Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:47 pm

airbazar wrote:
As a Boston based UA FF I'm going to go against the general consensus and say that a UA BOS-LHR is much needed and would do well.
LHR is BOS's largest international market by a long shot. IIRC, BOS is LHR's second largest U.S. market after NYC. It's a huge market that *A/A++ is missing out on. And although UA doesn't call LHR a hub, T2 is a de facto *A hub. BOS-LHR and BOS-NRT are 2 routes that I'd argue, need a *A presence.



You chose to be a UA FF in Boston. UA flies to hubs from BOS. BOS is a spoke. LHR is a spoke. You will connect in EWR to go to LHR.

That is why people usually are FF of airlines that have large, diverse ops in their home city. They avoid connections
 
Pinto
Posts: 123
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2018 11:30 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 3:48 pm

codc10 wrote:
jayunited wrote:
BA744PHX wrote:
One can argue it’s well served only by AA, BA, DL and VS, I wouldn’t include B6 just as UA who has yet to start the route. There is no need for either of them on the route


I don't know whether United actually will launch BOS-LHR they gone completely silent on this routes since its announcement. United recently talked about IAD-LOS and SFO-BLR but nothing so far about BOS-LHR. Who knows what is going to happen but it doesn't change the facts that United has another year round slot at LHR so if United does not follow through and launch BOS-LHR they will use the slot from another US airport. No matter how you look at it whether you feel like there is or isn't a need for another carrier on a specific LHR route the facts are United has a slot, they are going to give up the slot, or sell the slot and once the waivers are done and 80/20 rule is back in effect United will need to use the slot, the question is, if not from BOS then where?


The easiest use is another EWR frequency (as was originally planned for the slot), though I doubt there will be sufficient business traffic to justify it any time in the next year or so. The short-lived plan for LAX-LHR #2 became EWR-LHR #6, and the NZ slot was publicly filed as EWR-LHR #7.

BOS-LHR is relatively "easy" in that it requires the least aircraft time and has lower direct trip costs than anything in the UA LHR portfolio, but it doesn't make sense if the UA/*A value proposition at Boston is minimal and United is relegated to picking up scraps left by the incumbents.

My dark horse candidate for an additional LHR frequency in the intermediate/long-term is DEN. If the company gets Denver to ~700 dailies in 2 years like it's been telling pilots, the sheer volume means there might be a more lucrative market for a DEN-LHR #2 than BOS-LHR.


My understanding is the LAX 2 became DEN - LHR. Also,, the BOS slot was actually another slot picked up by UA and not one taken from EWR.
I think UA would choose BOS over 2x DEN because of a couple of reasons. BOS *A flyers have to backtrack to get to LHR on any *A carrier. As well as DEN would require more than q frame for daily flying to LHR. Right now it works to about 1 frames because it rotates in as ORD - FRA - DEN - FRA - US.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4743
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:13 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As a Boston based UA FF I'm going to go against the general consensus and say that a UA BOS-LHR is much needed and would do well.
LHR is BOS's largest international market by a long shot. IIRC, BOS is LHR's second largest U.S. market after NYC. It's a huge market that *A/A++ is missing out on. And although UA doesn't call LHR a hub, T2 is a de facto *A hub. BOS-LHR and BOS-NRT are 2 routes that I'd argue, need a *A presence.



You chose to be a UA FF in Boston. UA flies to hubs from BOS. BOS is a spoke. LHR is a spoke. You will connect in EWR to go to LHR.

That is why people usually are FF of airlines that have large, diverse ops in their home city. They avoid connections


No, you don't, necessarily. Some corporate contracts stipulate employee travel, even in Boston, and on UA/*A. Other FF's port their loyalty from another gateway city for whatever reason. I used to work for a major company that stipulated travel be completed on AA which meant unfortunately having to go through a hub when a nonstop wasn't available.

UA's planned entry into BOS-LHR (re-entry actually, as it flew the route from 1998 until the early 2000s and it didn't work out so well), is obviously to try and blunt B6's entry, but given the delayed B6 start of service, low demand generally, it doesn't make sense for UA to launch the route now, and perhaps ever.
 
codc10
Posts: 3237
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:51 pm

Pinto wrote:
codc10 wrote:
jayunited wrote:

I don't know whether United actually will launch BOS-LHR they gone completely silent on this routes since its announcement. United recently talked about IAD-LOS and SFO-BLR but nothing so far about BOS-LHR. Who knows what is going to happen but it doesn't change the facts that United has another year round slot at LHR so if United does not follow through and launch BOS-LHR they will use the slot from another US airport. No matter how you look at it whether you feel like there is or isn't a need for another carrier on a specific LHR route the facts are United has a slot, they are going to give up the slot, or sell the slot and once the waivers are done and 80/20 rule is back in effect United will need to use the slot, the question is, if not from BOS then where?


The easiest use is another EWR frequency (as was originally planned for the slot), though I doubt there will be sufficient business traffic to justify it any time in the next year or so. The short-lived plan for LAX-LHR #2 became EWR-LHR #6, and the NZ slot was publicly filed as EWR-LHR #7.

BOS-LHR is relatively "easy" in that it requires the least aircraft time and has lower direct trip costs than anything in the UA LHR portfolio, but it doesn't make sense if the UA/*A value proposition at Boston is minimal and United is relegated to picking up scraps left by the incumbents.

My dark horse candidate for an additional LHR frequency in the intermediate/long-term is DEN. If the company gets Denver to ~700 dailies in 2 years like it's been telling pilots, the sheer volume means there might be a more lucrative market for a DEN-LHR #2 than BOS-LHR.


My understanding is the LAX 2 became DEN - LHR. Also,, the BOS slot was actually another slot picked up by UA and not one taken from EWR.
I think UA would choose BOS over 2x DEN because of a couple of reasons. BOS *A flyers have to backtrack to get to LHR on any *A carrier. As well as DEN would require more than q frame for daily flying to LHR. Right now it works to about 1 frames because it rotates in as ORD - FRA - DEN - FRA - US.


