Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1365
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:22 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
Its been removed, but this photo is directly from the website. Looks like it wasn't suppose to get out.

That could also mean the information is incomplete, e.g. someone copy/pasted a DirecTV 737-800 and was updating it for the 737 MAX 8, hadn't yet filled in final IFE, and accidentally hit publish.
 
User avatar
ikolkyo
Posts: 3270
Joined: Tue Nov 05, 2013 8:43 pm

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 6:30 pm

adamblang wrote:
ikolkyo wrote:
Its been removed, but this photo is directly from the website. Looks like it wasn't suppose to get out.

That could also mean the information is incomplete, e.g. someone copy/pasted a DirecTV 737-800 and was updating it for the 737 MAX 8, hadn't yet filled in final IFE, and accidentally hit publish.


Considering that Direct TV is specifically mentioned on the 738 version and there was different wording on the MAX 8 layout, I doubt it. Especially when other minor details are different between the 2 aircraft and were already updated to show it.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 7:07 pm

atrude777 wrote:

I am STILL not seeing a confirmation of this from United (Internally) or on the UA's Website.

I see the screenshot, but when you go to the 737-800 in Aircraft Information, there's no Max 8 Seat Map.

I did United.com-->Travel Information--> Airport and Aircraft Info--> Aircraft-->737-800 Only 3 versions, no Max 8....

Alex


I saw the photo on United.com this morning I was a bit surprised to see them release the seat map this early but the photo is legit and United was showing MAX 8 with seatback entertainment as well as personal devise entertainment. I'm not sure why United keeps playing these games first the video on twitter and now with the seat map on United.com.
 
codc10
Posts: 3191
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 8:00 pm

jayunited wrote:
atrude777 wrote:

I am STILL not seeing a confirmation of this from United (Internally) or on the UA's Website.

I see the screenshot, but when you go to the 737-800 in Aircraft Information, there's no Max 8 Seat Map.

I did United.com-->Travel Information--> Airport and Aircraft Info--> Aircraft-->737-800 Only 3 versions, no Max 8....

Alex


I saw the photo on United.com this morning I was a bit surprised to see them release the seat map this early but the photo is legit and United was showing MAX 8 with seatback entertainment as well as personal devise entertainment. I'm not sure why United keeps playing these games first the video on twitter and now with the seat map on United.com.


Probably my biggest gripe with United's messaging... it's always "stay tuned" or "we'll be able to share more on that soon".

I understand the need to strike a balance between Polaris-type advance hype (years) and greater immediacy (entering service today) but UA has to know this has been widely discussed in the airline social media sphere, and it would be wise to address it sooner rather than later.
 
PITFlyer330
Posts: 150
Joined: Fri May 14, 2021 4:56 am

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

Mon Jun 07, 2021 10:15 pm

Gorgeous video of the inaugural jnb landing https://twitter.com/ByERussell/status/1 ... 58821?s=20
born and raised in PIT. AUS second home. Currently in asia
 
jayunited
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:27 am

gwrudolph wrote:
If in fact the 78X is slightly more capable than the 777ER, it would seem to me there are only a handful of flights where the 78X can’t cover the range, and most of them don’t need the additional seats over the 789. BTW, a few of those cited were stretches for the 777ER at certain times of the year I believe


The 78X is not more capable than a 77E once you cross into the long haul routes and I'll do my best to try and explain but I am by no means an expert. First I'll start with both the 789 and 78X both of these aircraft have the same MTOG at 560,000 LBS, and the same max fuel capacity which is 226,900 LBS (this does vary depending on density) . However the 78X does have a higher OEW at 300,429 LBS vs the 789 at 288,210 and a higher MZFW at 425,000LBS vs 400,000 LBS for the 789. (These OEW numbers are actual real world numbers models with Polaris/PE seats not Boeing's generic numbers.)

One of the issues with the 78X is if you use all 425,000 LBS of ZFW you will have to restricted the TOG. For instance if you use all 425,000 LBS of ZFW you would need to restrict the TOG to 535,774, and vice versa if you go with MTOG at 560,000 your ZFW is limited to 396,700.

So what does this mean? It means the longer the flight, the more fuel required to operate the flight the less ZFW you have available. However shorter flight let's say with-in that 7-9 hour range, you can operate at up to MZFW but with a reduced TOG. Any flight shorter than 7 hours can operate at both MZFW and MTOG because the required fuel load is so low but the chances of you hitting MTOG on a short flight is little to none because you will run out of ZFW before you hit MTOG.

Take TLV-EWR an 11 hour flight, that route normally needs MTOG at 560,000 LBS but the available ZFW is restricted to only 396,700 with an average gate fuel around 164,000 LBS. Take out the taxi fuel normally around 1,000 LBS your cleared fuel is 163,000 LBs

United's 78Xs have 318 passenger that translates into 62,010 LBS if we used standard winter weight of 195 LBS per passenger (the summer weight is 190 LBS per pax).
A lot of these long haul routes normally get around 500 bags ( a few are heavy bags) but lets say no heavy bags that equals 15,000 LBS at 30 LBS per bag.

So we have OEW 300,429 LBS + pax 62,010 LBS + bags 15,000 LBS = 377,439 LBS this is your ZFW.
Now on a route like TLV-EWR United still has ZFW remaining to we can take cargo 19,261 LBS if the flight is 100% full with 500 bags.

However as stage length get longer and the required fuel load get higher the ZFW has to be restricted even more on a 78X. So at an 11 hour stage length we are at 396,700 LBS ZFW. SFO-AKL another route UA used the 78X on had a stage lenght around 12.5 hours the available ZFW never exceeded 383,500 LBS ZFW. However out SFO-AKL flights would normally exceed 500 bags because leisure routes normally have a higher bag count than EWR-TLV-EWR which is a leisure but also a business route for United Airlines. Also on SFO-AKL-SFO United could not carry any cargo on the 78X there wasn't much ZFW remaining.

Now compare that to the 77E which could handle a 14+ hour flight with a full passenger cabin, plus all their bags, and cargo. Even though UA's 77Es accommodate less passengers at 273 United could still carry cargo on the 77E when that aircraft was on our SFO-AKL-SFO route. The 77E when operating at or near MTOG has a higher available ZFW when compared to a 78X.

I think part of the problem with the 78X comes down to the size of the wings and relatively small wing tanks compared to the 77E. The 78X with a wing span almost identical to the 77E can only hold 36,550 LBS of fuel in each wing so that is around 73,100 LBS of fuel in the wings anything above that amount has to go in the center tank. Compare that to the 77Es whose wings can hold 62,850 LBS of fuel which equals 125,700 LBS of fuel in the wings. The smaller wing tanks on the 78X effect the available ZFW as your flight time increases.

