Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
INFINITI329
Posts: 2590
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 12:53 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 5:55 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Are the WN MAX's ETOPS?


Some not all
gmcc wrote:
Not unless they have an ETOPS 700 lying around.


Some of the 73Gs inherited from FL are overwater equipped, but not up to ETOPS standards as far as I am aware. It might make more sense to invest in bringing some of the Max 7s up to ETOPS standards if WN is interested in serving routes like this
 
ahj2000
Posts: 1284
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 5:34 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:10 pm

Also ORD-KOA and EWR-OGG?
Wow.
-Andrés Juánez
 
jayunited
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:11 pm

WN732 wrote:
gmcc wrote:
SWADawg wrote:
Look for WN to respond with their own SNA-HNL as well.

Not unless they have an ETOPS 700 lying around. The 800 takes a pretty good penalty out of SNA which is why airliners haven't served the Hawaiian market out of SNA with the 800. Both aloha and UA used the 700 last time. Although with the light booking maybe it makes sense to try with an 800 since it wouldn't be full anyway.


I'm pretty sure even the -700 takes somewhat of a penalty from SNA to Hawaii.


Bingo!!!! :checkmark: :checkmark:
Hence the reason why I asked why are we trying this again? The first time around UA/CO tried this route it was on a -700 which was weight restricted, I don't see how this time around is going to be any different.
 
joeljack
Posts: 686
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:38 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:25 pm

This is awesome news!

Speaking of HNL, does anybody know a status update on the new HNL United Club and if construction is continuing on it?
 
User avatar
keoki
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed May 29, 2002 11:58 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:26 pm

SWADawg wrote:
Look for WN to respond with their own SNA-HNL as well.


WN will use LGB which is less than 30 miles away with no weight restrictions with a full 800.
Keoki
 
 
jayunited
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:41 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
FYI UA 2756/11Feb N4911U GYR-TUP was cancelled.


You have the wrong flight number the flight number was UA2708/11Feb
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 787
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:42 pm

keoki wrote:
SWADawg wrote:
Look for WN to respond with their own SNA-HNL as well.


WN will use LGB which is less than 30 miles away with no weight restrictions with a full 800.


30 miles in the LA area is unpalatable for most. That’s not “close” by any local definition.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:45 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Question regarding the A320s going to part-out: Was it always UA’s plan to acquire some of these used planes for parts, or was it a result of the travel downturn that they decided it wasn’t worth spending the money to convert the planes to UA config and realizing they now have more planes than they need for a while?



I know United purchases some used Airbus with the sole intent on using them for spare parts. However I'm not sure if the original plan involved ex-Vueling jets or ex-EasyJet jets but some of these used aircraft from Europe were never going to join UA's fleet.
 
ytib
Posts: 657
Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2004 3:22 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 6:55 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
keoki wrote:
SWADawg wrote:
Look for WN to respond with their own SNA-HNL as well.


WN will use LGB which is less than 30 miles away with no weight restrictions with a full 800.


30 miles in the LA area is unpalatable for most. That’s not “close” by any local definition.


But if they want to fly Southwest they will make the effort to get to LGB. Just like in the Bay Area where those in the East Bay make the extra effort to get to SFO versus OAK so they can fly United.
318, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 388, 707, 717, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73Q, 735, 73G, 738, 7M8, 739, 752, 753, 742, 74L, 744, 762, 763, 772, 77L, 77W, 789, 142, CN1, CR2, CR7, DC8, DH2, DH8, D8Q, D10, D95, EM2, ER3, ER4, E70, 100, J31, M11, M83, M88, M90, SF3
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:29 pm

hOMSaR wrote:
Question regarding the A320s going to part-out: Was it always UA’s plan to acquire some of these used planes for parts, or was it a result of the travel downturn that they decided it wasn’t worth spending the money to convert the planes to UA config and realizing they now have more planes than they need for a while?


Mixed bag. In some cases it has always been the plan to part out the aircraft to maintain the current fleet. My understanding is that the the high cycle count ex-Vueling A320s that were purchased were always intended to be parted out. For the ex-Shaeen and ex-Bulgarian Eagle A319s that were purchased a couple years ago now, their fate may now be up in the air. The initial plan was that they would be converted and placed into service but that may now be in question. At this point they have all been sitting at GYR for 2+years now so not sure what the plan is. With the MAX aircraft coming and demand depressed for a while, I would not be surprised if some of these end up getting parted out given their age and conversion costs.
 
Golfmikey
Posts: 34
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:41 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:41 pm

Golfmikey wrote:
Is there any chance that N 27957 is going to get Polaris mods in XMN also N27958 the fleet site has it in XMN but flight aware says it has never left NRT


I misread FlightAware I see both are in XMN any word on possible mods?
 
Tdan
Posts: 527
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 9:36 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 7:59 pm

OGG actually performed better the first time around, but both did alright from a revenue perspective. Issue before was the weight restriction and high fuel making the unit cost on an already weight restricted flight really high. You could only push the premium from SNA up so high before traffic started leaking back to LAX.

As mentioned before, the PIP, weight savings and upgrade (finally) to max thrust should help reduce the weight restriction.
We will ride this thunderbird, silver shadows on the earth, a thousand leagues away our land of birth... -Captain Bruce
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8634
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:42 pm

maps4ltd wrote:
UA should add SNA-EWR back soon though.


NYC-LA demand is still very suppressed. They can’t get JFK-LAX/SFO off the ground, so you can forget about SNA for the foreseeable future.
Worked Hard, Flew Right
 
wingsofman72
Posts: 175
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 9:57 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:45 pm

CALMSP wrote:
CO also did SNA-OGG for a little while.