IAH-LHR #3 operated for a few years, but then IAH-LHR went to 2x 777 (vs. 3x 767) and that slot was planned for LAX-LHR #2, but ultimately became EWR-LHR #6 in 2017. EWR-LHR operated at 6x until the pandemic. DEN-LHR launched in 2018, initially summer-only after UA acquired a year-round slot for SFO-LHR #2 (which had previously been summer-only). Then, in 2019, UA acquired a winter slot pair to allow DEN-LHR to go daily year-round. Right before the pandemic, UA closed a transaction with Air New Zealand for its LHR slot, which was filed to become EWR-LHR #7 in Summer 2020; that of course never came to pass. This can all be publicly traced from the ACL slot trade database.

There were some erroneous reports that UA's proposed BOS-LHR was going to be flown with a slot divested from the BA/AA transatlantic JV, but UA did not apply for that. BOS-LHR, when/if it starts, will come from the existing UA portfolio of LHR slot pairs, which (IIRC) stands at 18 year-round.

I don't think UA can support 2x DEN-LHR right now, but if the hub grows to 700+ daily departures, it should in theory be able to sustain additional international/longhaul flying by virtue of its connectivity. BOS is a dead-end for UA (in terms of connectivity), so the LHR flight would have to be strategic to the Star Alliance portfolio. There might be better yields to be captured by capturing more flow over an existing hub, but time will tell.
 
SurlyBonds
Posts: 436
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 10:24 am

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 4:57 pm

steviebas wrote:
Significant traffic potential from academia - MIT / Boston College and their links with Oxford / Cambridge / LSE. Many professors etc don’t fly coach.


Universities are not like businesses. By and large, Harvard does not form an alliance with Oxford, and MIT does not form a rival alliance with Cambridge. (Yes, I realize there are occasional exceptions, but those are pretty peripheral and for second-order things like study abroad programs.) Moreover, scholarly research is highly decentralized. Individual professors collaborate with each other. Labs and centers may collaborate with each other. The MIT Center for FooFighter Research doesn't care a fig about Cambridge if the world's other leading center for foofighter research is in Heidelberg, Germany.

Finally, I'd dearly love to know the source of your assertion that professors don't fly coach. Academia is far more akin to the nonprofit world than the corporate sector, which has revenue streams to support flying business class and has to compete for scarce talent. Tenured professorships are highly sought after, and no one is going to turn down a position because of flying coach. (Again, I realize there are occasional exceptions, such as business school professors on consulting contracts, etc.)
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 7:50 pm

ContinentalEWR wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As a Boston based UA FF I'm going to go against the general consensus and say that a UA BOS-LHR is much needed and would do well.
LHR is BOS's largest international market by a long shot. IIRC, BOS is LHR's second largest U.S. market after NYC. It's a huge market that *A/A++ is missing out on. And although UA doesn't call LHR a hub, T2 is a de facto *A hub. BOS-LHR and BOS-NRT are 2 routes that I'd argue, need a *A presence.



You chose to be a UA FF in Boston. UA flies to hubs from BOS. BOS is a spoke. LHR is a spoke. You will connect in EWR to go to LHR.

That is why people usually are FF of airlines that have large, diverse ops in their home city. They avoid connections


No, you don't, necessarily. Some corporate contracts stipulate employee travel, even in Boston, and on UA/*A. Other FF's port their loyalty from another gateway city for whatever reason. I used to work for a major company that stipulated travel be completed on AA which meant unfortunately having to go through a hub when a nonstop wasn't available.

UA's planned entry into BOS-LHR (re-entry actually, as it flew the route from 1998 until the early 2000s and it didn't work out so well), is obviously to try and blunt B6's entry, but given the delayed B6 start of service, low demand generally, it doesn't make sense for UA to launch the route now, and perhaps ever.



Makes sense.

But I dont think you will see this route. If it does operate, maybe for a season. P2P just isnt United’s thing
 
User avatar
adamh8297
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 8:58 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:


You chose to be a UA FF in Boston. UA flies to hubs from BOS. BOS is a spoke. LHR is a spoke. You will connect in EWR to go to LHR.

That is why people usually are FF of airlines that have large, diverse ops in their home city. They avoid connections


No, you don't, necessarily. Some corporate contracts stipulate employee travel, even in Boston, and on UA/*A. Other FF's port their loyalty from another gateway city for whatever reason. I used to work for a major company that stipulated travel be completed on AA which meant unfortunately having to go through a hub when a nonstop wasn't available.

UA's planned entry into BOS-LHR (re-entry actually, as it flew the route from 1998 until the early 2000s and it didn't work out so well), is obviously to try and blunt B6's entry, but given the delayed B6 start of service, low demand generally, it doesn't make sense for UA to launch the route now, and perhaps ever.



Makes sense.

But I dont think you will see this route. If it does operate, maybe for a season. P2P just isnt United’s thing


I think its important to look at *A and UA partners in Boston. Note: I am NOT talking about connections from a BOS-LHR flight just what is offered to a UA frequent flier.

UA: SFO, EWR, ORD, IAD, DEN, LAX, IAH
AC: YYZ, YUL, YHZ, YOW, seasonal YVR
LH: FRA, MUC
LX: ZRH
TP: LIS
SK: CPH
TK: IST
CM: PTY

UA also partners with EI (DUB/SNN when it resumes), Cape Air, and Boutique.

Adding LHR could tip the scales towards corporate contracts. What if its a big player they are trying to get. Example: a financial firm wanting non-stops to ORD, EWR, ZRH, FRA, YYZ and LHR.