The 78X in its current form is max out, if Boeing is going to increase the capability of the 78X the aircraft at the very least will need a higher MTOG which would require larger wing, larger wing tanks, a stronger wing box, and larger landing gear. This isn't a simply tweak, we are talking a major redesign like what we are seeing Boeing do with the 777-9 vs the 77W and not what Boeing did to turn the 77A into the 77E. I have no way to compare a 78X to an A359 in the real world but it is clear that as the flight time and fuel increases the pendulum begins to swing in favor of the 77E or the 789. The sweet spot for the 78X is any flight with a flight time less than 11.5 hours because the 78X is more capable than a 77E on those routes. Anything higher than 11.5 hours you going to run into problems especially if your talking about heavy cargo route.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 565
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:54 am

jayunited wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:
If in fact the 78X is slightly more capable than the 777ER, it would seem to me there are only a handful of flights where the 78X can’t cover the range, and most of them don’t need the additional seats over the 789. BTW, a few of those cited were stretches for the 777ER at certain times of the year I believe


The 78X is not more capable than a 77E once you cross into the long haul routes and I'll do my best to try and explain but I am by no means an expert. First I'll start with both the 789 and 78X both of these aircraft have the same MTOG at 560,000 LBS, and the same max fuel capacity which is 226,900 LBS (this does vary depending on density) . However the 78X does have a higher OEW at 300,429 LBS vs the 789 at 288,210 and a higher MZFW at 425,000LBS vs 400,000 LBS for the 789. (These OEW numbers are actual real world numbers models with Polaris/PE seats not Boeing's generic numbers.)

One of the issues with the 78X is if you use all 425,000 LBS of ZFW you will have to restricted the TOG. For instance if you use all 425,000 LBS of ZFW you would need to restrict the TOG to 535,774, and vice versa if you go with MTOG at 560,000 your ZFW is limited to 396,700.

So what does this mean? It means the longer the flight, the more fuel required to operate the flight the less ZFW you have available. However shorter flight let's say with-in that 7-9 hour range, you can operate at up to MZFW but with a reduced TOG. Any flight shorter than 7 hours can operate at both MZFW and MTOG because the required fuel load is so low but the chances of you hitting MTOG on a short flight is little to none because you will run out of ZFW before you hit MTOG.

Take TLV-EWR an 11 hour flight, that route normally needs MTOG at 560,000 LBS but the available ZFW is restricted to only 396,700 with an average gate fuel around 164,000 LBS. Take out the taxi fuel normally around 1,000 LBS your cleared fuel is 163,000 LBs

United's 78Xs have 318 passenger that translates into 62,010 LBS if we used standard winter weight of 195 LBS per passenger (the summer weight is 190 LBS per pax).
A lot of these long haul routes normally get around 500 bags ( a few are heavy bags) but lets say no heavy bags that equals 15,000 LBS at 30 LBS per bag.

So we have OEW 300,429 LBS + pax 62,010 LBS + bags 15,000 LBS = 377,439 LBS this is your ZFW.
Now on a route like TLV-EWR United still has ZFW remaining to we can take cargo 19,261 LBS if the flight is 100% full with 500 bags.

However as stage length get longer and the required fuel load get higher the ZFW has to be restricted even more on a 78X. So at an 11 hour stage length we are at 396,700 LBS ZFW. SFO-AKL another route UA used the 78X on had a stage lenght around 12.5 hours the available ZFW never exceeded 383,500 LBS ZFW. However out SFO-AKL flights would normally exceed 500 bags because leisure routes normally have a higher bag count than EWR-TLV-EWR which is a leisure but also a business route for United Airlines. Also on SFO-AKL-SFO United could not carry any cargo on the 78X there wasn't much ZFW remaining.

Now compare that to the 77E which could handle a 14+ hour flight with a full passenger cabin, plus all their bags, and cargo. Even though UA's 77Es accommodate less passengers at 273 United could still carry cargo on the 77E when that aircraft was on our SFO-AKL-SFO route. The 77E when operating at or near MTOG has a higher available ZFW when compared to a 78X.

I think part of the problem with the 78X comes down to the size of the wings and relatively small wing tanks compared to the 77E. The 78X with a wing span almost identical to the 77E can only hold 36,550 LBS of fuel in each wing so that is around 73,100 LBS of fuel in the wings anything above that amount has to go in the center tank. Compare that to the 77Es whose wings can hold 62,850 LBS of fuel which equals 125,700 LBS of fuel in the wings. The smaller wing tanks on the 78X effect the available ZFW as your flight time increases.

The 78X in its current form is max out, if Boeing is going to increase the capability of the 78X the aircraft at the very least will need a higher MTOG which would require larger wing, larger wing tanks, a stronger wing box, and larger landing gear. This isn't a simply tweak, we are talking a major redesign like what we are seeing Boeing do with the 777-9 vs the 77W and not what Boeing did to turn the 77A into the 77E. I have no way to compare a 78X to an A359 in the real world but it is clear that as the flight time and fuel increases the pendulum begins to swing in favor of the 77E or the 789. The sweet spot for the 78X is any flight with a flight time less than 11.5 hours because the 78X is more capable than a 77E on those routes. Anything higher than 11.5 hours you going to run into problems especially if your talking about heavy cargo route.


This explanation is very good Jayunited.
 
audidudi
Posts: 2937
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:25 am

Just curious...what does MTOG stand for? In dispatch we used MTOW, but not sure if MTOG is the same.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1884
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:15 am

gwrudolph wrote:
jayunited wrote:
gwrudolph wrote:
If in fact the 78X is slightly more capable than the 777ER, it would seem to me there are only a handful of flights where the 78X can’t cover the range, and most of them don’t need the additional seats over the 789. BTW, a few of those cited were stretches for the 777ER at certain times of the year I believe


The 78X is not more capable than a 77E once you cross into the long haul routes and I'll do my best to try and explain but I am by no means an expert. First I'll start with both the 789 and 78X both of these aircraft have the same MTOG at 560,000 LBS, and the same max fuel capacity which is 226,900 LBS (this does vary depending on density) . However the 78X does have a higher OEW at 300,429 LBS vs the 789 at 288,210 and a higher MZFW at 425,000LBS vs 400,000 LBS for the 789. (These OEW numbers are actual real world numbers models with Polaris/PE seats not Boeing's generic numbers.)

