Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 27
 
User avatar
psa1011
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:37 am

LHUSA wrote:
psa1011 wrote:
Scarebus34 wrote:

This route was suspended due to the Covid situation in India - if they continue to stabilize, my guess is the route will resume. There is really no downside to leaving it open for sale as they can rebook pax thru ewr/sfo if needed.


Isn't it kind of a misrepresentation to sell a non-stop, most likely at a premium, when UA knows there's a good chance the flight won't even operate?


We’re coming out of a global pandemic. People seem to be forgetting that. Markets can disappear or develop overnight. Look at Europe, most flights are full (aside from LHR) - LFs jumped over 40 points in a matter of 10 days. United and other airlines are not operating by their normal playbooks, even still.


I think I'm focused on scarebus34's post about there being no downside for UA in selling tickets on flights that might not even operate since pax can simply be re-routed through SFO or EWR. We all know, however, that many domestic routes have not yet resumed (e.g., SFO-STL/ATL/MSY/IND etc, for which btw UA has also been selling and then removing nonstop options), and seem be pushed back ever further this year. So rerouting through SFO adds a stop from many domestic markets.
Obviously the pandemic is still causing airlines to have to constantly reevaluate their plans, but I hope the "no downside" comment doesn't imply that they wouldn't adjust fares downward in the event of a majorly inconvenient rerouting.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:41 am

jayunited wrote:

Things at ORD are really heating up and I think UA wants to keep ahead of AA at ORD so instead of getting DEN to 100% we are now going to focus on building up ORD.


With AAs current operational problems, or at least the perceived problems that the media is hyping, it might be very opportunistic to throw everything at ORD that UA can spare to gain some traction.
 
rjbesikof
Posts: 333
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:21 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 3:08 am

This weeks schedule update just takes care of the rest of the summer season. What intl routes do you think will operate in NW21?
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 25545
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 3:41 am

AA has not been sleeping at ORD. They are actually continuing building out the hub as they refocus their overall hub strategy which started pre-pandemic.
As Vasu Raja explained they are doing several things in Chicago, including the growth of midwest heartland network, offering nothing smaller than large RJs with F class product, growing its corporate contract portfolio in the region, tinkering with hub banks to better focus feed flow and pursuing profitable seasonal long haul markets.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4710
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:47 am

LAXintl wrote:
AA has not been sleeping at ORD. They are actually continuing building out the hub as they refocus their overall hub strategy which started pre-pandemic.
As Vasu Raja explained they are doing several things in Chicago, including the growth of midwest heartland network, offering nothing smaller than large RJs with F class product, growing its corporate contract portfolio in the region, tinkering with hub banks to better focus feed flow and pursuing profitable seasonal long haul markets.


I don’t think anyone implied AA is sleeping on ORD, but their operational (perceived or actual) issues driving customers away.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1646
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:07 pm

sldispatcher wrote:
LHUSA wrote:
psa1011 wrote:

Isn't it kind of a misrepresentation to sell a non-stop, most likely at a premium, when UA knows there's a good chance the flight won't even operate?


We’re coming out of a global pandemic. People seem to be forgetting that. Markets can disappear or develop overnight. Look at Europe, most flights are full (aside from LHR) - LFs jumped over 40 points in a matter of 10 days. United and other airlines are not operating by their normal playbooks, even still.



I don't relish the job of the route planners or the revenue management department. Domestic airfares are sky high out of my market (SHV) with UAL sometimes in the 100% to 150% above competitor airfares. I get what they are doing with that, but man..it hurts to try to be loyal and I have had to stray the last two ticket purchases because I can't justify a $500/person premium for 6 tickets just to fly United.

At any rate, demand seems to continue to grow. Somewhere in revenue management, they are getting the sense of the rate of business travel return (and regardless of what others say, my humble opinion is that it is going to be far stronger than expected). I have my first conference now scheduled to attend in November.

Best wishes to all of the frontline folks dealing with the public and generous pats on the back for the behind the scenes people working hard to put the planes back in the sky.

That has been my experience exactly. I hear again and again, that business travel is still down, and won't return until next year or later, so I wonder who all these leisure, non-loyal pax are that are paying the premium when they shop on Expedia? They're not even being lured in by Basic Economy, because that hasn't been offered on 70% of the routes I've searched.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10008
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 12:18 pm

psa1011 wrote:
I think I'm focused on scarebus34's post about there being no downside for UA in selling tickets on flights that might not even operate since pax can simply be re-routed through SFO or EWR. We all know, however, that many domestic routes have not yet resumed (e.g., SFO-STL/ATL/MSY/IND etc, for which btw UA has also been selling and then removing nonstop options), and seem be pushed back ever further this year. So rerouting through SFO adds a stop from many domestic markets.
Obviously the pandemic is still causing airlines to have to constantly reevaluate their plans, but I hope the "no downside" comment doesn't imply that they wouldn't adjust fares downward in the event of a majorly inconvenient rerouting.


As in telling customers 'The new routing has an an extra stop, and is sold at $400 less, so I'm issuing a refund to your credit card?'

Hah hah hah!

Customers will need to request a refund and rebook themselves to get the lower fare.

DOT rules allow passengers a refund when a non-stop gets rescheduled with a stop (and when direct becomes a connection), but not for a 2-segment routing that becomes a 3-segment routing unless timing changes are significant (and significant isn't defined by the DOT).

Yes, it's hard to predict border openings and international demand. That reality doesn't change passenger rights. Even the DOT under Chao declared that.

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... ier-refund
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 1:24 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
psa1011 wrote:
I think I'm focused on scarebus34's post about there being no downside for UA in selling tickets on flights that might not even operate since pax can simply be re-routed through SFO or EWR. We all know, however, that many domestic routes have not yet resumed (e.g., SFO-STL/ATL/MSY/IND etc, for which btw UA has also been selling and then removing nonstop options), and seem be pushed back ever further this year. So rerouting through SFO adds a stop from many domestic markets.
Obviously the pandemic is still causing airlines to have to constantly reevaluate their plans, but I hope the "no downside" comment doesn't imply that they wouldn't adjust fares downward in the event of a majorly inconvenient rerouting.


As in telling customers 'The new routing has an an extra stop, and is sold at $400 less, so I'm issuing a refund to your credit card?'

Hah hah hah!

Customers will need to request a refund and rebook themselves to get the lower fare.

