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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

hannah9898 wrote:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

sfojvjets wrote:

as evidenced by the spike in visitors to the islands.

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.

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.

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.

jbs2886 wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

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.

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.

Aliqiout wrote:

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.

Sure there are people who will still be happy to go to HI without a car, but it is silly to say that there are not people who will choose different options because of the car problem. The question is, will UA hit the HI celling with what they have planned, or not? I don't think they will, but I am just guessing, and we can't deny that there is a ceiling.

CriticalPoint wrote:

Aliqiout wrote:

sfojvjets wrote:

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.

Sure there are people who will still be happy to go to HI without a car, but it is silly to say that there are not people who will choose different options because of the car problem. The question is, will UA hit the HI celling with what they have planned, or not? I don't think they will, but I am just guessing, and we can't deny that there is a ceiling.

Can we talk about United’s routes and fleets instead of how to vacation without a rental car please?

LAXintl wrote:

United reported in talks to purchase 100-150 additional 737Max

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... f=CMQY7IGK

jbs2886 wrote:

Absolutely incredible UA is getting very aggressive. AA and DL slashed fleets and while DL has a significant number of upcoming deliveries, it pales in comparison to UA particularly as UA didn't slash its fleet. The question to me is whether AA or DL decide to get aggressive, too?

sldispatcher wrote:

That news is going to blow some minds.