Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
gwrudolph
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 11:13 pm

UA444 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

The cowlings are Boeing's design. This issue as presented by jayunited depicts this as a joint PW and Boeing issue.

You need to think beyond the surface of United being "pissed" in this scenario. Why exactly are they pissed? Because an entire subfleet aircraft are grounded and are forcing United to forfeit revenue. Not to mention the terrible PR nightmare they suffered following the explosion of the cowling over DEN. Surely a properly managed airline would take this situation into consideration and is a just cause for switching from B to A.


Yes, I fully understand the cowling is a Boeing design issue. I’m guessing the bigger and more complicated issue isn’t the cowling, but the blade failures. While securing the cowling is likely complicated, dealing with blade fatigue on an engine that is no longer in production is likely more complicated. Also, while both issues now need to be addressed, the blade off event is what caused the cowling separation.

Also, for clarification, I wasn’t the one who said United probably wouldn’t buy more 787s because they are “pissed.” I only rebuffed that claim by saying that airlines don’t usually make long term fleet decisions based on emotions.

The engine being out of production doesn’t mean they can’t get more new fan blades made. PW was making new 777 engines as recently as 2012 and 2013 for new builds NH and OZ had on order, so it isn’t as we are talking about every single one worldwide being on its last legs and not economic. They also still make PW4000s by the boatload with the KC-46

People really have blown the issue out of proportion in hopes these a/c will get sent to the scrap heap. Funny, if they didn’t have “UA” in the reg or “22” in the customer code the reaction would be different


Perhaps you misunderstood my point, which was merely to again support the position that United isn’t going to stop buying Boeing aircraft because they are “pissed” about this engine situation. Additionally, I was pointing out that the likely more difficult and original issue were the blade cracks and not the resulting cowling separations

Really, I’ve not blown anything out of proportion, nor ever indicated that I think or hope the 777As will not go back into service. Please fully read my posts!
 
rjbesikof
Posts: 335
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:21 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Wed May 26, 2021 11:32 pm

jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Thank you for the post. I enjoyed reading it. I think that Europe will be back to pre-COVID sooner rather than later, and that places such as ATH will become more popular going forward. Latin America will also recover to pre-COVID levels, especially to places like LIM, BOG, SCL, and Costa Rica. Even though Australia and New Zealand will be one of the last countries to open, I think that United will jump back on AKL, MEL, and maybe start BNE or CHC once AU/NZ reopen. Asia will be the interesting one. Japan will definitely recover since UA has a partner there (ANA). SIN will probably go down to one daily flight (from SFO). China and Hong Kong will probably not recover completely due to as you mentioned the strained relations between the U.S. and China and HKG because of the civil unrest. Even before the big pulldown of Asia flights at the very beginning of 2020, United downgauged several Hong Kong routes and cut the ORD flight. As for ICN, it will all depend on how Delta works with a larger Korean Air. I do see them adding an EWR flight or resuming the summer seasonal second daily from SFO if DL/KE work together to make Asia more accessible from the interior part of the U.S.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25549
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 12:07 am

A look at how block hours playing out. Still long way to go for recovery.

Image

https://ibb.co/Jy4Dw36
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14535
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 12:13 am

jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Two items:

100 seater for mainline to help realize full compliment of 76 seat ERJ-175s.

Second EWR-ICN is a winner, former KE route and New Jersey actually has a better Korea Town than NYC. This from the NY Post.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/new-jerseys-little-known-koreatown-is-better-than-nycs/
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 12:31 am

jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.


First off JayUnited thanks for your informative post.

Secondly, I don't quite understand some of these goals. How does UA plan on growing an airport as constrained as SFO to 450 departures?? IIRC, SFO was maybe 300-350 dailies pre-covid (someone please feel free to verify this if the number's wrong). Does 450 departures eventually mean more banks at non-peak times?? 8am-10am and 3pm-7pm at SFO regardless of covid or not are always going to be busy as heck times but the reality is that that is the best time to keep adding on more flights if they want to appeal to customers... Could we see them space out afternoon/evening banks more? Or could there be another mid-morning bank added?

And are they banking on the construction of Boarding Area H to alleviate congestion as well as the redesigning of parts of Boarding Area F to accommodate more planes at one time? The issue is that these projects will take quite a long time to finish... I doubt they would even start by 2028, maybe by 2030 construction would be underway.

If this is the case I was just looking for some clarification because this is quite a long time in the future, literally 10 years away.

One other comment - I don't think UA really needs to worry much about the AA/AS partnership at SFO. AS is weak enough as it is and AA will never dare to launch longhauls from SFO, basically giving AS no feed. I don't feel like anything changes in the SFO market, other than the fact that covid 19 weakened AS at SFO even more than the usual year-to-year loss of market share. However, a newcomer to the sfo scene is B6 who has added a big expansion here and now has flights to 10 destinations including key UA routes such as LAX, EWR, JFK, and BOS... I think UA should keep an eye on them and see what they choose to do in the future, whether they leave SFO as is or start adding markets to build it into a focus city, because B6 seems like a much stronger operation than AS at this point, from SFO. This summer B6 will have SFO-LAX 4 daily on A320s and non-mint 321s... just wait until they get the 220 on the west coast and then they will really go after AS I think. That might be a problem for UA in the future...
 
avi8
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2011 1:36 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 12:47 am

There’s no way they will get to having 3 hubs with 700+ daily departures without a smaller mainline aircraft. I am almost certain an order for the E2 family will happen in the next 2 years.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 1:42 am

avi8 wrote:
There’s no way they will get to having 3 hubs with 700+ daily departures without a smaller mainline aircraft. I am almost certain an order for the E2 family will happen in the next 2 years.