NH comes in with NRT/HND and UA has a lot of major high O+D business markets covered.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 9:17 pm

adamh8297 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

No, you don't, necessarily. Some corporate contracts stipulate employee travel, even in Boston, and on UA/*A. Other FF's port their loyalty from another gateway city for whatever reason. I used to work for a major company that stipulated travel be completed on AA which meant unfortunately having to go through a hub when a nonstop wasn't available.

UA's planned entry into BOS-LHR (re-entry actually, as it flew the route from 1998 until the early 2000s and it didn't work out so well), is obviously to try and blunt B6's entry, but given the delayed B6 start of service, low demand generally, it doesn't make sense for UA to launch the route now, and perhaps ever.



Makes sense.

But I dont think you will see this route. If it does operate, maybe for a season. P2P just isnt United’s thing


I think its important to look at *A and UA partners in Boston. Note: I am NOT talking about connections from a BOS-LHR flight just what is offered to a UA frequent flier.

UA: SFO, EWR, ORD, IAD, DEN, LAX, IAH
AC: YYZ, YUL, YHZ, YOW, seasonal YVR
LH: FRA, MUC
LX: ZRH
TP: LIS
SK: CPH
TK: IST
CM: PTY

UA also partners with EI (DUB/SNN when it resumes), Cape Air, and Boutique.

Adding LHR could tip the scales towards corporate contracts. What if its a big player they are trying to get. Example: a financial firm wanting non-stops to ORD, EWR, ZRH, FRA, YYZ and LHR.

NH comes in with NRT/HND and UA has a lot of major high O+D business markets covered.


It might tip the scale for a some people, but the domestic and Caribbean coverage is still quite weak. having 1 flight to London is really not competitive vs what other airlines normally will operate. Is a corporation really going to pick UA when competition will have 3 to 5 flights a day? It's also a real unknown at this point how many international airlines will come back in the near future. IIRC, UA doesn't really give you qualifying miles for most of the *A airline flights, which really diminishes the # of #A airline that serves BOS.

So as a result of this, UA has a pretty small point of sale in BOS (based on the BTS numbers I've looked at). Of course, they may still find it worthwhile to try this route. But I really don't buy the justification that it's a low risk route because it's a shorter stage length than other markets to LHR. I don't see how a route can be low risk when there is a lot of competition and UA has very little point of sale and few connections on both end.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 10:56 pm

tphuang wrote:
It might tip the scale for a some people, but the domestic and Caribbean coverage is still quite weak. having 1 flight to London is really not competitive vs what other airlines normally will operate. Is a corporation really going to pick UA when competition will have 3 to 5 flights a day? It's also a real unknown at this point how many international airlines will come back in the near future. IIRC, UA doesn't really give you qualifying miles for most of the *A airline flights, which really diminishes the # of #A airline that serves BOS.

So as a result of this, UA has a pretty small point of sale in BOS (based on the BTS numbers I've looked at). Of course, they may still find it worthwhile to try this route. But I really don't buy the justification that it's a low risk route because it's a shorter stage length than other markets to LHR. I don't see how a route can be low risk when there is a lot of competition and UA has very little point of sale and few connections on both end.


LHR isn't UA's problem United does quite well at LHR without any partner in the UK to feed our flights. Pre-pandemic United was operating 18 nonstop flights year around and we now have one additional year around slot, and if I'm not mistaken UA also has an IATA summer slot they were planning on using starting in 2020 to take EWR-LHR to 7x daily April through October then it would drop to 6x daily from November through March. If we look at UA's LHR operation and not include the JV Delta has with Virgin I believe UA pre-pandemic operated more nonstop to LHR on our own metal than Delta did on their own metal, so the issue for UA with BOS-LHR isn't with LHR and having very little point of sale or a connection problem, the issue for UA would be totally on this side of the Atlantic in BOS where UA has a relative small presence.
 
ContinentalEWR
Posts: 4743
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 2:50 am

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 11:48 pm

jayunited wrote:
tphuang wrote:
It might tip the scale for a some people, but the domestic and Caribbean coverage is still quite weak. having 1 flight to London is really not competitive vs what other airlines normally will operate. Is a corporation really going to pick UA when competition will have 3 to 5 flights a day? It's also a real unknown at this point how many international airlines will come back in the near future. IIRC, UA doesn't really give you qualifying miles for most of the *A airline flights, which really diminishes the # of #A airline that serves BOS.

So as a result of this, UA has a pretty small point of sale in BOS (based on the BTS numbers I've looked at). Of course, they may still find it worthwhile to try this route. But I really don't buy the justification that it's a low risk route because it's a shorter stage length than other markets to LHR. I don't see how a route can be low risk when there is a lot of competition and UA has very little point of sale and few connections on both end.


LHR isn't UA's problem United does quite well at LHR without any partner in the UK to feed our flights. Pre-pandemic United was operating 18 nonstop flights year around and we now have one additional year around slot, and if I'm not mistaken UA also has an IATA summer slot they were planning on using starting in 2020 to take EWR-LHR to 7x daily April through October then it would drop to 6x daily from November through March. If we look at UA's LHR operation and not include the JV Delta has with Virgin I believe UA pre-pandemic operated more nonstop to LHR on our own metal than Delta did on their own metal, so the issue for UA with BOS-LHR isn't with LHR and having very little point of sale or a connection problem, the issue for UA would be totally on this side of the Atlantic in BOS where UA has a relative small presence.