DOT rules allow passengers a refund when a non-stop gets rescheduled with a stop (and when direct becomes a connection), but not for a 2-segment routing that becomes a 3-segment routing unless timing changes are significant (and significant isn't defined by the DOT).

Yes, it's hard to predict border openings and international demand. That reality doesn't change passenger rights. Even the DOT under Chao declared that.

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... ier-refund


When a ticket changes substantially the customer is given the option to decline the change and reschedule/refund the ticket. This is a non-issue that you seem to be trying to turn into a big one.
 
CALMSP
Posts: 3709
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 3:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:50 pm

cosyr wrote:
dcajet wrote:
United suspended quite a large number of international routes for September and part of October:

Denver - Tokyo Narita
Honolulu - Tokyo Narita
Houston - Rio de Janeiro
Houston - Tokyo Narita
Los Angeles - Melbourne
Los Angeles - Tokyo Haneda
Newark - Lima
Newark - Shanghai
Newark - Tokyo Haneda
San Francisco - Beijing
San Francisco - Hong Kong
San Francisco - Shanghai
San Francisco - Singapore
San Francisco - Tokyo Haneda
Washington Dulles - San Pablo

They are also still making adjustments to the August schedule. My EDI-EWR flight got cancelled.



my DEN-LHR flight was cancelled as well :(
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 10008
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 4:59 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
psa1011 wrote:
I think I'm focused on scarebus34's post about there being no downside for UA in selling tickets on flights that might not even operate since pax can simply be re-routed through SFO or EWR. We all know, however, that many domestic routes have not yet resumed (e.g., SFO-STL/ATL/MSY/IND etc, for which btw UA has also been selling and then removing nonstop options), and seem be pushed back ever further this year. So rerouting through SFO adds a stop from many domestic markets.
Obviously the pandemic is still causing airlines to have to constantly reevaluate their plans, but I hope the "no downside" comment doesn't imply that they wouldn't adjust fares downward in the event of a majorly inconvenient rerouting.


As in telling customers 'The new routing has an an extra stop, and is sold at $400 less, so I'm issuing a refund to your credit card?'

Hah hah hah!

Customers will need to request a refund and rebook themselves to get the lower fare.

DOT rules allow passengers a refund when a non-stop gets rescheduled with a stop (and when direct becomes a connection), but not for a 2-segment routing that becomes a 3-segment routing unless timing changes are significant (and significant isn't defined by the DOT).

Yes, it's hard to predict border openings and international demand. That reality doesn't change passenger rights. Even the DOT under Chao declared that.

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... ier-refund


When a ticket changes substantially the customer is given the option to decline the change and reschedule/refund the ticket. This is a non-issue that you seem to be trying to turn into a big one.


No, we saw how UA chose to play this early in Covid - making a 25 hour minimum schedule change the requirement for a refund - before they got slapped down by the DOT (the release I posted). Passengers had to rely on the DOT for relief, not United's integrity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-sc ... ge-policy/
 
joeljack
Posts: 701
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2005 12:38 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 5:14 pm

CALMSP wrote:
cosyr wrote:
dcajet wrote:
United suspended quite a large number of international routes for September and part of October:

Denver - Tokyo Narita
Honolulu - Tokyo Narita
Houston - Rio de Janeiro
Houston - Tokyo Narita
Los Angeles - Melbourne
Los Angeles - Tokyo Haneda
Newark - Lima
Newark - Shanghai
Newark - Tokyo Haneda
San Francisco - Beijing
San Francisco - Hong Kong
San Francisco - Shanghai
San Francisco - Singapore
San Francisco - Tokyo Haneda
Washington Dulles - San Pablo

They are also still making adjustments to the August schedule. My EDI-EWR flight got cancelled.



my DEN-LHR flight was cancelled as well :(


My Cousin's was too. She switched to Delta through ATL and United refunded her. She paid a premium to fly nonstop but she saved $400 by connecting she said.
 
User avatar
psa1011
Posts: 533
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:37 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 9:34 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

As in telling customers 'The new routing has an an extra stop, and is sold at $400 less, so I'm issuing a refund to your credit card?'

Hah hah hah!

Customers will need to request a refund and rebook themselves to get the lower fare.

DOT rules allow passengers a refund when a non-stop gets rescheduled with a stop (and when direct becomes a connection), but not for a 2-segment routing that becomes a 3-segment routing unless timing changes are significant (and significant isn't defined by the DOT).

Yes, it's hard to predict border openings and international demand. That reality doesn't change passenger rights. Even the DOT under Chao declared that.

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... ier-refund


When a ticket changes substantially the customer is given the option to decline the change and reschedule/refund the ticket. This is a non-issue that you seem to be trying to turn into a big one.


No, we saw how UA chose to play this early in Covid - making a 25 hour minimum schedule change the requirement for a refund - before they got slapped down by the DOT (the release I posted). Passengers had to rely on the DOT for relief, not United's integrity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-sc ... ge-policy/


Exactly - either pax accept the schedule change or get a refund. In the event that they accept the change, UA pockets the difference. For instance they're still selling SFO-ATL in September which is $50 more than the next one-stop option. Given how many times they've pushed back their resumption dates, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these routes end up not operating until 2022. It does seem, then, that UA has found a way to leverage some additional $ out of this pandemic - it's not illegal, but it's irritating, and I don't think it's something WN is doing at this point.
 
LHUSA
Posts: 842
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2005 10:15 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Thu Jul 08, 2021 10:57 pm

psa1011 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:

When a ticket changes substantially the customer is given the option to decline the change and reschedule/refund the ticket. This is a non-issue that you seem to be trying to turn into a big one.


No, we saw how UA chose to play this early in Covid - making a 25 hour minimum schedule change the requirement for a refund - before they got slapped down by the DOT (the release I posted). Passengers had to rely on the DOT for relief, not United's integrity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-sc ... ge-policy/


Exactly - either pax accept the schedule change or get a refund. In the event that they accept the change, UA pockets the difference. For instance they're still selling SFO-ATL in September which is $50 more than the next one-stop option. Given how many times they've pushed back their resumption dates, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these routes end up not operating until 2022. It does seem, then, that UA has found a way to leverage some additional $ out of this pandemic - it's not illegal, but it's irritating, and I don't think it's something WN is doing at this point.