Yes, was on the first flight out of there (working at CO at the time on the IT setup there).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuI9NgCl8nA
 
Aptivaboy
Posts: 990
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2016 3:32 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:48 pm

I was reading about this early this morning in Travel & Leisure and simply grinning from ear to ear. As an Orange County resident, I'm over the moon with happiness. Now, for the naysayers...

Yes, this route has been tried before. It was intensely popular, but weight restrictions sometimes ate into revenue. It wasn't that it wasn't profitable, just not profitable enough to justify retaining it. Well, this is the perfect route for an overpowered 757. Outbound to a leisure destination the luggage weights shouldn't be too abhorrent and the 757's rocket-like takeoff should handle the situation better than the 737-700s that Aloha and Continental used. Time will tell what metal United uses on this route - it wasn't uploaded on the United website when I tried this morning - but if a 757, then things should work out just fine. If the MAX, we will have to wait and see how the weights and loadings work out.

EDIT: just saw that its a -700. Drats! I was hoping for a Saturn V, I mean a 757.


Profits? Not a problem. Folks in Orange County will be willing to pay an upcharge to fly out of John Wayne and avoid the inconvenience of schlepping down to San Diego or up to Los Angeles. Once you add in the parking fees, gas, time, etc., of driving to either Lindbergh Field or LAX, any premium that United might charge will still make the overall trip cost palatable, perhaps even slightly cheaper. As long as the planes remain full, I doubt that United will lose money on this route, seriously.

As for those saying that Southwest will fly without restriction out of Long Beach, and that that's a better option, well... No, its not. Long Beach isn't that much closer than LAX, maybe 15-20 minutes depending upon traffic on the 405, so why stop at Long Beach when there are more options out of LAX? More airlines, more routes, more islands, more flights? Long Beach - Hawaii will be a hit, no doubt, but many Orange Countians, especially those of us in South Orange County, don't really perceive a meaningful difference between the two airports in terms of travel times, especially if there's traffic. Actually, we'd be more likely to fly out of Ontario than Long Beach, all things considered, especially when a nearly empty toll road can get you most of the way there from just east of Mission Viejo far faster than a slog up the 405 to Long Beach. Now, if I want to use my Hawaiian Miles to fly first class in style on a nice A330, then yes, I'll still drive up to LAX. Otherwise, my 260K United Miles are calling, and they're calling to me from John Wayne.

THANK YOU, UNITED!!!
Last edited by Aptivaboy on Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
nine4nine
Posts: 740
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:44 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Fri Feb 12, 2021 8:56 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
I was reading about this early this morning in Travel & Leisure and simply grinning from ear to ear. As an Orange County resident, I'm over the moon with happiness. Now, for the naysayers...

Yes, this route has been tried before. It was intensely popular, but weight restrictions sometimes ate into revenue. It wasn't that it wasn't profitable, just not profitable enough to justify retaining it. Well, this is the perfect route for an overpowered 757. Outbound to a leisure destination the luggage weights shouldn't be too abhorrent and the 757's rocket-like takeoff should handle the situation better than the 737-700s that Aloha and Continental used. Time will tell what metal United uses on this route - it wasn't uploaded on the United website when I tried this morning - but if a 757, then things should work out just fine. If the MAX, we will have to wait and see how the weights and loadings work out.

Profits? Not a problem. Folks in Orange County will be willing to pay an upcharge to fly out of John Wayne and avoid the inconvenience of schlepping down to San Diego or up to Los Angeles. Once you add in the parking fees, gas, time, etc., of driving to either Lindbergh Field or LAX, any premium that United might charge will still make the overall trip cost palatable, perhaps even slightly cheaper. As long as the planes remain full, I doubt that United will lose money on this route, seriously.

As for those saying that Southwest will fly without restriction out of Long Beach, and that that's a better option, well... No, its not. Long Beach isn't that much closer than LAX, maybe 15-20 minutes depending upon traffic on the 405, so why stop at Long Beach when there are more options out of LAX? More airlines, more routes, more islands, more flights? Long Beach - Hawaii will be a hit, no doubt, but many Orange Countians, especially those of us in South Orange County, don't really perceive a meaningful difference between the two airports in terms of travel times, especially if there's traffic. Actually, we'd be more likely to fly out of Ontario than Long Beach, all things considered, especially when a nearly empty toll road can get you most of the way there from just east of Mission Viejo far faster than a slog up the 405 to Long Beach. Now, if I want to use my Hawaiian Miles to fly first class in style on a nice A330, then yes, I'll still drive up to LAX. Otherwise, my 260K United Miles are calling, and they're calling to me from John Wayne.

THANK YOU, UNITED!!!



Mic Drop.....

Yes as a fellow South Orange Countian I’m very stoked on this option as well since yes LGB, SAN, and LAX are a bit of a trip. I think this route will work out very this time around well given the restlessness of some of us who have travel withdrawals and with most international travel off the books I think Hawaii will be a hit. And YES fingers crossed with a 752!
717, 727-100, 727-200, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 742, 748, 752, 753, 762, 763, 772, 77W, 787-10, DC9, MD80/88/90, DC10, 319, 220-300, 320, 321, 321n, 332, 333, CS100, CRJ200, Q400, E175, E190, ERJ145, EMB120
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25267
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Fri Feb 12, 2021 9:06 pm

Regarding used narrowbodies, below was from pilot townhall in January

Q. Why is United continuing to acquire used aircraft from other airlines?
A. There are no further plans for used airplane acquisitions. We have another (16) A319 airplanes coming from EasyJet and (12) B737-700’s from Southwest, and since those airplanes need reconfiguration, they will likely be the last out of storage sometime in the next few years.


excelsior wrote:

Jay, do you have any details on the buyout package being offered to some employees? Who is eligible and what kind of package is being offered? When the voluntary packages were beginning to be offered last summer, the internet was awash with details. It seems to be much more hushed up this time around.