UA is substantively larger than DL at LHR. Pre-pandemic and currently. Before COVID it was 5 to 6 a day to EWR, up to 3 to IAD, 3 to ORD, 2 to SFO, and 2 to IAH, and one each to LAX and DEN. UA has always been large at LHR, before the merger, and since the merger, it only got larger. DL at LHR pre-pandemic was something like 3 to JFK, 2 to ATL, plus BOS, MSP, and SEA. That's just their own metal. Throw in VS and it was larger. AA was 4 to JFK, 3 to ORD, 2 to MIA, 1 to RDU, up to 4 to DFW, plus LAX and and PHX at 1 each. The issue for the BOS-LHR route on UA is indeed POS and contracts on the Boston end and in the current environment, induced by the pandemic, it is anemic for all. Not the right time to start a route like that, outside a hub, with no feed, even if it is on the surface anyway, a relatively low risk one. And no, non-hub P2P isn't UA's thing.
 
tphuang
Posts: 6637
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Fri Aug 27, 2021 11:49 pm

jayunited wrote:
tphuang wrote:
It might tip the scale for a some people, but the domestic and Caribbean coverage is still quite weak. having 1 flight to London is really not competitive vs what other airlines normally will operate. Is a corporation really going to pick UA when competition will have 3 to 5 flights a day? It's also a real unknown at this point how many international airlines will come back in the near future. IIRC, UA doesn't really give you qualifying miles for most of the *A airline flights, which really diminishes the # of #A airline that serves BOS.

So as a result of this, UA has a pretty small point of sale in BOS (based on the BTS numbers I've looked at). Of course, they may still find it worthwhile to try this route. But I really don't buy the justification that it's a low risk route because it's a shorter stage length than other markets to LHR. I don't see how a route can be low risk when there is a lot of competition and UA has very little point of sale and few connections on both end.


LHR isn't UA's problem United does quite well at LHR without any partner in the UK to feed our flights. Pre-pandemic United was operating 18 nonstop flights year around and we now have one additional year around slot, and if I'm not mistaken UA also has an IATA summer slot they were planning on using starting in 2020 to take EWR-LHR to 7x daily April through October then it would drop to 6x daily from November through March. If we look at UA's LHR operation and not include the JV Delta has with Virgin I believe UA pre-pandemic operated more nonstop to LHR on our own metal than Delta did on their own metal, so the issue for UA with BOS-LHR isn't with LHR and having very little point of sale or a connection problem, the issue for UA would be totally on this side of the Atlantic in BOS where UA has a relative small presence.


I think UA makes all its other LHR routes work due to having a hub on the other end. US to LHR is probably more dependent on US side of demand. So even if UA has minimal point of sale on London side, it's strength on US side make those markets work. The problem with a non-hub like BOS is that UA simply doesn't have much point of sale or feeds. It would be hard for UA to sell close to 70 premium seats (46J + 22W) on 1 flight while only having 10 to 15% of BOS point of sale.

Again, UA may still find the market to be important enough (for networking reasons) to be worthy of operating for a lengthy period of time. After all, UA has even been floating the idea of JFK-LHR. But I think UA would really struggle to fill premium seats profitably if it operated this route.

Again, I don't buy this "low risk" talk. If J fares on this route drop to $2k R/T and UA still has trouble selling more than half the cabin at that fare level, it's going to very painful.
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 1220
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Sat Aug 28, 2021 1:05 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:

UA is substantively larger than DL at LHR. Pre-pandemic and currently. Before COVID it was 5 to 6 a day to EWR, up to 3 to IAD, 3 to ORD, 2 to SFO, and 2 to IAH, and one each to LAX and DEN. UA has always been large at LHR, before the merger, and since the merger, it only got larger. DL at LHR pre-pandemic was something like 3 to JFK, 2 to ATL, plus BOS, MSP, and SEA. That's just their own metal. Throw in VS and it was larger. AA was 4 to JFK, 3 to ORD, 2 to MIA, 1 to RDU, up to 4 to DFW, plus LAX and and PHX at 1 each.

You have to consider DL/VS as one because they have a revenue sharing JV. Both airlines can swap equipment based on their needs to maximize profits. You cannot treat them as separate. Same applies to AA/BA.
So, no, UA is not substantively larger than DL at LHR.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: United BOS-LHR

Sat Aug 28, 2021 2:26 am

tphuang wrote:

I think UA makes all its other LHR routes work due to having a hub on the other end. US to LHR is probably more dependent on US side of demand. So even if UA has minimal point of sale on London side, it's strength on US side make those markets work. The problem with a non-hub like BOS is that UA simply doesn't have much point of sale or feeds.


It's not like UA is an unknown in BOS.

Isn't BOS one of top 5 spokes in the US market for UA? BOS is one of a handful of markets that's served from all 7 UA hubs and the metro area is >4million. BOS would seem like one of safer bets around unless they went with CLE which has a solid UA presence and no competition. The ability to fly it with a 752, if necessary, potentially makes BOS less of a loss-maker if it takes a while to mature. They're not letting the LHR slot go...it's a long-term investment.
 
len90
Posts: 1174
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 1:03 pm

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

Sat Aug 28, 2021 2:27 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Actually I believe it's 12 of 40 completed with the new 116/160 configuration on 752.
Of those 9 are flying, so today flying units are 9 new config of 17 in service.
2 16/160 units still in ROW and 1 in RTS maint. at GSO.
3 old config units should return soon from RTS maint and paint. Hopefully the 2 units in ILN might get the refub.

I'm actually a bit surprised that 116 and 120 have still not been moved for a RTS. They are the last two reconfigured still in ROW.

The 764s are getting back online a lot faster than I anticipated; likely helped along immensely by the 772 fan blades plus higher than predicted air travel demand.
 
N649DL
Posts: 1185
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2018 10:21 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Sat Aug 28, 2021 6:35 am

Dominion301 wrote:
FlyingMSY wrote:
AirKevin wrote:
737-900ER has the range for this?


Surprisingly, yes. At least on paper. London to Boston (direct) clocks at 3,269 mi (5265km), and the 739ER has a published range of around ~3392 mi (5460km).
Granted, that's not factoring headwinds and taking a slightly longer airway and such.


How about the non-ER 739s or the 320s?


OMG I'd rather slit my throat than fly on a UA 739 or 320 on BOS-LHR...

