote:

yup. Unfortunately, there's not much DL can do other then eat crow. Having to fly JNB via CPT because they don't have the right plane puts them at a disadvantage. Just curious, other than the 77L, what plane can make JNB to ATL non stop, filled with cargo and people?

This has nothing to do with the right plane. JNB-ATL is a route that goes over 17 hours in the winter, it is over an hour longer than JNB-JFK and JNB-EWR, closed to an hour and a half on bad days. The 77L is the only one that can make it, and it wasn’t easy, it stopped A LOT in Florida or SJU for fuel in the winter, in a Delta thread the average payload was stated to be about 32 to 35 tons. If you read more into the technical aspect if the temperature was to drop even just a degree that kid can multiple passengers or even metric tons of cargo. 400 to 500 nautical miles makes a huge difference on a performance marginal route like this. Filled with cargo and people was an over estimation, That’s 32 to 35 tons of payload would easily drop under 30 with a few degree temperature change or wind change which would mean not a full board of passengers. I think the high gross weight 346 could make it, and that is it. The highest yields are in the winter which also means the weather is the worst across the ocean and the Cape Town stop completely illuminates the chance for a fuel stop as the flight is around an hour shorter.

thats very interesting. Thanks for that info. Sounds like the only way DL will fly NS to JNB will have to be out of JFK.\

Of course some things could be wrong, but hey none of us are perfect Yes, they could send the 359 NS with some restrictions from JNB to Atlanta, in the summer the 359 would do a bit better since its not a 17hr blocked flight at 5500AMSL, rather 15.5hrs. The CPT stop is mainly to maximize revenue because for a very minimal increase in time, they can take as much payload as they want. The 77L starts to carry more payload than the 359 at just past 6000nm IIRC, which is still impressive. the 77L can do some ridiculous things, but also as we know burns a lot more fuel.

sldispatcher wrote:

Purely anecdotal speculation, but anyone monitoring seat maps noting load factors seem to be improving in September on your normally watched routes? Maybe I’m wishing too hard?

In my anecdotal experience, I flew SFO-DEN on the Sunday afternoon before Labor Day. That 739 was packed. Seemingly not an empty seat in sight. Both airports also seemed a little busier compared to when I last flew in June.

lga31vfr wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

lga31vfr wrote:

yup. Unfortunately, there's not much DL can do other then eat crow. Having to fly JNB via CPT because they don't have the right plane puts them at a disadvantage. Just curious, other than the 77L, what plane can make JNB to ATL non stop, filled with cargo and people?

This has nothing to do with the right plane. JNB-ATL is a route that goes over 17 hours in the winter, it is over an hour longer than JNB-JFK and JNB-EWR, closed to an hour and a half on bad days. The 77L is the only one that can make it, and it wasn’t easy, it stopped A LOT in Florida or SJU for fuel in the winter, in a Delta thread the average payload was stated to be about 32 to 35 tons. If you read more into the technical aspect if the temperature was to drop even just a degree that kid can multiple passengers or even metric tons of cargo. 400 to 500 nautical miles makes a huge difference on a performance marginal route like this. Filled with cargo and people was an over estimation, That’s 32 to 35 tons of payload would easily drop under 30 with a few degree temperature change or wind change which would mean not a full board of passengers. I think the high gross weight 346 could make it, and that is it. The highest yields are in the winter which also means the weather is the worst across the ocean and the Cape Town stop completely illuminates the chance for a fuel stop as the flight is around an hour shorter.

thats very interesting. Thanks for that info. Sounds like the only way DL will fly NS to JNB will have to be out of JFK.\

I would be fascinated to see the O&D pax out of ATL as well as the number of pax originating in cities that have nonstop service to ATL but not JFK. It's only one way, but what would be the difference in total time JNB-CPT-ATL vs JNB-JFK-ATL?

A problem UA had before with LOS was the inability to withdraw money from the country.
I suppose this is not a problem now.
Maybe it was just an excuse, as DL did not drop LOS like UA did from IAH a few years back.
That along with low oil prices, did the route in also as it was related.

CPS001 wrote:

While it is debatable whether India-US nonstops will affect EU carriers or ME3 more, keep in mind that the ME3 have been negotiating with Indian authorities for raising the bilateral seat numbers for quite a while. DXB and DOH seats have been maxed out by EK and QR (AUH has some slack but that is due to EY shrinking). If they are granted additional rights you can be sure that they would dump hundreds of additional seats on DEL/BOM/MAA/BLR/HYD. In that case, especially in the wake of Covid, India-US nonstops will only survive if they have some corporate contracts locked up, and the losers will be India-EU nonstops, especially the newer ones like DEL-WAW, BLR-MUC and MAA-CDG. In the last couple of years pre-covid quite a few new India-EU routes have been added, even outside DEL/BOM, and it can be argued that the artificial seat cap on ME3 played a big role in influencing these.