I can assure you that is not United’s strategy. United wants to fly every single route currently for sale but will only do so when demand is sufficient enough to justify flying it. They’ve said since day one that capacity will be matched to demand - frustrating at times but it appears to be a strategy that has worked well in many regards for United. Having flights for sale in the schedule is the most clear cut method to understand true demand in a given market. To suggest it’s a revenue making scheme is ridiculous.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3400
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:01 am

psa1011 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:

When a ticket changes substantially the customer is given the option to decline the change and reschedule/refund the ticket. This is a non-issue that you seem to be trying to turn into a big one.


No, we saw how UA chose to play this early in Covid - making a 25 hour minimum schedule change the requirement for a refund - before they got slapped down by the DOT (the release I posted). Passengers had to rely on the DOT for relief, not United's integrity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-sc ... ge-policy/


Exactly - either pax accept the schedule change or get a refund. In the event that they accept the change, UA pockets the difference. For instance they're still selling SFO-ATL in September which is $50 more than the next one-stop option. Given how many times they've pushed back their resumption dates, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these routes end up not operating until 2022. It does seem, then, that UA has found a way to leverage some additional $ out of this pandemic - it's not illegal, but it's irritating, and I don't think it's something WN is doing at this point.


Airlines all have "dummy" schedules for far out, then get adjusted at various intervals (and ad hoc) leading up to that time. WN is doing it and its not leveraging money in a pandemic.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:42 am

psa1011 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:

When a ticket changes substantially the customer is given the option to decline the change and reschedule/refund the ticket. This is a non-issue that you seem to be trying to turn into a big one.


No, we saw how UA chose to play this early in Covid - making a 25 hour minimum schedule change the requirement for a refund - before they got slapped down by the DOT (the release I posted). Passengers had to rely on the DOT for relief, not United's integrity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-sc ... ge-policy/


Exactly - either pax accept the schedule change or get a refund. In the event that they accept the change, UA pockets the difference. For instance they're still selling SFO-ATL in September which is $50 more than the next one-stop option. Given how many times they've pushed back their resumption dates, I wouldn't be surprised to see some of these routes end up not operating until 2022. It does seem, then, that UA has found a way to leverage some additional $ out of this pandemic - it's not illegal, but it's irritating, and I don't think it's something WN is doing at this point.


The September schedule is done.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4497
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 12:53 pm

https://united.mediaroom.com/2021-07-09 ... his-Winter

July 09, 2021

CHICAGO, July 9, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- As demand for travel continues to build, United Airlines is expecting the resurgence to continue for winter holiday travel and is planning ahead by increasing service to cities in the U.S., Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America. The airline will add nearly 150 flights to warm-weather destinations across the U.S and is increasing service to Latin beach and leisure markets by 30% compared to 2019. The airline will fly 137 more flights than it did in 2019 to places like Florida, California, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada starting this November through next March.


United has announced additional flying, up to 150 more flights for the upcoming Winter schedule cover 2021/2022.

Most of these flights will operate between November 2021 and March 2022.

Alex
 
Jshank83
Posts: 4509
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:10 pm

atrude777 wrote:
https://united.mediaroom.com/2021-07-09-United-Adds-Nearly-150-Flights-to-Warm-Weather-Cities-This-Winter

July 09, 2021

CHICAGO, July 9, 2021 /PRNewswire/ -- As demand for travel continues to build, United Airlines is expecting the resurgence to continue for winter holiday travel and is planning ahead by increasing service to cities in the U.S., Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America. The airline will add nearly 150 flights to warm-weather destinations across the U.S and is increasing service to Latin beach and leisure markets by 30% compared to 2019. The airline will fly 137 more flights than it did in 2019 to places like Florida, California, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada starting this November through next March.


United has announced additional flying, up to 150 more flights for the upcoming Winter schedule cover 2021/2022.

Most of these flights will operate between November 2021 and March 2022.

Alex


I'll be interested to see if they add more point to point routes like they did in summer with HHH/MYR types.
 
User avatar
calpsafltskeds
Posts: 3357
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:29 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:27 pm

I'm wondering when the signature retrofit program will begin on the narrowbody fleet. Based on the order sheet and removal of 200 RJ aircraft, one cannot figure out how many current aircraft will be retired.
We know the 752 fleet will be retired when the 321XLRs arrive, but some may retire earlier with 3JM or 321neos arrive.
There are 47 319/320s built in or prior to 1997 and I'd think they would be retired.
73G/738s started deliveries in 1998, 739non-ER in 2001 and 739ERin 2008
Excluding 757s UA is currently flying 169 NB built prior to 2000 and 298 built prior to 2003.
We can assume the 739 non-ER will be gone.
If aircraft are retired by age and dates of pre-200 and pre-2003 are arbitrarily used for discussion purposes that leaves between 259 and 388 NB that need interior upgrades.
Divided by 53 months until Dec 2025, that's 4 to 7 conversions per month - quite a project that probably will be ramped up in 1st and 4th quarters.
Could we see 10 units out at a time, depending on length to retrofit and would retrofits be included in routine heavy maint visits like the Polaris widebodies.
Does anyone know the start date and can we assume they will be retrofitted within the USA?
Could UA start this program with some of the few newer NBs that are currently stored?
Would UA start with more longer-haul aircraft like the 739ER and/or 738 fleet first?
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 2:41 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
I'll be interested to see if they add more point to point routes like they did in summer with HHH/MYR types.

From the press release:
The additional U.S. flights include:

Up to 25 additional daily flights from New York/Newark to cities including Ft. Myers, Jacksonville and Savannah
Up to 14 additional daily flights from Denver to cities including Charleston, Ft. Lauderdale and Savannah
Up to 12 additional daily flights from Chicago to cities including Key West, Las Vegas and San Diego
Up to 11 additional daily flights from Washington D.C. to cities including Charleston, New Orleans and Phoenix
Up to seven additional daily flights from Houston to Florida including Miami, Orlando and Palm Beach
Up to four additional daily flights from Los Angeles to Orlando, Tampa and Ft. Myers
Up to four additional daily flights from Cleveland to Orlando, Tampa and Ft. Myers
Up to three additional daily flights from San Francisco to Orlando and Ft. Myers


This added service includes launching 12 new routes from Denver, Los Angeles, New York/Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. to destinations including Belize City, Belize; Cozumel, Mexico; Liberia, Costa Rica and Nassau, Bahamas.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 4509
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:08 pm

adamblang wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
I'll be interested to see if they add more point to point routes like they did in summer with HHH/MYR types.