UA *did* fly BOS-LHR on a 763 from 1999 to around 2002. The flight was tagged from SFO, so the market could still be there.
 
jumpjets
Posts: 1553
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 2:17 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Sat Aug 28, 2021 9:17 am

I don’t think this has been mentioned yet but as far as I recall the Slots for the UA LHR-BOS were awarded as remedy slots required as a condition for allowing the BA, AA etc. TATL joint business arrangement.

I assume that if UA don’t fly the route, I think for six seasons, they will not be allowed to transfer the slots to another route and will have to hand them back. I guess that will influence UAs thinking on whether to look longer term and fly the route even if it doesn’t make much out of it and then swap it out to a more profitable route once the time bar has expired.
 
Cmac787
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Sat Aug 28, 2021 9:41 am

N818UA A319 scheduled to ferry to AMA for paint Evo blue livery 28Aug
 
IFlyOff
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu May 13, 2021 6:36 pm

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

Sat Aug 28, 2021 3:45 pm

Cmac787 wrote:
Yes confirmed. F2734 EWR-AMA 13Aug

RockAir wrote:
Looks like 752 0127 is going to AMA for paint tomorrow. Trip in open time. Flew it last week. Really looks bad.

Does anyone have pictures of the new paint job on this aircraft? It'd be nice to see before and after photos.
 
audidudi
Posts: 3001
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2007 4:35 pm

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

Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:13 pm

IFlyOff wrote:
Cmac787 wrote:
Yes confirmed. F2734 EWR-AMA 13Aug

RockAir wrote:
Looks like 752 0127 is going to AMA for paint tomorrow. Trip in open time. Flew it last week. Really looks bad.

Does anyone have pictures of the new paint job on this aircraft? It'd be nice to see before and after photos.

According to FR24, she's still at AMA and hasn't emerged from the paint hangar yet!
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n48127

This photo was taken 8 months ago, so you can imagine how it looked prior to painting!
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 24/6297699
 
Cmac787
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:44 pm

It should be out in the next five days.

IFlyOff wrote:
Cmac787 wrote:
Yes confirmed. F2734 EWR-AMA 13Aug

RockAir wrote:
Looks like 752 0127 is going to AMA for paint tomorrow. Trip in open time. Flew it last week. Really looks bad.

Does anyone have pictures of the new paint job on this aircraft? It'd be nice to see before and after photos.
 
Cmac787
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Sat Aug 28, 2021 7:48 pm

Right now 5 MAX8’s in induction with 7256 having been in SEA for 22 days.
 
User avatar
CALTECH
Posts: 3532
Joined: Thu May 17, 2007 4:21 am

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

Sat Aug 28, 2021 8:01 pm

audidudi wrote:
IFlyOff wrote:
Cmac787 wrote:
Yes confirmed. F2734 EWR-AMA 13Aug


Does anyone have pictures of the new paint job on this aircraft? It'd be nice to see before and after photos.

According to FR24, she's still at AMA and hasn't emerged from the paint hangar yet!
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/n48127

This photo was taken 8 months ago, so you can imagine how it looked prior to painting!
https://www.airliners.net/photo/United- ... 24/6297699


Due out on the 30th of August in the morning......

Seen the 'blueprint' looks good. Looks well balanced.....
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 5214
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 9:07 am

This isn't really united being "mean" to JFK flyers or them abandoning anything. Demand is still very weird and business travel is very low

The business demand is just way way way too low to fill those huge premium cabins and it ain't coming back anytime soon. The 757 is a much better fit for right now. They need to stay in the markets and find a lounge deal ASAP. They can go back to the original plan of 767s when business demand returns to 2019 levels which is really anyones guess right now, but its gonna be a while.

They are even using the "low J" 757s 16 seats but keeping the same flights. It just shows the demand is not good for premium seats and probably way better for regular coach as its almost all leisure travel. That 757 does seem like a much better fit for the current market. Way more coach seats to sell and less premium seats, that is what the demand is right now
 
GmoneyCO
Posts: 230
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:42 pm

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 12:53 pm

Just saw N77012 pull into a gate in DEN, wow does it need a paint job. It has to be the one of the top 3 planes in need of pain right now, possibly right after that 757 that is in really rough shape.

D3166E9C-3990-4DAA-BC9A-8C29B5836BCC.jpeg
 
User avatar
drerx7
Posts: 4454
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2000 12:19 am

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 2:11 pm

I flew on n77012 couple of weeks ago ORD-IAH.... that 777 looks baaaaaaad. Desperately needs paint.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 2:55 pm

United has applied with the FAA for ETOPS 240 authorization for the South Atlantic.

Remember a few years ago United went through this rigorous process and gain approval for our South Pacific flights especially those flight operating to SIN. Now we are going through the same process all over again for for our flights to Africa but more specifically it appears as though United is taking these steps to benefit our JNB and CPT flights.

United has already submitted its application and has just finished the required tabletop exercise with the FAA, Flight Ops, Dispatch, FAA Dispatch Inspectors, Tech Ops, and FAA Flight Ops Inspectors. The next phase in this process is to conduct an actual live ETOPS 240 flight over the Atlantic with all of the necessary FAA inspectors onboard.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:36 pm

jayunited wrote:
United has applied with the FAA for ETOPS 240 authorization for the South Atlantic.



Any estimate on how much ETOPS 240 would save on a US-JNB/CPT routes? I did a check on gcmap and it doesn't show any route restrictions with ETOPS 180. Are there some other issues, other than more direct routings, that ETOPS 240 would benefit UA?
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:41 pm

jetblastdubai wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United has applied with the FAA for ETOPS 240 authorization for the South Atlantic.



Any estimate on how much ETOPS 240 would save on a US-JNB/CPT routes? I did a check on gcmap and it doesn't show any route restrictions with ETOPS 180. Are there some other issues, other than more direct routings, that ETOPS 240 would benefit UA?