The voluntary separation program this time is more tailored for each work group and customized on a scale based on individual employees age and years of service.

In simple terms, there are two options -
> One focused on longer-term partial pay continuation as employee opts for permanent leave of absence into 2022 with no or minimal health account contribution and benefits
> Other has shorter leave of absence, but stronger retiree separation contribution payout and enhanced health benefit funds.

Basically, separate quickly and we will give you more benefits/payout. If you want more stability and wish to continue to earn a portion of your wages longer, receive less when you do separate at the end.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3289
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:40 am

jayunited wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
FYI UA 2756/11Feb N4911U GYR-TUP was cancelled.


You have the wrong flight number the flight number was UA2708/11Feb

Interesting as FR24 only shows the cancelled number, Flight Aware shows nothing and both sites do not show the aircraft arriving or on the ground.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:51 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
jayunited wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
FYI UA 2756/11Feb N4911U GYR-TUP was cancelled.


You have the wrong flight number the flight number was UA2708/11Feb

Interesting as FR24 only shows the cancelled number, Flight Aware shows nothing and both sites do not show the aircraft arriving or on the ground.


UA2708/11FEB departed GYR 0823 arrived TUP 1219.. The flight shows arrived in several internal systems and I also just checked Flight Aware and it shows on flight Aware as well.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL2708
 
JFKalumni
Posts: 220
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:45 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 3:48 am

jayunited wrote:
codc10 wrote:
jakubz wrote:
Interesting how UAL is finding the money for painting and the archers now. I guess that they won't need to be laying any employees on 3/31.
/s
:banghead: :hot: :tapedshut:


United’s messaging for both of these points has been terrible, and that’s all employees seem to be talking (complaining) about.

United needs to get the word out that the Archer deal isn’t a $1b check payable right now, and that the paint program is necessary, not a voluntary part of rebranding.


United could explain things until they blue in the face and over 60% of employees would still find something to complain about. You can't let the airline fall into disrepair because you are worried about how employees may take the news. You can not please everybody and you are not going make everyone understand so just put the news out there and keep it moving. In my opinion United does a great job with communicating news to employees especially when compared to bankruptcy United or even early merger United where all of our news came not from United but from outside sources.

As you rightly pointed out the paint program is absolutely necessary. We have employees complaining about United performing required scheduled maintenance on aircraft that are currently in storage and going right back into storage after maintenance is performed. I guess they would like to see a repeat of the bankruptcy years where United basically neglected most of the fleet. A decision that cost United dearly years down the road in extra maintenance cost as we tried to coax the fleet back to health. Yet we have employees complaining about United spending money on maintaining aircraft in storage. And of course the billion dollar Archer deal, like you stated it isn't payable now but the moment employees hear a billion dollars they are not going to listen to whatever comes next.

But on the flip side United is also spending hundreds of millions of dollars in actual cash on the vastly improved voluntary separation program in an attempt to bring down the total number of furloughs. How many eligible employees will take United up on their $110,000 (cash)- $145,000 (combination of cash and health care account) offers to retire by March 31st only time will tell. People see only what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, but United is trying to mitigate the total number of furloughs while at the same time trying to keep the fleet well maintained and ready for action whenever the recovery begins while at the same time investing in the future of travel.


In other news an ex-Vueling A320 (MSN 1914) UA nose number 4911 was ferried yesterday GYR-TUP to be broken down for spare parts which will be used to help maintain the rest of our A320 fleet.


I’m glad the repainting has resumed. Ship 2791 (772) desperately needs it.
 
LGeneReese
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:36 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:02 am

JFKalumni wrote:
jayunited wrote:
codc10 wrote:

United’s messaging for both of these points has been terrible, and that’s all employees seem to be talking (complaining) about.

United needs to get the word out that the Archer deal isn’t a $1b check payable right now, and that the paint program is necessary, not a voluntary part of rebranding.


United could explain things until they blue in the face and over 60% of employees would still find something to complain about. You can't let the airline fall into disrepair because you are worried about how employees may take the news. You can not please everybody and you are not going make everyone understand so just put the news out there and keep it moving. In my opinion United does a great job with communicating news to employees especially when compared to bankruptcy United or even early merger United where all of our news came not from United but from outside sources.

As you rightly pointed out the paint program is absolutely necessary. We have employees complaining about United performing required scheduled maintenance on aircraft that are currently in storage and going right back into storage after maintenance is performed. I guess they would like to see a repeat of the bankruptcy years where United basically neglected most of the fleet. A decision that cost United dearly years down the road in extra maintenance cost as we tried to coax the fleet back to health. Yet we have employees complaining about United spending money on maintaining aircraft in storage. And of course the billion dollar Archer deal, like you stated it isn't payable now but the moment employees hear a billion dollars they are not going to listen to whatever comes next.

But on the flip side United is also spending hundreds of millions of dollars in actual cash on the vastly improved voluntary separation program in an attempt to bring down the total number of furloughs. How many eligible employees will take United up on their $110,000 (cash)- $145,000 (combination of cash and health care account) offers to retire by March 31st only time will tell. People see only what they want to see, hear what they want to hear, but United is trying to mitigate the total number of furloughs while at the same time trying to keep the fleet well maintained and ready for action whenever the recovery begins while at the same time investing in the future of travel.


In other news an ex-Vueling A320 (MSN 1914) UA nose number 4911 was ferried yesterday GYR-TUP to be broken down for spare parts which will be used to help maintain the rest of our A320 fleet.