From the press release:
The additional U.S. flights include:

Up to 25 additional daily flights from New York/Newark to cities including Ft. Myers, Jacksonville and Savannah
Up to 14 additional daily flights from Denver to cities including Charleston, Ft. Lauderdale and Savannah
Up to 12 additional daily flights from Chicago to cities including Key West, Las Vegas and San Diego
Up to 11 additional daily flights from Washington D.C. to cities including Charleston, New Orleans and Phoenix
Up to seven additional daily flights from Houston to Florida including Miami, Orlando and Palm Beach
Up to four additional daily flights from Los Angeles to Orlando, Tampa and Ft. Myers
Up to four additional daily flights from Cleveland to Orlando, Tampa and Ft. Myers
Up to three additional daily flights from San Francisco to Orlando and Ft. Myers


This added service includes launching 12 new routes from Denver, Los Angeles, New York/Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. to destinations including Belize City, Belize; Cozumel, Mexico; Liberia, Costa Rica and Nassau, Bahamas.


All hubs besides CLE. I am hoping for another announcement in the coming weeks from non hubs to Florida/PHX
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 268
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 3:38 pm

adamblang wrote:
From the press release:
The additional U.S. flights include:

Up to 25 additional daily flights from New York/Newark to cities including Ft. Myers, Jacksonville and Savannah
Up to 14 additional daily flights from Denver to cities including Charleston, Ft. Lauderdale and Savannah
Up to 12 additional daily flights from Chicago to cities including Key West, Las Vegas and San Diego
Up to 11 additional daily flights from Washington D.C. to cities including Charleston, New Orleans and Phoenix
Up to seven additional daily flights from Houston to Florida including Miami, Orlando and Palm Beach
Up to four additional daily flights from Los Angeles to Orlando, Tampa and Ft. Myers
Up to four additional daily flights from Cleveland to Orlando, Tampa and Ft. Myers
Up to three additional daily flights from San Francisco to Orlando and Ft. Myers


This added service includes launching 12 new routes from Denver, Los Angeles, New York/Newark, San Francisco and Washington, D.C. to destinations including Belize City, Belize; Cozumel, Mexico; Liberia, Costa Rica and Nassau, Bahamas.


Not much South Florida love here unfortunately. Would be nice to see UA make at least a token effort into MIA from LAX and add a few more frequencies from their other hubs. I know AA dominates that market but it seems crazy to me how small UA's presence is there.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:06 pm

I’m surprised UA isn’t adding more Hawaii capacity too for this winter. Those slot waivers are coming to an end in SFO and LAX and Hawaii flying would work out a lot better then the alternative.
 
panam330
Posts: 2240
Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:58 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:27 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
I’m surprised UA isn’t adding more Hawaii capacity too for this winter. Those slot waivers are coming to an end in SFO and LAX and Hawaii flying would work out a lot better then the alternative.

There are no slots at SFO or LAX, only schedule reviews from the FAA.

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/service_units/systemops/perf_analysis/slot_administration/
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:31 pm

Demand must really be picking up past the one month window. I'm already looking at Christmas travel. Unfortunately, once again, UAL is in the 75% to 150% fare premium over the other two network legacy carriers. If they can get it, more power to them.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2063
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 4:48 pm

sldispatcher wrote:
Unfortunately, once again, UAL is in the 75% to 150% fare premium over the other two network legacy carriers. If they can get it, more power to them.


Any estimate on how these higher "leisure" fares compare to the business travel fares that were normally the money-makers for UA?
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 5:03 pm

My own personal experience is that for my specific market, what was once First Class fares (850-$1150 RT) are now base economy fares.

I realize the hubs/markets with ULCC competition aren’t seeing these fare structures and so not feeling it like we do. I get it.

My issue is that the other legacy carriers, especially AA (with its pile of problems) are siphoning traffic away from my first choice, UAL.

Smisek and crew took the ‘cut to profitability’ mantra and almost ran the airline into the ground.

The converse is also scary….just price a service into stratospheric levels hoping enough people bite. For most of us, if we pay more, we expect more…and can UAL deliver that relative to their peers? I hope they can.
 
Coalways
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 5:39 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 5:37 pm

United Airlines adds more Florida & Caribbean flights..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/simpleflyi ... -cold/amp/
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 5:40 pm

DoctorVenkman wrote:
ately. Would be nice to see UA make at least a token effort into MIA from LAX and add a few more frequencies from their other hubs. I know AA dominates that market but it seems crazy to me how small UA's presence is there.


Not going to happen you will not see UA enter LAX-MIA market even under these conditions, United won't even re-attempt SFO-MIA.

I'm happy with UA's additional LAX-Florida flights hopefully these flights becomes permanent and in time UA hopefully will add even more capacity to MCO, TPA, and RSW from LAX. But in addition to that I would like to see UA attempt LAX-FLL as either a red-eye flight or a lat morning flight with a departure time around 10am out of LAX. I also would like to see an increase in capacity on SFO-FLL for now this routes is slated to resume this November (fingers crossed that actually happens) at 1x daily, I'm hoping to see SFO-FLL go 2x daily at some point.


In other news (operational news) United in the month of June carried an additional 1.6 million revenue passengers than we did during the month of May and out revenue load factor for the month of June increased 3.4% up to 84.4% revenue passengers.

Some more operational news this week July 4th-10th, United expects to carry a total of 2.5 million revenue passengers. This number is down 100,000 revenue passengers from last week and of course there is still some holiday travelers included in these numbers as people were heading home on Monday and Tuesday. We should get next weeks expected revenue numbers either late tonight or early tomorrow morning. I think for the remainder of July our weekly revenue passenger numbers will settle down around 2.4 million revenue passengers each week for the remaining weeks.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 7:32 pm

I'm not sure why UA would be more interested in SFO-FLL over SFO-MIA? Its yields are normally better to MIA. Mint really killed them on SFO-FLL.
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 8:00 pm

tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why UA would be more interested in SFO-FLL over SFO-MIA? Its yields are normally better to MIA. Mint really killed them on SFO-FLL.


I’m pretty sure JayUnited has a better feel for the market dynamics than most of the rest of us.