It would be extremely rare the EWR- JNB would need 240. This is for EWR-CPT but since that route isn’t operational as of right now United is using JNB to gain South Atlantic approval.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2064
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:50 pm

CriticalPoint wrote:

It would be extremely rare the EWR- JNB would need 240. This is for EWR-CPT but since that route isn’t operational as of right now United is using JNB to gain South Atlantic approval.


Thanks for that info. http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=ewr-cpt,+e ... &E=180,240
 
Cmac787
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Sun Aug 29, 2021 6:38 pm

Another 757-200 is being pulled out of ROW storage and will ferry to ILN for heavy MX 30Aug. Still trying to find out the ship number
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2663
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:05 am

jetblastdubai wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United has applied with the FAA for ETOPS 240 authorization for the South Atlantic.



Any estimate on how much ETOPS 240 would save on a US-JNB/CPT routes? I did a check on gcmap and it doesn't show any route restrictions with ETOPS 180. Are there some other issues, other than more direct routings, that ETOPS 240 would benefit UA?

I would assume that ETOPS 240 would just be for contingency purposes, such as if there was weather perhaps off the coast of Namibia which would call for a deviation to the West. I can't imagine how often that would occur, however.
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:49 am

USAirALB wrote:
jetblastdubai wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United has applied with the FAA for ETOPS 240 authorization for the South Atlantic.



Any estimate on how much ETOPS 240 would save on a US-JNB/CPT routes? I did a check on gcmap and it doesn't show any route restrictions with ETOPS 180. Are there some other issues, other than more direct routings, that ETOPS 240 would benefit UA?

I would assume that ETOPS 240 would just be for contingency purposes, such as if there was weather perhaps off the coast of Namibia which would call for a deviation to the West. I can't imagine how often that would occur, however.


It will be unlimited like the South Pacific. CPT needs it to split the continents. Without 240 the flight is 30-45 minutes longer.
 
sldispatcher
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 3:55 am

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:06 am

jayunited wrote:
United has applied with the FAA for ETOPS 240 authorization for the South Atlantic.

Remember a few years ago United went through this rigorous process and gain approval for our South Pacific flights especially those flight operating to SIN. Now we are going through the same process all over again for for our flights to Africa but more specifically it appears as though United is taking these steps to benefit our JNB and CPT flights.

United has already submitted its application and has just finished the required tabletop exercise with the FAA, Flight Ops, Dispatch, FAA Dispatch Inspectors, Tech Ops, and FAA Flight Ops Inspectors. The next phase in this process is to conduct an actual live ETOPS 240 flight over the Atlantic with all of the necessary FAA inspectors onboard.


I can only presume if the inspectors are onboard at that point that they themselves would have full confidence at that point. I wonder what that test consists of doing while in flight?
 
CriticalPoint
Posts: 1107
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 5:01 pm

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 2:43 am

sldispatcher wrote:
jayunited wrote:
United has applied with the FAA for ETOPS 240 authorization for the South Atlantic.

Remember a few years ago United went through this rigorous process and gain approval for our South Pacific flights especially those flight operating to SIN. Now we are going through the same process all over again for for our flights to Africa but more specifically it appears as though United is taking these steps to benefit our JNB and CPT flights.

United has already submitted its application and has just finished the required tabletop exercise with the FAA, Flight Ops, Dispatch, FAA Dispatch Inspectors, Tech Ops, and FAA Flight Ops Inspectors. The next phase in this process is to conduct an actual live ETOPS 240 flight over the Atlantic with all of the necessary FAA inspectors onboard.


I can only presume if the inspectors are onboard at that point that they themselves would have full confidence at that point. I wonder what that test consists of doing while in flight?


They give practice scenarios and monitor communications in real time.

They are mostly looking to see if SATCOM and LDOC etc work as designed and all branches of the company are reachable and knowledgeable in real time.
 
Cmac787
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:15 am

N24224 737-800 entering INT MX30 Aug F2752 EWR-INT
N15751 737-700 exiting INT MX 30Aug F2751 INT-EWR
N412UA A320 exiting TPA MX F2756 TPA-ORD
 
Cmac787
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 11:24 am

N48127 757-200 exiting AMA paint with Evo blue livery 30Aug F2723/30Aug AMA-EWR. Hopefully someone will post some pics soon.
N17104 757-200 entering AMA paint for Evo blue livery 30Aug F2750/30Aug EWR-AMA
 
airbazar
Posts: 10481
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:11 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As a Boston based UA FF I'm going to go against the general consensus and say that a UA BOS-LHR is much needed and would do well.
LHR is BOS's largest international market by a long shot. IIRC, BOS is LHR's second largest U.S. market after NYC. It's a huge market that *A/A++ is missing out on. And although UA doesn't call LHR a hub, T2 is a de facto *A hub. BOS-LHR and BOS-NRT are 2 routes that I'd argue, need a *A presence.



You chose to be a UA FF in Boston. UA flies to hubs from BOS. BOS is a spoke. LHR is a spoke. You will connect in EWR to go to LHR.

That is why people usually are FF of airlines that have large, diverse ops in their home city. They avoid connections


My main destinations when I travel are LIS, MUC, DEN, ORD. It's a no brainer which airline I should be a FF of. I don't have to connect anywhere.
*A has a huge presence in BOS in case you've forgotten. I work in IT and my FF membership with UA started in 90's when I was flying between BOS and SFO routinely and I've had no reason to change it although these days price and schedule are more deciding factors than FF membership.
My main point was that BOS-LHR should be of strategical importance for the A++ alliance and the choice to enter it or not enter it might not rest entirely with UA. I just don't see how they can continue to justify being the only alliance without a presence in the second largest TATL market (if we believe that BOS-LHR is indeed the 2nd largest TATL market from the U.S.)
Also, calling LHR a spoke is a little disingenuous and it doesn't really represent its importance and weight accurately.
 
gravytrain
Posts: 72
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:41 am

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 1:16 pm

Is EWR GLA cut?