I’m glad the repainting has resumed. Ship 2791 (772) desperately needs it.

The painting is part of the aircraft maintenance program... Areas that are now exposed bare metal are subject to corrosion.. on a car that’s ok.. Aircraft not so much.
Formerly IAHCSR
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 5063
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:27 am

jayunited wrote:
Didn't we try this once before and the route failed? Why are we trying this again especially on off the short runway at SNA?


It was tried in a really different environment. Now united has way more airplanes then they need. Business routes are gonna be a long time to come back, so united has to try different routes. United's cash burn rate is too high to sit around and do nothing. They have to try expanding into more leisure routes like this. With United having so many 737-700s they are the perfect airline to fly this route. Expect to see more leisure routes from united, and all airlines. We have seen alot already. Until those business routes come back they have to try to minimize cash burn.
 
FR24Virus
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 5:00 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:32 am

jayunited wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
jayunited wrote:

You have the wrong flight number the flight number was UA2708/11Feb

Interesting as FR24 only shows the cancelled number, Flight Aware shows nothing and both sites do not show the aircraft arriving or on the ground.


UA2708/11FEB departed GYR 0823 arrived TUP 1219.. The flight shows arrived in several internal systems and I also just checked Flight Aware and it shows on flight Aware as well.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL2708


Thanks, totally forgot about flightaware.
Found N674UA as well, but seat map is not available. :roll:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N674UA
https://www.united.com/en/us/flightstat ... HKG/NRT/UA
 
jayunited
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:16 pm

FR24Virus wrote:
jayunited wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
Interesting as FR24 only shows the cancelled number, Flight Aware shows nothing and both sites do not show the aircraft arriving or on the ground.


UA2708/11FEB departed GYR 0823 arrived TUP 1219.. The flight shows arrived in several internal systems and I also just checked Flight Aware and it shows on flight Aware as well.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL2708


Thanks, totally forgot about flightaware.
Found N674UA as well, but seat map is not available. :roll:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N674UA
https://www.united.com/en/us/flightstat ... HKG/NRT/UA


You are not going to find a seat may yet hopefully United.com will be updated soon. The aircraft is coming out of heavy maintenance with Polaris/PE. The aircraft will operate as a cargo segment (picking up and dropping off cargo) HKG-NRT-HNL-ORD. This segment has been delayed do to a delay on N653UA coming out of of ROW earlier this week. ROW had freezing rain fall earlier this week and the heater on their deicing truck use to heat type 1 fluid was not working. N674UA is currently waiting on the flight crew operating N653UA, this crew is currently operating SFO-HNL-NRT-HKG, they will walk off N653UA and walk onto N674UA and operate HKG-NRT-HNL-ORD.

The crew will rest at both HNL and NRT even though it is a 6 day trip I hear these trips are very popular with pilots no matter the widebody because they are racking up nearly 45 hours of actual flight time alone over those 6 days.
 
alpine1989
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2019 2:13 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:40 pm

United adding SNA-HNL on the B737-700 starting May 6, 2021.

https://liveandletsfly.com/united-airli ... -honolulu/

How many United B737-700s are ETOPS capable?

Alpine
 
airmec7
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 3:09 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:50 pm

All of United’s 737 are ETOPS qualified.
 
User avatar
Coronado990
Posts: 1546
Joined: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:12 pm

I wonder if UA could try SBA-HNL with the 737-700?
Bonanza Air Lines. The original BZ.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9328
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:38 pm

Aptivaboy wrote:
Profits? Not a problem. Folks in Orange County will be willing to pay an upcharge to fly out of John Wayne and avoid the inconvenience of schlepping down to San Diego or up to Los Angeles.


That is the grounding (pun intended) assumption.

Surely UA (or DL) could rummage around and find a spare 757, maybe even a lie-flat 757 to give a lighter load AND a way to have Orange Countians spend yet more money. UA may be happier with the $ math and load math from trying to fill ~125 seats on a 737-700 instead of 169 on a 757. How much will people spend to avoid schlepping to LAX? How much will they value multiple frequencies at LAX vs. 1x at SNA?

UA will have equipment of the right types to be disruptive West Coast to Hawaii - at the risk of fragmenting its SFO and LAX services. WN isn't the primary competition - it's Alaska or Hawaiian.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3486
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 2:50 pm

FlyHossD wrote:
CO received a $300,000,000 loan from GE with Air Micronesia as the collateral. IIRC, as soon as the loan was paid off (early?), Bethune ordered that all the GE lightbulbs be removed from HQ.


When Bethune had that GE loan paid, he held a Sylvania Light Bulb during his news conference.

Too bad he wasn't around when Tilton wanted to merge with Continental. The H.Q. might have been in Houston, rather than Chicago.

Seeing 7501-7529 in the system, 7530 not in the computer yet. Had 7527 thru flight MCO yesterday.
You are here.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1951
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:49 pm

CALTECH wrote:
FlyHossD wrote:
CO received a $300,000,000 loan from GE with Air Micronesia as the collateral. IIRC, as soon as the loan was paid off (early?), Bethune ordered that all the GE lightbulbs be removed from HQ.


Too bad he wasn't around when Tilton wanted to merge with Continental. The H.Q. might have been in Houston, rather than Chicago.


Glenn Tilton was adamant that if any merger were to occur, the merged airline would be named United with headquarters in Chicago. Everything else was negotiable to him, but he was firm on those two conditions. He felt like he owed it to the city for all the "support" it showed during bankruptcy.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
MrBretz
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sat Feb 13, 2021 6:07 pm

I live in South OC and like to fly UA, so this is a real plus for me. BUT, I usually skip Oahu and go the Big Island. So I am in the I dunno class. I plan to go later in the year and wonder how the vaccine will affect travel to Hawaii.
 