I will throw out a notion for people to tear down - we know India-US traffic is very large but nonstop flights are low given the traffic. I feel a big reason the US3 didn’t launch nonstops to india was driven by competition (yield) but also the need to fill US-EU hub to hub flights. First - competition is down and it is unlikely flights like EY’s SFO-AUH will come back anytime soon. So launch to stop them in the future. Second - India’s peak season is winter (there is still decent traffic to India in summer and of course Indians flying to EU and US in the summer). Also VFR to India is basically year round with peaks during the main US holidays (thanksgiving, Christmas, summer) and Indian holidays (Diwali, Christmas, summer - which for Bombay is April). So you get decent traffic flows outside of the main US-EU flows. Add to that the year round business traffic, and India is a great way to fill seats on the multiple dailes from US hubs to EU hubs with onwards to India. With Covid, US-EU flights will be down for a bit (hub flights will return first but many nonstop city pairs will not for quite some time). Plus people are avoiding connecting in third countries and VFR is being seen as a stable (even if not high earning) flight for airlines (look at VS flying UK-Pakistan). So take all of these together, and I think you have the right moment for UA to do what they did. Oh and finally, as many have said, AI really proved people want nonstops (AI for god’s sake). I give credit to UA for really driving market expansion after AI even if it does hurt LH. I think there is plenty of traffic for EU-India to survive with these new nonstops. Perhaps they get downgraded from 748s but they will survive.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... -nov-2020/

This seems like a pretty safe addition for the IAD hub, especially the EYW route.

jayunited wrote:

convent connections to India

Are you suggesting that UA's new India flights will be filled with nuns?

DylanHarvey wrote:

lga31vfr wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Per the press release, JNB-EWR will be "the only roundtrip, nonstop service from the United States to Johannesburg by a U.S carrier." Seems like a very specifically targeted statement...

yup. Unfortunately, there's not much DL can do other then eat crow. Having to fly JNB via CPT because they don't have the right plane puts them at a disadvantage. Just curious, other than the 77L, what plane can make JNB to ATL non stop, filled with cargo and people?

This has nothing to do with the right plane. JNB-ATL is a route that goes over 17 hours in the winter, it is over an hour longer than JNB-JFK and JNB-EWR, closed to an hour and a half on bad days. The 77L is the only one that can make it, and it wasn’t easy, it stopped A LOT in Florida or SJU for fuel in the winter, in a Delta thread the average payload was stated to be about 32 to 35 tons. If you read more into the technical aspect if the temperature was to drop even just a degree that kid can multiple passengers or even metric tons of cargo. 400 to 500 nautical miles makes a huge difference on a performance marginal route like this. Filled with cargo and people was an over estimation, That’s 32 to 35 tons of payload would easily drop under 30 with a few degree temperature change or wind change which would mean not a full board of passengers. I think the high gross weight 346 could make it, and that is it. The highest yields are in the winter which also means the weather is the worst across the ocean and the Cape Town stop completely illuminates the chance for a fuel stop as the flight is around an hour shorter.

The JNB-EWR will often push a solid 16 1/2 hours. We did CPT-EWR and the flight time was 16:10. JNB-EWR is a 172 miles further. All I'm saying is that the JNB-EWR flight is no slough in terms of requirements. I'm happy to see the 787-9 can do it.

Cheers

FriscoHeavy wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

lga31vfr wrote:

yup. Unfortunately, there's not much DL can do other then eat crow. Having to fly JNB via CPT because they don't have the right plane puts them at a disadvantage. Just curious, other than the 77L, what plane can make JNB to ATL non stop, filled with cargo and people?

This has nothing to do with the right plane. JNB-ATL is a route that goes over 17 hours in the winter, it is over an hour longer than JNB-JFK and JNB-EWR, closed to an hour and a half on bad days. The 77L is the only one that can make it, and it wasn’t easy, it stopped A LOT in Florida or SJU for fuel in the winter, in a Delta thread the average payload was stated to be about 32 to 35 tons. If you read more into the technical aspect if the temperature was to drop even just a degree that kid can multiple passengers or even metric tons of cargo. 400 to 500 nautical miles makes a huge difference on a performance marginal route like this. Filled with cargo and people was an over estimation, That’s 32 to 35 tons of payload would easily drop under 30 with a few degree temperature change or wind change which would mean not a full board of passengers. I think the high gross weight 346 could make it, and that is it. The highest yields are in the winter which also means the weather is the worst across the ocean and the Cape Town stop completely illuminates the chance for a fuel stop as the flight is around an hour shorter.

The JNB-EWR will often push a solid 16 1/2 hours. We did CPT-EWR and the flight time was 16:10. JNB-EWR is a 172 miles further. All I'm saying is that the JNB-EWR flight is no slough in terms of requirements. I'm happy to see the 787-9 can do it.

Cheers

That’s good actually. Anything above 15-16 from JNB is no slouch. The 789 and 359 Are phenomenal aircraft. Although CPT is sea level which helps cause you guys can get 254t from there, can anyone help with what the 789 is limited to MTOW wise out of JNB.

As an earlier poster suggested, this is BLR's moment to make SFO-BLR flight successful and I hope UA makes it, other wise it could be a long time before someone considers BLR again.. BLR has lower VFR than DEL, BOM, and even HYD and perhaps the same VFR as MAA, so initially this route could struggle as business travel may not recover for a year at least.

VTORD wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

SFO-BLR. A route first rumoured by KF and AI in the mid 2000s but not official until nearly 15 years later. Congrats to UA! Curious to see if AI US flights can survive into 2021; they have competition on every route now.

AI will (most likely) reduce frequency on SFO but it will be interesting to see what impact this has on EK

AI's target market is quite different than what UA would serve. I don't expect AI to reduce frequencies. AI does an excellent job of connecting points in US to secondary destinations India conveniently. UA cannot offer this either in BLR or DEL. AI because the connecting plane is in their own metal does not require pick up and check in of bags again in DEL. Anyone who has had to recheck in Bags in India from INTL to domestic knows how painful it is. So Nope, if the economy recovers - there is space for both carriers. The airlines impacted by UA's entry into BLR would be BA and LH, BA operate an A350 to BLR today which is their top of the line product and LH operate a B748.