If Mint ‘killed’ them, then why are they still flying it?
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1277
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 8:46 pm

sldispatcher wrote:
Demand must really be picking up past the one month window. I'm already looking at Christmas travel. Unfortunately, once again, UAL is in the 75% to 150% fare premium over the other two network legacy carriers. If they can get it, more power to them.


I just think we are still a little far out. Since the demand is so high now and fall demand is an unknown, they’ve probably just chosen to hold a higher fare in many markets for now. I suspect there will be a better picture in late Sept.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 9:37 pm

sldispatcher wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why UA would be more interested in SFO-FLL over SFO-MIA? Its yields are normally better to MIA. Mint really killed them on SFO-FLL.


I’m pretty sure JayUnited has a better feel for the market dynamics than most of the rest of us.

If Mint ‘killed’ them, then why are they still flying it?


Well we are not flying the route right now hopefully the route will resumes in November which for now it is slated to do so.

I have no problem admitting that JetBlue really did change the dynamics of coast to coast flying when they expanded MINT beyond the traditional NYC-SFO/LAX markets. And if we are going to honest the reason UA is now planning on expanding lie-flat seats beyond NYC-SFO/LAX or BOS-SFO (whenever lie flat seats come back to that market on UA) with the introduction of lie-flat seating on either or perhaps both the MAX 10 and A321NEOs is because of JetBlue's MINT product. I think as these new larger narrow bodies start arriving in 2023 we will see markets like EWR-SEA/SAN/LAS/PDX will all go lie flat as will SFO/LAX-Florida(all)/IAD/BOS/BWI. United will probably use some lie-flat equip aircraft on EWR-Florida routes just to remain competitive with JetBlue and Delta out of NYC.

I'm not disagreeing with you sldispatcher but it is without question JetBlue's MINT product has changed and raised expectation on many coast to coast routes and United is trying to close the gap and the MAX 10 and/or A321NEO equip with lie-flat seating.

As far as FLL vs MIA I personally think UA because UA has found success at FLL they will continue to focus on FLL and leave MIA alone. I don't think United feels like we can compete against AA even from our own hubs to MIA so we operate the bare minimum to MIA while continuing to look for opportunities to expand at FLL.
 
Nicknuzzii
Posts: 1965
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 5:57 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:21 pm

jayunited wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why UA would be more interested in SFO-FLL over SFO-MIA? Its yields are normally better to MIA. Mint really killed them on SFO-FLL.


I’m pretty sure JayUnited has a better feel for the market dynamics than most of the rest of us.

If Mint ‘killed’ them, then why are they still flying it?


Well we are not flying the route right now hopefully the route will resumes in November which for now it is slated to do so.

I have no problem admitting that JetBlue really did change the dynamics of coast to coast flying when they expanded MINT beyond the traditional NYC-SFO/LAX markets. And if we are going to honest the reason UA is now planning on expanding lie-flat seats beyond NYC-SFO/LAX or BOS-SFO (whenever lie flat seats come back to that market on UA) with the introduction of lie-flat seating on either or perhaps both the MAX 10 and A321NEOs is because of JetBlue's MINT product. I think as these new larger narrow bodies start arriving in 2023 we will see markets like EWR-SEA/SAN/LAS/PDX will all go lie flat as will SFO/LAX-Florida(all)/IAD/BOS/BWI. United will probably use some lie-flat equip aircraft on EWR-Florida routes just to remain competitive with JetBlue and Delta out of NYC.

I'm not disagreeing with you sldispatcher but it is without question JetBlue's MINT product has changed and raised expectation on many coast to coast routes and United is trying to close the gap and the MAX 10 and/or A321NEO equip with lie-flat seating.

As far as FLL vs MIA I personally think UA because UA has found success at FLL they will continue to focus on FLL and leave MIA alone. I don't think United feels like we can compete against AA even from our own hubs to MIA so we operate the bare minimum to MIA while continuing to look for opportunities to expand at FLL.


As for the FLL vs MIA but of those I’m actually surprised EWR-MIA will have 9 flights a day this winter while FLL will have 8. Both are high numbers but I’m not sure if UA has ever had more capacity on EWR-MIA then FLL.

As for EWR in general, why aren’t we considering putting some widebodies on these Florida flights instead of flying EWR-MCO 13x a day, sometimes as little as half hour apart? I know this was the plan prepandemic then was brought up again last year before fading away. Does it come to down wanting to use more slots at EWR to reach that 430 goal?
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6473
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:27 pm

jayunited wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why UA would be more interested in SFO-FLL over SFO-MIA? Its yields are normally better to MIA. Mint really killed them on SFO-FLL.


I’m pretty sure JayUnited has a better feel for the market dynamics than most of the rest of us.

If Mint ‘killed’ them, then why are they still flying it?


Well we are not flying the route right now hopefully the route will resumes in November which for now it is slated to do so.

I have no problem admitting that JetBlue really did change the dynamics of coast to coast flying when they expanded MINT beyond the traditional NYC-SFO/LAX markets. And if we are going to honest the reason UA is now planning on expanding lie-flat seats beyond NYC-SFO/LAX or BOS-SFO (whenever lie flat seats come back to that market on UA) with the introduction of lie-flat seating on either or perhaps both the MAX 10 and A321NEOs is because of JetBlue's MINT product. I think as these new larger narrow bodies start arriving in 2023 we will see markets like EWR-SEA/SAN/LAS/PDX will all go lie flat as will SFO/LAX-Florida(all)/IAD/BOS/BWI. United will probably use some lie-flat equip aircraft on EWR-Florida routes just to remain competitive with JetBlue and Delta out of NYC.

I'm not disagreeing with you sldispatcher but it is without question JetBlue's MINT product has changed and raised expectation on many coast to coast routes and United is trying to close the gap and the MAX 10 and/or A321NEO equip with lie-flat seating.

As far as FLL vs MIA I personally think UA because UA has found success at FLL they will continue to focus on FLL and leave MIA alone. I don't think United feels like we can compete against AA even from our own hubs to MIA so we operate the bare minimum to MIA while continuing to look for opportunities to expand at FLL.


There is another dynamic at play in the FLl/MIA debate.

MIA has the international demand.
FLL has the domestic demand.

