I must have missed something. Earlier in the thread I noted a lot of speculation on the permanent retirement of the 764. Last night I booked UA HNL-EWR r/t in May and to my surprise, both going and return are on a 764. 764's appear to also be flying the IAD/HNL flights. Happy to see them keeping the 764 in the air. I much prefer the 764 domestic configured 772's we've had serving the islands..

hnl-jack wrote:

I must have missed something. Earlier in the thread I noted a lot of speculation on the permanent retirement of the 764. Last night I booked UA HNL-EWR r/t in May and to my surprise, both going and return are on a 764. 764's appear to also be flying the IAD/HNL flights. Happy to see them keeping the 764 in the air. I much prefer the 764 domestic configured 772's we've had serving the islands..

Schedules more than one month out are basically meaningless right now. The pattern UA seems to be doing these days is to file schedules somewhat resembling 2019 frequencies and fleet types, and then they're adjusted the month prior once UA has a better idea of demand. No UA 764 has flown since April.

mjba257 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Switching gears for a moment, here's my predictions for UA over the next 5 years (with the caveat that demand will return quicker than people anticipate)


SFO
- UA could possibly try SFO-BKK; Thailand is a popular tourist destination, even for Americans and there just may be a demand to fill a 787. Plus BKK is a *A hub, so you have the possibility for onward connections
- I can foresee an SFO-GUM nonstop, becoming the first time Guam has a nonstop flight to the US mainland. Cargo load would be the primary money maker for this flight, but I could see UA trying to get some additional revenue from pax as well
- Other than those two, I don't foresee anything new from SFO

How about a SFO-GUM-BKK route? Most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to Thailand. I also wonder if UA might be interested in adding back GUM-DPS on a 738; it's an old CO Mike route that was dropped awhile back, but with a rise in premium leisure travel.....maybe it's more viable. DPS is an Asian destination that's not real easy to get to from Tokyo, and Seoul won't be an option either.

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

Do you know what happened to the SFO-GUM-SIN cargo flight? I notice it removed on the schedule and on FlightRadar24. Is it because of SQ now going daily to SFO,LAX,JFK that there is now enough cargo capacity between SIN-USA even though SQ is using a A359ULR for most of these flights that have limited cargo space? Is UA planing on returning to SIN for cargo anytime soon?


I don't see DPS-GUM taking off with UA; DPS is too low yielding and there are too one stop and two stop options from US mainland to get there like BR via TPE . UA long haul is geared for high J/PEY flights especially judging by their 789 configuration. Also, DPS may be too seasonal of a destination.

I think we would see UA restore double daily to SIN before BKK is explored as SIN is far more important in South East ASia from UA's perspective given the huge corporate traffic between SIN and USA. Plus moving forward, I expect SIN to increasingly attract business from HKG and that implies further growth potential at SIN where UA will need to have a presence at SIN once travel recovers. There's also way too many cheap one stop options to BKK and these cheap one stop options fulfil BKK's leisure nature, such as BR via TPE and BR serves many destinations in USA. In fact, I think we may see MNL-SFO first before BKK given that MNL is far closer (hence less payload restrictions) and the large diaspora. I think the other factor to consider with BKK is that even if it is profitable, there's an opportunity cost for using 789 frames on it. To sustain a daily frequency, they probably need at least 2 frames and given that the 789 frames were stretched thin pre-covid and will likely continue to be used extensively in UA's network there may be more profitable opportunities to use the frame. I think there are currently far more important or strategic long haul routes UA could launch than BKK out of their SFO hubs that would further push BKK down the line on being launched.

To be honest, I think AC should step in and feel the niche to launch seasonal routes to BKK and market it as one stop to US consumers. It will be the only North American flight to BKK. BKK may suit AC better because AC is more Y heavy than UA on the 789 and AC for a while has wanted to launch direct flights to South East Asia. AC wanted to launch SIN but they did not do so largely in part because UA went double daily with SFO/LAX-SIN. However, AC launching BKK may raise the same opportunity cost question where the frame could be used on a far more lucrative route, including launching YVR-SIN and perhaps codesharing with SQ for BKK

hnl-jack wrote:

I must have missed something. Earlier in the thread I noted a lot of speculation on the permanent retirement of the 764. Last night I booked UA HNL-EWR r/t in May and to my surprise, both going and return are on a 764. 764's appear to also be flying the IAD/HNL flights. Happy to see them keeping the 764 in the air. I much prefer the 764 domestic configured 772's we've had serving the islands..

Don’t count on it... anything beyond February is a placeholder schedule. 764 routes will be replaced by other equipment (likely 763) or just dropped. I am not optimistic at all about seeing the 764 come back in 2021.

andrew1996 wrote:

I don't see DPS-GUM taking off with UA; DPS is too low yielding and there are too one stop and two stop options from US mainland to get there like BR via TPE . UA long haul is geared for high J/PEY flights especially judging by their 789 configuration. Also, DPS may be too seasonal of a destination.