Subu

CaliguyNYC wrote:

I will throw out a notion for people to tear down - we know India-US traffic is very large but nonstop flights are low given the traffic. I feel a big reason the US3 didn’t launch nonstops to india was driven by competition (yield) but also the need to fill US-EU hub to hub flights. First - competition is down and it is unlikely flights like EY’s SFO-AUH will come back anytime soon. So launch to stop them in the future. Second - India’s peak season is winter (there is still decent traffic to India in summer and of course Indians flying to EU and US in the summer). Also VFR to India is basically year round with peaks during the main US holidays (thanksgiving, Christmas, summer) and Indian holidays (Diwali, Christmas, summer - which for Bombay is April). So you get decent traffic flows outside of the main US-EU flows. Add to that the year round business traffic, and India is a great way to fill seats on the multiple dailes from US hubs to EU hubs with onwards to India. With Covid, US-EU flights will be down for a bit (hub flights will return first but many nonstop city pairs will not for quite some time). Plus people are avoiding connecting in third countries and VFR is being seen as a stable (even if not high earning) flight for airlines (look at VS flying UK-Pakistan). So take all of these together, and I think you have the right moment for UA to do what they did. Oh and finally, as many have said, AI really proved people want nonstops (AI for god’s sake). I give credit to UA for really driving market expansion after AI even if it does hurt LH. I think there is plenty of traffic for EU-India to survive with these new nonstops. Perhaps they get downgraded from 748s but they will survive.

To summarize
COVID19 is rationalizing routes in true sense, no funneling unnecessary traffic through preferred hub and calling it efficient.
COVID19 busted the premium traffic myth, if there is no capacity dumping even Y yields can be decent and routes can survive without front cabin being full.
AI survived without any partners' help, it is UA's turn to survive without partners.
Just don't tell LH or SQ.

DylanHarvey wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

This has nothing to do with the right plane. JNB-ATL is a route that goes over 17 hours in the winter, it is over an hour longer than JNB-JFK and JNB-EWR, closed to an hour and a half on bad days. The 77L is the only one that can make it, and it wasn’t easy, it stopped A LOT in Florida or SJU for fuel in the winter, in a Delta thread the average payload was stated to be about 32 to 35 tons. If you read more into the technical aspect if the temperature was to drop even just a degree that kid can multiple passengers or even metric tons of cargo. 400 to 500 nautical miles makes a huge difference on a performance marginal route like this. Filled with cargo and people was an over estimation, That’s 32 to 35 tons of payload would easily drop under 30 with a few degree temperature change or wind change which would mean not a full board of passengers. I think the high gross weight 346 could make it, and that is it. The highest yields are in the winter which also means the weather is the worst across the ocean and the Cape Town stop completely illuminates the chance for a fuel stop as the flight is around an hour shorter.

The JNB-EWR will often push a solid 16 1/2 hours. We did CPT-EWR and the flight time was 16:10. JNB-EWR is a 172 miles further. All I'm saying is that the JNB-EWR flight is no slough in terms of requirements. I'm happy to see the 787-9 can do it.

Cheers

That’s good actually. Anything above 15-16 from JNB is no slouch. The 789 and 359 Are phenomenal aircraft. Although CPT is sea level which helps cause you guys can get 254t from there, can anyone help with what the 789 is limited to MTOW wise out of JNB.

Yes, I meant 'slouch' -- typo on my part and cannot go back and fix it at this point. *I have no idea why there is a time limit on making edits to your own post - very silly and irritating.

I too, would love to know what the general MTOW will be limited to out of JNB will be for the 787-9. I'm curious if they will initially have to block any seats or if they will sell all seats, but not allow any cargo, or if they believe they will be able to fly a full passenger load, plus a marginal amount of cargo.

I can't wait to eventually see the numbers: Departure weight, fuel load, payload (passengers and cargo), etc.

DiscoverCSG wrote:

jayunited wrote:

convent connections to India

Are you suggesting that UA's new India flights will be filled with nuns?

Surely you know that India is a coveted destination for nuns.... if, indeed, they are allowed to covet anything...

dtw2hyd wrote:

To summarize

dtw2hyd wrote:

COVID19 is rationalizing routes in true sense, no funneling unnecessary traffic through preferred hub and calling it efficient.

I think this is only temporarily true. The ME3, all major airline groups in Europe (IAG, AF/KLM, LH Group, and TK) and the US majors have proven this to be mostly true in terms of scale. Not everyone can take someone from Omaha to Yangoon, but it sure helps the loads on long haul sectors with larger capacity aircraft and the flexibility to pricing leverage over more expensive point to point routing.

dtw2hyd wrote:

COVID19 busted the premium traffic myth, if there is no capacity dumping even Y yields can be decent and routes can survive without front cabin being full.

Not even remotely true. Nobody is making any money right now and certainly not in the Y cabin.

dtw2hyd wrote:

AI survived without any partners' help, it is UA's turn to survive without partners.

When was the last time AI was profitable and/or didn't get help from the GOI?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just don't tell LH or SQ.

I'm not sure what that means?

airzim wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

To summarize

dtw2hyd wrote:

COVID19 is rationalizing routes in true sense, no funneling unnecessary traffic through preferred hub and calling it efficient.