One of the issues with the 78X is if you use all 425,000 LBS of ZFW you will have to restricted the TOG. For instance if you use all 425,000 LBS of ZFW you would need to restrict the TOG to 535,774, and vice versa if you go with MTOG at 560,000 your ZFW is limited to 396,700.

So what does this mean? It means the longer the flight, the more fuel required to operate the flight the less ZFW you have available. However shorter flight let's say with-in that 7-9 hour range, you can operate at up to MZFW but with a reduced TOG. Any flight shorter than 7 hours can operate at both MZFW and MTOG because the required fuel load is so low but the chances of you hitting MTOG on a short flight is little to none because you will run out of ZFW before you hit MTOG.

Take TLV-EWR an 11 hour flight, that route normally needs MTOG at 560,000 LBS but the available ZFW is restricted to only 396,700 with an average gate fuel around 164,000 LBS. Take out the taxi fuel normally around 1,000 LBS your cleared fuel is 163,000 LBs

United's 78Xs have 318 passenger that translates into 62,010 LBS if we used standard winter weight of 195 LBS per passenger (the summer weight is 190 LBS per pax).
A lot of these long haul routes normally get around 500 bags ( a few are heavy bags) but lets say no heavy bags that equals 15,000 LBS at 30 LBS per bag.

So we have OEW 300,429 LBS + pax 62,010 LBS + bags 15,000 LBS = 377,439 LBS this is your ZFW.
Now on a route like TLV-EWR United still has ZFW remaining to we can take cargo 19,261 LBS if the flight is 100% full with 500 bags.

However as stage length get longer and the required fuel load get higher the ZFW has to be restricted even more on a 78X. So at an 11 hour stage length we are at 396,700 LBS ZFW. SFO-AKL another route UA used the 78X on had a stage lenght around 12.5 hours the available ZFW never exceeded 383,500 LBS ZFW. However out SFO-AKL flights would normally exceed 500 bags because leisure routes normally have a higher bag count than EWR-TLV-EWR which is a leisure but also a business route for United Airlines. Also on SFO-AKL-SFO United could not carry any cargo on the 78X there wasn't much ZFW remaining.

Now compare that to the 77E which could handle a 14+ hour flight with a full passenger cabin, plus all their bags, and cargo. Even though UA's 77Es accommodate less passengers at 273 United could still carry cargo on the 77E when that aircraft was on our SFO-AKL-SFO route. The 77E when operating at or near MTOG has a higher available ZFW when compared to a 78X.

I think part of the problem with the 78X comes down to the size of the wings and relatively small wing tanks compared to the 77E. The 78X with a wing span almost identical to the 77E can only hold 36,550 LBS of fuel in each wing so that is around 73,100 LBS of fuel in the wings anything above that amount has to go in the center tank. Compare that to the 77Es whose wings can hold 62,850 LBS of fuel which equals 125,700 LBS of fuel in the wings. The smaller wing tanks on the 78X effect the available ZFW as your flight time increases.

The 78X in its current form is max out, if Boeing is going to increase the capability of the 78X the aircraft at the very least will need a higher MTOG which would require larger wing, larger wing tanks, a stronger wing box, and larger landing gear. This isn't a simply tweak, we are talking a major redesign like what we are seeing Boeing do with the 777-9 vs the 77W and not what Boeing did to turn the 77A into the 77E. I have no way to compare a 78X to an A359 in the real world but it is clear that as the flight time and fuel increases the pendulum begins to swing in favor of the 77E or the 789. The sweet spot for the 78X is any flight with a flight time less than 11.5 hours because the 78X is more capable than a 77E on those routes. Anything higher than 11.5 hours you going to run into problems especially if your talking about heavy cargo route.


This explanation is very good Jayunited.


+1. What a great and informative post!
 
User avatar
Aresxerexade
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:08 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:48 am

ikolkyo wrote:
Appears UA is wasting no time in getting the MAX 8 in service, it rolled off of the line just a few days ago.
Details on configuration and routes below.

The picture mentions seatback AVOD and PDE. Looks like the rumors were true

UNITED's Boeing 737 MAX 8 to enter revenue service on 15JUL21, Houston – Newark and Houston – Las Vegas.

Configuration is C16Y150, identical to Boeing 737-800

Image
https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/stat ... 1346071552
https://twitter.com/theaeronetwork/stat ... 17/photo/1


This is fantastic!
 
phllax
Posts: 690
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:53 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:03 am

jayunited wrote:
atrude777 wrote:

I am STILL not seeing a confirmation of this from United (Internally) or on the UA's Website.

I see the screenshot, but when you go to the 737-800 in Aircraft Information, there's no Max 8 Seat Map.

I did United.com-->Travel Information--> Airport and Aircraft Info--> Aircraft-->737-800 Only 3 versions, no Max 8....

Alex


I saw the photo on United.com this morning I was a bit surprised to see them release the seat map this early but the photo is legit and United was showing MAX 8 with seatback entertainment as well as personal devise entertainment. I'm not sure why United keeps playing these games first the video on twitter and now with the seat map on United.com.


It’s been up for a least a week.
 
ORDnHKG
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:29 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:03 am

UA857 wrote:
Back to my question. Could UA convert the 764 into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A? If so UA could keep and reduce the BusinessFirst seats in F and add seats and remove AVOD in Y.


They could remove 4 rows of J then add about 6 rows of E+ in front of door 2, the place where E+ was can add one or two rows of Y become E- but that's about it, come to a total of about 280 seats, but still far short of 364 seats on 77G/77M
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:18 pm

ORDnHKG wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Back to my question. Could UA convert the 764 into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A? If so UA could keep and reduce the BusinessFirst seats in F and add seats and remove AVOD in Y.


They could remove 4 rows of J then add about 6 rows of E+ in front of door 2, the place where E+ was can add one or two rows of Y become E- but that's about it, come to a total of about 280 seats, but still far short of 364 seats on 77G/77M

True, but you don't fill 364 seats every day. At 280, you can fill those seats more frequently, and add an extra 738 flight on the busiest days, increasing your capacity and frequency. If you had 364 pax each and every day, would a 77A be more efficient than a 764 and a 738? Yes. But if you have 390 people, maybe the 764 and 738 is more efficient. And if you have 270, just the 764 would be.

There's so many variables, that I think every day is a different equation.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1702
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:35 pm

cosyr wrote:
ORDnHKG wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Back to my question. Could UA convert the 764 into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A? If so UA could keep and reduce the BusinessFirst seats in F and add seats and remove AVOD in Y.