Not bookable at least. Looking to clarify twitter speculation.
 
Cmac787
Posts: 275
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:15 pm

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 3:24 pm

N29124 757-200 scheduled to exit ROW storage and ferry to ILN MX 30Aug
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6534
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Mon Aug 30, 2021 4:57 pm

airbazar wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As a Boston based UA FF I'm going to go against the general consensus and say that a UA BOS-LHR is much needed and would do well.
LHR is BOS's largest international market by a long shot. IIRC, BOS is LHR's second largest U.S. market after NYC. It's a huge market that *A/A++ is missing out on. And although UA doesn't call LHR a hub, T2 is a de facto *A hub. BOS-LHR and BOS-NRT are 2 routes that I'd argue, need a *A presence.



You chose to be a UA FF in Boston. UA flies to hubs from BOS. BOS is a spoke. LHR is a spoke. You will connect in EWR to go to LHR.

That is why people usually are FF of airlines that have large, diverse ops in their home city. They avoid connections


My main destinations when I travel are LIS, MUC, DEN, ORD. It's a no brainer which airline I should be a FF of. I don't have to connect anywhere.
*A has a huge presence in BOS in case you've forgotten. I work in IT and my FF membership with UA started in 90's when I was flying between BOS and SFO routinely and I've had no reason to change it although these days price and schedule are more deciding factors than FF membership.
My main point was that BOS-LHR should be of strategical importance for the A++ alliance and the choice to enter it or not enter it might not rest entirely with UA. I just don't see how they can continue to justify being the only alliance without a presence in the second largest TATL market (if we believe that BOS-LHR is indeed the 2nd largest TATL market from the U.S.)
Also, calling LHR a spoke is a little disingenuous and it doesn't really represent its importance and weight accurately.



*A has a huge presence in BOS in case you've forgotten.

No, they do not.

It is a spoke for Star. Nothing more, nothing less. Unless you are flying Star to a hub city, you are connecting.

Im glad it works well for you…that is all that matters.
 
LCDFlight
Posts: 1277
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 9:22 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Mon Aug 30, 2021 5:11 pm

airbazar wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As a Boston based UA FF I'm going to go against the general consensus and say that a UA BOS-LHR is much needed and would do well.
LHR is BOS's largest international market by a long shot. IIRC, BOS is LHR's second largest U.S. market after NYC. It's a huge market that *A/A++ is missing out on. And although UA doesn't call LHR a hub, T2 is a de facto *A hub. BOS-LHR and BOS-NRT are 2 routes that I'd argue, need a *A presence.



You chose to be a UA FF in Boston. UA flies to hubs from BOS. BOS is a spoke. LHR is a spoke. You will connect in EWR to go to LHR.

That is why people usually are FF of airlines that have large, diverse ops in their home city. They avoid connections


My main destinations when I travel are LIS, MUC, DEN, ORD. It's a no brainer which airline I should be a FF of. I don't have to connect anywhere.
*A has a huge presence in BOS in case you've forgotten. I work in IT and my FF membership with UA started in 90's when I was flying between BOS and SFO routinely and I've had no reason to change it although these days price and schedule are more deciding factors than FF membership.
My main point was that BOS-LHR should be of strategical importance for the A++ alliance and the choice to enter it or not enter it might not rest entirely with UA. I just don't see how they can continue to justify being the only alliance without a presence in the second largest TATL market (if we believe that BOS-LHR is indeed the 2nd largest TATL market from the U.S.)
Also, calling LHR a spoke is a little disingenuous and it doesn't really represent its importance and weight accurately.


BOS is heavily served and heavily competitive. There isn’t much money to be made by secondary players. In today’s market, it is of tremendous benefit to not serve the market.
 
x1234
Posts: 1151
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 6:57 pm

Remember UA is late due to SAA in Star Alliance but JNB IS THE BEST business market in Africa and the HQ of many African multinationals (MTN, Liquid Telecom, De Beers). Of course having no competition UA hit a home run on the 789 JNB-EWR.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 7:03 pm

United Jets With Engines in Denver Incident May Not Fly Until Next Year - Wall Street Journal

Dozens of United Airlines Holdings Inc. jets like the one that lost an engine cover over Colorado in February aren’t expected to fly until early next year, as federal regulators weigh additional safeguards, people briefed on the matter said.

United had hoped to resume flying the wide-body jets this summer. Returning the planes to service has taken longer than expected as federal regulators consider potential new requirements for certain Boeing Co. 777 jets powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, before they again carry passengers, these people said. United has 52 such jets in its fleet.

U.S. air-safety regulators are considering an additional type of engine-blade inspection and a proposed Boeing modification aimed at preventing engine covers from ripping off should an engine fan blade break during flight, these people said.

The Federal Aviation Administration hasn’t yet determined what additional safeguards it might require before the aircraft return to service. An agency spokeswoman declined to comment on any proposals, saying the agency’s work was continuing. The FAA could make a decision in coming weeks, according to people familiar with the agency’s deliberations.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3608
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

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

Mon Aug 30, 2021 9:44 pm

adamblang wrote:
United Jets With Engines in Denver Incident May Not Fly Until Next Year - Wall Street Journal

Dozens of United Airlines Holdings Inc. jets like the one that lost an engine cover over Colorado in February aren’t expected to fly until early next year, as federal regulators weigh additional safeguards, people briefed on the matter said.

United had hoped to resume flying the wide-body jets this summer. Returning the planes to service has taken longer than expected as federal regulators consider potential new requirements for certain Boeing Co. 777 jets powered by Pratt & Whitney engines, before they again carry passengers, these people said. United has 52 such jets in its fleet.