I think this is only temporarily true. The ME3, all major airline groups in Europe (IAG, AF/KLM, LH Group, and TK) and the US majors have proven this to be mostly true in terms of scale. Not everyone can take someone from Omaha to Yangoon, but it sure helps the loads on long haul sectors with larger capacity aircraft and the flexibility to pricing leverage over more expensive point to point routing.

dtw2hyd wrote:

COVID19 busted the premium traffic myth, if there is no capacity dumping even Y yields can be decent and routes can survive without front cabin being full.

Not even remotely true. Nobody is making any money right now and certainly not in the Y cabin.

dtw2hyd wrote:

AI survived without any partners' help, it is UA's turn to survive without partners.

When was the last time AI was profitable and/or didn't get help from the GOI?

dtw2hyd wrote:

Just don't tell LH or SQ.

I'm not sure what that means?

I don't think either of us are saying the ME3 or EU carriers are dead. We are just saying in the post-COVID world, US airlines are not just focusing on routes that high J traffic. UA's adds show that (even the Hawaii adds are again premium leisure nonstop). What AI showed other airlines (is not how to make money) but (1) how they could command a price premium for their nonstops over one stops by much better airlines and (2) many people prefer nonstops or connecting in their home/destination countries - both of these points work in UA's favor. Finally, the ME3 have cut back and will take time to fully come back. With efficient aircraft (like 789), weaker competition, reluctance to connect in random countries, fewer competing new routes due to lower US outbound tourism, this really is UA's time to launch.

CaliguyNYC wrote:

airzim wrote:

dtw2hyd wrote:

To summarize


I think this is only temporarily true. The ME3, all major airline groups in Europe (IAG, AF/KLM, LH Group, and TK) and the US majors have proven this to be mostly true in terms of scale. Not everyone can take someone from Omaha to Yangoon, but it sure helps the loads on long haul sectors with larger capacity aircraft and the flexibility to pricing leverage over more expensive point to point routing.



Not even remotely true. Nobody is making any money right now and certainly not in the Y cabin.



When was the last time AI was profitable and/or didn't get help from the GOI?

I'm not sure what that means?

I don't think either of us are saying the ME3 or EU carriers are dead. We are just saying in the post-COVID world, US airlines are not just focusing on routes that high J traffic. UA's adds show that (even the Hawaii adds are again premium leisure nonstop). What AI showed other airlines (is not how to make money) but (1) how they could command a price premium for their nonstops over one stops by much better airlines and (2) many people prefer nonstops or connecting in their home/destination countries - both of these points work in UA's favor. Finally, the ME3 have cut back and will take time to fully come back. With efficient aircraft (like 789), weaker competition, reluctance to connect in random countries, fewer competing new routes due to lower US outbound tourism, this really is UA's time to launch.

You might be over thinking this. Maybe it just shows that UA is putting some very expensive brand new assets to work anywhere where they might stop the cash burn. Leisure demand, coupled with the failure of a few players in the market might have opened up some doors that would otherwise be hard to take on. At least for now. I think the Hawaii flying is a classic example of anticipating that higher yielding vacation demand that might have gone a cruise around the Med, are now possibly going to Hawaii as an alternative. At least until the borders open and the cases remains stable.

dtw2hyd wrote:

To summarize
COVID19 is rationalizing routes in true sense, no funneling unnecessary traffic through preferred hub and calling it efficient.
COVID19 busted the premium traffic myth, if there is no capacity dumping even Y yields can be decent and routes can survive without front cabin being full.
AI survived without any partners' help, it is UA's turn to survive without partners.
Just don't tell LH or SQ.

Quick question are you suggesting that prior to COVID the bulk of LH's premium traffic on their FRA-BLR route originated in SFO or some where else here in the US? I'm just trying to understand why you believe a UA flight would be a threat LH's flight but not the ME3? If you know the break dow in traffic between the US and Europe to BLR if you can please share it.

jayunited wrote:

I'm just trying to understand why you believe a UA flight would be a threat LH's flight but not the ME3? .

I believe because of the S-word, which I am sincerely trying to avoid. Don't want a thread drift. Whatever struggles some countries have, aviation is major chunk their economies, they will not let go.

These are some great ads by United, and I think worth the attempt. Worst case, COVID continues, and they pull it down. SFO-BLR is a great development of their overall SFO strategy, and the IAD development is also common sense for Africa. Didn't DL have an Africa strategy with 757's flying via SID? Since then, I don't think any US airline has ambitious about Africa, and that is a pity.

Saludos,
Alex

x1234 wrote:

Remember folks Delta flies JFK-LOS/ACC/DSS and ATL-LOS. Delta's ATL-LOS was tagged with IAH-ATL-LOS. O&D comes first and the majority of West Africans are in DC. Also ET (Ethiopian Airlines) flies from Togo to Newark.

Actually, Houston has the largest Nigerian population in the US. Houston also has a large Cameroonian community as well. The Washington area is tilted strongly towards East Africans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_ ... _residence

Upgrading the engines on the 789 should help on the hot and high performance.

https://onemileatatime.com/united-airli ... BPguQEjWjg

toga998 wrote:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/293721/united-expands-washington-dulles-domestic-routes-in-nov-2020/

This seems like a pretty safe addition for the IAD hub, especially the EYW route.

I agree that IAD-EYW is pretty safe and should do well. I'm surprised UA would bring back IAD-CAK. It seems like a far more marginal route. UA had only recently started it (before COVID) and I'm not sure it was a strong performer. But good on UA for trying to make IAD work as a hub in these difficult times.