I think we would see UA restore double daily to SIN before BKK is explored as SIN is far more important in South East ASia from UA's perspective given the huge corporate traffic between SIN and USA. Plus moving forward, I expect SIN to increasingly attract business from HKG and that implies further growth potential at SIN where UA will need to have a presence at SIN once travel recovers. There's also way too many cheap one stop options to BKK and these cheap one stop options fulfil BKK's leisure nature, such as BR via TPE and BR serves many destinations in USA. In fact, I think we may see MNL-SFO first before BKK given that MNL is far closer (hence less payload restrictions) and the large diaspora. I think the other factor to consider with BKK is that even if it is profitable, there's an opportunity cost for using 789 frames on it. To sustain a daily frequency, they probably need at least 2 frames and given that the 789 frames were stretched thin pre-covid and will likely continue to be used extensively in UA's network there may be more profitable opportunities to use the frame. I think there are currently far more important or strategic long haul routes UA could launch than BKK out of their SFO hubs that would further push BKK down the line on being launched.

Yes. DPS is extremely unlikely to happen from the US let alone on United. UA may be setting high bars for growth (in terms of new routes) in both pre- and post-COVID times, but this does not mean that every single flashy leisure destination will be added to the route network. Aspects of DPS stated above, such as seasonality/cheap one- & two-stop options/low yields make it a very unattractive market. Garuda itself has acknowledged that even if they launch flights from DPS to SFO/LAX, they will be loss-makers. The rationale Garuda had for planning the routes was that many Americans, at least the ones who have the kind of money to fly to Bali, spend much more than the average Australian or other budget-y tourist, and Garuda's launch of these services would help Bali's economy since Americans spend more. So DPS would be pretty far out of the question since United wants to try to make money with any new routes and DPS, with low yields, cheaper alternatives than a nonstop, and seasonality, is not exactly a very lucrative route.

Secondly, about SFO-MNL, let me respond to this statement - "I think we may see MNL-SFO first before BKK given that MNL is far closer (hence less payload restrictions) and the large diaspora." -- If United were able to launch Manila from SFO, I think they made it pretty clear they would've already done it. Their two major obstacles, however, is that Manila is notorious for being very constrained and congested, and that MNL offers many cheap one-stop and two-stop alternatives, apart from PAL's nonstop MNL-SFO. I'm unclear about the details but I'm pretty sure that UA has essentially been unable to gain permission to add routes to MNL apart from continuing its current MNL offering which I think is just GUM (this is why they opposed a recent PAL expansion in the US). So I would think that they'd just put the Philippines on the back-burner and instead take a look at other burgeoning VFR markets such as BKK. BKK, although similar to DPS due to cheap one and two-stop options and low-ish yields, has the advantage of being a *A hub which will provide feed, as well as being a much larger market from the U.S. than DPS in general. So unless MNL's problems are sorted out, UA may well open BKK first, but only if these routes even come to fruition, of course.

Edited once: last line of first paragraph edited for clarity.

Not sure if posted already, UA's SFO-BLR Flight has been postponed to 27/05/21 instead of 06/05/21.

Come on UA, LYH and HVN CRJ-550's to ORD.

mjba257 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Switching gears for a moment, here's my predictions for UA over the next 5 years (with the caveat that demand will return quicker than people anticipate)


SFO
- UA could possibly try SFO-BKK; Thailand is a popular tourist destination, even for Americans and there just may be a demand to fill a 787. Plus BKK is a *A hub, so you have the possibility for onward connections
- I can foresee an SFO-GUM nonstop, becoming the first time Guam has a nonstop flight to the US mainland. Cargo load would be the primary money maker for this flight, but I could see UA trying to get some additional revenue from pax as well
- Other than those two, I don't foresee anything new from SFO

How about a SFO-GUM-BKK route? Most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to Thailand. I also wonder if UA might be interested in adding back GUM-DPS on a 738; it's an old CO Mike route that was dropped awhile back, but with a rise in premium leisure travel.....maybe it's more viable. DPS is an Asian destination that's not real easy to get to from Tokyo, and Seoul won't be an option either.

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

while using non-stop to GUM carries some cargo, its being used as a pilot stopover to places like HKG to avoid having to layover in HKG.

CALMSP wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

How about a SFO-GUM-BKK route? Most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to Thailand. I also wonder if UA might be interested in adding back GUM-DPS on a 738; it's an old CO Mike route that was dropped awhile back, but with a rise in premium leisure travel.....maybe it's more viable. DPS is an Asian destination that's not real easy to get to from Tokyo, and Seoul won't be an option either.