They could remove 4 rows of J then add about 6 rows of E+ in front of door 2, the place where E+ was can add one or two rows of Y become E- but that's about it, come to a total of about 280 seats, but still far short of 364 seats on 77G/77M

True, but you don't fill 364 seats every day. At 280, you can fill those seats more frequently, and add an extra 738 flight on the busiest days, increasing your capacity and frequency. If you had 364 pax each and every day, would a 77A be more efficient than a 764 and a 738? Yes. But if you have 390 people, maybe the 764 and 738 is more efficient. And if you have 270, just the 764 would be.

There's so many variables, that I think every day is a different equation.


Add in most of the routes in question are where customers pay more or chose UA if they have more frequency. 10X ORD>DEN on a 739 is better than 6x daily on 764 (or whatever routes are in question).
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 12:56 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
atrude777 wrote:
jayunited wrote:

Exactly this is great news for United customers the apparent reversal of this policy.
Hopefully there will be some announcement starting with United installing setback AVOD on all of our MAX 9s that we've already taken delivery of, followed by the installation of setback AVOD on the remainder of the narrowbody fleet.


I am STILL not seeing a confirmation of this from United (Internally) or on the UA's Website.

I see the screenshot, but when you go to the 737-800 in Aircraft Information, there's no Max 8 Seat Map.

I did United.com-->Travel Information--> Airport and Aircraft Info--> Aircraft-->737-800 Only 3 versions, no Max 8....

Alex


Its been removed, but this photo is directly from the website. Looks like it wasn't suppose to get out.


If you search for IAH to LAS on 15-July 2021, it shows up on the flight search. Flight 789 to be exact. URL below should talk you to the flight leaving Houston at 11:58am

https://www.united.com/en/us/fsr/choose-flights?d=2021-07-15&f=IAH&newHP=True&px=1&sc=7&st=bestmatches&t=LAS&taxng=1&tt=1
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14495
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 1:53 pm

Simply Flying has a breakdown of United MAX orders by type:

Currently in service:

30 737-9 MAX

On order:

40 737-8 MAX
49 737-9 MAX
92 737-10 MAX

Total MAX fleet
211

https://simpleflying.com/united-737-max-8/
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
hannah9898
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2020 12:58 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:15 pm

Is there any picture of their 737 MAX 8? I can't find any yet.
 
Pinto
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:38 pm

cosyr wrote:
ORDnHKG wrote:
UA857 wrote:
Back to my question. Could UA convert the 764 into a high-density domestic configuration to replace the 77A? If so UA could keep and reduce the BusinessFirst seats in F and add seats and remove AVOD in Y.


They could remove 4 rows of J then add about 6 rows of E+ in front of door 2, the place where E+ was can add one or two rows of Y become E- but that's about it, come to a total of about 280 seats, but still far short of 364 seats on 77G/77M

True, but you don't fill 364 seats every day. At 280, you can fill those seats more frequently, and add an extra 738 flight on the busiest days, increasing your capacity and frequency. If you had 364 pax each and every day, would a 77A be more efficient than a 764 and a 738? Yes. But if you have 390 people, maybe the 764 and 738 is more efficient. And if you have 270, just the 764 would be.

There's so many variables, that I think every day is a different equation.


My understanding is that part of the reason the 77As were being used on the routes they were was due to the issue of slots. One 77A can almost replace 2x 739 or 3x 738. So goin from 1x 77A to 1x738 and 1x 764 seems to defeat the purpose of them. While I think that making the 764 a 77A replacement isn't a terrible idea I think more than likely they won't become one. If anything they will remain in the same layout they currently are in.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 2:49 pm

Pinto wrote:
cosyr wrote:
ORDnHKG wrote:

They could remove 4 rows of J then add about 6 rows of E+ in front of door 2, the place where E+ was can add one or two rows of Y become E- but that's about it, come to a total of about 280 seats, but still far short of 364 seats on 77G/77M

True, but you don't fill 364 seats every day. At 280, you can fill those seats more frequently, and add an extra 738 flight on the busiest days, increasing your capacity and frequency. If you had 364 pax each and every day, would a 77A be more efficient than a 764 and a 738? Yes. But if you have 390 people, maybe the 764 and 738 is more efficient. And if you have 270, just the 764 would be.

There's so many variables, that I think every day is a different equation.


My understanding is that part of the reason the 77As were being used on the routes they were was due to the issue of slots. One 77A can almost replace 2x 739 or 3x 738. So goin from 1x 77A to 1x738 and 1x 764 seems to defeat the purpose of them. While I think that making the 764 a 77A replacement isn't a terrible idea I think more than likely they won't become one. If anything they will remain in the same layout they currently are in.


Where they fly the 777HD, there are no slots issues. It's hub-to-hub, volume markets (like HI), HNL to the Lower48 and GUM and most importantly Cargo. The 764's just don't have the cargo uplift of a 777, and not enough seats.
 
User avatar
NYPECO
Posts: 619
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:10 pm

hannah9898 wrote:
Is there any picture of their 737 MAX 8? I can't find any yet.


viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1455923&start=450#p22819961

This post has one. Only the rudder and winglets are painted.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1626
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:51 pm

airzim wrote:
Pinto wrote:
cosyr wrote:
True, but you don't fill 364 seats every day. At 280, you can fill those seats more frequently, and add an extra 738 flight on the busiest days, increasing your capacity and frequency. If you had 364 pax each and every day, would a 77A be more efficient than a 764 and a 738? Yes. But if you have 390 people, maybe the 764 and 738 is more efficient. And if you have 270, just the 764 would be.

There's so many variables, that I think every day is a different equation.


My understanding is that part of the reason the 77As were being used on the routes they were was due to the issue of slots. One 77A can almost replace 2x 739 or 3x 738. So goin from 1x 77A to 1x738 and 1x 764 seems to defeat the purpose of them. While I think that making the 764 a 77A replacement isn't a terrible idea I think more than likely they won't become one. If anything they will remain in the same layout they currently are in.


Where they fly the 777HD, there are no slots issues. It's hub-to-hub, volume markets (like HI), HNL to the Lower48 and GUM and most importantly Cargo. The 764's just don't have the cargo uplift of a 777, and not enough seats.

Though I would love to fly a UA 764 into DCA or LGA. It has been years since widebodies regularly flew into those airports, which used to be common for decades.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14495
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:10 pm

cosyr wrote:
airzim wrote:
Pinto wrote:

My understanding is that part of the reason the 77As were being used on the routes they were was due to the issue of slots. One 77A can almost replace 2x 739 or 3x 738. So goin from 1x 77A to 1x738 and 1x 764 seems to defeat the purpose of them. While I think that making the 764 a 77A replacement isn't a terrible idea I think more than likely they won't become one. If anything they will remain in the same layout they currently are in.