Basically what United is saying is what some people on this site have already stated in 2019 and even in 2020. United will never have an ATL (DL) or a DFW (AA).

If you remember some time ago Kirby gave an interview where he was asked what is one thing he wishes United could have that we don't and his answer was a mega hub. This is basically United admitting that long term its not going to happen so lets spread the work load around between our mid-continent hubs. Another thing that has surprised me is United isn't talking about retiring many aircraft over the next few years. Again no time frame was given for when United want to hit 700 departures at ORD, IAH and DEN but to hit that number United will need aircraft and so far all they are talking about is all the MAXs that are coming.

Perhaps aircraft retirements will come up in June I'm not sure how much more life some of those oldest A320s and 738NGs have left in them.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 1:56 am

EWR 500? I think EWR as a whole was at 650 departures pre pandemic, JetBlue and United are easily gonna bring that number back up to 575, Spirit, Delta, and American and were already well passed 650. Its certainly gonna be interesting to watch in terms of gates and slot allocations. If United moves fast they’ll be golden but if NK gets ahead UA won’t break 500.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 2:52 am

SFO could definitely add a a night time Asia flight bank and the associated connecting flights, but 450 seems like a stretch. I’d always assumed they’d just keep increasing their aircraft gauge.
 
UALifer
Posts: 94
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:35 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 3:18 am

I think SFO growth beyond 350-375 flights will require improvements in ATC technology to allow reduced in-trail spacing and side by side approaches to the 28s during IFR conditions. That, along with UA making inroads in acquiring Terminal 2 gates once the T2-T3 airside connector is complete this fall.
 
User avatar
ChaseP
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:52 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 4:01 am

jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our market share in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Great stuff here! As someone who works at IAH, I can provide a little more insight on the plans for the operation. In the summer of 2019, IAH was basically maxed out with flight capacity. The number one reason for lack of further growth, apart from COVID, was the bag room capabilities. The old bag room was severely lacking and has been undergoing a complete overhaul since early 2020. It is slated for full completion around late 2022/early 2023 if I remember correctly. The brand new Early Bag Storage facility is about a quarter of the way done.

Another issue we could potentially have is gate space. Yes, United does own all of Terminal B, C, E, and four gates at Terminal A. The main issue here is Terminal B North. United only has eight gates at Terminal B North. There are plans to completely tear down and rebuild Terminal B North with more gates and amenities, but this is many years off. United will be adding three new gates to its belt with the completion of the brand new Terminal D West. Gates D1-D3 will be all United's and will bring three more greatly needed wide body/international capable gates to the operation.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7704
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 4:54 am

STT757 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Two items:

100 seater for mainline to help realize full compliment of 76 seat ERJ-175s.

Second EWR-ICN is a winner, former KE route and New Jersey actually has a better Korea Town than NYC. This from the NY Post.
ChaseP wrote:
United only has eight gates at Terminal B North.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/new-jerseys-little-known-koreatown-is-better-than-nycs/

When UA still had the NRT-ICN tag, the flight number was a continuation of EWR-NRT. The NRT flights gate in EWR would even switch between NRt and ICN. With UA getting more aggressive, I think EWR-ICN is likely. And your point on the 100 seaters would definitely help UA realize the hub goals outlines by jayunited.
ChaseP wrote:
United only has eight gates at Terminal B North.

United may have 8 gates per pod in B North, and then quite a few of those gates are split in to an A/B configuration on each pod. I'd go on a limb to say UA has a total of almost 30 gates in B North. Another thing for IAH is they should add another set of escalators for the C Skyway stop heading to the direction of the new C. B would need a similar set up if/when they do B North.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1724
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 11:10 am

jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.


DEN will have the gates to support the 700 flights with the recent expansion, but I'm not sure about ORD.

It's an unfortunate update on JFK, LHR would have been a good move if they could have pulled it off. Maybe in the future. I'm just thinking planes at this point, if UA is going to pull this off, they'll need all units brought back into service so the PW777 issue is a bigger deal or they will lose market share. UA Maintenance team will be maxed out.

A travel consultant stated this AM that cruisers are back in 2022 as they can book 18 mos. in advance, so that's a part of the recovery not there in 2021 that will boost 2022. From all that I can tell in talking to travel managers, barring any resurgence of covid, vaccinated employees are free to travel so corporate travel should also be back. I'm attending two conferences in 2021 in ATL and LAS both having several thousand people. Could 2022 be 100% of 2019?
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 12:14 pm

fun2fly wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.


DEN will have the gates to support the 700 flights with the recent expansion, but I'm not sure about ORD.

It's an unfortunate update on JFK, LHR would have been a good move if they could have pulled it off. Maybe in the future. I'm just thinking planes at this point, if UA is going to pull this off, they'll need all units brought back into service so the PW777 issue is a bigger deal or they will lose market share. UA Maintenance team will be maxed out.

A travel consultant stated this AM that cruisers are back in 2022 as they can book 18 mos. in advance, so that's a part of the recovery not there in 2021 that will boost 2022. From all that I can tell in talking to travel managers, barring any resurgence of covid, vaccinated employees are free to travel so corporate travel should also be back. I'm attending two conferences in 2021 in ATL and LAS both having several thousand people. Could 2022 be 100% of 2019?