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

while using non-stop to GUM carries some cargo, its being used as a pilot stopover to places like HKG to avoid having to layover in HKG.

Wow, has Hong Kong really become that toxic of an area?

mjba257 wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

while using non-stop to GUM carries some cargo, its being used as a pilot stopover to places like HKG to avoid having to layover in HKG.

Wow, has Hong Kong really become that toxic of an area?

I think they were using GUM for others as well like PVG, etc. But even FX pilots are not wanting to stay overnight there, nothing due to security but quarantine concerns.

airlineworker wrote:

Come on UA, LYH and HVN CRJ-550's to ORD.

Question for those in the know...on what kinds of routes are the UA 550s being deployed? Relatively long, thin routes like this, shorter Express routes, or as a way of providing more frequency on busier routes?

Anyone have any clue for the March schedule? I know Delta’s came out this morning and AA’s is tonight.

AVLAirlineFreq wrote:

airlineworker wrote:

Come on UA, LYH and HVN CRJ-550's to ORD.

Question for those in the know...on what kinds of routes are the UA 550s being deployed? Relatively long, thin routes like this, shorter Express routes, or as a way of providing more frequency on busier routes?

As of now all the CRJ-550 are operated by GoJet for UA and mainly from ORD. I know GoJet was going to start flights out EWR and/or IAD, not sure with COVID how far that has progressed. As for the routes, the GoJet Wiki page has a list of destination. In glancing it over it seems up to date. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GoJet_Airlines

MAX 9:
N37525 - Entered SEA induction on 22-Jan/2708

mjba257 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

Switching gears for a moment, here's my predictions for UA over the next 5 years (with the caveat that demand will return quicker than people anticipate)


SFO
- UA could possibly try SFO-BKK; Thailand is a popular tourist destination, even for Americans and there just may be a demand to fill a 787. Plus BKK is a *A hub, so you have the possibility for onward connections
- I can foresee an SFO-GUM nonstop, becoming the first time Guam has a nonstop flight to the US mainland. Cargo load would be the primary money maker for this flight, but I could see UA trying to get some additional revenue from pax as well
- Other than those two, I don't foresee anything new from SFO

How about a SFO-GUM-BKK route? Most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to Thailand. I also wonder if UA might be interested in adding back GUM-DPS on a 738; it's an old CO Mike route that was dropped awhile back, but with a rise in premium leisure travel.....maybe it's more viable. DPS is an Asian destination that's not real easy to get to from Tokyo, and Seoul won't be an option either.

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

I looked last night: SFO-GUM-DPS is only a mile off of the perfect great circle route for SFO-DPS, so maybe that would work as a one stop route with a 787 rather than BKK; most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to DPS. I think a 1 stop might be more acceptable than it would be for BKK. I can even almost see some premium leisure J demand for a direct flight to DPS, rather than flowing over TPE/SIN. Think of it as a PPT flight with the GUM cargo subsidizing the Y passengers.

DPS is low yield. I have inside knowledge from a friend that UA plans SFO-MNL if air travel ever returns to pre-COVID levels. Tagalog is the 4th most spoken language in the US after English, Spanish and Chinese. From Wikipedia:
English only – 239 million
Spanish – 41 million
Chinese (including Mandarin, Cantonese and Hokkien) – 3.5 million
Tagalog (including Filipino) – 1.7 million

Vietnamese is 5th with 1.5 million speakers. MNL is also higher yielding than HAN/SGN. Though I bet UA will let VN serve the market first to see if it has decent loads/yields. BKK is mostly a pure holiday destination. If MNL is successful UA hasn't decided on either HAN/SGN or BKK though Thai is 22nd on the list of most spoken languages in the US. This also is a long ways off and I've also heard if SFO-BLR is successful UA will fly with the B789 upgraded performance SFO/ORD-BOM.

I don't see why MNL is going to be more high yielding than DPS. During pre-pandemic times, DPS would attract high end leisure which simply isn't available to MNL.

GSP psgr wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

How about a SFO-GUM-BKK route? Most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to Thailand. I also wonder if UA might be interested in adding back GUM-DPS on a 738; it's an old CO Mike route that was dropped awhile back, but with a rise in premium leisure travel.....maybe it's more viable. DPS is an Asian destination that's not real easy to get to from Tokyo, and Seoul won't be an option either.

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

I looked last night: SFO-GUM-DPS is only a mile off of the perfect great circle route for SFO-DPS, so maybe that would work as a one stop route with a 787 rather than BKK; most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to DPS. I think a 1 stop might be more acceptable than it would be for BKK. I can even almost see some premium leisure J demand for a direct flight to DPS, rather than flowing over TPE/SIN. Think of it as a PPT flight with the GUM cargo subsidizing the Y passengers.