User avatar
ADent
Posts: 1179
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:11 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 8:09 pm

JFKalumni wrote:

I’m glad the repainting has resumed. Ship 2791 (772) desperately needs it.



 
77H
Posts: 1573
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:11 pm

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Didn't we try this once before and the route failed? Why are we trying this again especially on off the short runway at SNA?


It was tried in a really different environment. Now united has way more airplanes then they need. Business routes are gonna be a long time to come back, so united has to try different routes. United's cash burn rate is too high to sit around and do nothing. They have to try expanding into more leisure routes like this. With United having so many 737-700s they are the perfect airline to fly this route. Expect to see more leisure routes from united, and all airlines. We have seen alot already. Until those business routes come back they have to try to minimize cash burn.


To slcdeltarumd11‘s point above... my cursory understanding regarding the viability of SNA-Hawaii over time is as follows:

-Nearly the entire time AQ operated SNA-Hawaii, SNA was almost always considered amongst their most profitable markets, despite performance challenges with a then, relatively new aircraft type. (I.e no winglets, early PiPs, etc).
Given the known issues AQ faced on the route they had numerous contingency plans, including moving bags, and pax when necessary via LAX or SFO on close partner UA when weight restricted that minimized negative customer satisfaction.
-Despite the profitability of AQ’s West Coast-Hawaii routes at large, they weren’t enough to offset losses in the inter-island market.
-After AQ went Ch7 CO, the only other airline with ETOPS rated 73Gs jumped in to fill the void. Just in time for the 08/09 financial crisis that hit SoCal, OC in particular, extremely hard. Despite this.. CO managed to operate SNA-Hawaii through to the merger with UA, where it was ultimately cut by UA in order to redeploy the AC on more profitable ventures.

-Since 07-11, the 73G has received numerous performance upgrades which UA has seemingly opted for, while also introducing lower-weight slimline seats. Also, I maybe be mistaken, but hasn’t SNA relaxed their noise abatement restrictions a bit, such that departure procedures aren’t as fuel intensive as they once were?

For those quick to rail against this add, quick cite past performance. Can anyone definitively say SNA-Hawaii for CO/UA was cut due to unprofitability, rather than cut in favor of more profitable opportunities? If it was indeed unprofitable, can anyone specifically show it was unprofitable due to internal factors, such as CO/UA’s cost structure, etc. or could external factors, a number of which are not applicable today, largely to blame?

If the route was as profitable for AQ as claimed, by numerous sources. Seems odd that UA couldn’t make it work, for no other reason than it being UA.

77H
 
LGeneReese
Posts: 310
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2019 3:36 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:39 pm

ADent wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:

I’m glad the repainting has resumed. Ship 2791 (772) desperately needs it.




Caption says it was charter for the SF 49ers... I suspect the team owner/manager was pissed when they saw it and demanded a refund or at least a partial...
Formerly IAHCSR
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Posts: 4466
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sat Feb 13, 2021 9:57 pm

LGeneReese wrote:
Caption says it was charter for the SF 49ers... I suspect the team owner/manager was pissed when they saw it and demanded a refund or at least a partial...

Owners don't fly with the team. They have private jets for that. Even the GMs are probably flying separately (if at all) with covid restrictions. Besides, I don't think these contracts would stipulate the condition of the paint. Maybe someone in the front office said something to their contact at UA, but that's certainly not refund worthy. It's an embarrassment for UA, not a failure of delivery on the agreed upon service.
 
BoeingGuy
Posts: 6507
Joined: Fri Dec 10, 2010 6:01 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sat Feb 13, 2021 10:26 pm

77H wrote:
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Didn't we try this once before and the route failed? Why are we trying this again especially on off the short runway at SNA?


It was tried in a really different environment. Now united has way more airplanes then they need. Business routes are gonna be a long time to come back, so united has to try different routes. United's cash burn rate is too high to sit around and do nothing. They have to try expanding into more leisure routes like this. With United having so many 737-700s they are the perfect airline to fly this route. Expect to see more leisure routes from united, and all airlines. We have seen alot already. Until those business routes come back they have to try to minimize cash burn.


To slcdeltarumd11‘s point above... my cursory understanding regarding the viability of SNA-Hawaii over time is as follows:

-Nearly the entire time AQ operated SNA-Hawaii, SNA was almost always considered amongst their most profitable markets, despite performance challenges with a then, relatively new aircraft type. (I.e no winglets, early PiPs, etc).
Given the known issues AQ faced on the route they had numerous contingency plans, including moving bags, and pax when necessary via LAX or SFO on close partner UA when weight restricted that minimized negative customer satisfaction.
-Despite the profitability of AQ’s West Coast-Hawaii routes at large, they weren’t enough to offset losses in the inter-island market.
-After AQ went Ch7 CO, the only other airline with ETOPS rated 73Gs jumped in to fill the void. Just in time for the 08/09 financial crisis that hit SoCal, OC in particular, extremely hard. Despite this.. CO managed to operate SNA-Hawaii through to the merger with UA, where it was ultimately cut by UA in order to redeploy the AC on more profitable ventures.

-Since 07-11, the 73G has received numerous performance upgrades which UA has seemingly opted for, while also introducing lower-weight slimline seats. Also, I maybe be mistaken, but hasn’t SNA relaxed their noise abatement restrictions a bit, such that departure procedures aren’t as fuel intensive as they once were?