Since they just said sometime in the future, I assume ORD's expansion will come when the new Terminal 2 with the additional satellite concourses are built, and 6 parallel runways are complete.
 
grjplanes
Posts: 218
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 5:52 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 12:28 pm

Any indication what forward bookings looks like for EWR-JNB starting next week? Is it still starting with daily flights, or has it been reduced?

While I understand there is still a lot of restrictions on travelers from South Africa, with exceptions, I don't quite understand the rule for vaccinated travelers. Will vaccinated US citizens be allowed to travel to South Africa and return without quarantine? Will vaccinated South Africans (although very low still, but ramping up now at last) be allowed in to the US?
 
wn676
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 12:30 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
STT757 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Two items:

100 seater for mainline to help realize full compliment of 76 seat ERJ-175s.

Second EWR-ICN is a winner, former KE route and New Jersey actually has a better Korea Town than NYC. This from the NY Post.
ChaseP wrote:
United only has eight gates at Terminal B North.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/new-jerseys-little-known-koreatown-is-better-than-nycs/

When UA still had the NRT-ICN tag, the flight number was a continuation of EWR-NRT. The NRT flights gate in EWR would even switch between NRt and ICN. With UA getting more aggressive, I think EWR-ICN is likely. And your point on the 100 seaters would definitely help UA realize the hub goals outlines by jayunited.
ChaseP wrote:
United only has eight gates at Terminal B North.

United may have 8 gates per pod in B North, and then quite a few of those gates are split in to an A/B configuration on each pod. I'd go on a limb to say UA has a total of almost 30 gates in B North. Another thing for IAH is they should add another set of escalators for the C Skyway stop heading to the direction of the new C. B would need a similar set up if/when they do B North.


United has 9 gates with 10 aircraft parking positions at B North. B79/79A is the only split gate.
 
IFlyOff
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 6:36 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 3:31 pm

SFO needs to be fixed before it grows back to pre-COVID levels. UA needs more gates and overscheduled the ones it has. And the runway separation issue needs to be fixed. One cloud in the sky means up to hours of ATC delays throughout the west for flights to SFO. Seems like hundreds of outbound international travelers misconnected every day due ATC delays arriving in SFO. After being burned a few times, I started flying up the day before my flight but hotels are expensive. Now I'm looking at foreign carriers from my home city to avoid SFO.
 
User avatar
Acey559
Posts: 1476
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 3:44 pm

grjplanes wrote:
Any indication what forward bookings looks like for EWR-JNB starting next week? Is it still starting with daily flights, or has it been reduced?

While I understand there is still a lot of restrictions on travelers from South Africa, with exceptions, I don't quite understand the rule for vaccinated travelers. Will vaccinated US citizens be allowed to travel to South Africa and return without quarantine? Will vaccinated South Africans (although very low still, but ramping up now at last) be allowed in to the US?


Looks to be nearly completely full the first few days of service. Looking towards the middle of June, coach loads back off a bit, business and premium plus appear to be almost completely sold out nearly every day. Surprising but also welcome news, though I have no idea what fares look like. Hopefully it continues!
 
VC10er
Posts: 4323
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 4:24 pm

Hello,
Apologies, normally I would not ask this question because I know there is an up to date progress list...but I cannot find it?

I was curious (post Covid) about WB renovations and how many of each type is complete and how many left to go?

And information about UA ramping up renovations back up, and at what pace. I would assume with 19 of the HD772’s grounded, can UA afford to send any WB’s in for refits.

Wasn’t that chart being kept at the beginning of this thread?

Thanks millions and apologies for my ignorance!
R
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 5:08 pm

VC10er wrote:
Hello,
Apologies, normally I would not ask this question because I know there is an up to date progress list...but I cannot find it?

I was curious (post Covid) about WB renovations and how many of each type is complete and how many left to go?

And information about UA ramping up renovations back up, and at what pace. I would assume with 19 of the HD772’s grounded, can UA afford to send any WB’s in for refits.

Wasn’t that chart being kept at the beginning of this thread?

Thanks millions and apologies for my ignorance!
R

https://sites.google.com/site/unitedfle ... t-tracking
 
UA857
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 5:23 pm

Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:
BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

A lot of Anetters scoffed at the idea that the a359 order would ever come to fruition. Now it could very well be a lifeline for the company if these 777 birds don't make it back into service.


If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 7:41 pm

UA857 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.

Sounds like an announcement they might make in 2026.
 
User avatar
ChaseP
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jul 23, 2014 4:52 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 8:19 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
STT757 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Two items:

100 seater for mainline to help realize full compliment of 76 seat ERJ-175s.

Second EWR-ICN is a winner, former KE route and New Jersey actually has a better Korea Town than NYC. This from the NY Post.
ChaseP wrote:
United only has eight gates at Terminal B North.

https://nypost.com/2018/02/23/new-jerseys-little-known-koreatown-is-better-than-nycs/

When UA still had the NRT-ICN tag, the flight number was a continuation of EWR-NRT. The NRT flights gate in EWR would even switch between NRt and ICN. With UA getting more aggressive, I think EWR-ICN is likely. And your point on the 100 seaters would definitely help UA realize the hub goals outlines by jayunited.
ChaseP wrote:
United only has eight gates at Terminal B North.

United may have 8 gates per pod in B North, and then quite a few of those gates are split in to an A/B configuration on each pod. I'd go on a limb to say UA has a total of almost 30 gates in B North. Another thing for IAH is they should add another set of escalators for the C Skyway stop heading to the direction of the new C. B would need a similar set up if/when they do B North.