As things return to normal, I don’t see tag flights in UA’s future. UA had long since given up on tag flights. They are expensive to crew, and take up seats that are often able to be sold on the first leg for a similar price.

andrew1996 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

How about a SFO-GUM-BKK route? Most of the cargo goes to GUM, most of the passengers go to Thailand. I also wonder if UA might be interested in adding back GUM-DPS on a 738; it's an old CO Mike route that was dropped awhile back, but with a rise in premium leisure travel.....maybe it's more viable. DPS is an Asian destination that's not real easy to get to from Tokyo, and Seoul won't be an option either.

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

Do you know what happened to the SFO-GUM-SIN cargo flight? I notice it removed on the schedule and on FlightRadar24. Is it because of SQ now going daily to SFO,LAX,JFK that there is now enough cargo capacity between SIN-USA even though SQ is using a A359ULR for most of these flights that have limited cargo space? Is UA planing on returning to SIN for cargo anytime soon?

RE GUM-SIN: The route hasn't flown since the new year. Not sure how much money it made but it was incredibly expensive to crew. The crew had to acclimate to GUM time to be legal for the SIN turn so depending on the turn times it would be a 7 or 8 day trip.

GmoneyCO wrote:

MAX 9:
N37525 - Entered SEA induction on 22-Jan/2708

If I have the numbers right there are only three -9s left to deliver N27526, 37528, 17529. Of the 14 post delivered parked there are only two, N47505, 47512 needing the visit to MCO for the modifications. All 30 should be ready or almost ready for revenue service come 11Feb.

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

mjba257 wrote:

UA has definitely re-invented GUM into a cargo hub during this pandemic and hopefully that is something to stay. They are regularly flying from the mainland to Guam with cargo only. It is only inevitable that eventually they will start having pax on for additional revenue. Sure, the flights won't be full and it won't be turning a profit, but that's not the point. Cargo is what would make said route profitable.

DPS could work from GUM, especially with a direct flight from the mainland feeding said flight. BKK though most likely would need to be served nonstop from SFO on a 787. Currently, most US pax going to Thailand on UA go through Tokyo and transfer to ANA.

Do you know what happened to the SFO-GUM-SIN cargo flight? I notice it removed on the schedule and on FlightRadar24. Is it because of SQ now going daily to SFO,LAX,JFK that there is now enough cargo capacity between SIN-USA even though SQ is using a A359ULR for most of these flights that have limited cargo space? Is UA planing on returning to SIN for cargo anytime soon?

RE GUM-SIN: The route hasn't flown since the new year. Not sure how much money it made but it was incredibly expensive to crew. The crew had to acclimate to GUM time to be legal for the SIN turn so depending on the turn times it would be a 7 or 8 day trip.

Do you know why they did a turnaround in GUM as opposed to just flying straight to SIn which I imagine would be cheaper to crew as UA1/2 from my understanding crews only stay in SIN for 1night? Other foreign airlines serving SIN have their crews overnight in SIN and SIN doesn’t have HKG style strict requirement for crew like mandatory testing on arrival (at least during the times UA served SIN via GUM). Was it to maximize payload capability on the 789 that they would stop in GUM as opposed to non stop? I do wonder if it was worth the cost saving of having more expensive staffing since these 789s have no pax to carry so it should be able to fly SFO-SIN with minimal penalty.

For HKG and PVG I can see why UA may crew change elsewhere but SIN has been more “relaxed” in that regards. You have crew from EU overnighting Every say in SIN along with like FedEx pilots so I doubt there’s additional restriction on US crew.

It seems like to me they may have stopped SIN because SQ was dramatically increasing USA flights in the name of cargo by flying daily to JFK, SFO and LAX on top of dedicated freighter flights.

I am curious if UA Cargo used SIN as an end point or if cargo was transited in SIn.

I did notice that the GUM-SIN-GUM same day return hours was actually a really long flight that probably is staffed by four flight crews in the cockpit

Nicknuzzii wrote:

I could see UA trying more fun longhaul routes from EWR and SFO. EWR-CMN/BLR/GIG/SCL would all be nice and filled with tons of leisure. SFO-BOM has to be on the list I would think. LAX-TLV and FRA are probably the biggest holes in UA’s robust intl network.

Late last years I heard rumors United is looking to add more flights to India, I don't think we will see any new flights to India outside of BLR this year which by the way the launch has been pushed back by a few weeks. But depending on certain factors I can see UA adding additional capacity to India in 2022 or 2023.