For those quick to rail against this add, quick cite past performance. Can anyone definitively say SNA-Hawaii for CO/UA was cut due to unprofitability, rather than cut in favor of more profitable opportunities? If it was indeed unprofitable, can anyone specifically show it was unprofitable due to internal factors, such as CO/UA’s cost structure, etc. or could external factors, a number of which are not applicable today, largely to blame?

If the route was as profitable for AQ as claimed, by numerous sources. Seems odd that UA couldn’t make it work, for no other reason than it being UA.

77H


Good post. Yes, SNA has relaxed the noise abatement requirements. As I understand it, the 737-700 and -800 are authorized to do a normal takeoff profile now. No special steep climb and cutback procedure.

I don’t think the old special procedure was more fuel intensive as you state. Rather there might have been stricter weight restrictions in order to comply with the noise requirements.

AS would be perfect for SNA-Hawaii but their -700s aren’r ETOPS capable. Supposedly they’ve evaluated adding the route but decided that making the -700 ETOPS complaint was not cost effective.

Unfortunately for us aviation fans, fun things like powerbacks out of the gate and the old wild SNA takeoff procedure are relics of the past.
 
User avatar
hawaiian717
Posts: 3518
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:46 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sat Feb 13, 2021 11:45 pm

MrBretz wrote:
I live in South OC and like to fly UA, so this is a real plus for me. BUT, I usually skip Oahu and go the Big Island. So I am in the I dunno class. I plan to go later in the year and wonder how the vaccine will affect travel to Hawaii.


This is the challenge all the SoCal airports—SNA, LGB, BUR, ONT, and even SAN to some extent—face. Passengers deciding to deal with the extra hassle of LAX to get a nonstop flight instead of a connection via a more convenient airport.

As far as vaccines and Hawaii travel go, nothing has changed yet but the state is talking about not requiring a pre-travel test or post-arrival quarantine for those who have been vaccinated: https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/01/ ... travelers/
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 5063
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:06 am

737-700 is the right aircraft to start. We are still in a pandemic here. United doesn't want to turn a potentially money making route into a lose but because the plane is too large. They have the 757s to upgrade if it's a homerun.
 
MrBretz
Posts: 587
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2016 9:13 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sun Feb 14, 2021 12:28 am

hawaiian717 wrote:
MrBretz wrote:
I live in South OC and like to fly UA, so this is a real plus for me. BUT, I usually skip Oahu and go the Big Island. So I am in the I dunno class. I plan to go later in the year and wonder how the vaccine will affect travel to Hawaii.


This is the challenge all the SoCal airports—SNA, LGB, BUR, ONT, and even SAN to some extent—face. Passengers deciding to deal with the extra hassle of LAX to get a nonstop flight instead of a connection via a more convenient airport.

As far as vaccines and Hawaii travel go, nothing has changed yet but the state is talking about not requiring a pre-travel test or post-arrival quarantine for those who have been vaccinated: https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/01/ ... travelers/


Thanks for this. It appears by the time I go, they will have a new rule. I remember Josh Green and glad he's an MD.
 
DaCubbyBearBar
Posts: 196
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 12:31 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sun Feb 14, 2021 2:11 am

Is this a route that SWA would do once the MAX7 gets certified??
I am me and no one else...so my opinions are mine
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 840
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:56 pm

LGeneReese wrote:
ADent wrote:
JFKalumni wrote:

I’m glad the repainting has resumed. Ship 2791 (772) desperately needs it.




Caption says it was charter for the SF 49ers... I suspect the team owner/manager was pissed when they saw it and demanded a refund or at least a partial...

Especially after the broken aircraft fiasco they had earlier this season.
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B772/E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-135/140/145/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
User avatar
Laulau
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2018 7:56 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sun Feb 14, 2021 9:50 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
77H wrote:
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

It was tried in a really different environment. Now united has way more airplanes then they need. Business routes are gonna be a long time to come back, so united has to try different routes. United's cash burn rate is too high to sit around and do nothing. They have to try expanding into more leisure routes like this. With United having so many 737-700s they are the perfect airline to fly this route. Expect to see more leisure routes from united, and all airlines. We have seen alot already. Until those business routes come back they have to try to minimize cash burn.


To slcdeltarumd11‘s point above... my cursory understanding regarding the viability of SNA-Hawaii over time is as follows:

-Nearly the entire time AQ operated SNA-Hawaii, SNA was almost always considered amongst their most profitable markets, despite performance challenges with a then, relatively new aircraft type. (I.e no winglets, early PiPs, etc).
Given the known issues AQ faced on the route they had numerous contingency plans, including moving bags, and pax when necessary via LAX or SFO on close partner UA when weight restricted that minimized negative customer satisfaction.
-Despite the profitability of AQ’s West Coast-Hawaii routes at large, they weren’t enough to offset losses in the inter-island market.
-After AQ went Ch7 CO, the only other airline with ETOPS rated 73Gs jumped in to fill the void. Just in time for the 08/09 financial crisis that hit SoCal, OC in particular, extremely hard. Despite this.. CO managed to operate SNA-Hawaii through to the merger with UA, where it was ultimately cut by UA in order to redeploy the AC on more profitable ventures.

-Since 07-11, the 73G has received numerous performance upgrades which UA has seemingly opted for, while also introducing lower-weight slimline seats. Also, I maybe be mistaken, but hasn’t SNA relaxed their noise abatement restrictions a bit, such that departure procedures aren’t as fuel intensive as they once were?

For those quick to rail against this add, quick cite past performance. Can anyone definitively say SNA-Hawaii for CO/UA was cut due to unprofitability, rather than cut in favor of more profitable opportunities? If it was indeed unprofitable, can anyone specifically show it was unprofitable due to internal factors, such as CO/UA’s cost structure, etc. or could external factors, a number of which are not applicable today, largely to blame?