United upgrading the 789 thrust. https://onemileatatime.com/united-airli ... BPguQEjWjg

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

x1234 wrote:

Remember folks Delta flies JFK-LOS/ACC/DSS and ATL-LOS. Delta's ATL-LOS was tagged with IAH-ATL-LOS. O&D comes first and the majority of West Africans are in DC. Also ET (Ethiopian Airlines) flies from Togo to Newark.

Actually, Houston has the largest Nigerian population in the US. Houston also has a large Cameroonian community as well. The Washington area is tilted strongly towards East Africans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_ ... _residence

Well, almost.

IAH is the 3rd biggest O&D market narrowly behind DC to LOS but during the oil boom years, the fares on IAH-LOS were astronomically high which is why CO launched LOS from there.

As for demographics, Houston has the 2nd largest Nigerian population in the US behind NYC. DC is not far behind Houston. The only other places worldwide with larger Nigerian populations are Johannesburg and London. Here is how the demographics break down as of 2018:

African foreign born population total:
New York - 322,051
Washington DC/Baltimore - 290,617
Minneapolis/St. Paul - 121,420
Boston/Providence - 121,220
Dallas/Fort Worth - 120,062
Atlanta - 108,061
Houston - 99,217
Los Angeles/Riverside - 99,149
Philadelphia - 80,122
Seattle/Tacoma - 64,250
San Francisco/San Jose - 61,731
Columbus, OH - 56,501
Chicago - 55,821
Phoenix - 30,503
Denver - 30,003

East African Foreign Born Population:
Washington DC/Baltimore - 95,978
Minneapolis/St. Paul - 84,922
Seattle/Tacoma - 46,301
Dallas/Fort Worth - 42,836
Atlanta - 28,717
New York - 26,241
Boston/Providence - 26,004
Columbus, OH - 23,088
Los Angeles/Riverside - 22,234
San Francisco/San Jose - 22,491
Houston - 17,409
Las Vegas - 15,541
Denver - 14,117
Portland, OR - 12,993
Phoenix - 12,488
Philadelphia - 10,335
Chicago - 9,961

West African Foreign Born Population
New York - 169,833
Washington DC/Baltimore - 122,418
Boston/Providence - 65,910 (58,000 of this is just from Cape Verde)
Houston - 55,412
Atlanta - 53,764
Philadelphia - 45,208
Dallas/Fort Worth - 35,778
Los Angeles/Riverside - 29,137
Chicago - 27,914
Minneapolis/St. Paul - 25,962
Columbus, OH - 20,727
San Francisco/Oakland - 14,297

As for Nigerians alone, here were the numbers for the top five nationwide:
New York City: 54,315
Houston: 45,386
Washington/Baltimore: 43,944
Dallas/Fort Worth: 24,812
Atlanta: 24,220

Long story short, IAD definitely makes the most sense for a route to LOS for now. Most of the Nigerians I know in Houston are pretty wed to LH for getting back and forth.

I read through all the responses here, and have 2 points that I've not seen others make yet.
First, a common criticism of IAH is that it is too far south to capture East-West flows. If that is the case, TPA is too far south to capture intra-SE flows. It would really only funnel flights from north of Florida, to Florida destinations. CHS-MEM, or RIC-BTR are not really efficiently served going through TPA.
Second, I think the OP doesn't know how much traffic that UA actually does route over IAH, and to a lesser extent IAD, into to Southeast. Every time I'm on a MEM-IAH flight, there are a fair number of people flying MEM-IAH-Florida. It doesn't make sense to me, but UA is collecting their fare dollars, and in the end that's all that counts. Why aren't those folks on DL? I don't know. Maybe cost. Maybe the schedules. UA knows exactly how many people it is moving around the country, and to where. I suspect they are fine with not having the expense of another hub.

If anything would make sense it would be EWR not IAD.

LAXDude, I didn't realize the DC metro had caught up that closely to Houston. When I lived up there 20 years ago, it seemed like everyone was from Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Kenya. A trip out to Alief in Houston shows you a thriving west African community here.
I'm curious, where did you get your numbers from?
I do agree, that IAD-LOS will be a good add for UA. For the time being, the oil traffic out of Houston is a ghost of it's former self. It will probably take at least 2-3 years to recover, if at all. Plus, if ET re-starts their service to Togo from IAH, Star Alliance will have coverage to work with.

DylanHarvey wrote:

jayunited wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

Yeah that’s is true, the 787 is no doubt very capable but ok some day’s we might see blocked seats. Leaving BLR at 3,000AMSL might be harder, I remember jayunited saying cargo gets jettisoned from the 89 out of Australia on hot days. I can’t help but think but think the slight edge the 359 has would help these routes, but 789s size is valuable now when demand isn’t crazy high.

You start to see performance penalties when the temperature hits 95F/97F or 35C/36C, at those temps you are holding off at least 3,000 LBS of cargo if not more.

Then there are days when UA has had to jettison all the cargo out of SYD but only when the temperature exceeds 105F or 107F / 40C or 41.6C. If we are looking at a full pax cabin and you are talking temperatures in this range or higher in most cases you can forget about taking the cargo out of SYD or MEL in some cases the non revs have to be pulled off the aircraft. There are days during the southern hemispheres summer where even though the dispatcher has padded the temperature, 2-4 degrees in the release it isn't enough. Sydney at 10:00 is already pushing 101F/102F and the captain 20 minutes before departure will have the dispatcher rerun the flight plan with a temp of 105F because the captain knows they are going to sit on the ground after push back waiting for the runway for another 20-30 minutes, and it blows everything out of the water.