U.S. air-safety regulators are considering an additional type of engine-blade inspection and a proposed Boeing modification aimed at preventing engine covers from ripping off should an engine fan blade break during flight, these people said.

The Federal Aviation Administration hasn’t yet determined what additional safeguards it might require before the aircraft return to service. An agency spokeswoman declined to comment on any proposals, saying the agency’s work was continuing. The FAA could make a decision in coming weeks, according to people familiar with the agency’s deliberations.


I'm not sure where The Wall Street Journal got their information and I won't say they didn't get this from United, all I can say is from everything I've read and heard internally United never expected the PW 777s to return to service this year. All the work United, Pratt & Whitney and Boeing has done thus far on the PW 777s has been done with the FAA's approval at each step and are necessary step to return the aircraft to service but the plan was never to have these aircraft back in service this year. United's plan from the beginning has been keep these aircraft on the ground until they are assured they are safe and can assure customers this incident will never happen again. From what I've seen United is hoping to have them back in service sometime in the spring of 2022 but that could also slip until summer of 2022 if more work needs to be done.
 
rjbesikof
Posts: 337
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2020 4:21 am

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

Tue Aug 31, 2021 12:43 am

Some flights that just recently started (2018-19) or were going to start in 2020 before the pandemic have been reloaded
1) SFO-AMS/ZRH
2) 2nd daily EWR-FRA
3) EWR-NCE
4) 2nd daily SFO-ICN
Usually around this time of year, United unveils its new routes. Will they be doing that is year or will they just be readding routes that were suspended due to COVID in NS22?
Also noticed that EWR-DBV and ORD-KEF have not been reloaded for S22 yet. IAD-ATH be getting a longer season starting in June and not July. Did the ORD-KEF and EWR-DBV flights do poorly or did they not get to it just yet?
 
bostonvancouver
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:41 pm

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

Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:07 am

I wonder if PMO is still in the cards?
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 2033
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

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

Tue Aug 31, 2021 1:32 am

Looks like SFO-CDG is in the schedules effective Oct 30. Hopefully that one comes back. I was disappointed it didn't this summer.
 
User avatar
VDemerest
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2021 11:21 pm

Re: United BOS-LHR

Tue Aug 31, 2021 2:03 am

Ladies and Gents:

This is not the return of Concorde. Why so heavily debated without presentation of facts? The flight does not show for sale, even in one year's time, in any GDS. Considering the current state of worldwide affairs with regard to the COVID19 pandemic, it is more than safe to say this route will not take flight in the near future.

airbazar wrote:
IIRC, BOS is LHR's second largest U.S. market after NYC. It's a huge market that *A/A++ is missing out on. And although UA doesn't call LHR a hub, T2 is a de facto *A hub. BOS-LHR and BOS-NRT are 2 routes that I'd argue, need a *A presence.


BOS is *NOT* the "Number Two" market from London Heathrow. Statistics supporting this fact are readily available via OAG, IATA, the U.S. BTS, Massport (operator of Logan) or HAHL (operator of Heathrow). Whether you interpret and scrutinize the data by actual seats offered, enplanements or frequencies, the number two position is not held by Boston. There is not a market United or Star Alliance "misses out on" unless the carrier(s) do not provide service to that particular location. According to United, which continues to operate as an airline, it is plainly obvious that the absence of this nonstop route on their network does not negatively impact revenues at this time.

CALMSP wrote:
I still think, if this does go, it needs to drop to a 752, just like JFK-SFO/LAX.


Would it not stand to reason that if United deemed the route to be a profit center during the "good years" 2013-2019 it would have been re-introduced with a more capable airplane, as you mention, the Boeing 757?

MIflyer12 wrote:
That's just not going to be a competitive product in the BOS-London market, not for business class amenities nor for coach CASM, against AA/BA/DL/VS. 752s may be suited to thin TATL markets where there's little or no non-stop competition.


Your argument is invalid; historically United operated the Boeing 757 from EWR/IAD to LHR. The onboard product was competitive and in-line with industry standards.

steviebas wrote:
Significant traffic potential from academia - MIT / Boston College and their links with Oxford / Cambridge / LSE. Many professors etc don’t fly coach.vAlso GE HQ now in Boston and while they have a corporate flight department, it shrunk significantly during last round of cost reduction. One stop connection via LHR to Star Alliance network gives options beyond FRA / MUC as a hub


Are you suggesting that the academic community in Boston provides United with enough revenue to make the flight sustainable and profitable? This is a baseless assertion without quantifiable data.

Your further assertion that General Electric could provide United with enough revenue to provide route sustainability and profitability is contrary to the evidence readily available through research. As a corporation, General Electric recently concluded a major restructuring which includes a focus on emerging markets (Asia, India) and reduced travel expenditures. References:

GE Year 2020 Overview: https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Corp ... 00/2020/GE
GE Year 2019 Overview: https://www.businesstravelnews.com/Corp ... 00/2020/GE
 
User avatar
NYPECO
Posts: 620
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 12:55 am

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

Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:23 am

Picture of first United 757 in new livery.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CTOKhSYsbZE ... =copy_link
 
dcajet
Posts: 5065
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 9:31 am

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

Tue Aug 31, 2021 4:57 am

rjbesikof wrote:
Some flights that just recently started (2018-19) or were going to start in 2020 before the pandemic have been reloaded
1) SFO-AMS/ZRH
2) 2nd daily EWR-FRA
3) EWR-NCE
4) 2nd daily SFO-ICN
Usually around this time of year, United unveils its new routes. Will they be doing that is year or will they just be readding routes that were suspended due to COVID in NS22?
Also noticed that EWR-DBV and ORD-KEF have not been reloaded for S22 yet. IAD-ATH be getting a longer season starting in June and not July. Did the ORD-KEF and EWR-DBV flights do poorly or did they not get to it just yet?


Would you have the approx. restart dates for the above flights?

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