Speaking of delayed launch dates EWR-JNB has now also been delayed until early June. From what I'm hearing the reason for the delay is do to concerns about the South Africa variant and questions still remain as to whether the current vaccines will work against the South Africa variant. I haven't heard any updates on IAD-ACC if that route will launch on-time in May of this year or on IAD-LOS, Last I heard about IAD-LOS was United was still awaiting government approval which is why no launch date has been set as of yet but that information is months old. However I am hearing United remains committed to South Africa and to Africa in general and we remain focused on launching service to these African destinations this year. I'm also hearing seasonal service EWR-CPT will come back this year. Of course the relaunch of CPT and the launch of JNB are totally dependent on getting the virus under control and if the current vaccines work against the S.A. variant.

Lastly I think you are correct about LAX-TLV, a few months after the launch of IAD-TLV there was talk of UA connecting another hub to TLV. The two hubs that came up were ORD and LAX. I'm hearing ORD-TLV will for sure come back during summer 2021. What I've been told is if it had not been for the US's most recent surge in cases the flight would still be operating.

After hearing UA's concerns over US/China relations and the impact it will have on our ability to operate flights to/from China in our earnings live town hall, I'm thinking post pandemic UA's US-China flights (connected hubs and frequency) will look a whole lot different than they did pre-pandemic. If there is a sizable reduction in flights and frequency to China on UA this would free up a lot of widebodies for other routes like LAX-TLV, and perhaps LAX-FRA.

jayunited wrote:

Nicknuzzii wrote:

I could see UA trying more fun longhaul routes from EWR and SFO. EWR-CMN/BLR/GIG/SCL would all be nice and filled with tons of leisure. SFO-BOM has to be on the list I would think. LAX-TLV and FRA are probably the biggest holes in UA’s robust intl network.

Late last years I heard rumors United is looking to add more flights to India, I don't think we will see any new flights to India outside of BLR this year which by the way the launch has been pushed back by a few weeks. But depending on certain factors I can see UA adding additional capacity to India in 2022 or 2023.

Speaking of delayed launch dates EWR-JNB has now also been delayed until early June. From what I'm hearing the reason for the delay is do to concerns about the South Africa variant and questions still remain as to whether the current vaccines will work against the South Africa variant. I haven't heard any updates on IAD-ACC if that route will launch on-time in May of this year or on IAD-LOS, Last I heard about IAD-LOS was United was still awaiting government approval which is why no launch date has been set as of yet but that information is months old. However I am hearing United remains committed to South Africa and to Africa in general and we remain focused on launching service to these African destinations this year. I'm also hearing seasonal service EWR-CPT will come back this year. Of course the relaunch of CPT and the launch of JNB are totally dependent on getting the virus under control and if the current vaccines work against the S.A. variant.

Lastly I think you are correct about LAX-TLV, a few months after the launch of IAD-TLV there was talk of UA connecting another hub to TLV. The two hubs that came up were ORD and LAX. I'm hearing ORD-TLV will for sure come back during summer 2021. What I've been told is if it had not been for the US's most recent surge in cases the flight would still be operating.

After hearing UA's concerns over US/China relations and the impact it will have on our ability to operate flights to/from China in our earnings live town hall, I'm thinking post pandemic UA's US-China flights (connected hubs and frequency) will look a whole lot different than they did pre-pandemic. If there is a sizable reduction in flights and frequency to China on UA this would free up a lot of widebodies for other routes like LAX-TLV, and perhaps LAX-FRA.

Post-pandemic, India will likely emerge as the new economic powerhouse in Asia. Multinationals are just tired of dealing with China's unpredictability, especially after COVID, and India is a more stable, better market. UA realizes this, hence all the recent investment in India. They want to establish themselves early as the dominant US carrier to the subcontinent so that when demand skyrockets, they will be the go-to airline

Yes but India has more COVID deaths than China and India has the 2nd most amount of COVID deaths after the USA. Also from my contacts in the BPO/high tech industries companies are moving from China/Hong Kong to Taiwan/Singapore/Thailand/Vietnam/Malaysia/Philippines which has better infrastructure than India. Also China now has better infrastructure than Eastern Europe.

andrew1996 wrote:

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

Do you know what happened to the SFO-GUM-SIN cargo flight? I notice it removed on the schedule and on FlightRadar24. Is it because of SQ now going daily to SFO,LAX,JFK that there is now enough cargo capacity between SIN-USA even though SQ is using a A359ULR for most of these flights that have limited cargo space? Is UA planing on returning to SIN for cargo anytime soon?

RE GUM-SIN: The route hasn't flown since the new year. Not sure how much money it made but it was incredibly expensive to crew. The crew had to acclimate to GUM time to be legal for the SIN turn so depending on the turn times it would be a 7 or 8 day trip.

Do you know why they did a turnaround in GUM as opposed to just flying straight to SIn which I imagine would be cheaper to crew as UA1/2 from my understanding crews only stay in SIN for 1night? Other foreign airlines serving SIN have their crews overnight in SIN and SIN doesn’t have HKG style strict requirement for crew like mandatory testing on arrival (at least during the times UA served SIN via GUM). Was it to maximize payload capability on the 789 that they would stop in GUM as opposed to non stop? I do wonder if it was worth the cost saving of having more expensive staffing since these 789s have no pax to carry so it should be able to fly SFO-SIN with minimal penalty.

For HKG and PVG I can see why UA may crew change elsewhere but SIN has been more “relaxed” in that regards. You have crew from EU overnighting Every say in SIN along with like FedEx pilots so I doubt there’s additional restriction on US crew.

It seems like to me they may have stopped SIN because SQ was dramatically increasing USA flights in the name of cargo by flying daily to JFK, SFO and LAX on top of dedicated freighter flights.

I am curious if UA Cargo used SIN as an end point or if cargo was transited in SIn.

I did notice that the GUM-SIN-GUM same day return hours was actually a really long flight that probably is staffed by four flight crews in the cockpit

whether or not SQ is flying nonstop to the US will not have any impact on UA cargo operation. As for the cargo, UA is carrying it to SIN, whether or not the forwarder moves it beyond SIN is up to them.

Does anyone know if UA will paint the 787-8s in the new livery? Also are there any that have already been or are in the process of being repainted.

UA seems to do well at EWR. I’ve flown out of EWR quite often during the pandemic and almost every flight is packed. The checked bag line is always long, and most gates are occupied.

Hope UA continues to build at EWR.

BMAirbusFan320 wrote:

Does anyone know if UA will paint the 787-8s in the new livery? Also are there any that have already been or are in the process of being repainted.

There is one 787-8 already in the evolution livery but, for the most part, UA has halted repainting until its finances stabilize. That particular frame is N29907 or ship #3907 and it's doing a trip from FTW-IAH today (maintenance or cargo?).

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N29907

A great resource for keeping track of what has and hasn't been repainted is the UA fleet website. It's maintained by another a.net member who posts in this thread regularly.

https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfle ... t-tracking

Photos sent to me indicate N29907 did not get EviBlu paint. Every aircraft into FTW has gotten paint and to my knowledge N29907 hasn't been painted since 2013.

N29907 was in FTW from Jan 14 until today, so I'm sure it has been repainted!

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n29907

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Photos sent to me indicate N29907 did not get EviBlu paint. Every aircraft into FTW has gotten paint and to my knowledge N29907 hasn't been painted since 2013.

I guess then the question is if it didn't get paint what was 907 doing in FTW for the last ten days?

I'm just reading what the fleet site says....I don't have any information besides that.

CALMSP wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

RE GUM-SIN: The route hasn't flown since the new year. Not sure how much money it made but it was incredibly expensive to crew. The crew had to acclimate to GUM time to be legal for the SIN turn so depending on the turn times it would be a 7 or 8 day trip.

Do you know why they did a turnaround in GUM as opposed to just flying straight to SIn which I imagine would be cheaper to crew as UA1/2 from my understanding crews only stay in SIN for 1night? Other foreign airlines serving SIN have their crews overnight in SIN and SIN doesn’t have HKG style strict requirement for crew like mandatory testing on arrival (at least during the times UA served SIN via GUM). Was it to maximize payload capability on the 789 that they would stop in GUM as opposed to non stop? I do wonder if it was worth the cost saving of having more expensive staffing since these 789s have no pax to carry so it should be able to fly SFO-SIN with minimal penalty.

For HKG and PVG I can see why UA may crew change elsewhere but SIN has been more “relaxed” in that regards. You have crew from EU overnighting Every say in SIN along with like FedEx pilots so I doubt there’s additional restriction on US crew.

It seems like to me they may have stopped SIN because SQ was dramatically increasing USA flights in the name of cargo by flying daily to JFK, SFO and LAX on top of dedicated freighter flights.

I am curious if UA Cargo used SIN as an end point or if cargo was transited in SIn.

I did notice that the GUM-SIN-GUM same day return hours was actually a really long flight that probably is staffed by four flight crews in the cockpit

whether or not SQ is flying nonstop to the US will not have any impact on UA cargo operation. As for the cargo, UA is carrying it to SIN, whether or not the forwarder moves it beyond SIN is up to them.