If the route was as profitable for AQ as claimed, by numerous sources. Seems odd that UA couldn’t make it work, for no other reason than it being UA.

77H


Good post. Yes, SNA has relaxed the noise abatement requirements. As I understand it, the 737-700 and -800 are authorized to do a normal takeoff profile now. No special steep climb and cutback procedure.

I don’t think the old special procedure was more fuel intensive as you state. Rather there might have been stricter weight restrictions in order to comply with the noise requirements.

AS would be perfect for SNA-Hawaii but their -700s aren’r ETOPS capable. Supposedly they’ve evaluated adding the route but decided that making the -700 ETOPS complaint was not cost effective.

Unfortunately for us aviation fans, fun things like powerbacks out of the gate and the old wild SNA takeoff procedure are relics of the past.



Was wondering if Hawaiian's newer A321 can handle the short runway at SNA now that the noise restrictions have been reduced?
 
jayunited
Posts: 3366
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:09 pm

Question about CO/UA's IAH - Hawaii

Last week UA announced a resumption of SNA-HNL, EWR-HNL resumes in March, IAD-HNL would resumes by summer. Also ORD-KOA and EWR-OGG would still launch this spring as originally planned.

My questions pertains to IAH, it seems like IAH has been left out of UA's Hawaii expansion for years. Did CO ever try/fly IAH-OGG or KOA? If not why has UA resisted adding at the very least IAH-OGG nonstop service? Before COVID UA was utilizing a HD domestic 77A on out IAH-HNL route and we never added OGG. Now here we are in the middle of a pandemic and UA intends to launch 4x weekly EWR-OGG but still nothing from IAH why is that?
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 5063
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:16 pm

Laulau wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
77H wrote:

To slcdeltarumd11‘s point above... my cursory understanding regarding the viability of SNA-Hawaii over time is as follows:

-Nearly the entire time AQ operated SNA-Hawaii, SNA was almost always considered amongst their most profitable markets, despite performance challenges with a then, relatively new aircraft type. (I.e no winglets, early PiPs, etc).
Given the known issues AQ faced on the route they had numerous contingency plans, including moving bags, and pax when necessary via LAX or SFO on close partner UA when weight restricted that minimized negative customer satisfaction.
-Despite the profitability of AQ’s West Coast-Hawaii routes at large, they weren’t enough to offset losses in the inter-island market.
-After AQ went Ch7 CO, the only other airline with ETOPS rated 73Gs jumped in to fill the void. Just in time for the 08/09 financial crisis that hit SoCal, OC in particular, extremely hard. Despite this.. CO managed to operate SNA-Hawaii through to the merger with UA, where it was ultimately cut by UA in order to redeploy the AC on more profitable ventures.

-Since 07-11, the 73G has received numerous performance upgrades which UA has seemingly opted for, while also introducing lower-weight slimline seats. Also, I maybe be mistaken, but hasn’t SNA relaxed their noise abatement restrictions a bit, such that departure procedures aren’t as fuel intensive as they once were?

For those quick to rail against this add, quick cite past performance. Can anyone definitively say SNA-Hawaii for CO/UA was cut due to unprofitability, rather than cut in favor of more profitable opportunities? If it was indeed unprofitable, can anyone specifically show it was unprofitable due to internal factors, such as CO/UA’s cost structure, etc. or could external factors, a number of which are not applicable today, largely to blame?

If the route was as profitable for AQ as claimed, by numerous sources. Seems odd that UA couldn’t make it work, for no other reason than it being UA.

77H


Good post. Yes, SNA has relaxed the noise abatement requirements. As I understand it, the 737-700 and -800 are authorized to do a normal takeoff profile now. No special steep climb and cutback procedure.

I don’t think the old special procedure was more fuel intensive as you state. Rather there might have been stricter weight restrictions in order to comply with the noise requirements.

AS would be perfect for SNA-Hawaii but their -700s aren’r ETOPS capable. Supposedly they’ve evaluated adding the route but decided that making the -700 ETOPS complaint was not cost effective.

Unfortunately for us aviation fans, fun things like powerbacks out of the gate and the old wild SNA takeoff procedure are relics of the past.



Was wondering if Hawaiian's newer A321 can handle the short runway at SNA now that the noise restrictions have been reduced?


Negative, its too short for takeoff to Hawaii 100% full of fuel. The 737-700 can takeoff full of fuel on that runway.
 
Ishrion
Posts: 3588
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2019 6:17 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:19 pm

jayunited wrote:
Question about CO/UA's IAH - Hawaii

Last week UA announced a resumption of SNA-HNL, EWR-HNL resumes in March, IAD-HNL would resumes by summer. Also ORD-KOA and EWR-OGG would still launch this spring as originally planned.

My questions pertains to IAH, it seems like IAH has been left out of UA's Hawaii expansion for years. Did CO ever try/fly IAH-OGG or KOA? If not why has UA resisted adding at the very least IAH-OGG nonstop service? Before COVID UA was utilizing a HD domestic 77A on out IAH-HNL route and we never added OGG. Now here we are in the middle of a pandemic and UA intends to launch 4x weekly EWR-OGG but still nothing from IAH why is that?


Continental launched IAH-OGG in 2003. Not sure when it ended.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/sto ... ily18.html
 
AC4500
Posts: 522
Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2020 3:02 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:24 pm

jayunited wrote:
Question about CO/UA's IAH - Hawaii

Last week UA announced a resumption of SNA-HNL, EWR-HNL resumes in March, IAD-HNL would resumes by summer. Also ORD-KOA and EWR-OGG would still launch this spring as originally planned.