United currently has 9 gates at B North. B76, B77, B79, B79A, B80, B81, B83, B86, B87, B88. The other gates you're seeing on the parking diagram chart are either not in use or were removed many moons ago. Add in the four gates at Terminal A, you have 13 gates on the north side over there.
 
flight152
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2000 8:04 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 8:22 pm

UA857 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:
Jetport wrote:

If United really needs aircraft in the short run, it would indeed be surprising if United wouldn't just order more 787's instead of adding to their fleet complexity by actually taking any A350's. A350 as a lifeline?? Anybody who can pay can get any new widebody in production immediately if they want one, there are many open production slots and white tails for all widebodies. The overlap of the A350 and 787 is so large I can't believe United is really going add the A350. What in the world can the A350 do that the 787 and/or 777W can't do? It would probably be cheaper for United to pay hefty penalties to cancel the A350 rather than adding the complexity and cost of yet another fleet type to an already complicated fleet.

Kirby seems to have made all the right moves so far at United. If he really takes the A350's eventually this will be his first big mistake.


Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.


Why would you think United would be looking at replacing the 77W? They are brand new.
 
ddaly241
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:43 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Thu May 27, 2021 10:01 pm

jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Is there a link for this?
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:16 am

ddaly241 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Is there a link for this?


All of the most recent information I've posted was discussed in several United town halls. Depending on if you work for United and what department you work in you will either get an invite to the town hall or not.
 
UA857
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:21 am

flight152 wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Okcflyer wrote:

Not so fast. The A359 is closer in size to the 78J than 789. It’s payload range unmatched by 789. It’s per seat costs are a bit less on the longer sectors. There is a simple upguage path to A35K if that becomes a necessity for 77W replacements. Risk mitigation wise, it’s a huge step to diversification. They’re one of the largest wide body operators in the world. If something happens with 787/Genx, this lets them at least keep the doors open. Finally, a fleet of 40 (or whatever the number is) is more than large enough to operate efficiently without extra costs. Those pilots leaving 777 are going to need training regardless of 787/a350. You’re way over blowing the induction costs. Finally, it sets up long term competition to ensure UA has appropriate leverage negotiating with both B and A but also GE and RR.


For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.


Why would you think United would be looking at replacing the 77W? They are brand new.


Given that the 77W is obsolete. UA should use the 77W as a stopgap until the 779 enters production.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 575
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:30 am

UA857 wrote:
flight152 wrote:
UA857 wrote:

For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.


Why would you think United would be looking at replacing the 77W? They are brand new.


Given that the 77W is obsolete. UA should use the 77W as a stopgap until the 779 enters production.


Regardless, those are brand new green aircraft with a lot of useful life. The 77W replacement plan is the least of their concerns in the near term. Before they worry about the 77Ws, they have to strategize on the fleet replacement plans for the 763, 757, A319/320, and 772s. Those 77Ws will likely be in service until the late 2030s
 
ddaly241
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 3:43 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:30 am

jayunited wrote:
ddaly241 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United just release some more information about our long term goals and what United is looking at once the pandemic is completely behind us.

Some of this information we already know but some of it is new. Ill start with the hubs and UA's long term goals for each hub.

ORD: grow to 700+ daily flights
DEN: grow to 700+ daily flights
IAH: grow to 650 - 700 daily flights
EWR: grow to 500+ daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AA/B6 partnership)
SFO: grow to 450 daily flights (has no intention on backing down to AS/AA partnership)
IAD: grow to 370+ daily flights
LAX: was at 160 flights pre-pandemic, with our current number of gates UA probably can't operate more than 190 - 200 daily flights out of LAX. Really pinning a lot of hope on Terminal 9 being built.

Other long term network news:

Looking to grow EWR beyond where we were in 2019 this may explain why United pursued an agreement for 20 gates at EWR's Terminal A and also there was some bad news about JFK.
JFK: United's growth at JFK for the foreseeable future will be limited, we don't have the gates or the preferable slots UA (Kirby) wanted. UA will add more flights to SFO and LAX, not sure about other hubs at this time. If UA is able to get their hands on some additional LHR slots UA will add JFK-LHR. But it is looking like UA's JFK plans will not proceed as smoothly as Kirby had hoped so we turn our attention back to EWR.
BOS: United will launch BOS-LHR, they claim it has nothing to do with B6 but UA's corporate customers in and around the Boston area. (Not sure what to make of that.)
P2P routes: United will look for opportunities and may take advantage when we can.
Europe: This year (summer) United will lean a bit more on the Lufthansa Group Airlines to move passengers into more of those secondary markets as restrictions are lifted, but next summer United is looking forward to getting back into some of those secondary markets we had just launched in 2019 and perhaps even moving forward with launching routes that were supposed to launch in 2020 but were canceled because of the pandemic.
GUM: Contrary to some of the rumors that have spun up at United as a result of UA running cargo only flights through GUM from the U.S. mainland. United will NOT launch either a SFO-GUM-SFO or a LAX-GUM-LAX passenger service flight. The cost to operate such a flight is high and small O&D market here on the mainland make a GUM nonstop flight a non-starter for United.
ICN: United knows Asiana Airlines will leave Star once their merger with Korean Air is complete. Without a partner in Korea United can't compete against Korean Air and Delta Airlines and we are not interested in fighting a battle we already know we would loose. What United stated is we are looking at either going daily double SFO-ICN or (and let me stress this isn't written in stone) United may go 1x daily SFO-ICN and perhaps launch 1x daily EWR-ICN. For sure United at some point will resume 1x daily SFO-ICN the question is whether United will go daily double out of SFO or launch EWR-ICN? Or if we simply can't compete we do nothing and simply operate 1x daily SFO-ICN and let KE/DL have the rest. But one thing is for sure United has no interest in launching IAH-ICN, ORD-ICN, IAD-ICN, DEN-ICN, or LAX-ICN.
China: This is a big question mark and right now no one knows or has any answers. US-China relations are not in a good place and show no signs of improving any time soon making it difficult to say what UA's plans are for China.
The rest of Asia (including NRT/HND)and the South Pacific: United is looking forward to resuming all routes as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.
Central America: United has already increase our marketshare in Central America during the pandemic will continue to look for opportunities to grow our presence in Central America from our IAH (which will remain UA's main gateway), LAX, EWR hubs, and surprisingly from our IAD hub.
South America: There was no talk of growth to South America, (United says America will still be the king in the US-South America market once the pandemic is over), but United is looking forward to resuming all of our pre-pandemic flight as soon as restrictions are lifted and demand returns.


Is there a link for this?


All of the most recent information I've posted was discussed in several United town halls. Depending on if you work for United and what department you work in you will either get an invite to the town hall or not.


Thank you
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3400
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:41 am

UA857 wrote:
flight152 wrote:
UA857 wrote:

For replacing the 77W why not go for the 779? After all the 777X needs a US customer as it is the only one of the four pioneering next-gen widebodies 787, A350, A330neo, and 777X not to have a US customer and UA being the launch customer of the OG 777 it would be more fitting for UA to order the 779 over the A35J. UA could order up 30 779s to replace the 77Ws and 45 A359s to replace the 77Es. The 779 can deal with the high-end routes out of SFO and EWR, then the A359 can do the ULH routes. Maybe they could even de-rate and demote the 77W to domestic service to replace the 77G. Similar to how Asian carriers are using the 77W for regional/domestic service.


Why would you think United would be looking at replacing the 77W? They are brand new.


Given that the 77W is obsolete. UA should use the 77W as a stopgap until the 779 enters production.


1) the 77W is hardly obsolete, and
2) the 779 is in production.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4323
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:49 am

I must be really missing something? I get that the A321XLR and to a degree the 73M-10 replacing the 757’s, I have read about further optimization of the A321XLR wing, and Boeing developing a new NB to finally replace the 737MAX.

But it’s been ages since I read anything here about UA replacing the 767? Won’t they need something between the A321XLR and a 788?

I could be wrong (easily) but it just seems as if United is getting more out their 767-300’s today than ever before.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:53 am

Oscar Munoz has officially retired from United his one year as executive chairman of the board has come to an end.

After his retirement he let employees in on a few secrets and one that caught my attention and even The Points Guy brought up this point as well and it has to do with United Global First and the Polaris decision.

When Oscar made the decision to drop Global First every s-UA employee myself included thought he had made a terrible mistake. I didn't know he was accosted by both flight attendants and pilots who questioned his judgement and I also didn't know United was only selling 15% of our Global First seats. He did admit there were some routes where United sold a higher percentage of first class seats but when he had his team take the entire s-UA widebody fleet and average out how many seats we were selling it came out to 15%, this despite the fact Global First was always full. As the team did research what they found out was s-UA was giving way more Global First seats (basically for free as upgrades or to employees) than we were selling and having Global First on every s-UA widebody really hindered s-UA from expanding because when an airline expands into a new market, revenue management has to take into account how much money the entire aircraft will generate on the route. If you couldn't sell first class then that was factored into s-UA's decision on whether or not to lauch a route. He stated s-UA had no problem selling business class but at some point people just stopped buying first class and s-UA continued to just give it away. He stated United could have gone with and install Global First on a small sub-fleet of widebodies for those few routes where United was actually selling first class seats but he felt it was best to just get rid of Global First altogether.

My questions are how did s-UA let things get that bad or that out of hand? Was the demise of Global First something s-UA could have prevented if s-UA would have paid more attention to the actual number of people buying first class v.s. just focusing on the number of seats occupied in first class? If s-UA would have limited Global First to a small select fleet like what American did could Global First have survive the merger?
 
SunsetLimited
Posts: 1008
Joined: Thu Oct 02, 2014 6:20 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 1:11 am

Any information regarding the PTV installation on older narrow bodies that was mentioned in a previous thread?!
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 1:28 am

SunsetLimited wrote:
Any information regarding the PTV installation on older narrow bodies that was mentioned in a previous thread?!

It was never confirmed.
 
UA857
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 2:20 am

gwrudolph wrote:
UA857 wrote:
flight152 wrote:

Why would you think United would be looking at replacing the 77W? They are brand new.


Given that the 77W is obsolete. UA should use the 77W as a stopgap until the 779 enters production.


Regardless, those are brand new green aircraft with a lot of useful life. The 77W replacement plan is the least of their concerns in the near term. Before they worry about the 77Ws, they have to strategize on the fleet replacement plans for the 763, 757, A319/320, and 772s. Those 77Ws will likely be in service until the late 2030s


Couldn´t UA order the 779 and then de-rate and demote then 77W to domestic service to replace the 77A given that the 77W was originally meant to be a replacement for the 77A replacement on long-haul routes.
Last edited by UA857 on Fri May 28, 2021 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6475
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 2:49 am

UA857 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:
UA857 wrote:

Given that the 77W is obsolete. UA should use the 77W as a stopgap until the 779 enters production.


Regardless, those are brand new green aircraft with a lot of useful life. The 77W replacement plan is the least of their concerns in the near term. Before they worry about the 77Ws, they have to strategize on the fleet replacement plans for the 763, 757, A319/320, and 772s. Those 77Ws will likely be in service until the late 2030s


Couldn´t UA order the 779 and then de-rate and demote then 77W to domestic service to replace the 77A given that the 77W was originally meant to be a replacement for the 77A replacement on long-haul routes.


They could. They could also take all their money and set it on fire.
 
UA857
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 2:53 am

Can the 764 be configured into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A or will they not have enough seats to fill in for the 77A?
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 4607
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 3:35 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
EWR 500? I think EWR as a whole was at 650 departures pre pandemic, JetBlue and United are easily gonna bring that number back up to 575, Spirit, Delta, and American and were already well passed 650. Its certainly gonna be interesting to watch in terms of gates and slot allocations. If United moves fast they’ll be golden but if NK gets ahead UA won’t break 500.

I'm not sure what you mean by slot allocations since EWR isn't a slot controlled airport. I guess you mean interesting to watch to see if it's headed that way? If UA is pushing for that level of operations, I would say that it will become a definite possibility. They ran an excess number of operations pre pandemic to hedge their bets in the event a decision was made to make the airport slot controlled — a larger operation would yield them a higher number of slots in an allocation. Two years ago, they were happy to cram in ops until the wheels fell off, so it looks like we're headed for that again. I don't really know how much more the airport can handle beyond where they were running two years ago.
 
flyer56
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 4:07 am

jayunited wrote:
Oscar Munoz has officially retired from United his one year as executive chairman of the board has come to an end.

After his retirement he let employees in on a few secrets and one that caught my attention and even The Points Guy brought up this point as well and it has to do with United Global First and the Polaris decision.

When Oscar made the decision to drop Global First every s-UA employee myself included thought he had made a terrible mistake. I didn't know he was accosted by both flight attendants and pilots who questioned his judgement and I also didn't know United was only selling 15% of our Global First seats. He did admit there were some routes where United sold a higher percentage of first class seats but when he had his team take the entire s-UA widebody fleet and average out how many seats we were selling it came out to 15%, this despite the fact Global First was always full. As the team did research what they found out was s-UA was giving way more Global First seats (basically for free as upgrades or to employees) than we were selling and having Global First on every s-UA widebody really hindered s-UA from expanding because when an airline expands into a new market, revenue management has to take into account how much money the entire aircraft will generate on the route. If you couldn't sell first class then that was factored into s-UA's decision on whether or not to lauch a route. He stated s-UA had no problem selling business class but at some point people just stopped buying first class and s-UA continued to just give it away. He stated United could have gone with and install Global First on a small sub-fleet of widebodies for those few routes where United was actually selling first class seats but he felt it was best to just get rid of Global First altogether.

My questions are how did s-UA let things get that bad or that out of hand? Was the demise of Global First something s-UA could have prevented if s-UA would have paid more attention to the actual number of people buying first class v.s. just focusing on the number of seats occupied in first class? If s-UA would have limited Global First to a small select fleet like what American did could Global First have survive the merger?


From a customer and long time GS perspective, I have to reluctantly admit that Oscar was right. Polaris today is better than any version of Global First. The Polaris Lounges are better than the old IFLs. I authorize business travel in business class, but I could never see paying more for some version of first class above Polaris. The only shortcomings of Polaris are that the cabins and lounges are big and wide open whereas the old IFLs and Global First cabins were a bit more intimate. But honestly that does not move the needle enough. And having a true international FC cabin on flights to CTU or KIX does not make sense. In fact I don't think most international routes could support international FC.

Could United have retained GF on key routes like NYC-LHR or SFO-LHR? Maybe, but that means maintaining a subfleet just for these routes and I don't have any idea how complicated that is.

You ask how United let things get that bad. It wasn't United, it was the market. Every airline, including the few who continue offering international FC, were struggling with it. As a customer you get to a point where booking a corporate jet becomes more economical and more flexible. You can get several passengers on a private flight for essentially the same price as one. Compare to buying three FC tickets and you will soon see.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 8:25 am

Didn’t a lot of that decision making predate Oscar? I thought the decision to do away with GF was set during the Smisek years. From what I remember, Oscar helped come up with the Polaris name and maybe pushed the quality of the product a little higher, but the new J seat was several years in development.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 11:50 am

UA857 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:
UA857 wrote:

Given that the 77W is obsolete. UA should use the 77W as a stopgap until the 779 enters production.


Regardless, those are brand new green aircraft with a lot of useful life. The 77W replacement plan is the least of their concerns in the near term. Before they worry about the 77Ws, they have to strategize on the fleet replacement plans for the 763, 757, A319/320, and 772s. Those 77Ws will likely be in service until the late 2030s


Couldn´t UA order the 779 and then de-rate and demote then 77W to domestic service to replace the 77A given that the 77W was originally meant to be a replacement for the 77A replacement on long-haul routes.

The 77W was ordered to replace the 747-400’s, not the 777A’s.
 
RTWin10
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 9:15 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:05 pm

intotheair wrote:
Didn’t a lot of that decision making predate Oscar? I thought the decision to do away with GF was set during the Smisek years. From what I remember, Oscar helped come up with the Polaris name and maybe pushed the quality of the product a little higher, but the new J seat was several years in development.


Oscar was a board member of United Continental Holdings at the time... maybe that’s what he means?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14535
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:24 pm

UA857 wrote:
Can the 764 be configured into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A or will they not have enough seats to fill in for the 77A?


Continental originally had 4 767-400s in a domestic/Hawaii configuration, the other 12 were in a premium International configuration. Delta originally had all of their 767-400s in domestic service, they even flew them from LaGuardia. So obviously it can be done, however it's smaller than the domestic 777.
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2388
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:29 pm

jayunited wrote:
My questions are how did s-UA let things get that bad or that out of hand? Was the demise of Global First something s-UA could have prevented if s-UA would have paid more attention to the actual number of people buying first class v.s. just focusing on the number of seats occupied in first class? If s-UA would have limited Global First to a small select fleet like what American did could Global First have survive the merger?


I don’t know that UA really had that much of a choice. Before Polaris was launched, UA had two different business class seats: a dated, high-density J product with backwards-facing seats that was unpopular with a lot of passengers, and an okay-ish middle-of-the-road J seat. The pmUA product was probably good when it was launched, but they also had a Global First cabin for those that wanted something better. The pmCO product was their top-of-the-line service. Obviously, post-merger, UA needed to make things consistent, and neither pre-merger product was going to suffice going forward.

With Polaris, UA wanted to leapfrog a lot of their competitors’ J products. This meant a premium business class. However, that then presents the challenge of how you differentiate first class. If you differentiate it too much, then you basically price it out of almost everyone’s budget (especially if, as flyer56 notes, it just becomes better to charter your own business jet). Differentiate it too little, and then what’s the point of even upgrading?

Many have noted that the business class of today far exceeds the first class of yesterday in pretty much every category except for exclusivity (and there aren’t enough people willing to pay enough extra for “exclusivity” to make up for the potential revenue lost; those that are are probably flying private anyway). The number of corporate travel policies that allow F vs. J are fairly small. This means, as noted, a potential subfleet for a small set of niche markets. But then that eliminates not only fleet flexibility (one plane goes tech, other plane wrong configuration), but also planning flexibility. What happens if there’s a sudden surge in demand on the route you’ve designated for having first, and you don’t have the slots to add more flights? Right now, you can upgauge (say, 787 to 77W), but if you had a dedicated GF fleet, you’re pretty much stuck (or, the reverse if you decided to put GF on the 77W; what if there’s a drop in demand due to economic factors, you either have to reallocate your GF service completely, or fly with empty capacity just to maintain GF service on that route).

The trend for international F has been declining for years, and UA, based on the numbers, clearly saw it as impractical to try to maintain it. Having flown Polaris a few times, the old (both UA and CO) J seats a few times, and having lucked into one op-up to GF on a trans-Pacific flight, I love the Polaris hard product. Selfishly speaking, if eliminating GF allowed them to install a few more Polaris seats, I’m fine with that.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14535
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 12:34 pm

UA857 wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:
UA857 wrote:

Given that the 77W is obsolete. UA should use the 77W as a stopgap until the 779 enters production.


Regardless, those are brand new green aircraft with a lot of useful life. The 77W replacement plan is the least of their concerns in the near term. Before they worry about the 77Ws, they have to strategize on the fleet replacement plans for the 763, 757, A319/320, and 772s. Those 77Ws will likely be in service until the late 2030s


Couldn´t UA order the 779 and then de-rate and demote then 77W to domestic service to replace the 77A given that the 77W was originally meant to be a replacement for the 77A replacement on long-haul routes.


There are some relatively young 77W's being parked around the world due to the pandemic. If the confidence is high that we are truly coming out of this downturn in travel why not grab as many of those newer 77W's out there. They can replace the Pratt powered 777-222ERs in international service, and then de-rate those to replace the 77As in domestic service. They already started with four 777-222ERs being reconfigured into domestic service.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1647
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 1:19 pm

jayunited wrote:
Oscar Munoz has officially retired from United his one year as executive chairman of the board has come to an end.

After his retirement he let employees in on a few secrets and one that caught my attention and even The Points Guy brought up this point as well and it has to do with United Global First and the Polaris decision.

When Oscar made the decision to drop Global First every s-UA employee myself included thought he had made a terrible mistake. I didn't know he was accosted by both flight attendants and pilots who questioned his judgement and I also didn't know United was only selling 15% of our Global First seats. He did admit there were some routes where United sold a higher percentage of first class seats but when he had his team take the entire s-UA widebody fleet and average out how many seats we were selling it came out to 15%, this despite the fact Global First was always full. As the team did research what they found out was s-UA was giving way more Global First seats (basically for free as upgrades or to employees) than we were selling and having Global First on every s-UA widebody really hindered s-UA from expanding because when an airline expands into a new market, revenue management has to take into account how much money the entire aircraft will generate on the route. If you couldn't sell first class then that was factored into s-UA's decision on whether or not to lauch a route. He stated s-UA had no problem selling business class but at some point people just stopped buying first class and s-UA continued to just give it away. He stated United could have gone with and install Global First on a small sub-fleet of widebodies for those few routes where United was actually selling first class seats but he felt it was best to just get rid of Global First altogether.

My questions are how did s-UA let things get that bad or that out of hand? Was the demise of Global First something s-UA could have prevented if s-UA would have paid more attention to the actual number of people buying first class v.s. just focusing on the number of seats occupied in first class? If s-UA would have limited Global First to a small select fleet like what American did could Global First have survive the merger?

As others have said, it wasn't United, it was the market. In the last successful generation of most 3 class airline's layouts, the most important differentiation was First Class had completely lie flat beds, where the best J seats had angled flat, and many still had recliners. Getting that completely flat bed was a differentiation worth paying for, for those that could afford it. But once airlines started offering lie flat in J, a (debatably) upgraded service and tiny bit more exclusivity just weren't enough to justify the difference in price. When J was introduced in the 70's, it was basically where Premium Economy is now, and it just got better and better, until the margin of difference was too small. Let's see in 40 years if Premium Economy (probably with a different name by then) has moved up market enough to Squeeze out Business Class.
 
VC10er
Posts: 4323
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 1:26 pm

United’s International First Class circa 1991/92 etc had a big fat square lounge chair (grey fabric w white and maroon stripes) and was ugly compared to the glamour of their international competition. But, UA did do a fabulous job with service; carving a roast next to your seat, and truly rare, medium or well, lobster tails and a fabulous “sides” cart. There was a caviar spread with big flowers or ice sculpture- but only on 747’s in and out of Asia. The service was less elaborate to Europe given that it likely was not a 747. But even UA was really spectacular (but I was also very young and not jaded) Although after a few FC rides on more glamorous airlines, it seemed so apparent that UA was fine being “not as glamorous but just glamorous enough” - I think UA’s GF could have sold more than 15% had they seriously matched or surpassed most of their international competition, they just did not go that extra distance. I always felt that their insecurities showed. “Why buy GF on United (or AA) if you could get Singapore or Japan Airlines or Air France or Swiss etc?”

While I truly loved the space of their last GF seat, if they had that seat in the early 1990’s, they would have been way ahead of Singapore! But NOBODY had true private lie flats back then.

I don’t believe that being a busy sky warrior requires more luxury than the current Polaris. It’s more than fine! At least for me. But for those who do really want MORE, wouldn’t they spend that money flying a 5 Star airline? They don’t need the miles or the status if they pay for a 5 Star First Class seat.

The future problem will be that “all things must change” and 10 years from now the current Polaris will be dated - and yet I don’t know how much MORE is feasible for a Biz Class seat (beyond a little door) without the seat becoming bigger and even more private. Probably food and service will become more critical. How all that math will work, I do not know.

But as for “today” almost any airline’s business class is “enough” for 14+ hours.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 1:40 pm

STT757 wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Can the 764 be configured into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A or will they not have enough seats to fill in for the 77A?


Continental originally had 4 767-400s in a domestic/Hawaii configuration, the other 12 were in a premium International configuration. Delta originally had all of their 767-400s in domestic service, they even flew them from LaGuardia. So obviously it can be done, however it's smaller than the domestic 777.

That configuration was 20 BF (which were 5 across 55" pitch recliners) and 236 Y. When converted the front 2 lavs were removed.
Since the 764 has an issue with Door 2 causing the loss of several Polaris seats when converted from Diamond, a denser configuration could have Polaris seats reduced by 2 rows (6 seats) to add 2 or 3 rows of PP in front of door 2. Note Polaris passengers would have to walk past PP to use the lavs.

To add an extra row of Y, you'd have to reduce E+ to 3 rows at 34", and the rest of the middle section of the aircraft would have to go 30" pitch, which is below UA's current international standard of 31" pitch. There are at least some seats on the new 752 configuration at 30" pitch.

With such a configuration the 764 could be in the range of 29-30Polaris, 12-18 PP, 28E+ and 190Y, total 259-266. It would add seats and provide versatility for most routes the 764 could fly TATL, transcon and Hawaii. But still about 100 seats fewer than the 772A.
Last edited by calpsafltskeds on Fri May 28, 2021 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
UA857
Posts: 718
Joined: Thu Aug 10, 2017 3:41 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 1:41 pm

STT757 wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Can the 764 be configured into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A or will they not have enough seats to fill in for the 77A?


Continental originally had 4 767-400s in a domestic/Hawaii configuration, the other 12 were in a premium International configuration. Delta originally had all of their 767-400s in domestic service, they even flew them from LaGuardia. So obviously it can be done, however it's smaller than the domestic 777.


Does this mean that an HD 764 will carry fewer passengers than the 77A?
 
VC10er
Posts: 4323
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 6:25 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q2 2021

Fri May 28, 2021 1:45 pm

The next big step for UNITED (and this credit does go to Oscar) is the UNITED “brand”. United today is not even close to how battered that brand name was.
Kirby must use the pandemic catastrophe to really shed all of United’s checkered past.
If people believe in UNITED as the best then they will fly it with the premium happily. Delta did an astonishing job turning its brand into a powerful and loved brand...so can United. Polaris (the entire Polaris experience) should never ever get watered down. It has done so much, paid so much rent into the mother brand.
Next is to create the Domestic Polaris experience to draw in the premium business fliers. Being the best domestic long flight First Class brand will truly help round out UA’s premium product, and brand. Being even better to their economy passengers would really help. The seats will not get better but service and attention to details will. Imagine if United PE and EconomyPLUS fliers on 3–6 hour flights had a blanket, pillow, and tray of amenities to choose from with eyeshades, ear plugs and toothbrush? (And pilot wing pins for kids..as PanAm did!?!)

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