Where they fly the 777HD, there are no slots issues. It's hub-to-hub, volume markets (like HI), HNL to the Lower48 and GUM and most importantly Cargo. The 764's just don't have the cargo uplift of a 777, and not enough seats.

Though I would love to fly a UA 764 into DCA or LGA. It has been years since widebodies regularly flew into those airports, which used to be common for decades.


Except on a couple rare one off occasions, well discussed on A-net, there were never any scheduled widebody flights into DCA.

LGA had DC-10s, L1011s, A300s, 767-200s, 767-300s and 767-400 scheduled flights.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6422
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 4:13 pm

cosyr wrote:
airzim wrote:
Pinto wrote:

My understanding is that part of the reason the 77As were being used on the routes they were was due to the issue of slots. One 77A can almost replace 2x 739 or 3x 738. So goin from 1x 77A to 1x738 and 1x 764 seems to defeat the purpose of them. While I think that making the 764 a 77A replacement isn't a terrible idea I think more than likely they won't become one. If anything they will remain in the same layout they currently are in.


Where they fly the 777HD, there are no slots issues. It's hub-to-hub, volume markets (like HI), HNL to the Lower48 and GUM and most importantly Cargo. The 764's just don't have the cargo uplift of a 777, and not enough seats.

Though I would love to fly a UA 764 into DCA or LGA. It has been years since widebodies regularly flew into those airports, which used to be common for decades.


For a plane that size there would have to be capacity restrictions to DCA I would think. That runway would seem too short for a plane that size.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
wn676
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:34 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
cosyr wrote:
airzim wrote:

Where they fly the 777HD, there are no slots issues. It's hub-to-hub, volume markets (like HI), HNL to the Lower48 and GUM and most importantly Cargo. The 764's just don't have the cargo uplift of a 777, and not enough seats.

Though I would love to fly a UA 764 into DCA or LGA. It has been years since widebodies regularly flew into those airports, which used to be common for decades.


For a plane that size there would have to be capacity restrictions to DCA I would think. That runway would seem too short for a plane that size.


It’s not just the runway, the taxiway system is not designed for Group IV aircraft with wingspan larger than a B757. That is to say, subject to pavement limitations you can absolutely taxi a widebody around DCA but it’s going to require that operations are restricted on parallel taxiways/runways (in the case of the runway, IIRC it would be dependent on visibility conditions).
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4452
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:18 pm

Delta flew the 763 into DCA for the first President Obama inauguration.
HOUSTON, TEXAS
 
x1234
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 6:31 pm

How are the yields on the new UA flights to Africa? JNB, CPT, ACC, LOS? DL found out Africa is a gold-mine due to lack of competition! The rumours are true, ATL-JNB was DL's most profitable route in the ENTIRE network.
 
77H
Posts: 1580
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 11:27 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:00 pm

airzim wrote:
Pinto wrote:
cosyr wrote:
True, but you don't fill 364 seats every day. At 280, you can fill those seats more frequently, and add an extra 738 flight on the busiest days, increasing your capacity and frequency. If you had 364 pax each and every day, would a 77A be more efficient than a 764 and a 738? Yes. But if you have 390 people, maybe the 764 and 738 is more efficient. And if you have 270, just the 764 would be.

There's so many variables, that I think every day is a different equation.


My understanding is that part of the reason the 77As were being used on the routes they were was due to the issue of slots. One 77A can almost replace 2x 739 or 3x 738. So goin from 1x 77A to 1x738 and 1x 764 seems to defeat the purpose of them. While I think that making the 764 a 77A replacement isn't a terrible idea I think more than likely they won't become one. If anything they will remain in the same layout they currently are in.


Where they fly the 777HD, there are no slots issues. It's hub-to-hub, volume markets (like HI), HNL to the Lower48 and GUM and most importantly Cargo. The 764's just don't have the cargo uplift of a 777, and not enough seats.


Your last assertion regarding the 764 vs the 77A is little more nuanced. For cargo, we must consider both payload and capacity. In my market, which traditionally saw daily 763s, 764s and 77As which of the 3 aircraft were the better cargo haulers was entirely dependent on the density of the cargo. While the 77A offers more capacity than the 764, the 77A is a complete dog in terms of payload as the stage length nears its max range, which coincidentally, are routes the 77A often would operate. The additional capacity of the 77A is meaningless if the aircraft weight restricts after loading 3-5,000 lbs.. Conversely, I can't remember the last time i saw a 763/4 weight restrict from my market.

77H
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 7:09 pm

wn676 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
cosyr wrote:
Though I would love to fly a UA 764 into DCA or LGA. It has been years since widebodies regularly flew into those airports, which used to be common for decades.


For a plane that size there would have to be capacity restrictions to DCA I would think. That runway would seem too short for a plane that size.


It’s not just the runway, the taxiway system is not designed for Group IV aircraft with wingspan larger than a B757. That is to say, subject to pavement limitations you can absolutely taxi a widebody around DCA but it’s going to require that operations are restricted on parallel taxiways/runways (in the case of the runway, IIRC it would be dependent on visibility conditions).


The DCA runway is slightly longer then LGA (but you do have obstacle issues taking off to the north) and you don’t have weight limits for taxiing on the piers like you do at LGA.

Having taxied at both it’s hard to believe that LGA’s taxiways are spaced further apart, but I’ll take your word for it.
 
Pi7472000
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:26 pm

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 8:12 pm

Will the rental car shortage affect UA's growth to Hawaii? Hawaii is suffering from a rental car shortage with even people with reservations arriving and not having a car. Will this cause people to book away from Hawaii and toward Europe? Hawaii is not set up to serve tourism like it was pre-pandemic and has little desire to return to the levels of tourism it was at pre-pandemic. It appears the mayors of the islands also want to limit the rental cars and don't want a return to pre-pandemic levels. How will this impact UA's network to Hawaii as they have placed a lot of emphasis on Hawaii?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/05/the-g ... ng-to-end/
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14495
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

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

Tue Jun 08, 2021 10:01 pm

Pi7472000 wrote:
Will the rental car shortage affect UA's growth to Hawaii? Hawaii is suffering from a rental car shortage with even people with reservations arriving and not having a car. Will this cause people to book away from Hawaii and toward Europe? Hawaii is not set up to serve tourism like it was pre-pandemic and has little desire to return to the levels of tourism it was at pre-pandemic. It appears the mayors of the islands also want to limit the rental cars and don't want a return to pre-pandemic levels. How will this impact UA's network to Hawaii as they have placed a lot of emphasis on Hawaii?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/05/the-g ... ng-to-end/


Having a car is not a must in Hawaii, the islands are small enough that a shuttle bus to and from the airport combined with excursion companies coming to the hotels to pick up their patrons really negate the rental car need.