I am pretty sure SQ nonstop is having an impact on UA cargo operation for the SFO-GUM-SIN because they are competitors on that route. Even if they partner (not sure how parternships work in the cargo industry), yield is being driven down by increased USA-SIN capacity, albeit SQ's recent capacity increase may still be a marginal increase overall since SQ is carrying onward cargo beyond SIN and there are also many one stop cargo options currently between USA-SIN where yields have not really been impacted by SQ increasing to triple daily to USA this month.

andrew1996 wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

Do you know why they did a turnaround in GUM as opposed to just flying straight to SIn which I imagine would be cheaper to crew as UA1/2 from my understanding crews only stay in SIN for 1night? Other foreign airlines serving SIN have their crews overnight in SIN and SIN doesn’t have HKG style strict requirement for crew like mandatory testing on arrival (at least during the times UA served SIN via GUM). Was it to maximize payload capability on the 789 that they would stop in GUM as opposed to non stop? I do wonder if it was worth the cost saving of having more expensive staffing since these 789s have no pax to carry so it should be able to fly SFO-SIN with minimal penalty.

For HKG and PVG I can see why UA may crew change elsewhere but SIN has been more “relaxed” in that regards. You have crew from EU overnighting Every say in SIN along with like FedEx pilots so I doubt there’s additional restriction on US crew.

It seems like to me they may have stopped SIN because SQ was dramatically increasing USA flights in the name of cargo by flying daily to JFK, SFO and LAX on top of dedicated freighter flights.

I am curious if UA Cargo used SIN as an end point or if cargo was transited in SIn.

I did notice that the GUM-SIN-GUM same day return hours was actually a really long flight that probably is staffed by four flight crews in the cockpit

whether or not SQ is flying nonstop to the US will not have any impact on UA cargo operation. As for the cargo, UA is carrying it to SIN, whether or not the forwarder moves it beyond SIN is up to them.

I am pretty sure SQ nonstop is having an impact on UA cargo operation for the SFO-GUM-SIN because they are competitors on that route. Even if they partner (not sure how parternships work in the cargo industry), yield is being driven down by increased USA-SIN capacity, albeit SQ's recent capacity increase may still be a marginal increase overall since SQ is carrying onward cargo beyond SIN and there are also many one stop cargo options currently between USA-SIN where yields have not really been impacted by SQ increasing to triple daily to USA this month.

you're not going to have a large decrease in yield. the massive amount of missing capacity in the overall cargo market far exceeds any diluting. And with a 17+ hour block time, you are not going to capture large amounts of freight. If they dumped a nonstop freighter in the market, it'd be a different story.

I know paint lines have basically been dead since the pandemic began, but one has to assume something has to start up again.
Has anyone seen 791ua recently? Poor plane has more bare skin showing than painted skin at this point. Likely one of the worst I have seen in many years.

I have two sources that said 788 N29907 was not painted in FTW. One had photos, but the N Number wasn't shown.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

I have two sources that said 788 N29907 was not painted in FTW. One had photos, but the N Number wasn't shown.

Saw it come into IAH on ramp tower cam... Wings/ touch up only... No EvoBlu...

CALMSP wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

whether or not SQ is flying nonstop to the US will not have any impact on UA cargo operation. As for the cargo, UA is carrying it to SIN, whether or not the forwarder moves it beyond SIN is up to them.

I am pretty sure SQ nonstop is having an impact on UA cargo operation for the SFO-GUM-SIN because they are competitors on that route. Even if they partner (not sure how parternships work in the cargo industry), yield is being driven down by increased USA-SIN capacity, albeit SQ's recent capacity increase may still be a marginal increase overall since SQ is carrying onward cargo beyond SIN and there are also many one stop cargo options currently between USA-SIN where yields have not really been impacted by SQ increasing to triple daily to USA this month.

you're not going to have a large decrease in yield. the massive amount of missing capacity in the overall cargo market far exceeds any diluting. And with a 17+ hour block time, you are not going to capture large amounts of freight. If they dumped a nonstop freighter in the market, it'd be a different story.

So why would UA drop the SIN flight? It is no longer listed on unitedcargo.com. I am thinking that UA was carrying freight that now has switched to SQ with its resumption of US flights.

Cargo doesn't mind connecting. There are an awful lot of ways to get cargo from SIN-XXX-USA and USA-XXX-SIN that've come back online over the past few months.

MAX 9:
N67501 - Test hops scheduled for 26-Jan with exit to IAH scheduled for 27-Jan/2690 after MAX upgrades

Unknown which of the two remaining MAX 9s which have not yet received upgrades with enter MCO next

flyer56 wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

I am pretty sure SQ nonstop is having an impact on UA cargo operation for the SFO-GUM-SIN because they are competitors on that route. Even if they partner (not sure how parternships work in the cargo industry), yield is being driven down by increased USA-SIN capacity, albeit SQ's recent capacity increase may still be a marginal increase overall since SQ is carrying onward cargo beyond SIN and there are also many one stop cargo options currently between USA-SIN where yields have not really been impacted by SQ increasing to triple daily to USA this month.

you're not going to have a large decrease in yield. the massive amount of missing capacity in the overall cargo market far exceeds any diluting. And with a 17+ hour block time, you are not going to capture large amounts of freight. If they dumped a nonstop freighter in the market, it'd be a different story.