My questions pertains to IAH, it seems like IAH has been left out of UA's Hawaii expansion for years. Did CO ever try/fly IAH-OGG or KOA? If not why has UA resisted adding at the very least IAH-OGG nonstop service? Before COVID UA was utilizing a HD domestic 77A on out IAH-HNL route and we never added OGG. Now here we are in the middle of a pandemic and UA intends to launch 4x weekly EWR-OGG but still nothing from IAH why is that?


https://www.united.com/web/de-DE/conten ... 29_01.aspx

According to this old CO press release, they started daily IAH-OGG flights in June 2003 with the 767-400.

If I had to guess why they're not (re)launching it now (or within the last few years), IAH probably isn't the most logical place for passengers to connect to Hawaii from. ORD-KOA captures passengers from the Northeast and Midwest. Pre-pandemic NYC-Hawaii demand is probably stronger than anything that could justify connecting service via IAH, but launching EWR-OGG as soon as this spring does seem pretty odd.
Next:
AS: PDX-DEN-PDX
FI: PDX-KEF-PDX
 
User avatar
aloha73g
Posts: 1947
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2003 6:30 pm

Re: United Adds SNA-HNL

Sun Feb 14, 2021 10:45 pm

77H wrote:
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Didn't we try this once before and the route failed? Why are we trying this again especially on off the short runway at SNA?


It was tried in a really different environment. Now united has way more airplanes then they need. Business routes are gonna be a long time to come back, so united has to try different routes. United's cash burn rate is too high to sit around and do nothing. They have to try expanding into more leisure routes like this. With United having so many 737-700s they are the perfect airline to fly this route. Expect to see more leisure routes from united, and all airlines. We have seen alot already. Until those business routes come back they have to try to minimize cash burn.


To slcdeltarumd11‘s point above... my cursory understanding regarding the viability of SNA-Hawaii over time is as follows:

-Nearly the entire time AQ operated SNA-Hawaii, SNA was almost always considered amongst their most profitable markets, despite performance challenges with a then, relatively new aircraft type. (I.e no winglets, early PiPs, etc).
Given the known issues AQ faced on the route they had numerous contingency plans, including moving bags, and pax when necessary via LAX or SFO on close partner UA when weight restricted that minimized negative customer satisfaction.
-Despite the profitability of AQ’s West Coast-Hawaii routes at large, they weren’t enough to offset losses in the inter-island market.
-After AQ went Ch7 CO, the only other airline with ETOPS rated 73Gs jumped in to fill the void. Just in time for the 08/09 financial crisis that hit SoCal, OC in particular, extremely hard. Despite this.. CO managed to operate SNA-Hawaii through to the merger with UA, where it was ultimately cut by UA in order to redeploy the AC on more profitable ventures.

-Since 07-11, the 73G has received numerous performance upgrades which UA has seemingly opted for, while also introducing lower-weight slimline seats. Also, I maybe be mistaken, but hasn’t SNA relaxed their noise abatement restrictions a bit, such that departure procedures aren’t as fuel intensive as they once were?

For those quick to rail against this add, quick cite past performance. Can anyone definitively say SNA-Hawaii for CO/UA was cut due to unprofitability, rather than cut in favor of more profitable opportunities? If it was indeed unprofitable, can anyone specifically show it was unprofitable due to internal factors, such as CO/UA’s cost structure, etc. or could external factors, a number of which are not applicable today, largely to blame?

If the route was as profitable for AQ as claimed, by numerous sources. Seems odd that UA couldn’t make it work, for no other reason than it being UA.

77H


SNA was AQ's most profitable west coast market; OGG-SNA in particular was their most profitable route. I worked in the AQ Marketing Dept in 2006 and heard it straight from the CEO, COO and CFO in meetings.

The reason CO, and later UA didn't do as well as AQ had is because CO/UA flights were timed for aircraft utilization with a late PM departure from SNA and a red-eye return. AQ timed their flights for west coast vacation traffic with times similar to what UA is proposing now. I predict UA will do much better this time than last time, and would not be surprised if this ended up being their Hawai'i route with the highest RASM. OC people are definitely willing to pay a premium over LAX.

-Aloha!
Aloha Airlines - The Spirit Moves Us. Gone but NEVER Forgotten. Aloha, A Hui Hou!
 
codc10
Posts: 3065
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:48 pm

Ishrion wrote:
jayunited wrote:
Question about CO/UA's IAH - Hawaii

Last week UA announced a resumption of SNA-HNL, EWR-HNL resumes in March, IAD-HNL would resumes by summer. Also ORD-KOA and EWR-OGG would still launch this spring as originally planned.

My questions pertains to IAH, it seems like IAH has been left out of UA's Hawaii expansion for years. Did CO ever try/fly IAH-OGG or KOA? If not why has UA resisted adding at the very least IAH-OGG nonstop service? Before COVID UA was utilizing a HD domestic 77A on out IAH-HNL route and we never added OGG. Now here we are in the middle of a pandemic and UA intends to launch 4x weekly EWR-OGG but still nothing from IAH why is that?


Continental launched IAH-OGG in 2003. Not sure when it ended.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/sto ... ily18.html


I think IAH-OGG ended around 2008 when LHR launched.

Agree that IAH-OGG/KOA seems overdue, especially given AA's Hawaii schedule "up the road' at DFW.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3628
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread, Q1 2021

Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:25 am

IAH-OGG lasted for a while, but then was swapped to a 757-200 LAX-OGG somewhere around 2009 I think. I am surprised that it hasn't come back over the last few years.......but then again, was surprised UA was still holding out on IAH-CDG for a seasonal flight at minimum.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos