Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8784
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:40 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
bfitzflyer wrote:
Going to be interesting to see who blinks first here. DL, VS, BA, B6, UA, AA.?


UA and AA IMHO. B6 has less to lose, really. It will be an A321, smaller plane, less capacity risk, has a big presence in BOS, and more than likely, LGW and not really all that relevant or much of a competitive threat. I suspect UA will be the first to blink, followed by AA.


AA are part of the JBA with BA. While AA resuming the route gets them a headline, it is really just shuffling a BA frequency to AA.

DL/VS and BA/AA will always have at least one of the pair on the route, probably/maybe both. If one of the partners withdraws it really doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things.

UA and B6 are wild cards, and both are precarious. UA is a known force, but has little strategic relevance in the Boston market. B6 have a loyal following in the market, but will be trying an entirely new venture and flying to LGW (or STN?). It won’t be a slam dunk, especially if any/many of their FFs opt to fly AA to LHR.
Last edited by RyanairGuru on Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 1:43 am

CALMSP wrote:
acavpics wrote:
So I just saw that Boris Johnson is banning foreign travel until May 17th. Does this mean that people from other countries like the USA cannot take trips to London? Or just that UK residents cannot vacation abroad?

If it bans foreign folks from taking trips to the UK, then it wouldn't make sense to start this flight during the early summer, since the flight would be empty both ways.


I'd say an early summer start wasn't even being considered by UA as a start date, but rather towards fall. UA can't even put 50 people on EWR-LHR right now.


I think UA is betting that LHR traffic is going to recover from the US quick once vaccines are distributed and COVID dies down. It's still a hell of a bet considering this route is going to be launched on a high J version of the 763 from a non hub station (although BOS is one of the larger bases in the system). If this is just a LHR slot just lying around, they're probably thinking that what do they have to loose by not giving it another go. It just sucks that it happens to be right now and not Pre-COVID where airlines were making tons of money and UA probably had the bandwidth to relaunch this route.

Recall that BOS was the first in the series of seasonal additions to Florida last year so maybe they have data to back up relaunching BOS-LHR & it's something we just don't know about.
 
FlyHossD
Posts: 2230
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:45 pm

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

Tue Feb 23, 2021 2:46 am

cosyr wrote:
...I was told by a CO pilot years ago that the 764's shared pilot certification with their 772's


That's not correct. The 767-400 is still a 767 and the shared type ratings are 757/767. The 777 is a separate or different type rating.

The 767-400 instrument panel is rather similar to the 777 panel, though. I used to joke that that the 767-400 had 767 and 777 DNA.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 12:40 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
bfitzflyer wrote:
Going to be interesting to see who blinks first here. DL, VS, BA, B6, UA, AA.?


UA and AA IMHO. B6 has less to lose, really. It will be an A321, smaller plane, less capacity risk, has a big presence in BOS, and more than likely, LGW and not really all that relevant or much of a competitive threat. I suspect UA will be the first to blink, followed by AA.


AA are part of the JBA with BA. While AA resuming the route gets them a headline, it is really just shuffling a BA frequency to AA.

DL/VS and BA/AA will always have at least one of the pair on the route, probably/maybe both. If one of the partners withdraws it really doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things.

UA and B6 are wild cards, and both are precarious. UA is a known force, but has little strategic relevance in the Boston market. B6 have a loyal following in the market, but will be trying an entirely new venture and flying to LGW (or STN?). It won’t be a slam dunk, especially if any/many of their FFs opt to fly AA to LHR.


That's basically my point. I'm not 100% sure AA/BA are metal neutral, but I think they are as part of the JBA so AA being in the market or not with its own airplane is not really relevant, though some would argue AA's premium cabins were, until the introduction of the A350 at BA and the slow refit of Club World, a better choice. UA isn't irrelevant in the BOS market and has a footprint, focused on its hubs and transcontinental service and *A has a major footprint in Boston by way of LH, LX etc...but with EWR 200 miles to the South, trying to build out a TATL gateway at BOS seems a bit futile for an airline that as you say, is not as strategic about BOS as say, DL or B6. The AA/B6 partnership aside, B6 operating to LGW or STN will be less of a competitor and more of a choice, for those travelers who need access to the South of the Thames or East, where a lot of Britain's tech sector is based, around Cambridge, which makes STN an appealing alternative to LHR. Those are the Mosaic and higher value AAdvantage members who will opt potentially for the B6 service over an AA/BA service to LHR.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:08 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

UA and AA IMHO. B6 has less to lose, really. It will be an A321, smaller plane, less capacity risk, has a big presence in BOS, and more than likely, LGW and not really all that relevant or much of a competitive threat. I suspect UA will be the first to blink, followed by AA.


AA are part of the JBA with BA. While AA resuming the route gets them a headline, it is really just shuffling a BA frequency to AA.

DL/VS and BA/AA will always have at least one of the pair on the route, probably/maybe both. If one of the partners withdraws it really doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things.

UA and B6 are wild cards, and both are precarious. UA is a known force, but has little strategic relevance in the Boston market. B6 have a loyal following in the market, but will be trying an entirely new venture and flying to LGW (or STN?). It won’t be a slam dunk, especially if any/many of their FFs opt to fly AA to LHR.


That's basically my point. I'm not 100% sure AA/BA are metal neutral, but I think they are as part of the JBA so AA being in the market or not with its own airplane is not really relevant, though some would argue AA's premium cabins were, until the introduction of the A350 at BA and the slow refit of Club World, a better choice. UA isn't irrelevant in the BOS market and has a footprint, focused on its hubs and transcontinental service and *A has a major footprint in Boston by way of LH, LX etc...but with EWR 200 miles to the South, trying to build out a TATL gateway at BOS seems a bit futile for an airline that as you say, is not as strategic about BOS as say, DL or B6. The AA/B6 partnership aside, B6 operating to LGW or STN will be less of a competitor and more of a choice, for those travelers who need access to the South of the Thames or East, where a lot of Britain's tech sector is based, around Cambridge, which makes STN an appealing alternative to LHR. Those are the Mosaic and higher value AAdvantage members who will opt potentially for the B6 service over an AA/BA service to LHR.


Not sure if it was mentioned upthread, but United is operating this flights under the A++ transatlantic joint venture with Air Canada and the Lufthansa Group (LH,LX,OS,SN). So the risk/reward is shared across all carriers and therefore might be worth the collective investment rather than if United took the sole risk alone.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10529
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:09 pm

peterinlisbon wrote:
N757ST wrote:
peterinlisbon wrote:
It kind of makes sense, since it's the shortest route between London and the USA. Boston can offer a lot of onward connections without the hassle of changing terminals, crowds and long delays found at some of the bigger airports.


Have you been to Boston? Connecting from E (which pre Covid was buckling at the seams) to B isn’t exactly quick and easy, and with the high C Gates getting rebuilt I’m not sure the connection exists landslide unless you take a bus or walk through the parking garages.


I've been there but only as a departing passenger. I guess my assumption about convenience for connections is wrong, then, unless they make some improvements. For me the worst part about arriving in the US and connecting is the immigration queue. You can easily miss a connection if you don´t allow enough time.


It's not nearly as bad as people make it seem. I've connected at airports with far longer walks: IAH, AMS, LHR, the new SLC which doesn't even have a people mover between concourses. Heck, DL was running a pretty decent hub here at BOS and the walk from E to the far reaches of A isn't exactly shorter.

chonetsao wrote:
bfitzflyer wrote:
Going to be interesting to see who blinks first here. DL, VS, BA, B6, UA, AA.?

I think it is safe for you to take out BA, VS and DL.


Uh? BA yes, they have been the only airline on the route throughout the Pandemic. DL has suspended all its TATL flights except AMS, and a huge number of domestic flights. I don't see DL and VS operating redundant flights. Likewise, I don't see the point of AA operating when BA is already on it. B6 wasn't even planning to start this Summer and neither is UA however UA's single daily flight from LHR is a much lower risk, lower cost endeavor than B6's. So if the business market sees some rebounding in the Fall I could see the following happening:
BA 2x
VS 1x
UA 1x
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 3:42 pm

airzim wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:

AA are part of the JBA with BA. While AA resuming the route gets them a headline, it is really just shuffling a BA frequency to AA.

DL/VS and BA/AA will always have at least one of the pair on the route, probably/maybe both. If one of the partners withdraws it really doesn’t mean much in the scheme of things.

UA and B6 are wild cards, and both are precarious. UA is a known force, but has little strategic relevance in the Boston market. B6 have a loyal following in the market, but will be trying an entirely new venture and flying to LGW (or STN?). It won’t be a slam dunk, especially if any/many of their FFs opt to fly AA to LHR.


That's basically my point. I'm not 100% sure AA/BA are metal neutral, but I think they are as part of the JBA so AA being in the market or not with its own airplane is not really relevant, though some would argue AA's premium cabins were, until the introduction of the A350 at BA and the slow refit of Club World, a better choice. UA isn't irrelevant in the BOS market and has a footprint, focused on its hubs and transcontinental service and *A has a major footprint in Boston by way of LH, LX etc...but with EWR 200 miles to the South, trying to build out a TATL gateway at BOS seems a bit futile for an airline that as you say, is not as strategic about BOS as say, DL or B6. The AA/B6 partnership aside, B6 operating to LGW or STN will be less of a competitor and more of a choice, for those travelers who need access to the South of the Thames or East, where a lot of Britain's tech sector is based, around Cambridge, which makes STN an appealing alternative to LHR. Those are the Mosaic and higher value AAdvantage members who will opt potentially for the B6 service over an AA/BA service to LHR.


Not sure if it was mentioned upthread, but United is operating this flights under the A++ transatlantic joint venture with Air Canada and the Lufthansa Group (LH,LX,OS,SN). So the risk/reward is shared across all carriers and therefore might be worth the collective investment rather than if United took the sole risk alone.


But UA has to shoulder the costs of deploying a 767-300ER to Boston, crewing and catering it, and maximizing its slot portfolio at LHR to make it work. If they can't recoup those costs and make the service profitable, then the A++ benefits melt away.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1551
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 4:18 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
airzim wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

That's basically my point. I'm not 100% sure AA/BA are metal neutral, but I think they are as part of the JBA so AA being in the market or not with its own airplane is not really relevant, though some would argue AA's premium cabins were, until the introduction of the A350 at BA and the slow refit of Club World, a better choice. UA isn't irrelevant in the BOS market and has a footprint, focused on its hubs and transcontinental service and *A has a major footprint in Boston by way of LH, LX etc...but with EWR 200 miles to the South, trying to build out a TATL gateway at BOS seems a bit futile for an airline that as you say, is not as strategic about BOS as say, DL or B6. The AA/B6 partnership aside, B6 operating to LGW or STN will be less of a competitor and more of a choice, for those travelers who need access to the South of the Thames or East, where a lot of Britain's tech sector is based, around Cambridge, which makes STN an appealing alternative to LHR. Those are the Mosaic and higher value AAdvantage members who will opt potentially for the B6 service over an AA/BA service to LHR.


Not sure if it was mentioned upthread, but United is operating this flights under the A++ transatlantic joint venture with Air Canada and the Lufthansa Group (LH,LX,OS,SN). So the risk/reward is shared across all carriers and therefore might be worth the collective investment rather than if United took the sole risk alone.


But UA has to shoulder the costs of deploying a 767-300ER to Boston, crewing and catering it, and maximizing its slot portfolio at LHR to make it work. If they can't recoup those costs and make the service profitable, then the A++ benefits melt away.


I suspect those costs are rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. The plane is going to fly somewhere, so whether they fly it form EWR-LHR or BOS-LHR probably doesn't make a significant difference. Especially if they can rotate the plane to/from a current hub station, e.g., EWR-LHR-BOS-LHR-EWR. Given that this is also a relatively short TATL flight, likely makes this flight a bit more appealing.
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

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

Tue Feb 23, 2021 6:47 pm

Will be interesting to see if United pushes April schedule update out sooner like they did with March.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10529
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Tue Feb 23, 2021 8:12 pm

airzim wrote:
I suspect those costs are rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. The plane is going to fly somewhere, so whether they fly it form EWR-LHR or BOS-LHR probably doesn't make a significant difference. Especially if they can rotate the plane to/from a current hub station, e.g., EWR-LHR-BOS-LHR-EWR. Given that this is also a relatively short TATL flight, likely makes this flight a bit more appealing.

Exactly. Not to mention UA is already at LHR with multiple daily flights. B6 not only has to setup a brand new station in London which isn't cheap, they have to do it for only 1,2, or maybe 3 daily flights. That's a huge fixed cost that UA doesn't have to incur or rather, is already paying whether they fly the route or just park the plane for 12 hours. Of all the carriers listed, B6 is the one with the most to lose if the route doesn't pan out. For all other ones it's a minimal added cost.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:12 pm

It looks like for now the PW engine 777s will remain grounded through March 6th. This is all preliminary information for all we know the grounding could be extended. Right now United position is to get this right especially after every engine was already inspected in accordance with FAA guidelines after the last incident in 2018 and here it has happened again. What I'm hearing is there is no rush to get these planes back into the air until there is a comprehensive plan on how to inspect the fan blades.

Right now United is going through the process of removing those aircraft from the schedule and replacing them with 77Ws, GE 77Es (the few we have in service that are not used exclusively for cargo only and COVID vaccine shipments), 788s, 763s and even 753s. The biggest impact will be felt on our Hawaii flights for flights downguaged to a 788, 763 or 753 if the passenger load is greater than the total number of seat on those aircraft United will supplement those flights by adding extra passenger sections. The extra section will leave at nearly the same time as the original flight if the PW 777s were still in service.

Also keep in mind United is still running cargo only flights so this grounding has presented some challenges for our routers. There is also talk of pulling additional widebodies out of storage but it is very early, almost to early to make a decision on that even though it would take time to get those planes ready to fly. I think a decision like that would depend on how long the PW engine 777s are grounded.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7757
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

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

Tue Feb 23, 2021 9:39 pm

jayunited wrote:
It looks like for now the PW engine 777s will remain grounded through March 6th. This is all preliminary information for all we know the grounding could be extended. Right now United position is to get this right especially after every engine was already inspected in accordance with FAA guidelines after the last incident in 2018 and here it has happened again. What I'm hearing is there is no rush to get these planes back into the air until there is a comprehensive plan on how to inspect the fan blades.

Right now United is going through the process of removing those aircraft from the schedule and replacing them with 77Ws, GE 77Es (the few we have in service that are not used exclusively for cargo only and COVID vaccine shipments), 788s, 763s and even 753s. The biggest impact will be felt on our Hawaii flights for flights downguaged to a 788, 763 or 753 if the passenger load is greater than the total number of seat on those aircraft United will supplement those flights by adding extra passenger sections. The extra section will leave at nearly the same time as the original flight if the PW 777s were still in service.

Also keep in mind United is still running cargo only flights so this grounding has presented some challenges for our routers. There is also talk of pulling additional widebodies out of storage but it is very early, almost to early to make a decision on that even though it would take time to get those planes ready to fly. I think a decision like that would depend on how long the PW engine 777s are grounded.

Sounds like a good time to bring back the 764. :stirthepot:
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

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

Tue Feb 23, 2021 11:08 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
jayunited wrote:
It looks like for now the PW engine 777s will remain grounded through March 6th. This is all preliminary information for all we know the grounding could be extended. Right now United position is to get this right especially after every engine was already inspected in accordance with FAA guidelines after the last incident in 2018 and here it has happened again. What I'm hearing is there is no rush to get these planes back into the air until there is a comprehensive plan on how to inspect the fan blades.

Right now United is going through the process of removing those aircraft from the schedule and replacing them with 77Ws, GE 77Es (the few we have in service that are not used exclusively for cargo only and COVID vaccine shipments), 788s, 763s and even 753s. The biggest impact will be felt on our Hawaii flights for flights downguaged to a 788, 763 or 753 if the passenger load is greater than the total number of seat on those aircraft United will supplement those flights by adding extra passenger sections. The extra section will leave at nearly the same time as the original flight if the PW 777s were still in service.

Also keep in mind United is still running cargo only flights so this grounding has presented some challenges for our routers. There is also talk of pulling additional widebodies out of storage but it is very early, almost to early to make a decision on that even though it would take time to get those planes ready to fly. I think a decision like that would depend on how long the PW engine 777s are grounded.

Sounds like a good time to bring back the 764. :stirthepot:


Depending on how many blades are ultimately found to be non-airworthy, and the specifics of their maintenance contract with Pratt, it could very well mean quite a few PW 777’s get long term parked or possibly retired.

In either case, this development is likely to influence, possibly accelerate, the plan (concept?) of bringing back the 764’s.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:23 am

Does UA still have 5th freedom authority from LHR or did those options expire?
 
United1
Posts: 4294
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:53 am

jetblastdubai wrote:
Does UA still have 5th freedom authority from LHR or did those options expire?


The US and UK have an open skies agreement in place. Any US or UK airline can fly 5th freedom flights if they want to (and can get slots.)
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4877
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:13 am

airbazar wrote:
airzim wrote:
I suspect those costs are rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. The plane is going to fly somewhere, so whether they fly it form EWR-LHR or BOS-LHR probably doesn't make a significant difference. Especially if they can rotate the plane to/from a current hub station, e.g., EWR-LHR-BOS-LHR-EWR. Given that this is also a relatively short TATL flight, likely makes this flight a bit more appealing.

Exactly. Not to mention UA is already at LHR with multiple daily flights. B6 not only has to setup a brand new station in London which isn't cheap, they have to do it for only 1,2, or maybe 3 daily flights. That's a huge fixed cost that UA doesn't have to incur or rather, is already paying whether they fly the route or just park the plane for 12 hours. Of all the carriers listed, B6 is the one with the most to lose if the route doesn't pan out. For all other ones it's a minimal added cost.


A new station is an added expense, but you're missing the point. All of these airlines can serve BOS-LHR comfortably, and perhaps profitably, in a normal environment and the one that existed pre-pandemic. UA is jumping in with a plane that has a larger J cabin. Business travel now and in the near term is essentially dead. International travel in particular will not be rebounding quickly, regardless of pent up demand to do so. Companies have signaled they do not intend to ramp up business travel and the corporate world has leaned it can do with less of it and save a ton of money. LHR is a business market first and foremost. UA will have the same costs and financial headwinds on this route as anyone else that can't fill the plane so having a major station at LHR, staff there, marketing etc...is meaningless if the route can't be profitable and the slot has been wasted.
 
User avatar
RyanairGuru
Posts: 8784
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:59 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:44 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
airzim wrote:
I suspect those costs are rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. The plane is going to fly somewhere, so whether they fly it form EWR-LHR or BOS-LHR probably doesn't make a significant difference. Especially if they can rotate the plane to/from a current hub station, e.g., EWR-LHR-BOS-LHR-EWR. Given that this is also a relatively short TATL flight, likely makes this flight a bit more appealing.

Exactly. Not to mention UA is already at LHR with multiple daily flights. B6 not only has to setup a brand new station in London which isn't cheap, they have to do it for only 1,2, or maybe 3 daily flights. That's a huge fixed cost that UA doesn't have to incur or rather, is already paying whether they fly the route or just park the plane for 12 hours. Of all the carriers listed, B6 is the one with the most to lose if the route doesn't pan out. For all other ones it's a minimal added cost.


A new station is an added expense, but you're missing the point. All of these airlines can serve BOS-LHR comfortably, and perhaps profitably, in a normal environment and the one that existed pre-pandemic. UA is jumping in with a plane that has a larger J cabin. Business travel now and in the near term is essentially dead. International travel in particular will not be rebounding quickly, regardless of pent up demand to do so. Companies have signaled they do not intend to ramp up business travel and the corporate world has leaned it can do with less of it and save a ton of money. LHR is a business market first and foremost. UA will have the same costs and financial headwinds on this route as anyone else that can't fill the plane so having a major station at LHR, staff there, marketing etc...is meaningless if the route can't be profitable and the slot has been wasted.


Your argument is counter-intuitive.

I agree that international corporate demand will be suppressed for the foreseeable future, and that LHR is a market that will be impacted by that.

However, BOS-LHR is only a “waste” if they could make more money using the same slot flying elsewhere. Noting the above, that isn’t really the case. BOS-LHR has the benefit of being the shortest route they could (realistically) use the slot for, which reduces operating costs. In a market of depressed demand, BOS-LHR is not the worse option for using LHR slots.
 
User avatar
NCAD95
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2018 12:11 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:55 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
airzim wrote:
I suspect those costs are rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. The plane is going to fly somewhere, so whether they fly it form EWR-LHR or BOS-LHR probably doesn't make a significant difference. Especially if they can rotate the plane to/from a current hub station, e.g., EWR-LHR-BOS-LHR-EWR. Given that this is also a relatively short TATL flight, likely makes this flight a bit more appealing.

Exactly. Not to mention UA is already at LHR with multiple daily flights. B6 not only has to setup a brand new station in London which isn't cheap, they have to do it for only 1,2, or maybe 3 daily flights. That's a huge fixed cost that UA doesn't have to incur or rather, is already paying whether they fly the route or just park the plane for 12 hours. Of all the carriers listed, B6 is the one with the most to lose if the route doesn't pan out. For all other ones it's a minimal added cost.


A new station is an added expense, but you're missing the point. All of these airlines can serve BOS-LHR comfortably, and perhaps profitably, in a normal environment and the one that existed pre-pandemic. UA is jumping in with a plane that has a larger J cabin. Business travel now and in the near term is essentially dead. International travel in particular will not be rebounding quickly, regardless of pent up demand to do so. Companies have signaled they do not intend to ramp up business travel and the corporate world has leaned it can do with less of it and save a ton of money. LHR is a business market first and foremost. UA will have the same costs and financial headwinds on this route as anyone else that can't fill the plane so having a major station at LHR, staff there, marketing etc...is meaningless if the route can't be profitable and the slot has been wasted.


In my opinion with all that traffic on BOS-LHR the route will at best be marginal and these carriers will use other profitable markets in their network to balance out this loss making route. When airlines are juggling for position fares go down and right now Boston is a prestige market that people want in their portfolio that is punching above it weight.
 
len90
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:15 am

Wouldn't the better option to bring more GE 772s online vs 764s if the lift from those frames is needed; especially considering the number of pilots affected?
 
incitatus
Posts: 3403
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:19 am

RvA wrote:
stlgph wrote:
I just love this place.

People who "love aviation" come on an online forum and bitch whine moan and bitch some more when an airline starts services somewhere. Must be a hit at parties....


The arm chair network planners indeed must be a huge hit at parties, explaining how they have more insight and know better that people whose sole job it is to evaluate, analyse, plan and then again evaluate, analyse routes. I can only imagine the crowds of people gathered around them, and not cause they’re hovering around the snacks table.


Well.... This thread is *NOT* about an airline that "starts services somewhere". The core of the discussion is whether it will happen.

As for the arm chair whatever, it should be pretty evident that the forum has large number of insiders, like Enilria. We should weigh opinions based on logic, not on credentials.

UA on BOS-LHR is like Fantasy Soccer.

FlyGuy27 wrote:
Not following all the screaming / yelling / whining on this thread. United has a decent following (including corporate contracts) in Boston, a great setup (including a United Club) and certainly an available *A pool of flyers in London. The 76J has 163(?) seats - with LHR yields, they can do decently well. I think it’s smart.


Right now most corporate contracts are not worth the paper they are written on. Airlines are making some revenue from a few corporations that have not stopped traveling - mostly domestic travel, and some personal travel. The "only" ~163 are only 163 because UA has a huge premium section in the 767. The yields might be decent, but the cost per seat will assure no UA 767 ever takes off on this route.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2069
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:37 am

United1 wrote:
jetblastdubai wrote:
Does UA still have 5th freedom authority from LHR or did those options expire?


The US and UK have an open skies agreement in place. Any US or UK airline can fly 5th freedom flights if they want to (and can get slots.)


United must see some actual benefit in BOS-LHR then. If this was just to retain the LHR slot they could simply do a short hop to a European city and back for far less expense.

On another note: don't assume that only corporate clients and business people are the ones buying J seats or the equivalent. A lot of us actually purchase business class tickets for longer trips because the long trips in economy have become very uncomfortable. If we're on a nice vacation or "non-essential" trip, spending the extra money to actually enjoy a trip instead of just enduring it might be worth it to some.
 
hiflyeras
Posts: 2382
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:50 am

Considering they just grounded dozens of 777’s...possibly forever...is this the best use of that airframe?
 
Okcflyer
Posts: 876
Joined: Sat May 23, 2015 11:10 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:22 am

len90 wrote:
Wouldn't the better option to bring more GE 772s online vs 764s if the lift from those frames is needed; especially considering the number of pilots affected?


Considering there are more 757/767’s than 777 parked, I doubt pilot shortage is a major issue. If so, then yes the GE 777 make a bit more sense short term if no pilots available for 756.

The premium heavy seating configuration on the GE’s 777 is 88 pax short of 77A. It’s way to expensive per seat to operate that part of the network.

The 764’s seat about as many butts as the GE 777’s, about 36 short (276 vs 240), operating at a fraction of the fuel and maintenance costs. Plus, it would be pretty easy to boost 240 count up to 254 though some reconfiguring and density adjustments.

I don’t think reconfiguring GE 777’s for high density configuration pencils out. Plus, those early GE90 engines aren’t ideal for the shorter segments. the PW are better maintenance wise (or so goes the internet rumors)
 
Wneast
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:25 am

Is there anywhere else United could add from geg ?
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:33 am

Wneast wrote:
Is there anywhere else United could add from geg ?


Wasn’t there IAH service or planned from GEG?
 
AmericanAir88
Posts: 297
Joined: Wed May 27, 2020 8:59 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:36 am

Wneast wrote:
Is there anywhere else United could add from geg ?


Maybe LAX. Both DL and AA run it.

If they are daring then maybe EWR, but thats a stretch.
 
Wneast
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:42 am

AmericanAir88 wrote:
Wneast wrote:
Is there anywhere else United could add from geg ?


Maybe LAX. Both DL and AA run it.

If they are daring then maybe EWR, but thats a stretch.

EWR would be risky but it might work at least seasonal, I’m mean JetBlue is trying Boise to New York so maybe ?
 
Wneast
Posts: 1066
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2021 11:37 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 4:49 am

sldispatcher wrote:
Wneast wrote:
Is there anywhere else United could add from geg ?


Wasn’t there IAH service or planned from GEG?

It’s seasonal on United express
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:10 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
Anyone know how the high-J 767 rotates on the IAH-HNL? I’m scheduled to fly on the route in Mar 24 and can’t find any rhythm to when the high-J aircraft flies the route. Additionally, I’m seated in economy plus row 19, what happens if they aircraft does get swapped?


There is a tool called Seat Reaccommodation Engine. Every time an aircraft is swapped, which happens a lot, it runs and reseats the passengers. It was programmed so that you keep the seat that's most similar to what you previously had (window, aisle, E+...). If there is an upgrade, you will get an identical seat for the most part. If there is a downgrade (in terms of capacity) it will use status and a few other factors to decide how to distribute the remaining pax. Just before I left UA we were adding more constraints to reseating such as keeping minors with at least one parent and alike. It was a lot of fun to work on it and watch heat maps showing how many pax would not be happy with a switch. It got to the point where you could hardly find a bad switch unless you went from a B77W to a B73G. :) I bet it's been upgraded even further to minimize disruptions and make aircraft swaps more seamless. In other words, you will be fine.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3370
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:21 am

Regarding WB capacity, maybe its time to deliver 789 N29985 (ready for delivery for weeks), N19986, 1st Test Hop in Nov and N28987, first test hop the end of January.
There are always numerous 763s short term parked, mostly in IAH.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3491
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:48 am

hiflyeras wrote:
Considering they just grounded dozens of 777’s...possibly forever...is this the best use of that airframe?


Possibly forever? :roll:

Considering the LHR slots, yea, it’s one of the best uses of the frame right now. They aren’t giving up a slot so an aircraft will be flying to LHR; the high-J 767 can be routed via a W pattern to BOS.
 
User avatar
ChaseP
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:52 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:04 am

N58101 (Boeing 757-200) has left MCO. It is scheduled to resume revenue service today!
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:45 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Regarding WB capacity, maybe its time to deliver 789 N29985 (ready for delivery for weeks), N19986, 1st Test Hop in Nov and N28987, first test hop the end of January.
There are always numerous 763s short term parked, mostly in IAH.



I don't understand why this continues to come up when Boeing halted deliveries of all 787s last October to carry out inspections related to quality issues. Then early this month or just 6 days ago the was an AD issued over the bilge barriers or panels (whichever word you choose to use). So none of the three 789s are ready for delivery nor can they be delivered until the inspections are carried out and perhaps possible repairs if necessary, and Boeing lifts their own voluntary ban on all 787 deliveries.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1992
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 12:48 pm

Anyone know if UA plans to return Coastal hub capacity in the April schedule? AA and DL both added quite a decent amount in NYC and LA.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1671
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 1:29 pm

BEG2IAH wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
Anyone know how the high-J 767 rotates on the IAH-HNL? I’m scheduled to fly on the route in Mar 24 and can’t find any rhythm to when the high-J aircraft flies the route. Additionally, I’m seated in economy plus row 19, what happens if they aircraft does get swapped?


There is a tool called Seat Reaccommodation Engine. Every time an aircraft is swapped, which happens a lot, it runs and reseats the passengers. It was programmed so that you keep the seat that's most similar to what you previously had (window, aisle, E+...). If there is an upgrade, you will get an identical seat for the most part. If there is a downgrade (in terms of capacity) it will use status and a few other factors to decide how to distribute the remaining pax. Just before I left UA we were adding more constraints to reseating such as keeping minors with at least one parent and alike. It was a lot of fun to work on it and watch heat maps showing how many pax would not be happy with a switch. It got to the point where you could hardly find a bad switch unless you went from a B77W to a B73G. :) I bet it's been upgraded even further to minimize disruptions and make aircraft swaps more seamless. In other words, you will be fine.

I hope it has improved, because a few years ago, flying back from FRA, our IPTE 77E was swapped with one of the few remaining barkaloungers. Not a big capacity difference, so it shouldn't be too hard right? But my wife and I were separated from the first row of E+, that we paid for (some of the only 2 seats) and I was place in a middle of the 5 seat section, and she was place in a different middle seat 10 rows back. There were a lot of ways that our seats could end up not as good as before, but what type of software separates a couple who have paid for E+? No sympathy from FRA gate staff, but thankfully someone in the Club was able to get us back together in a pair of 2 seats, albeit without a window for the 10 hour flight.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3370
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:05 pm

The AD on the 772 with PW engines does include the 4090, which UA flies on their ER version.
https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachme ... 0188-E.pdf
 
SELMER40
Posts: 268
Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2013 9:07 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:22 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
The AD on the 772 with PW engines does include the 4090, which UA flies on their ER version.
https://www.faa.gov/news/media/attachme ... 0188-E.pdf

Please and thank you, what is the 1st-stage low-pressure compressor? Is that the same as the fan that has been shown?
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1464
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 2:48 pm

cosyr wrote:
I hope it has improved, because a few years ago, flying back from FRA, our IPTE 77E was swapped with one of the few remaining barkaloungers.

I'm pretty sure the engine didn't exist in even 1.0 form in 2014.
 
codc10
Posts: 3248
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:24 pm

adamblang wrote:
cosyr wrote:
I hope it has improved, because a few years ago, flying back from FRA, our IPTE 77E was swapped with one of the few remaining barkaloungers.

I'm pretty sure the engine didn't exist in even 1.0 form in 2014.


From the perspective of technology, United, to its credit, is light-years ahead of where it was at the time of the merger. Some of the passenger-management software (like this, or ConnectionSaver) developed over the past few years tangibly improves considerable pain points of the not-so-distant past.
 
NZ321
Posts: 1437
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2015 8:00 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:29 pm

CALMSP wrote:
cosyr wrote:
Wingtips56 wrote:

the 756 fleet covered all 757's and 767's.


Please can you update this numbskull what re what a 756 is? I presume it is an internal UAL code. Help please!
 
jeffrey0032j
Posts: 1079
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:11 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:38 pm

NZ321 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
cosyr wrote:


Please can you update this numbskull what re what a 756 is? I presume it is an internal UAL code. Help please!

757 and 767 mixed fleet for the purpose of crew group.
 
United1
Posts: 4294
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 3:41 pm

NZ321 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
cosyr wrote:


Please can you update this numbskull what re what a 756 is? I presume it is an internal UAL code. Help please!


Just one of the ways UA (and others) refer to the combined 757 and 767 fleet.
 
JoseSalazar
Posts: 576
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:18 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 5:36 pm

NZ321 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
cosyr wrote:


Please can you update this numbskull what re what a 756 is? I presume it is an internal UAL code. Help please!

Interesting side note: “765” is the delta pilot group code for the 767-400. Their 757/763 group is called the “7ER.” A bit confusing!
 
BEG2IAH
Posts: 1036
Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 3:42 pm

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 7:16 pm

adamblang wrote:
I'm pretty sure the engine didn't exist in even 1.0 form in 2014.


Actually, the very first version was beta-tested at the end of 2013, but the production version was implemented later in 2014. That 1.0 version was very different from what's running today. We saw a lot of the scolding feedback and implemented solutions to prevent weird reseating.

I was on a team that comes up with many cool tools. The extent to which the operation improved logic-wise is light years away from the 2012 nightmares.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10529
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:00 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
airzim wrote:
I suspect those costs are rounding errors in the grand scheme of things. The plane is going to fly somewhere, so whether they fly it form EWR-LHR or BOS-LHR probably doesn't make a significant difference. Especially if they can rotate the plane to/from a current hub station, e.g., EWR-LHR-BOS-LHR-EWR. Given that this is also a relatively short TATL flight, likely makes this flight a bit more appealing.

Exactly. Not to mention UA is already at LHR with multiple daily flights. B6 not only has to setup a brand new station in London which isn't cheap, they have to do it for only 1,2, or maybe 3 daily flights. That's a huge fixed cost that UA doesn't have to incur or rather, is already paying whether they fly the route or just park the plane for 12 hours. Of all the carriers listed, B6 is the one with the most to lose if the route doesn't pan out. For all other ones it's a minimal added cost.


A new station is an added expense, but you're missing the point. All of these airlines can serve BOS-LHR comfortably, and perhaps profitably, in a normal environment and the one that existed pre-pandemic. UA is jumping in with a plane that has a larger J cabin. Business travel now and in the near term is essentially dead. International travel in particular will not be rebounding quickly, regardless of pent up demand to do so. Companies have signaled they do not intend to ramp up business travel and the corporate world has leaned it can do with less of it and save a ton of money. LHR is a business market first and foremost. UA will have the same costs and financial headwinds on this route as anyone else that can't fill the plane so having a major station at LHR, staff there, marketing etc...is meaningless if the route can't be profitable and the slot has been wasted.


I'm not missing the point at all. The context of the discussion is "which of the 6 carriers will blink first?". UA is ALREADY at LHR. The "staff there, marketing etc..." is already in place and will remain in place whether they fly this route or not. B6 doesn't even have the planes yet. B6 has a huge introductory cost before they even put their first plane in the air. UA doesn't. UA can afford to fly the route for a few weeks then drop it if it doesn't pan out. B6 is unlikely to even fly it if they don't see strong bookings. In my opinion it's far more likely that B6 will delay starting this route, than UA to cancel it. That's all I'm saying.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6713
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 8:54 pm

airbazar wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Exactly. Not to mention UA is already at LHR with multiple daily flights. B6 not only has to setup a brand new station in London which isn't cheap, they have to do it for only 1,2, or maybe 3 daily flights. That's a huge fixed cost that UA doesn't have to incur or rather, is already paying whether they fly the route or just park the plane for 12 hours. Of all the carriers listed, B6 is the one with the most to lose if the route doesn't pan out. For all other ones it's a minimal added cost.


A new station is an added expense, but you're missing the point. All of these airlines can serve BOS-LHR comfortably, and perhaps profitably, in a normal environment and the one that existed pre-pandemic. UA is jumping in with a plane that has a larger J cabin. Business travel now and in the near term is essentially dead. International travel in particular will not be rebounding quickly, regardless of pent up demand to do so. Companies have signaled they do not intend to ramp up business travel and the corporate world has leaned it can do with less of it and save a ton of money. LHR is a business market first and foremost. UA will have the same costs and financial headwinds on this route as anyone else that can't fill the plane so having a major station at LHR, staff there, marketing etc...is meaningless if the route can't be profitable and the slot has been wasted.


I'm not missing the point at all. The context of the discussion is "which of the 6 carriers will blink first?". UA is ALREADY at LHR. The "staff there, marketing etc..." is already in place and will remain in place whether they fly this route or not. B6 doesn't even have the planes yet. B6 has a huge introductory cost before they even put their first plane in the air. UA doesn't. UA can afford to fly the route for a few weeks then drop it if it doesn't pan out. B6 is unlikely to even fly it if they don't see strong bookings. In my opinion it's far more likely that B6 will delay starting this route, than UA to cancel it. That's all I'm saying.


B6 already budgeted and spent good amount of the money. The first LR already had 4 test flights. You think they are going to keep 3 A321LRs ground this summer because UA is starting BOS-LHR? The variable cost of flying to London isn't going to be materially higher than if they were to fly those aircraft on LAX-HN or JFK-LIM.

Now, they have said they will only launch from 1 airport this summer. So, it's still a question of whether that will be Boston or NYC.
 
flight152
Posts: 3522
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

Re: UA announces BOS-LHR

Wed Feb 24, 2021 9:47 pm

hiflyeras wrote:
Considering they just grounded dozens of 777’s...possibly forever...is this the best use of that airframe?

Grounded forever? Lol, please. Read the AD.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 10:33 pm

Another interim update on the PW 777 fleet.

The entire fleet may remain grounded for the entire month of March and perhaps even into mid-April while United not only complies with the FAA's most recent AD but then sends the data back for analyst. Also since this is a interim AD I'm hearing United may wait to see what further action the FAA recommends be taken after their analyst of the initial thermal acoustic data before returning the PW 777s to service.

Although no final decision has been made yet I'm hear there is a strong possibility the entire GE 77E fleet will be reactivated. Not hearing anything no rumors at all about the 764s but I'll keep my ears open.
 
codc10
Posts: 3248
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

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

Wed Feb 24, 2021 11:01 pm

jayunited wrote:
Although no final decision has been made yet I'm hear there is a strong possibility the entire GE 77E fleet will be reactivated. Not hearing anything no rumors at all about the 764s but I'll keep my ears open.


That makes the most sense. Reactivating the 764s to cover the 777s going OOS would result in a lot of shuffling for pilots, and that would likely take longer to spool up than the PW 777 fleet will be grounded. Another vacancy bid would have to go out to increase the number of B756 pilots available to staff the 764 flying, said bid would need to be awarded, and then training events scheduled and executed.

OTOH, the GE 777s can be flown by the existing pool of current 777 pilots, and since they'd be replacing existing capacity, would not require much in the way of training pilots. There's also the issue of the 764 not being quite as capable as the 777-222ERs, which are also grounded, and holding 100+ fewer pax than the PW birds in a domestic configuration.

If the grounding is going to last 4 weeks or more, UA can probably get a number of 777-224ERs back in service to cover the flying. In the long term, I don't believe the 764 is a very good domestic 777 replacement , for a lot reasons. IMV, if they come back, they're better served for a more leisure-oriented TATL market. They are somewhat range-limited, but function reasonably well due to their ability to haul ~240 pax on a TATL sector with about 35,000lb less airplane to fly around than a 787-8.
 
Wingtips56
Posts: 1393
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:26 am

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

Thu Feb 25, 2021 12:08 am

NZ321 wrote:
CALMSP wrote:
cosyr wrote:


Please can you update this numbskull what re what a 756 is? I presume it is an internal UAL code. Help please!

I'm not the one that wrote that. Cutting and pasting in quotes tends to splice in things someone else wrote under your name. Glad others stepped up to explain what a 756 was.

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