The 789 is a very capable aircraft, and it does have its limits, but it still performs a hell of a lot better than the 77E.

Valuable information as always. And yes the 77E was a pioneer in it’s time, but the time is now for the Dreamliner and the Airbus. How much of a difference would it make if UA had taken The higher thrust GENx? They have 72 or 73k on the 89 now right?

UA B789 have GEnx-1B74/75 ( 76,700Lbs )
UA B788 have GEnx-1B70 ( 72,300Lbs )

The highest GEnx rating available on the B789 is the -1B76A (78,500Lbs). The additional thrust would certainly help the B789 out of FAOR/JNB.

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

LAXDude, I didn't realize the DC metro had caught up that closely to Houston. When I lived up there 20 years ago, it seemed like everyone was from Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, and Kenya. A trip out to Alief in Houston shows you a thriving west African community here.
I'm curious, where did you get your numbers from?
I do agree, that IAD-LOS will be a good add for UA. For the time being, the oil traffic out of Houston is a ghost of it's former self. It will probably take at least 2-3 years to recover, if at all. Plus, if ET re-starts their service to Togo from IAH, Star Alliance will have coverage to work with.

Source is data.census.gov.

The biggest difference between NYC and DC is that DC has a MUCH more diverse African community. Look how tiny NYC's East African population is given its total African population. Along with DC, Dallas/Fort Worth and Atlanta are the most diverse within their African communities. NYC, Houston, Boston, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Seattle, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia's African communities are very heavily weighted towards one region of the continent.

StinkyPinky wrote:

How will they staff the SFO-BLR flights with speakers? Despite furloughing 5,500 FAs, will they be hiring a handful of new Kannada/Hindi FAs for this route? DH to SFO from other language bases?

No UA isn’t going to hire Hindi speaking FAs after furloughing. They will either staff them out of the SFO base or just operate the flight without speakers.

It has been reported that UA plans to upgrade the software in a sub-fleet and eventually all 789s. This software upgrade will increase thrust and improve the fuel management systems, thus increasing the range and capabilities of the aircraft. The software update is what will allow SFO-BLR and EWR-JNB possible.

https://onemileatatime.com/united-airli ... BPguQEjWjg

What are your thoughts of such an upgrade? Was this and upgrade in conjunction with Boeing, a third party company, or on their own? Will the update then be extended to the 788 and 78X to improve their range and capabilities? Finally, will other airlines follow suit?

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

I read through all the responses here, and have 2 points that I've not seen others make yet.
First, a common criticism of IAH is that it is too far south to capture East-West flows. If that is the case, TPA is too far south to capture intra-SE flows. It would really only funnel flights from north of Florida, to Florida destinations. CHS-MEM, or RIC-BTR are not really efficiently served going through TPA.
Second, I think the OP doesn't know how much traffic that UA actually does route over IAH, and to a lesser extent IAD, into to Southeast. Every time I'm on a MEM-IAH flight, there are a fair number of people flying MEM-IAH-Florida. It doesn't make sense to me, but UA is collecting their fare dollars, and in the end that's all that counts. Why aren't those folks on DL? I don't know. Maybe cost. Maybe the schedules. UA knows exactly how many people it is moving around the country, and to where. I suspect they are fine with not having the expense of another hub.

I think your second point might invalidate your first one It is certainly not as ideal as ATL or CLT, but it could manageably connect SE Atlantic coast to the SE Gulf coast. Like you pointed out, anything else would go thru IAD or IAH anyway. But I think that would be minor overall - the real value is tapping the 22m Florida market (I wouldn't be surprised if Florida represents more than half of the O&D flying the southeastern US) as well as being a secondary Latin America and Carribean gateway.

IAD is in Virginia which is part of the Southeast.

But seriously, while it's not the optimal connecting point for say GSO to TPA, it's also only ~30min out of the way. Most price sensitive travelers (read: leisure traffic going to Florida) wouldn't even notice.

Blockplus wrote:

United upgrading the 789 thrust. https://onemileatatime.com/united-airli ... BPguQEjWjg

I've been off work on vacation and I'm still on vacation. This is the first I'm hearing and it is exciting news, I try to not sign into work related stuff on my time but I can't wait to find out the details of how much additional thrust UA can get out of those engines and what other enhancements will help improve improve or reduce fuel burn on our 789s.

Kirby is not sitting still at all he is making all sort of moves to get this airline ready for the future.

I heard rumours AA wanted to add LAX-SIN, maybe this increased thrust will make LAX-SIN profitable for AA.

x1234 wrote:

I heard rumours AA wanted to add LAX-SIN, maybe this increased thrust will make LAX-SIN profitable for AA.

I think we can count that route out now.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

x1234 wrote:

Remember folks Delta flies JFK-LOS/ACC/DSS and ATL-LOS. Delta's ATL-LOS was tagged with IAH-ATL-LOS. O&D comes first and the majority of West Africans are in DC. Also ET (Ethiopian Airlines) flies from Togo to Newark.

Actually, Houston has the largest Nigerian population in the US. Houston also has a large Cameroonian community as well. The Washington area is tilted strongly towards East Africans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigerian_ ... _residence

Well, almost.

IAH is the 3rd biggest O&D market narrowly behind DC to LOS but during the oil boom years, the fares on IAH-LOS were astronomically high which is why CO launched LOS from there.