Most people going to the Caribbean or Mexico aren’t renting cars.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Pi7472000
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:26 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:41 am

STT757 wrote:
Pi7472000 wrote:
Will the rental car shortage affect UA's growth to Hawaii? Hawaii is suffering from a rental car shortage with even people with reservations arriving and not having a car. Will this cause people to book away from Hawaii and toward Europe? Hawaii is not set up to serve tourism like it was pre-pandemic and has little desire to return to the levels of tourism it was at pre-pandemic. It appears the mayors of the islands also want to limit the rental cars and don't want a return to pre-pandemic levels. How will this impact UA's network to Hawaii as they have placed a lot of emphasis on Hawaii?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/05/the-g ... ng-to-end/


Having a car is not a must in Hawaii, the islands are small enough that a shuttle bus to and from the airport combined with excursion companies coming to the hotels to pick up their patrons really negate the rental car need.

Most people going to the Caribbean or Mexico aren’t renting cars.


Except on public buses in Hawaii you can't bring large luggage which is understandable. You also need a car to explore many parts of the islands unless you want to stay at the resort or have to go with a large tour group (many of which are not operating now). The bus system in Mexico is amazing and cheap. I have traveled all over Mexico by bus very cheaply which is not possible on Hawaii. Not being able to get a car is limiting in Hawaii. I am going in two weeks and am shocked how empty my UA flight is to Maui from DEN in Premium Plus and was thinking maybe the car rentals have impacted travel. It is 4000 dollars now for the cheapest car if you haven't booked for the dates I am going. I booked early so have a reasonable price. I would have gone to Europe or Mexico instead if I would have waited on the car. Maybe it will fill up with basic travelers on day of departure.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14495
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:52 am

Pi7472000 wrote:
STT757 wrote:
Pi7472000 wrote:
Will the rental car shortage affect UA's growth to Hawaii? Hawaii is suffering from a rental car shortage with even people with reservations arriving and not having a car. Will this cause people to book away from Hawaii and toward Europe? Hawaii is not set up to serve tourism like it was pre-pandemic and has little desire to return to the levels of tourism it was at pre-pandemic. It appears the mayors of the islands also want to limit the rental cars and don't want a return to pre-pandemic levels. How will this impact UA's network to Hawaii as they have placed a lot of emphasis on Hawaii?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/05/the-g ... ng-to-end/


Having a car is not a must in Hawaii, the islands are small enough that a shuttle bus to and from the airport combined with excursion companies coming to the hotels to pick up their patrons really negate the rental car need.

Most people going to the Caribbean or Mexico aren’t renting cars.


Except on public buses in Hawaii you can't bring large luggage which is understandable. You also need a car to explore many parts of the islands unless you want to stay at the resort or have to go with a large tour group (many of which are not operating now). The bus system in Mexico is amazing and cheap. I have traveled all over Mexico by bus very cheaply which is not possible on Hawaii. Not being able to get a car is limiting in Hawaii. I am going in two weeks and am shocked how empty my UA flight is to Maui from DEN in Premium Plus and was thinking maybe the car rentals have impacted travel. It is 4000 dollars now for the cheapest car if you haven't booked for the dates I am going. I booked early so have a reasonable price. I would have gone to Europe or Mexico instead if I would have waited on the car. Maybe it will fill up with basic travelers on day of departure.


No public bus, hotel bus. Any sites you want to see can be booked with an excursion company. If your resort is nice enough, you’re probably not wanting to leave much.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
atcsundevil
Moderator
Topic Author
Posts: 4555
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:22 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:21 am

EssentialBusDC wrote:
wn676 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

For a plane that size there would have to be capacity restrictions to DCA I would think. That runway would seem too short for a plane that size.


It’s not just the runway, the taxiway system is not designed for Group IV aircraft with wingspan larger than a B757. That is to say, subject to pavement limitations you can absolutely taxi a widebody around DCA but it’s going to require that operations are restricted on parallel taxiways/runways (in the case of the runway, IIRC it would be dependent on visibility conditions).


The DCA runway is slightly longer then LGA (but you do have obstacle issues taking off to the north) and you don’t have weight limits for taxiing on the piers like you do at LGA.

Having taxied at both it’s hard to believe that LGA’s taxiways are spaced further apart, but I’ll take your word for it.

It isn't the taxiways themselves, it's their proximity to adjacent runways and parking. Unless it's measured out and approved for Group IV, then any Group IV movements will essentially require other surface movements to be halted and I believe require an escort. DCA can technically handle a 763, but practicality speaking it can't. It's all a moot point anyway — even if hoops could be jumped through to allow scheduled widebody service, there's a precisely zero percent chance the MWAA allows it. Not now, not ever. Any widebodies at DCA will be one-offs under special circumstances.
 
EssentialBusDC
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:06 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:53 am

atcsundevil wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
wn676 wrote:

It’s not just the runway, the taxiway system is not designed for Group IV aircraft with wingspan larger than a B757. That is to say, subject to pavement limitations you can absolutely taxi a widebody around DCA but it’s going to require that operations are restricted on parallel taxiways/runways (in the case of the runway, IIRC it would be dependent on visibility conditions).


The DCA runway is slightly longer then LGA (but you do have obstacle issues taking off to the north) and you don’t have weight limits for taxiing on the piers like you do at LGA.

Having taxied at both it’s hard to believe that LGA’s taxiways are spaced further apart, but I’ll take your word for it.

It isn't the taxiways themselves, it's their proximity to adjacent runways and parking. Unless it's measured out and approved for Group IV, then any Group IV movements will essentially require other surface movements to be halted and I believe require an escort. DCA can technically handle a 763, but practicality speaking it can't. It's all a moot point anyway — even if hoops could be jumped through to allow scheduled widebody service, there's a precisely zero percent chance the MWAA allows it. Not now, not ever. Any widebodies at DCA will be one-offs under special circumstances.


I get that re taxi clearances. Much like the A380 has its own taxi line at Dulles between the A and C gates.
 
BeachBoy
Posts: 126
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 8:05 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:55 am

Does anyone know how UA 43 OGG-EWR has been performing in terms of ops?
Is it weight restricted? Any tech stops required?
Iʻm booked on it next Friday.
I still canʻt believe a 763 can make it all the way to the east coast using a 7000 ft runway.
 
wn676
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:28 am

BeachBoy wrote:
Does anyone know how UA 43 OGG-EWR has been performing in terms of ops?
Is it weight restricted? Any tech stops required?
Iʻm booked on it next Friday.
I still canʻt believe a 763 can make it all the way to the east coast using a 7000 ft runway.


I’m sure others will be able to provide a more technical breakdown but keep in mind this is being flown by one of the 167-seat 76L aircraft.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 7:38 am

Pi7472000 wrote:
Will the rental car shortage affect UA's growth to Hawaii? Hawaii is suffering from a rental car shortage with even people with reservations arriving and not having a car. Will this cause people to book away from Hawaii and toward Europe? Hawaii is not set up to serve tourism like it was pre-pandemic and has little desire to return to the levels of tourism it was at pre-pandemic. It appears the mayors of the islands also want to limit the rental cars and don't want a return to pre-pandemic levels. How will this impact UA's network to Hawaii as they have placed a lot of emphasis on Hawaii?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/05/the-g ... ng-to-end/


Likely not too big of an issue. I'm typing this from a hotel in Maui. Being without a rental car sure has its inconveniences (had to walk 2 miles for a haircut today) but most resorts have everything, including transfers... and people don't get haircuts on vacation normally. There will be issues going to see things like Haleakala in Maui and Diamond Head in Oahu but other than that, the nature-y stuff is everywhere, and tours aren't too hard to schedule.
 
wn676
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:12 am

atcsundevil wrote:
EssentialBusDC wrote:
wn676 wrote:

It’s not just the runway, the taxiway system is not designed for Group IV aircraft with wingspan larger than a B757. That is to say, subject to pavement limitations you can absolutely taxi a widebody around DCA but it’s going to require that operations are restricted on parallel taxiways/runways (in the case of the runway, IIRC it would be dependent on visibility conditions).


The DCA runway is slightly longer then LGA (but you do have obstacle issues taking off to the north) and you don’t have weight limits for taxiing on the piers like you do at LGA.

Having taxied at both it’s hard to believe that LGA’s taxiways are spaced further apart, but I’ll take your word for it.

It isn't the taxiways themselves, it's their proximity to adjacent runways and parking. Unless it's measured out and approved for Group IV, then any Group IV movements will essentially require other surface movements to be halted and I believe require an escort. DCA can technically handle a 763, but practicality speaking it can't. It's all a moot point anyway — even if hoops could be jumped through to allow scheduled widebody service, there's a precisely zero percent chance the MWAA allows it. Not now, not ever. Any widebodies at DCA will be one-offs under special circumstances.


From my understanding it is partly an issue with the taxiways themselves which is the separation between TWYs J/K (at 170 feet if I’m not mistaken), in addition to clearance to the service road/terminal apron, and runways 15/33 and 4/22 where 400-ft centerline spacing can’t be achieved. The Group IV OFA is modified on those taxiways and there is a 135-ft wingspan restriction imposed. So some Group IV (B757W) can operate without an escort, just not the full design group.

To your point though, the idea of any regular widebody service is basically DOA.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
wn676
Posts: 1759
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 5:33 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 8:53 am

EssentialBusDC wrote:
wn676 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

For a plane that size there would have to be capacity restrictions to DCA I would think. That runway would seem too short for a plane that size.


It’s not just the runway, the taxiway system is not designed for Group IV aircraft with wingspan larger than a B757. That is to say, subject to pavement limitations you can absolutely taxi a widebody around DCA but it’s going to require that operations are restricted on parallel taxiways/runways (in the case of the runway, IIRC it would be dependent on visibility conditions).


The DCA runway is slightly longer then LGA (but you do have obstacle issues taking off to the north) and you don’t have weight limits for taxiing on the piers like you do at LGA.

Having taxied at both it’s hard to believe that LGA’s taxiways are spaced further apart, but I’ll take your word for it.


Meant to edit the other reply but ran out of time - I’m not sure LGA is all that much different but I suspect it would boil down to what set of standards modifications were approved; historically have scheduled widebodies not been uncommon there? I know the new Terminal B can park them.
Tiny, unreadable text leaves ample room for interpretation.
 
Aliqiout
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:40 pm

STT757 wrote:
Pi7472000 wrote:
Will the rental car shortage affect UA's growth to Hawaii? Hawaii is suffering from a rental car shortage with even people with reservations arriving and not having a car. Will this cause people to book away from Hawaii and toward Europe? Hawaii is not set up to serve tourism like it was pre-pandemic and has little desire to return to the levels of tourism it was at pre-pandemic. It appears the mayors of the islands also want to limit the rental cars and don't want a return to pre-pandemic levels. How will this impact UA's network to Hawaii as they have placed a lot of emphasis on Hawaii?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/05/the-g ... ng-to-end/


Having a car is not a must in Hawaii, the islands are small enough that a shuttle bus to and from the airport combined with excursion companies coming to the hotels to pick up their patrons really negate the rental car need.

Most people going to the Caribbean or Mexico aren’t renting cars.

What you described sounds like a miserable vacation to me. In Mexico and most of the Caribbean public transportation is an option and taxis are cheap. Not so much in HI.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3570
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 2:37 pm

Aliqiout wrote:
STT757 wrote:
Pi7472000 wrote:
Will the rental car shortage affect UA's growth to Hawaii? Hawaii is suffering from a rental car shortage with even people with reservations arriving and not having a car. Will this cause people to book away from Hawaii and toward Europe? Hawaii is not set up to serve tourism like it was pre-pandemic and has little desire to return to the levels of tourism it was at pre-pandemic. It appears the mayors of the islands also want to limit the rental cars and don't want a return to pre-pandemic levels. How will this impact UA's network to Hawaii as they have placed a lot of emphasis on Hawaii?

https://www.civilbeat.org/2021/05/the-g ... ng-to-end/


Having a car is not a must in Hawaii, the islands are small enough that a shuttle bus to and from the airport combined with excursion companies coming to the hotels to pick up their patrons really negate the rental car need.

Most people going to the Caribbean or Mexico aren’t renting cars.

What you described sounds like a miserable vacation to me. In Mexico and most of the Caribbean public transportation is an option and taxis are cheap. Not so much in HI.



What does any of this have to do with United's fleet or network? Demand to Hawaii is spiking United is responding to the increased demand. However United is not in the rental car business, if you want to discuss rental car shortages please start another thread.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 3:18 pm

77H wrote:
airzim wrote:
Pinto wrote:

My understanding is that part of the reason the 77As were being used on the routes they were was due to the issue of slots. One 77A can almost replace 2x 739 or 3x 738. So goin from 1x 77A to 1x738 and 1x 764 seems to defeat the purpose of them. While I think that making the 764 a 77A replacement isn't a terrible idea I think more than likely they won't become one. If anything they will remain in the same layout they currently are in.


Where they fly the 777HD, there are no slots issues. It's hub-to-hub, volume markets (like HI), HNL to the Lower48 and GUM and most importantly Cargo. The 764's just don't have the cargo uplift of a 777, and not enough seats.


Your last assertion regarding the 764 vs the 77A is little more nuanced. For cargo, we must consider both payload and capacity. In my market, which traditionally saw daily 763s, 764s and 77As which of the 3 aircraft were the better cargo haulers was entirely dependent on the density of the cargo. While the 77A offers more capacity than the 764, the 77A is a complete dog in terms of payload as the stage length nears its max range, which coincidentally, are routes the 77A often would operate. The additional capacity of the 77A is meaningless if the aircraft weight restricts after loading 3-5,000 lbs.. Conversely, I can't remember the last time i saw a 763/4 weight restrict from my market.

77H


Fair statement. I was making a pretty broad generalization of the 777s vs the 764s cargo uplift capabilities. But given the stage lengths of many of todays flights, SFO-HNL/OGG, HNL-GUM, and intrahub, they likely aren't often weight restricted. Perhaps Hawaii to DEN given the altitude and ORD given the distances. Are you referring to the 77As before they were configured for HD seating when they were used to/from Europe?
 
Pi7472000
Posts: 334
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2018 3:26 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:09 pm

jayunited wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
STT757 wrote:

Having a car is not a must in Hawaii, the islands are small enough that a shuttle bus to and from the airport combined with excursion companies coming to the hotels to pick up their patrons really negate the rental car need.

Most people going to the Caribbean or Mexico aren’t renting cars.

What you described sounds like a miserable vacation to me. In Mexico and most of the Caribbean public transportation is an option and taxis are cheap. Not so much in HI.



What does any of this have to do with United's fleet or network? Demand to Hawaii is spiking United is responding to the increased demand. However United is not in the rental car business, if you want to discuss rental car shortages please start another thread.


I did not say they were. However it could impact UAs network to Hawaii if it softens demand to Hawaii. You don’t have to engage in my question about UAs network to Hawaii if you don’t want to.
 
Aliqiout
Posts: 504
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:10 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 4:41 pm

jayunited wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
STT757 wrote:

Having a car is not a must in Hawaii, the islands are small enough that a shuttle bus to and from the airport combined with excursion companies coming to the hotels to pick up their patrons really negate the rental car need.

Most people going to the Caribbean or Mexico aren’t renting cars.

What you described sounds like a miserable vacation to me. In Mexico and most of the Caribbean public transportation is an option and taxis are cheap. Not so much in HI.



What does any of this have to do with United's fleet or network? Demand to Hawaii is spiking United is responding to the increased demand. However United is not in the rental car business, if you want to discuss rental car shortages please start another thread.

It has everything to do with UA's network. Some posters think that demand to HI has a celling created by a rental car shortage. As one of the biggest carriers between the U.S. mainland and HI the shor5 term impact on UA's network could be significant. If you don't think this will effect UA I would be interested to hear why. You may be right.
 
IFLYUA767
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon May 31, 2021 11:42 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:13 pm

With all of the 737 max orders that they have, do any of you think that United will start to retire some of the oldest 737s and a320s that they have? I think I saw that some of the a320s date back to 1993 and some of the 737s date back to 1998.
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:22 pm

Aliqiout wrote:
It has everything to do with UA's network. Some posters think that demand to HI has a celling created by a rental car shortage. As one of the biggest carriers between the U.S. mainland and HI the shor5 term impact on UA's network could be significant. If you don't think this will effect UA I would be interested to hear why. You may be right.

As someone who is in Maui as I'm typing this, I can assure you that demand to HI definitely does not have a ceiling. Rental cars simply aren't that important. If you take away the rental car, you get a vacation that is simply more resort-oriented... and that isn't a turn-off for most people. When the beach is steps away, the pool is down 5 floors, the gym is around the corner, and there are food options in all sections of the hotel, rental cars do not become important. At the very least, people may be inconvenienced during their vacation, but as long as the tour operators are around, it is not at all a deterrent for people to visit, as evidenced by the spike in visitors to the islands.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3319
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:36 pm

sfojvjets wrote:
as evidenced by the spike in visitors to the islands.


Honest question, is there actually a spike? Sure, from the US, but I imagine its just replaced a lot of Japanese (Asian generally) tourism that is virtually nil. I could see Maui as getting a spike though because it was pretty much mostly US anyways.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1702
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 5:40 pm

sfojvjets wrote:
Aliqiout wrote:
It has everything to do with UA's network. Some posters think that demand to HI has a celling created by a rental car shortage. As one of the biggest carriers between the U.S. mainland and HI the shor5 term impact on UA's network could be significant. If you don't think this will effect UA I would be interested to hear why. You may be right.

As someone who is in Maui as I'm typing this, I can assure you that demand to HI definitely does not have a ceiling. Rental cars simply aren't that important. If you take away the rental car, you get a vacation that is simply more resort-oriented... and that isn't a turn-off for most people. When the beach is steps away, the pool is down 5 floors, the gym is around the corner, and there are food options in all sections of the hotel, rental cars do not become important. At the very least, people may be inconvenienced during their vacation, but as long as the tour operators are around, it is not at all a deterrent for people to visit, as evidenced by the spike in visitors to the islands.


Especially in Waikiki, where most things are in walking distance. Or even Poipu, walk from most hotels to two shopping/dining centers. Similar for many other areas / islands. Plus you probably save $40 /day in parking so a few Ubers is a fair trade off.
 
sfojvjets
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2020 6:00 am

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:12 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
sfojvjets wrote:
as evidenced by the spike in visitors to the islands.


Honest question, is there actually a spike? Sure, from the US, but I imagine its just replaced a lot of Japanese (Asian generally) tourism that is virtually nil. I could see Maui as getting a spike though because it was pretty much mostly US anyways.

Yep, sorry, I should've specified US.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3319
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

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

Wed Jun 09, 2021 6:17 pm

sfojvjets wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
sfojvjets wrote:
as evidenced by the spike in visitors to the islands.


Honest question, is there actually a spike? Sure, from the US, but I imagine its just replaced a lot of Japanese (Asian generally) tourism that is virtually nil. I could see Maui as getting a spike though because it was pretty much mostly US anyways.

Yep, sorry, I should've specified US.


Gotcha, I've been curious if there is a total spike because certainly the US airlines have added so much capacity.

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