So why would UA drop the SIN flight? It is no longer listed on unitedcargo.com. I am thinking that UA was carrying freight that now has switched to SQ with its resumption of US flights.

thats not exactly the standard practice on cargo shipping. Taking a fully loaded 777-300 one-stop flight of PMC's, plus a potential fully loaded cabin of boxes is not going to be accommodated on 17 hour non-stop flight with passengers. Just because UA isn't operating it doesn't mean SQ non-stops took their cargo, that 17hour flight is not going to carry anything substantial.

flyer56 wrote:

So why would UA drop the SIN flight? It is no longer listed on unitedcargo.com. I am thinking that UA was carrying freight that now has switched to SQ with its resumption of US flights.

I'm not sure how accurate the schedule shown on unitedcargo.com is. I can tell you for sure United has operated some cargo only flights to SIN in January I'm not sure why they are not listed. Also not listed are several other cargo only flights another one I just found is ORD-TPE-LAX-TPE-ORD, this cargo only route isn't listed either on unitedcargo.com.

UA2790 is in the air right now with a belly full of cargo heading to TPE but the route is not listed.

If I have time I'll try to do some research to find out why some cargo only routes are not listed on unitedcargo, however I'm not sure how successful I'll be in finding an answer.

Last fall I had multiple fairly large shipments (UN3091 DG items) from SIN to DFW or IAH. Ours all went via Taiwan on EVA.

Any word on when the March schedule will be finalized?

Okcflyer wrote:

Any word on when the March schedule will be finalized?

I would guess during the first week of February.

Is there any chance of the Polaris lounges opening anytime soon?

airboss787 wrote:

Is there any chance of the Polaris lounges opening anytime soon?

Nope. We're probably a few months away from that yet. I would guesstimate June.

Scarebus34 wrote:

airboss787 wrote:

Is there any chance of the Polaris lounges opening anytime soon?

Nope. We're probably a few months away from that yet. I would guesstimate June.

That's what I've heard (June)... and possibly not all of them. I'm dreading to see how much the service is cut back.

Some cargo flights are essentially charters for one or more forwarders with block space commitments.

codc10 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

airboss787 wrote:

Is there any chance of the Polaris lounges opening anytime soon?

Nope. We're probably a few months away from that yet. I would guesstimate June.

That's what I've heard (June)... and possibly not all of them. I'm dreading to see how much the service is cut back.

Just like the United Clubs service in the Polaris Clubs (once they reopen) would be based on local restrictions put in place by either the state or local city government.

It is going to be a while before customers experience uniform service at either our United Clubs or Polaris Clubs because the restrictions very from state to state. I would say don't expect to see a return to pre-COVID service at all our clubs until 2022.

jayunited wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Scarebus34 wrote:

Nope. We're probably a few months away from that yet. I would guesstimate June.

That's what I've heard (June)... and possibly not all of them. I'm dreading to see how much the service is cut back.

Just like the United Clubs service in the Polaris Clubs (once they reopen) would be based on local restrictions put in place by either the state or local city government.

It is going to be a while before customers experience uniform service at either our United Clubs or Polaris Clubs because the restrictions very from state to state. I would say don't expect to see a return to pre-COVID service at all our clubs until 2022.

Even with local restrictions in place, to the extent prescribed, I suspect cost cutting will take a toll as well. The $2b in annual savings mentioned on the earnings call will no doubt touch upon the customer experience.

CALMSP wrote:

flyer56 wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

you're not going to have a large decrease in yield. the massive amount of missing capacity in the overall cargo market far exceeds any diluting. And with a 17+ hour block time, you are not going to capture large amounts of freight. If they dumped a nonstop freighter in the market, it'd be a different story.

So why would UA drop the SIN flight? It is no longer listed on unitedcargo.com. I am thinking that UA was carrying freight that now has switched to SQ with its resumption of US flights.

thats not exactly the standard practice on cargo shipping. Taking a fully loaded 777-300 one-stop flight of PMC's, plus a potential fully loaded cabin of boxes is not going to be accommodated on 17 hour non-stop flight with passengers. Just because UA isn't operating it doesn't mean SQ non-stops took their cargo, that 17hour flight is not going to carry anything substantial.

I was referring to the GUM-SIN leg which used to be listed as a wide body freight-only flight but is not shown now, at least not for February. Just wondering aloud if SQ's resumption of US flights had anything to do with it. Maybe a freight forwarder was using UA before with the stop in GUM and now can get the cargo delivered faster by using SQ.

We are air shipping US to China right now and to my surprise our freight forwarder has switched to UA. Never saw that before.