As for demographics, Houston has the 2nd largest Nigerian population in the US behind NYC. DC is not far behind Houston. The only other places worldwide with larger Nigerian populations are Johannesburg and London. Here is how the demographics break down as of 2018:

African foreign born population total:
New York - 322,051
Washington DC/Baltimore - 290,617
Minneapolis/St. Paul - 121,420
Boston/Providence - 121,220
Dallas/Fort Worth - 120,062
Atlanta - 108,061
Houston - 99,217
Los Angeles/Riverside - 99,149
Philadelphia - 80,122
Seattle/Tacoma - 64,250
San Francisco/San Jose - 61,731
Columbus, OH - 56,501
Chicago - 55,821
Phoenix - 30,503
Denver - 30,003

East African Foreign Born Population:
Washington DC/Baltimore - 95,978
Minneapolis/St. Paul - 84,922
Seattle/Tacoma - 46,301
Dallas/Fort Worth - 42,836
Atlanta - 28,717
New York - 26,241
Boston/Providence - 26,004
Columbus, OH - 23,088
Los Angeles/Riverside - 22,234
San Francisco/San Jose - 22,491
Houston - 17,409
Las Vegas - 15,541
Denver - 14,117
Portland, OR - 12,993
Phoenix - 12,488
Philadelphia - 10,335
Chicago - 9,961

West African Foreign Born Population
New York - 169,833
Washington DC/Baltimore - 122,418
Boston/Providence - 65,910 (58,000 of this is just from Cape Verde)
Houston - 55,412
Atlanta - 53,764
Philadelphia - 45,208
Dallas/Fort Worth - 35,778
Los Angeles/Riverside - 29,137
Chicago - 27,914
Minneapolis/St. Paul - 25,962
Columbus, OH - 20,727
San Francisco/Oakland - 14,297

As for Nigerians alone, here were the numbers for the top five nationwide:
New York City: 54,315
Houston: 45,386
Washington/Baltimore: 43,944
Dallas/Fort Worth: 24,812
Atlanta: 24,220

Long story short, IAD definitely makes the most sense for a route to LOS for now. Most of the Nigerians I know in Houston are pretty wed to LH for getting back and forth.

In addition, there's the obvious fact that DC has government traffic as well. IAD has been able to support a number of seemingly unusual routes over the years (think KWI and BAH) because of diplomatic and other government related traffic. While in this case it's not capital-to-capital, it's still a direct flight to the center of west Africa. This, in addition to IAD being better for connections than IAH, having significant O&D, and being less competitive than the NYC market make IAD the pretty obvious choice.

Why haven’t the new flights been loaded yet?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

Why haven’t the new flights been loaded yet?

EWR-JNB needs approval from the DOT since there’s only a limited number of U.S. to South Africa frequencies available.

United requested them to expedite approval of course so they can open booking for the flights as early as possible.

As for the other six routes, I’m unsure about the logistics but I’d assume the two Hawaiian ones are easier to launch.

It’s possible they haven’t finalized schedules?

Nicknuzzii wrote:

If anything would make sense it would be EWR not IAD.

So we've got someone voting for their home airport, vs United's route planning department... Did you shoot Patrick Quayle an e-mail to let him know his team messed up?

FriscoHeavy wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

FriscoHeavy wrote:

The JNB-EWR will often push a solid 16 1/2 hours. We did CPT-EWR and the flight time was 16:10. JNB-EWR is a 172 miles further. All I'm saying is that the JNB-EWR flight is no slough in terms of requirements. I'm happy to see the 787-9 can do it.

Cheers

That’s good actually. Anything above 15-16 from JNB is no slouch. The 789 and 359 Are phenomenal aircraft. Although CPT is sea level which helps cause you guys can get 254t from there, can anyone help with what the 789 is limited to MTOW wise out of JNB.

Yes, I meant 'slouch' -- typo on my part and cannot go back and fix it at this point. *I have no idea why there is a time limit on making edits to your own post - very silly and irritating.

I too, would love to know what the general MTOW will be limited to out of JNB will be for the 787-9. I'm curious if they will initially have to block any seats or if they will sell all seats, but not allow any cargo, or if they believe they will be able to fly a full passenger load, plus a marginal amount of cargo.

I can't wait to eventually see the numbers: Departure weight, fuel load, payload (passengers and cargo), etc.

If I remember correctly it is somewhere in the 225 to 230 range. With the max being 254 I don’t think they will get anywhere close to that. The 359 can at most get 275 out of there on a very good day and it has stellar field performance.

dtw2hyd wrote:

CONTACREW wrote:

N649DL wrote:

What are you talking about? The 777 that UA uses on the route to India out of EWR has a ton of J seats in a 2-2-2 configuration. My Brother-in-Law is Indian and my Dad and soon to be Step-Mom did the route in J back in 2017 and my Dad's seat overheated. Yet they moved him and kept going instead of diverting, but he did inhale some electrical fumes while sleeping. It was after that I put my foot down and said stop flying UA in general. Compensation was absolute crap by UA.

Not to mention the service on those India routes: Frankly seemed to suck and that's a long time to be put 14+ hours in a coffin seat and suffer long haul. AA's product seemed superior back in the day, IMHO.

Might want to educate yourself. UA flies the 77W to India from EWR and those are in a 1x2x1 configuration in J.

That is a very selective statement, for years all UA sent to India was their oldest 772s.

Oldest, wow. This is an even more selective statement.

UA's oldest 772s can never do EWR-India non-stop since they're non-ER 772As. And many of those GE-powered 772ERs that UA used to India are the newest among the fleet, heck some of the newest 772ERs globally.

Michael

Qantas744er wrote:

UA B789 have GEnx-1B74/75 ( 76,700Lbs )
UA B788 have GEnx-1B70 ( 72,300Lbs )

The highest GEnx rating available on the B789 is the -1B76A (78,500Lbs). The additional thrust would certainly help the B789 out of FAOR/JNB.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the rating you are saying is now available for a 789 (78,500LBS) is higher than the thrust rating for the 78X. The article also talked about increase fuel efficiency which should help UA on what would become the new longest nonstop route in our network SFO-BLR-SFO.

But if we focus on performance what kind of boost to the TOG could UA be looking at especially coming out of BLR and JNB. How much additional payload could UA potentially lift out of these airports with engines producing an additional 1,800LBS of thrust each?

dtw2hyd wrote:

CaliguyNYC wrote:

I will throw out a notion for people to tear down - we know India-US traffic is very large but nonstop flights are low given the traffic. I feel a big reason the US3 didn’t launch nonstops to india was driven by competition (yield) but also the need to fill US-EU hub to hub flights. First - competition is down and it is unlikely flights like EY’s SFO-AUH will come back anytime soon. So launch to stop them in the future. Second - India’s peak season is winter (there is still decent traffic to India in summer and of course Indians flying to EU and US in the summer). Also VFR to India is basically year round with peaks during the main US holidays (thanksgiving, Christmas, summer) and Indian holidays (Diwali, Christmas, summer - which for Bombay is April). So you get decent traffic flows outside of the main US-EU flows. Add to that the year round business traffic, and India is a great way to fill seats on the multiple dailes from US hubs to EU hubs with onwards to India. With Covid, US-EU flights will be down for a bit (hub flights will return first but many nonstop city pairs will not for quite some time). Plus people are avoiding connecting in third countries and VFR is being seen as a stable (even if not high earning) flight for airlines (look at VS flying UK-Pakistan). So take all of these together, and I think you have the right moment for UA to do what they did. Oh and finally, as many have said, AI really proved people want nonstops (AI for god’s sake). I give credit to UA for really driving market expansion after AI even if it does hurt LH. I think there is plenty of traffic for EU-India to survive with these new nonstops. Perhaps they get downgraded from 748s but they will survive.

To summarize
COVID19 is rationalizing routes in true sense, no funneling unnecessary traffic through preferred hub and calling it efficient.
COVID19 busted the premium traffic myth, if there is no capacity dumping even Y yields can be decent and routes can survive without front cabin being full.
AI survived without any partners' help, it is UA's turn to survive without partners.
Just don't tell LH or SQ.

What you are saying is that, people will pay a high price when they're forced to pay high price without any other options.

hohd wrote:

BLR has lower VFR than DEL, BOM, and even HYD

BLR lower than HYD? This was certainly true before 2016, but is this still the case? BLR market has grown in the past 5 years by virtue of it being India's startup capital.

OTOH, India's vice like grip on the outsourcing industry has collapsed in the past few years with Philippines and other countries taking away a sizeable chunk of this business.

Guess we will need to wait and see how the COVID affects the traffic figures to and from BLR.

StinkyPinky wrote:

How will they staff the SFO-BLR flights with speakers? Despite furloughing 5,500 FAs, will they be hiring a handful of new Kannada/Hindi FAs for this route? DH to SFO from other language bases?

Not sure what you are implying here but there is no need to hire "speakers". I have taken AF, LH, UA, EK over the years to BOM and am yet to come across a Marathi (or Hindi) speaking crew on either one of my flights. It's not needed. English will do just fine.

Qantas744er wrote:

DylanHarvey wrote:

jayunited wrote:

You start to see performance penalties when the temperature hits 95F/97F or 35C/36C, at those temps you are holding off at least 3,000 LBS of cargo if not more.

Then there are days when UA has had to jettison all the cargo out of SYD but only when the temperature exceeds 105F or 107F / 40C or 41.6C. If we are looking at a full pax cabin and you are talking temperatures in this range or higher in most cases you can forget about taking the cargo out of SYD or MEL in some cases the non revs have to be pulled off the aircraft. There are days during the southern hemispheres summer where even though the dispatcher has padded the temperature, 2-4 degrees in the release it isn't enough. Sydney at 10:00 is already pushing 101F/102F and the captain 20 minutes before departure will have the dispatcher rerun the flight plan with a temp of 105F because the captain knows they are going to sit on the ground after push back waiting for the runway for another 20-30 minutes, and it blows everything out of the water.

The 789 is a very capable aircraft, and it does have its limits, but it still performs a hell of a lot better than the 77E.

Valuable information as always. And yes the 77E was a pioneer in it’s time, but the time is now for the Dreamliner and the Airbus. How much of a difference would it make if UA had taken The higher thrust GENx? They have 72 or 73k on the 89 now right?

UA B789 have GEnx-1B74/75 ( 76,700Lbs )
UA B788 have GEnx-1B70 ( 72,300Lbs )

The highest GEnx rating available on the B789 is the -1B76A (78,500Lbs). The additional thrust would certainly help the B789 out of FAOR/JNB.

They have the GENx-1b78/p2. I wonder if they have been certified on anything yet. I thought I read that was certified last year. 80,400lbs.