The question as to which airport UA would favor not having a hub in that region is whether or not the traffic the receive to South Florida primary comes from the US or abroad. Since it’s more than likely the former, it would make perfect sense to focus more on FLL.
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:29 pm

jayunited wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:
tphuang wrote:
I'm not sure why UA would be more interested in SFO-FLL over SFO-MIA? Its yields are normally better to MIA. Mint really killed them on SFO-FLL.


I’m pretty sure JayUnited has a better feel for the market dynamics than most of the rest of us.

If Mint ‘killed’ them, then why are they still flying it?


Well we are not flying the route right now hopefully the route will resumes in November which for now it is slated to do so.

I have no problem admitting that JetBlue really did change the dynamics of coast to coast flying when they expanded MINT beyond the traditional NYC-SFO/LAX markets. And if we are going to honest the reason UA is now planning on expanding lie-flat seats beyond NYC-SFO/LAX or BOS-SFO (whenever lie flat seats come back to that market on UA) with the introduction of lie-flat seating on either or perhaps both the MAX 10 and A321NEOs is because of JetBlue's MINT product. I think as these new larger narrow bodies start arriving in 2023 we will see markets like EWR-SEA/SAN/LAS/PDX will all go lie flat as will SFO/LAX-Florida(all)/IAD/BOS/BWI. United will probably use some lie-flat equip aircraft on EWR-Florida routes just to remain competitive with JetBlue and Delta out of NYC.

I'm not disagreeing with you sldispatcher but it is without question JetBlue's MINT product has changed and raised expectation on many coast to coast routes and United is trying to close the gap and the MAX 10 and/or A321NEO equip with lie-flat seating.

As far as FLL vs MIA I personally think UA because UA has found success at FLL they will continue to focus on FLL and leave MIA alone. I don't think United feels like we can compete against AA even from our own hubs to MIA so we operate the bare minimum to MIA while continuing to look for opportunities to expand at FLL.


I’m married for 17 years, I take correction easy. I don’t even have to wrong.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 10:55 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:

I’m pretty sure JayUnited has a better feel for the market dynamics than most of the rest of us.

If Mint ‘killed’ them, then why are they still flying it?


Well we are not flying the route right now hopefully the route will resumes in November which for now it is slated to do so.

I have no problem admitting that JetBlue really did change the dynamics of coast to coast flying when they expanded MINT beyond the traditional NYC-SFO/LAX markets. And if we are going to honest the reason UA is now planning on expanding lie-flat seats beyond NYC-SFO/LAX or BOS-SFO (whenever lie flat seats come back to that market on UA) with the introduction of lie-flat seating on either or perhaps both the MAX 10 and A321NEOs is because of JetBlue's MINT product. I think as these new larger narrow bodies start arriving in 2023 we will see markets like EWR-SEA/SAN/LAS/PDX will all go lie flat as will SFO/LAX-Florida(all)/IAD/BOS/BWI. United will probably use some lie-flat equip aircraft on EWR-Florida routes just to remain competitive with JetBlue and Delta out of NYC.

I'm not disagreeing with you sldispatcher but it is without question JetBlue's MINT product has changed and raised expectation on many coast to coast routes and United is trying to close the gap and the MAX 10 and/or A321NEO equip with lie-flat seating.

As far as FLL vs MIA I personally think UA because UA has found success at FLL they will continue to focus on FLL and leave MIA alone. I don't think United feels like we can compete against AA even from our own hubs to MIA so we operate the bare minimum to MIA while continuing to look for opportunities to expand at FLL.


There is another dynamic at play in the FLl/MIA debate.

MIA has the international demand.
FLL has the domestic demand.

The question as to which airport UA would favor not having a hub in that region is whether or not the traffic the receive to South Florida primary comes from the US or abroad. Since it’s more than likely the former, it would make perfect sense to focus more on FLL.


FLL only had "more domestic demand" because all the LCCs operated out of there and they undercut MIA pricing. We've seen NK/B6/WN all enter MIA this year and that will shift the demand pattern. If you look at the fares numbers out of both airports, MIA always commanded a premium. Now, part of that is due to the high costs of MIA. MIA has moved to a variable cost model this year, which favors carriers that heavily utilize their gate and use larger aircraft. I don't really see the advantage of FLL over MIA.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:21 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

There is another dynamic at play in the FLl/MIA debate.

MIA has the international demand.
FLL has the domestic demand.

The question as to which airport UA would favor not having a hub in that region is whether or not the traffic the receive to South Florida primary comes from the US or abroad. Since it’s more than likely the former, it would make perfect sense to focus more on FLL.


FLL only had "more domestic demand" because all the LCCs operated out of there and they undercut MIA pricing. We've seen NK/B6/WN all enter MIA this year and that will shift the demand pattern. If you look at the fares numbers out of both airports, MIA always commanded a premium. Now, part of that is due to the high costs of MIA. MIA has moved to a variable cost model this year, which favors carriers that heavily utilize their gate and use larger aircraft. I don't really see the advantage of FLL over MIA.


Yet NK, B6, and WN haven't been reducing FLL commensurately with MIA increases, which should be happening under your theory. I think you are significantly underselling FLL demand by attributing it to just cost. Indeed, DL has had a substantial operation at FLL long before the LCCs - the demand is there (and I'm sure you'll say DL didn't want to compete in MIA, but that doesn't matter, its still demand to FLL not because of cost). It's not like FLL is in the middle of nowhere and some far away airport. Sure MIA may have a lot (or even the most demand), but FLL is right by MIA and in its own significant destination area.


Today at FLL
WN 48 flights
B6 75 flights
at MIA
WN 22 flights
B6 15 flights
pre-COVID, WN was probably at 85 to 90 flights a day and B6 was at 100 to 105 flights a day at FLL. I don't see how you can make the argument WN/B6 haven't reduced FLL with MIA increases.

Even for NK, this is what they told CF about entering MIA https://crankyflier.com/2021/06/09/spir ... red-costs/
"Going forward, Spirit will plan on using Miami as a complement to Fort Lauderdale. Some destinations will get service from both airports, and John gave the example of Chicago. Is it better to serve Chicago 4x daily from Fort Lauderdale or keep it at 3x and then start 1x from Miami? Chicago starts on November 17, so you can see how that decision panned out."

How do you enter MIA with 30 routes and not cut a little bit at FLL?

I think AA got the raw end of the deal here with this new MIA variable cost structure. I'm curious to see how UA/DL will react to it.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1405
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Fri Jul 09, 2021 11:30 pm

Looks like one of the 3 daily BOS-SFO rotations becomes a lie-flat 757-200 on Oct 5. Nov 1 they all go to 757-200s. (Although united.com is showing 7 daily nonstops, which seems optimistic.)

Will that schedule hold? We'll find out in 3 months.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 4509
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 4:03 am

I noticed N54EA is heading to STL. It says it’s elite but could it be going to GoJet and getting converted? Might just be a coincidence. It looks like it is flying from MHV a lot.
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 877
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 4:55 am

Jshank83 wrote:
I noticed N54EA is heading to STL. It says it’s elite but could it be going to GoJet and getting converted? Might just be a coincidence. It looks like it is flying from MHV a lot.

Definitely possible. They just bought a couple from Nordica.

I think the MHV flights were for Virgin Galactic. If you look at the flight track, the flights actually went into Spaceport America, which is just down the road from TCS.
 
Pinto
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 5:07 am

Nicknuzzii wrote:
jayunited wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:

I’m pretty sure JayUnited has a better feel for the market dynamics than most of the rest of us.

If Mint ‘killed’ them, then why are they still flying it?


Well we are not flying the route right now hopefully the route will resumes in November which for now it is slated to do so.

I have no problem admitting that JetBlue really did change the dynamics of coast to coast flying when they expanded MINT beyond the traditional NYC-SFO/LAX markets. And if we are going to honest the reason UA is now planning on expanding lie-flat seats beyond NYC-SFO/LAX or BOS-SFO (whenever lie flat seats come back to that market on UA) with the introduction of lie-flat seating on either or perhaps both the MAX 10 and A321NEOs is because of JetBlue's MINT product. I think as these new larger narrow bodies start arriving in 2023 we will see markets like EWR-SEA/SAN/LAS/PDX will all go lie flat as will SFO/LAX-Florida(all)/IAD/BOS/BWI. United will probably use some lie-flat equip aircraft on EWR-Florida routes just to remain competitive with JetBlue and Delta out of NYC.

I'm not disagreeing with you sldispatcher but it is without question JetBlue's MINT product has changed and raised expectation on many coast to coast routes and United is trying to close the gap and the MAX 10 and/or A321NEO equip with lie-flat seating.

As far as FLL vs MIA I personally think UA because UA has found success at FLL they will continue to focus on FLL and leave MIA alone. I don't think United feels like we can compete against AA even from our own hubs to MIA so we operate the bare minimum to MIA while continuing to look for opportunities to expand at FLL.


As for the FLL vs MIA but of those I’m actually surprised EWR-MIA will have 9 flights a day this winter while FLL will have 8. Both are high numbers but I’m not sure if UA has ever had more capacity on EWR-MIA then FLL.

As for EWR in general, why aren’t we considering putting some widebodies on these Florida flights instead of flying EWR-MCO 13x a day, sometimes as little as half hour apart? I know this was the plan prepandemic then was brought up again last year before fading away. Does it come to down wanting to use more slots at EWR to reach that 430 goal?


UA is hurting on widebodies right now. With the (hopefully temporary) loss of the PW777s it would make sense to run narrowbodies on routes that don't need to legs of the Widebodies right now.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 3400
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 6:01 am

Pinto wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
jayunited wrote:

Well we are not flying the route right now hopefully the route will resumes in November which for now it is slated to do so.

I have no problem admitting that JetBlue really did change the dynamics of coast to coast flying when they expanded MINT beyond the traditional NYC-SFO/LAX markets. And if we are going to honest the reason UA is now planning on expanding lie-flat seats beyond NYC-SFO/LAX or BOS-SFO (whenever lie flat seats come back to that market on UA) with the introduction of lie-flat seating on either or perhaps both the MAX 10 and A321NEOs is because of JetBlue's MINT product. I think as these new larger narrow bodies start arriving in 2023 we will see markets like EWR-SEA/SAN/LAS/PDX will all go lie flat as will SFO/LAX-Florida(all)/IAD/BOS/BWI. United will probably use some lie-flat equip aircraft on EWR-Florida routes just to remain competitive with JetBlue and Delta out of NYC.

I'm not disagreeing with you sldispatcher but it is without question JetBlue's MINT product has changed and raised expectation on many coast to coast routes and United is trying to close the gap and the MAX 10 and/or A321NEO equip with lie-flat seating.

As far as FLL vs MIA I personally think UA because UA has found success at FLL they will continue to focus on FLL and leave MIA alone. I don't think United feels like we can compete against AA even from our own hubs to MIA so we operate the bare minimum to MIA while continuing to look for opportunities to expand at FLL.


As for the FLL vs MIA but of those I’m actually surprised EWR-MIA will have 9 flights a day this winter while FLL will have 8. Both are high numbers but I’m not sure if UA has ever had more capacity on EWR-MIA then FLL.

As for EWR in general, why aren’t we considering putting some widebodies on these Florida flights instead of flying EWR-MCO 13x a day, sometimes as little as half hour apart? I know this was the plan prepandemic then was brought up again last year before fading away. Does it come to down wanting to use more slots at EWR to reach that 430 goal?


UA is hurting on widebodies right now. With the (hopefully temporary) loss of the PW777s it would make sense to run narrowbodies on routes that don't need to legs of the Widebodies right now.


UA is hardly hurting on wide bodies. UA has known for some time the PW 777s will be out for a bit at least, if UA needed it would have pulled out 763s and 764s. I bet you’d find the current active fleet isn’t fully utilized, too.
 
codc10
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 12:36 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Pinto wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:

As for the FLL vs MIA but of those I’m actually surprised EWR-MIA will have 9 flights a day this winter while FLL will have 8. Both are high numbers but I’m not sure if UA has ever had more capacity on EWR-MIA then FLL.

As for EWR in general, why aren’t we considering putting some widebodies on these Florida flights instead of flying EWR-MCO 13x a day, sometimes as little as half hour apart? I know this was the plan prepandemic then was brought up again last year before fading away. Does it come to down wanting to use more slots at EWR to reach that 430 goal?


UA is hurting on widebodies right now. With the (hopefully temporary) loss of the PW777s it would make sense to run narrowbodies on routes that don't need to legs of the Widebodies right now.


UA is hardly hurting on wide bodies. UA has known for some time the PW 777s will be out for a bit at least, if UA needed it would have pulled out 763s and 764s. I bet you’d find the current active fleet isn’t fully utilized, too.


The 764s are returning, but at this point, the airplanes coming out of storage are due for heavy maintenance, so it’s not exactly an overnight process. Same for the 763s. UA is limited by its contractor’ capacity for HMV. At least 5-6 767s are in maintenance at HKG right now (HAECO), for instance. Once they are finished, other 767s will rotate in from storage and return to the line.

As international air cargo cargo rates come back down to earth and demand for long haul passenger flying creeps back, UAL has also ended its all-cargo flights, increasing the availability of 787/777s.
 
gwrudolph
Posts: 576
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 12:40 pm

[threeid][/threeid]
SFOtoORD wrote:
sldispatcher wrote:
Demand must really be picking up past the one month window. I'm already looking at Christmas travel. Unfortunately, once again, UAL is in the 75% to 150% fare premium over the other two network legacy carriers. If they can get it, more power to them.


I just think we are still a little far out. Since the demand is so high now and fall demand is an unknown, they’ve probably just chosen to hold a higher fare in many markets for now. I suspect there will be a better picture in late Sept.


I agree. In the end, I suspect they won’t actually get these high fare levels, but they are trying until closer in
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sat Jul 10, 2021 11:19 pm

Just released next weeks revenue passengers numbers.

For July 11th thru July 17th, United expects another 2.5 million revenue passengers, I thought once all the holiday travel was over the number would drop down to at least 2.4 million revenue passengers but as it turns out I was wrong. July is shaping up to be one of the best months United has seen since the start of the pandemic. But it isn't so nice for people traveling out of EWR where runway construction and FAA imposed limits, limit United to around 240 daily departures. Next week UA at EWR revenue passenger load factor remains in the ninety percent range at 92% load factor. Other hubs like IAH, DEN, LAX, IAD, will all see load factors between 86.5% - 89.8% both ORD and SFO will be close to 85% load factor, while EWR load factor will remain in the 90s for the third week in a row now.

This just makes me question if there had been no pandemic, no COVID how in the world would the FAA have dealt with EWR and runway construction during normal operations? Would the FAA have forced United to reduce the schedule from 430 daily flights (pre-pandemic) to where we are now at 240 daily departures.
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:09 am

jayunited wrote:
Just released next weeks revenue passengers numbers.

For July 11th thru July 17th, United expects another 2.5 million revenue passengers, I thought once all the holiday travel was over the number would drop down to at least 2.4 million revenue passengers but as it turns out I was wrong. July is shaping up to be one of the best months United has seen since the start of the pandemic. But it isn't so nice for people traveling out of EWR where runway construction and FAA imposed limits, limit United to around 240 daily departures. Next week UA at EWR revenue passenger load factor remains in the ninety percent range at 92% load factor. Other hubs like IAH, DEN, LAX, IAD, will all see load factors between 86.5% - 89.8% both ORD and SFO will be close to 85% load factor, while EWR load factor will remain in the 90s for the third week in a row now.

This just makes me question if there had been no pandemic, no COVID how in the world would the FAA have dealt with EWR and runway construction during normal operations? Would the FAA have forced United to reduce the schedule from 430 daily flights (pre-pandemic) to where we are now at 240 daily departures.


Thanks for the insight.
UAL seems to be handling the surge far better than WN and AA in terms of the ability to fly the actual schedule.

Any anecdotes about advance bookings? They have scared me off to other carriers with their pricing structure but I’m guessing Fall will bring on a downward pressure as kids go back to school.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 2:21 am

Probably means nothing, but some lists that were seen showed the Southwest 737s info in some MX manuals. Also, saw Singapore Airlines 777s info there too. Probably nothing, but will try to find out why those Singapore aircraft are listed there.
Lot of :777 PW powered aircraft are in China for RTS. Don't know when they go RTS..
 
flyer56
Posts: 82
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:46 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 5:58 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
DoctorVenkman wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

As in telling customers 'The new routing has an an extra stop, and is sold at $400 less, so I'm issuing a refund to your credit card?'

Hah hah hah!

Customers will need to request a refund and rebook themselves to get the lower fare.

DOT rules allow passengers a refund when a non-stop gets rescheduled with a stop (and when direct becomes a connection), but not for a 2-segment routing that becomes a 3-segment routing unless timing changes are significant (and significant isn't defined by the DOT).

Yes, it's hard to predict border openings and international demand. That reality doesn't change passenger rights. Even the DOT under Chao declared that.

https://www.transportation.gov/briefing ... ier-refund


When a ticket changes substantially the customer is given the option to decline the change and reschedule/refund the ticket. This is a non-issue that you seem to be trying to turn into a big one.


No, we saw how UA chose to play this early in Covid - making a 25 hour minimum schedule change the requirement for a refund - before they got slapped down by the DOT (the release I posted). Passengers had to rely on the DOT for relief, not United's integrity.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-sc ... ge-policy/


United was doing some questionable things, particularly first half of last year. But they were not the worst. Air Canada was abysmal. Cancelling an international flight on short notice, offering to rebook on the same flight two days later at triple the cost. Really incredible.
 
Pinto
Posts: 121
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 6:46 am

CALTECH wrote:
Probably means nothing, but some lists that were seen showed the Southwest 737s info in some MX manuals. Also, saw Singapore Airlines 777s info there too. Probably nothing, but will try to find out why those Singapore aircraft are listed there.
Lot of :777 PW powered aircraft are in China for RTS. Don't know when they go RTS..


Can you elaborate on the 777s. Would UA get some second hand SQ 777s?
 
codc10
Posts: 3227
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Sun Jul 11, 2021 12:37 pm

Pinto wrote:
CALTECH wrote:
Probably means nothing, but some lists that were seen showed the Southwest 737s info in some MX manuals. Also, saw Singapore Airlines 777s info there too. Probably nothing, but will try to find out why those Singapore aircraft are listed there.
Lot of :777 PW powered aircraft are in China for RTS. Don't know when they go RTS..


Can you elaborate on the 777s. Would UA get some second hand SQ 777s?


SQ 772/773 non-ER had RR power, so not compatible, and UA basically shot down the idea of used widebodies on the basis of upfront cost to modify, work to sync maintenance and ongoing cost disadvantage to newer-gen aircraft.

Possibly an acquisition for part-out, to support the existing 772s?
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 27

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