MIflyer12 wrote:

sldispatcher wrote:

2. EWR is headed to all 2 cabin regional aircraft departures I believe. Is that correct?

I'm interested in an answer to that question, too. UA has stated that it still expects about 10% of departures (not seats or ASMs) to be on single-class aircraft with the implementation of United Next through 2026. It will be interesting to see where they're used. For summer 2019, DL only had 37 single-class flights out of 520 at LGA/JFK according to FSDan's work, while UA had 122 of 432 at EWR.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420613

If you fly a lot, CRJ's are to be avoided. I did CHS>IAD Sunday on a CRJ for approx. 1h15m and it was brutal. A/C not working on the ground, 85 degrees outside, totally unkept interior, two metal poles stuck in your back from the seat, etc. I applaud UA for removing them from a premium hub like EWR, but it sure hurts IAD where they are stuck now. I realize not a lot of people pick flights based on a/c, but they do pick their next flight based on the last experience they had, and if UA routes them on CRJ's, they most likely will say "I'll try another airline."

Cmac787 wrote:

Commute air is down to less than 10 flights per day. I think October 5th is when there are no more single class aircraft in EWR.

sldispatcher wrote:

1. So which hubs will most likely see the most upgauging as new birds come onboard? I'm guessing ORD and DEN first.
2. EWR is headed to all 2 cabin regional aircraft departures I believe. Is that correct?
3. DEN new gates start opening in November is that correct?

I think that is a wise move at EWR and hopefully will create a domino effect elsewhere.

fun2fly wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

sldispatcher wrote:

2. EWR is headed to all 2 cabin regional aircraft departures I believe. Is that correct?

I'm interested in an answer to that question, too. UA has stated that it still expects about 10% of departures (not seats or ASMs) to be on single-class aircraft with the implementation of United Next through 2026. It will be interesting to see where they're used. For summer 2019, DL only had 37 single-class flights out of 520 at LGA/JFK according to FSDan's work, while UA had 122 of 432 at EWR.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420613

If you fly a lot, CRJ's are to be avoided. I did CHS>IAD Sunday on a CRJ for approx. 1h15m and it was brutal. A/C not working on the ground, 85 degrees outside, totally unkept interior, two metal poles stuck in your back from the seat, etc. I applaud UA for removing them from a premium hub like EWR, but it sure hurts IAD where they are stuck now. I realize not a lot of people pick flights based on a/c, but they do pick their next flight based on the last experience they had, and if UA routes them on CRJ's, they most likely will say "I'll try another airline."

I remember when the CRJs were new and very welcome, but like you, I loathe them now and avoid them where possible. I've expressed my opinion to UAL - have you?

FlyHossD wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

I'm interested in an answer to that question, too. UA has stated that it still expects about 10% of departures (not seats or ASMs) to be on single-class aircraft with the implementation of United Next through 2026. It will be interesting to see where they're used. For summer 2019, DL only had 37 single-class flights out of 520 at LGA/JFK according to FSDan's work, while UA had 122 of 432 at EWR.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1420613

If you fly a lot, CRJ's are to be avoided. I did CHS>IAD Sunday on a CRJ for approx. 1h15m and it was brutal. A/C not working on the ground, 85 degrees outside, totally unkept interior, two metal poles stuck in your back from the seat, etc. I applaud UA for removing them from a premium hub like EWR, but it sure hurts IAD where they are stuck now. I realize not a lot of people pick flights based on a/c, but they do pick their next flight based on the last experience they had, and if UA routes them on CRJ's, they most likely will say "I'll try another airline."

I remember when the CRJs were new and very welcome, but like you, I loathe them now and avoid them where possible. I've expressed my opinion to UAL - have you?

The CRJs are not going anywhere. With how many EAS routes UA does and the lack of available 76 seaters UA doesn't have an option for anything else.

Pinto wrote:

The CRJs are not going anywhere.

The CRJs and EMBs are mostly going away. Not overnight, but faster than folks might expect.

UAL plans to park more than 200 50-seat RJs as part of its publicly announced fleet plan and UAL is already down to less than 200 50-seat RJs to begin with. As UAL grows mainline, smaller mainline aircraft will replace 70/76 aircraft in many markets, which in turn will provide airframes for larger RJs to replace smaller RJs.

Sources:

Fleet plan: United Next (ir.united.com)

Current Fleet: United Airlines Annual Report, page 33 (ir.united.com)

What’s interesting in the case of EWR is that to get to all two cabin aircraft, UA is flying a CRJ-550 on an EAS route PQI-EWR. That’s a premium seat heavy aircraft on a EAS route that would seem to have sparse traffic.

My guess is that UA will centralize the remaining 50 seat single cabin planes around DEN/IAD/ORD to serve EAS and some smaller non EAS routes.

FlyPNS1 wrote:

What’s interesting in the case of EWR is that to get to all two cabin aircraft, UA is flying a CRJ-550 on an EAS route PQI-EWR. That’s a premium seat heavy aircraft on a EAS route that would seem to have sparse traffic.

My guess is that UA will centralize the remaining 50 seat single cabin planes around DEN/IAD/ORD to serve EAS and some smaller non EAS routes.

There are a large number of markets out of IAH that would be hard to upgrade as well.

N77510 737-800 exited RFD MX 08sep

LAXdude1023 wrote:

FlyPNS1 wrote:

What’s interesting in the case of EWR is that to get to all two cabin aircraft, UA is flying a CRJ-550 on an EAS route PQI-EWR. That’s a premium seat heavy aircraft on a EAS route that would seem to have sparse traffic.

My guess is that UA will centralize the remaining 50 seat single cabin planes around DEN/IAD/ORD to serve EAS and some smaller non EAS routes.

There are a large number of markets out of IAH that would be hard to upgrade as well.

Moving 50-seaters to DEN, IAH, ORD, and IAD would fit the general pattern of DL's and AA's 50-seater drawdowns as well, where the single-class jets were moved out of large coastal markets first. DL moved the 50-seaters out of SEA, LAX, and BOS (and mostly out of LGA/JFK) while keeping some at SLC, MSP, DTW, and ATL to serve small spokes like CPR, CWA, ERI, and DHN. AA moved 50-seaters out of LAX, MIA (mostly), and now DCA, LGA, and JFK (I'm excluding PHX here because there were barely any 50-seaters to begin with) while keeping them in DFW, ORD, CLT, and PHL to serve the likes of LAW, AZO, LYH, and SBY.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

FlyPNS1 wrote:

What’s interesting in the case of EWR is that to get to all two cabin aircraft, UA is flying a CRJ-550 on an EAS route PQI-EWR. That’s a premium seat heavy aircraft on a EAS route that would seem to have sparse traffic.

My guess is that UA will centralize the remaining 50 seat single cabin planes around DEN/IAD/ORD to serve EAS and some smaller non EAS routes.

There are a large number of markets out of IAH that would be hard to upgrade as well.

I think FSDan points the right way, but both DL and UA are dumping lots of 50-seaters and I have to wonder what routes (or destinations entirely) get dropped, with DL and UA having scope restrictions on 70/76 seaters. There have to be some markets/days of week so thin that the extra 20 seats won't cover the incremental trip cost.

MIflyer12 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

FlyPNS1 wrote:

What’s interesting in the case of EWR is that to get to all two cabin aircraft, UA is flying a CRJ-550 on an EAS route PQI-EWR. That’s a premium seat heavy aircraft on a EAS route that would seem to have sparse traffic.

My guess is that UA will centralize the remaining 50 seat single cabin planes around DEN/IAD/ORD to serve EAS and some smaller non EAS routes.

There are a large number of markets out of IAH that would be hard to upgrade as well.

I think FSDan points the right way, but both DL and UA are dumping lots of 50-seaters and I have to wonder what routes (or destinations entirely) get dropped, with DL and UA having scope restrictions on 70/76 seaters. There have to be some markets/days of week so thin that the extra 20 seats won't cover the incremental trip cost.

Well United has the unique advantage of being able to keep some 50 seaters, with the CR5's, and still offer 2 class service. That means some markets out of EWR are still viable, and maybe even more profitable than with ER4/CR2's.

I do worry some markets may eventually get lost, but since I live in a 50 seat heavy market (for the last 20 years), SYR, it's strange that there used to be more mainline flights here in the 80's than there are commuter flights today. I think the market will be able to support bigger planes when they have no options. I've always said 3 daily flights on a E175/737 would hold the market fine or better than 4-5 50 seaters.

The odd airline out in the 50 seater issue is UA. OO has been extremely aggressive at picking up UA marketed EAS routes that can barely support 50 seaters, let alone a 70/76 seater. UA has been, and should, get rid of CR2s flying on the likes of DEN-SLC or DEN-BIL, but they’re going to have to have a sizeable fleet of 50 seaters if UA/OO want to keep the EAS income. I could be wrong, but I don’t see either wanting to get rid of that stable income - especially when OO was the only one who managed to post a “profit” at any point last year.

DL largely runs (or ran) 50 seaters in markets where they fly say 3-4x daily if not more (take MSP-FSD or MSP-GFK for example). In the past year - they have already begun reducing frequencies but increasing gauges on these routes. That’s clearly their solution, outside of EAS routes. Bigger gauge, lower frequency.

Unless a large new *reliable* entrant comes along in the EAS world, I can’t see the 50 seaters going away from UA for a long time. They’ll just be relegated to the EAS markets. DL just has so few EAS markets in comparison, that it’s probably barely an afterthought for them

joeblow10 wrote:

The odd airline out in the 50 seater issue is UA. OO has been extremely aggressive at picking up UA marketed EAS routes that can barely support 50 seaters, let alone a 70/76 seater. UA has been, and should, get rid of CR2s flying on the likes of DEN-SLC or DEN-BIL, but they’re going to have to have a sizeable fleet of 50 seaters if UA/OO want to keep the EAS income. I could be wrong, but I don’t see either wanting to get rid of that stable income - especially when OO was the only one who managed to post a “profit” at any point last year.

DL largely runs (or ran) 50 seaters in markets where they fly say 3-4x daily if not more (take MSP-FSD or MSP-GFK for example). In the past year - they have already begun reducing frequencies but increasing gauges on these routes. That’s clearly their solution, outside of EAS routes. Bigger gauge, lower frequency.

Unless a large new *reliable* entrant comes along in the EAS world, I can’t see the 50 seaters going away from UA for a long time. They’ll just be relegated to the EAS markets. DL just has so few EAS markets in comparison, that it’s probably barely an afterthought for them

The EAS fleet is generally not UA (or DL), they’re Skywest with Skywest EAS contracts. So, the 50-seat drawdown has no impact on the Skywest flying.

United is a banked-hub network carrier.

You can’t start replacing 4x/day 50-seater destinations with 3x/day 76-seater without addressing flows/capacities through the hub banks.

For example, if you upgraded 20 routes from 50-seaters to 76 seaters, you’ve now fed up to 520 additional pax into that bank. Those people are going somewhere and you can almost guarantee they’re not connecting to some other upgraded 50-seat destination. They’re getting on a 738 that now needs to be a 739 to handle the extra load. Or an 319 that’s now has to be a 320.

The trouble becomes when the route they’re connecting to is already a 739 (or even a 753 or wb). There no room to grow capacity here. Which means UA can’t sell all of the extra 26 seats on the first segment, because they don’t have enough capacity on the second segment to get them there.

This is precisely the point Kirby was making when discussing the large MAX10 and A321 top up orders. UA has to grow capacity across the board to unlock growth potential on the thinner routes.

This is also difficult to phase implementation on as they need to start reducing or re-aligning the hub banks, which limits addressable market potential during the transition phase.

For example, they would go from 4 big banks a day to 3 big banks, but with each bank pushing 25% more pax. Across the board changes don’t happen over night….

For higher traffic sectors, you also try to flow your O&D customers through non-bank flights. Depending on stage length and timing, for asset utilization improvement, this sometimes is best done by E175’s. That’s why you see these sprinkled in on some rather heavy traffic routes. The hub banks are targeted toward connecting traffic (typically using 739’s) and these extra segments cater to O&D. Sticking a 738 on there between hub banks is going to fly half empty as the O&D demand isn’t there, and they don’t have bigger aircraft to funnel more during the major bank, without running two head to tail, which is far from ideal.

jbs2886 wrote:

joeblow10 wrote:

The odd airline out in the 50 seater issue is UA. OO has been extremely aggressive at picking up UA marketed EAS routes that can barely support 50 seaters, let alone a 70/76 seater. UA has been, and should, get rid of CR2s flying on the likes of DEN-SLC or DEN-BIL, but they’re going to have to have a sizeable fleet of 50 seaters if UA/OO want to keep the EAS income. I could be wrong, but I don’t see either wanting to get rid of that stable income - especially when OO was the only one who managed to post a “profit” at any point last year.

DL largely runs (or ran) 50 seaters in markets where they fly say 3-4x daily if not more (take MSP-FSD or MSP-GFK for example). In the past year - they have already begun reducing frequencies but increasing gauges on these routes. That’s clearly their solution, outside of EAS routes. Bigger gauge, lower frequency.

Unless a large new *reliable* entrant comes along in the EAS world, I can’t see the 50 seaters going away from UA for a long time. They’ll just be relegated to the EAS markets. DL just has so few EAS markets in comparison, that it’s probably barely an afterthought for them

The EAS fleet is generally not UA (or DL), they’re Skywest with Skywest EAS contracts. So, the 50-seat drawdown has no impact on the Skywest flying.

Right - but my understanding of UA’s announcement several months ago was that they essentially expect UA branded flights to move away from 50 seaters. That means they expect to no longer use OO (or C5) 50 seaters to do any UA flying, in essence. Now, like I said, whether that actually comes to fruition is a whole different story.

The impacts that would have on the UAX carriers like G7 and OO didn’t go unnoticed - the airline pilot forums were immediately arguing over impacts.

Okcflyer wrote:

United is a banked-hub network carrier.

You can’t start replacing 4x/day 50-seater destinations with 3x/day 76-seater without addressing flows/capacities through the hub banks.

For example, if you upgraded 20 routes from 50-seaters to 76 seaters, you’ve now fed up to 520 additional pax into that bank. Those people are going somewhere and you can almost guarantee they’re not connecting to some other upgraded 50-seat destination. They’re getting on a 738 that now needs to be a 739 to handle the extra load. Or an 319 that’s now has to be a 320.

The trouble becomes when the route they’re connecting to is already a 739 (or even a 753 or wb). There no room to grow capacity here. Which means UA can’t sell all of the extra 26 seats on the first segment, because they don’t have enough capacity on the second segment to get them there.

This is precisely the point Kirby was making when discussing the large MAX10 and A321 top up orders. UA has to grow capacity across the board to unlock growth potential on the thinner routes.

This is also difficult to phase implementation on as they need to start reducing or re-aligning the hub banks, which limits addressable market potential during the transition phase.

For example, they would go from 4 big banks a day to 3 big banks, but with each bank pushing 25% more pax. Across the board changes don’t happen over night….

For higher traffic sectors, you also try to flow your O&D customers through non-bank flights. Depending on stage length and timing, for asset utilization improvement, this sometimes is best done by E175’s. That’s why you see these sprinkled in on some rather heavy traffic routes. The hub banks are targeted toward connecting traffic (typically using 739’s) and these extra segments cater to O&D. Sticking a 738 on there between hub banks is going to fly half empty as the O&D demand isn’t there, and they don’t have bigger aircraft to funnel more during the major bank, without running two head to tail, which is far from ideal.

That all makes sense - the answer indeed may be more frequency on larger markets - 2 738s can replace a 739 to upgrade another market. How about double headers. I suspect UA may have had them in the past, but I remember NW running a double header of 747s from DTW-LAX about 1980. Maybe those 753s will have to be pulled from HI routes to cover major hub routes and of course maybe the 772A has at least a few more years of service left for big lift.

N26960 & N38950 look to exit XMN on 9/12 with Polaris Mods.

fun2fly wrote:

N26960 & N38950 look to exit XMN on 9/12 with Polaris Mods.

I don't see any 789 that are replacing them in XMN i'm a little surprised by that.

Schedule updates for DEL

Starting today 9/9/2021 ORD-DEL increases from 3x weekly to 4x weekly (flight will not operate outbound on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturdays)
On yesterday9/8/2021 EWR-DEL reverted back to a 77W from the 789 that was temporarily on the route for the entire month of August.
No changes were made to SFO-DEL.

This current schedule should remain the same through October 29th.

jayunited, any chances of launching SIN, ICN, HND/NRT, PEK, PVG and HKG? I heard UA flies to NRT/HND, ICN, and PVG right now.

x1234 wrote:

jayunited, any chances of launching SIN, ICN, HND/NRT, PEK, PVG and HKG? I heard UA flies to NRT/HND, ICN, and PVG right now.

Isn't UA already flying SFO-ICN? Or did you mean from other airports?

x1234 wrote:

jayunited, any chances of launching SIN, ICN, HND/NRT, PEK, PVG and HKG? I heard UA flies to NRT/HND, ICN, and PVG right now.

Unless I missed an update, U.S. carriers are currently limited to 8 weekly flights to China, United holding four of those frequency rights.

U.S Department of Transportation modifies Order Regarding Chinese Carriers

Today, the Department of Transportation issued an Order that to allow the four Chinese airlines currently performing scheduled passenger services to the United States to increase their services to eight weekly round-trip flights. This aggregate level of service is equivalent to the total number of flights now permitted by the Chinese aviation authorities for U.S. carriers. As of August 12, the two U.S. carriers currently operating scheduled passenger service in the U.S.-China passenger market, United Airlines (“United”) and Delta Air Lines (“Delta”), had qualified for additional flight frequencies pursuant to the terms of the Civil Aviation Authority of China (“CAAC”) Notice of March 26, 2020. Accordingly, United and Delta are now eligible to increase their respective frequency of service from two-times weekly to four-times weekly, and the relevant Chinese authorities granted the necessary operating permissions on August 17, 2020.

No new frequencies to PEK, PVG, CTU, and maybe HKG ‘til that’s lifted. (Does Hong Kong have its own aviation authority and bilateral?)

adamblang wrote:

x1234 wrote:

jayunited, any chances of launching SIN, ICN, HND/NRT, PEK, PVG and HKG? I heard UA flies to NRT/HND, ICN, and PVG right now.

Unless I missed an update, U.S. carriers are currently limited to 8 weekly flights to China, United holding four of those frequency rights.

U.S Department of Transportation modifies Order Regarding Chinese Carriers

Today, the Department of Transportation issued an Order that to allow the four Chinese airlines currently performing scheduled passenger services to the United States to increase their services to eight weekly round-trip flights. This aggregate level of service is equivalent to the total number of flights now permitted by the Chinese aviation authorities for U.S. carriers. As of August 12, the two U.S. carriers currently operating scheduled passenger service in the U.S.-China passenger market, United Airlines (“United”) and Delta Air Lines (“Delta”), had qualified for additional flight frequencies pursuant to the terms of the Civil Aviation Authority of China (“CAAC”) Notice of March 26, 2020. Accordingly, United and Delta are now eligible to increase their respective frequency of service from two-times weekly to four-times weekly, and the relevant Chinese authorities granted the necessary operating permissions on August 17, 2020.

No new frequencies to PEK, PVG, CTU, and maybe HKG ‘til that’s lifted. (Does Hong Kong have its own aviation authority and bilateral?)

Yes

jayunited wrote:

Schedule updates for DEL

Starting today 9/9/2021 ORD-DEL increases from 3x weekly to 4x weekly (flight will not operate outbound on Monday, Wednesday, and Saturdays)
On yesterday9/8/2021 EWR-DEL reverted back to a 77W from the 789 that was temporarily on the route for the entire month of August.
No changes were made to SFO-DEL.

This current schedule should remain the same through October 29th.

According to FR24, ORD-DEL has been operating 4x weekly since it restarted on Aug 1.

N12116 757-200 scheduled to exit ROW storage and ferry to SFO for heavy MX 10 Sep

Golfmikey wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

N26960 & N38950 look to exit XMN on 9/12 with Polaris Mods.

I don't see any 789 that are replacing them in XMN i'm a little surprised by that.

951 and 962 have work scheduled in XMN on 9/17/2021, including Polaris Mod.

Boeing12345 wrote:

Golfmikey wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

N26960 & N38950 look to exit XMN on 9/12 with Polaris Mods.

I don't see any 789 that are replacing them in XMN i'm a little surprised by that.

951 and 962 have work scheduled in XMN on 9/17/2021, including Polaris Mod.

Looks like a typhoon is heading towards the XMN area so United likely is delaying moving aircraft to there until it passes.

Okcflyer wrote:

United is a banked-hub network carrier.

You can’t start replacing 4x/day 50-seater destinations with 3x/day 76-seater without addressing flows/capacities through the hub banks.

For example, if you upgraded 20 routes from 50-seaters to 76 seaters, you’ve now fed up to 520 additional pax into that bank. Those people are going somewhere and you can almost guarantee they’re not connecting to some other upgraded 50-seat destination. They’re getting on a 738 that now needs to be a 739 to handle the extra load. Or an 319 that’s now has to be a 320.

The trouble becomes when the route they’re connecting to is already a 739 (or even a 753 or wb). There no room to grow capacity here. Which means UA can’t sell all of the extra 26 seats on the first segment, because they don’t have enough capacity on the second segment to get them there.

This is precisely the point Kirby was making when discussing the large MAX10 and A321 top up orders. UA has to grow capacity across the board to unlock growth potential on the thinner routes.

This is also difficult to phase implementation on as they need to start reducing or re-aligning the hub banks, which limits addressable market potential during the transition phase.

For example, they would go from 4 big banks a day to 3 big banks, but with each bank pushing 25% more pax. Across the board changes don’t happen over night….

For higher traffic sectors, you also try to flow your O&D customers through non-bank flights. Depending on stage length and timing, for asset utilization improvement, this sometimes is best done by E175’s. That’s why you see these sprinkled in on some rather heavy traffic routes. The hub banks are targeted toward connecting traffic (typically using 739’s) and these extra segments cater to O&D. Sticking a 738 on there between hub banks is going to fly half empty as the O&D demand isn’t there, and they don’t have bigger aircraft to funnel more during the major bank, without running two head to tail, which is far from ideal.

That is all true in a perfect world, where all other variables are the same. If 13 people fly from DAY-MSP via ORD a day, everyday, sure. But they don't have that kind of consistency, and UA only has certain size buckets for flights, just like every airline. They will adjust certain banks, at certain hubs. They will adjust pricing to affect demand to the capacity they have. They will lose some price conscious shoppers on some routes, and gains some on some others. UA has already said they're reducing 50 seat flying, so they only have the choice to change daily capacity up, or change the number of flights. Network planners are doing this all the time, and the reduction in 50 seat planes won't happen overnight.

2021 Roswell New Mexico,.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnD07w-MOEA

CALTECH wrote:

2021 Roswell New Mexico,.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnD07w-MOEA

A few dozen UAL heavies still at ROW... any damage?

codc10 wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

2021 Roswell New Mexico,.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnD07w-MOEA

A few dozen UAL heavies still at ROW... any damage?

FWIW, that video was shot in May, 2021.

Has the painting of aircraft been sped up any since the travel industry has been trending downward?

airplanedriver6 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

2021 Roswell New Mexico,.....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnD07w-MOEA

A few dozen UAL heavies still at ROW... any damage?

FWIW, that video was shot in May, 2021.

Same question, any damage to UA aircraft? Otherwise what was the point of posting that here?

United is adding 2 767-300ER into the schedule on EWR-MCO…

https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-hi ... DAcsQQODAE

Okcflyer wrote:

United is a banked-hub network carrier.

You can’t start replacing 4x/day 50-seater destinations with 3x/day 76-seater without addressing flows/capacities through the hub banks.

For example, if you upgraded 20 routes from 50-seaters to 76 seaters, you’ve now fed up to 520 additional pax into that bank. Those people are going somewhere and you can almost guarantee they’re not connecting to some other upgraded 50-seat destination. They’re getting on a 738 that now needs to be a 739 to handle the extra load. Or an 319 that’s now has to be a 320.

The trouble becomes when the route they’re connecting to is already a 739 (or even a 753 or wb). There no room to grow capacity here. Which means UA can’t sell all of the extra 26 seats on the first segment, because they don’t have enough capacity on the second segment to get them there.

You worry needlessly. It's not as if all 26 extra people are going to the same destination - they may be going to 15 different destinations. Some can wait for the next departure. Yes, some UA planes go out full but DL ran consistently higher systemwide load factors for years. DL went from over five hundred 50-seaters in 2009 to fifty-one as of 6/30/21. It didn't crash the network.

Right now they are doing 4 at a time. 3 in AMA and 1 wide body in VCV.

bpat777 wrote:

Has the painting of aircraft been sped up any since the travel industry has been trending downward?

MIflyer12 wrote:

Okcflyer wrote:

United is a banked-hub network carrier.

You can’t start replacing 4x/day 50-seater destinations with 3x/day 76-seater without addressing flows/capacities through the hub banks.

For example, if you upgraded 20 routes from 50-seaters to 76 seaters, you’ve now fed up to 520 additional pax into that bank. Those people are going somewhere and you can almost guarantee they’re not connecting to some other upgraded 50-seat destination. They’re getting on a 738 that now needs to be a 739 to handle the extra load. Or an 319 that’s now has to be a 320.

The trouble becomes when the route they’re connecting to is already a 739 (or even a 753 or wb). There no room to grow capacity here. Which means UA can’t sell all of the extra 26 seats on the first segment, because they don’t have enough capacity on the second segment to get them there.

You worry needlessly. It's not as if all 26 extra people are going to the same destination - they may be going to 15 different destinations. Some can wait for the next departure. Yes, some UA planes go out full but DL ran consistently higher systemwide load factors for years. DL went from over five hundred 50-seaters in 2009 to fifty-one as of 6/30/21. It didn't crash the network.

I think 50 seaters will still have to play a role in UAs network but some markets can be consolidated depending on aircraft availability and agreements with Mesa.

I’m most familiar with Houston so I’ll comment on it. You could take a market that has 3x 50-seater aircraft and put 2x E-175 on them instead. Out of IAH, that would probably work fine for markets like GRK, LBB and AMA. But other markets like LRD and MLU would have to have 50 seaters.

This is just speculation on my part. I don’t know if those markets demand frequency or not.

This just came in still getting information

UA 899-11 DEL-ORD did a return to field (RTFL) aircraft back on the ground safely and an emergency was declared with ATC. Preliminary reports states the rudder made an un-commanded movement at or near FL30 which caused the aircraft to do a slight roll. The captain quickly got control of the aircraft and elected to return to DEL, it also looks like the aircraft may have dumped fuel en-route back to DEL.

N818UA A319 scheduled to exit AMA paint with Evo blue livery 12sep
N470UA A320 scheduled to enter AMA paint for Evo blue livery 12sep

UAX Update:

E145XR:
N24128 (2003 build, ex-AX) has re-entered the fleet with CommutAir, now flying

E145:
N13913 ferried IGM, fleet exit

CR2:
N956SW entered ROW for paint
N912SW entered ROW for paint

CR5:
N519LR has been re-registered as N575GJ

CR7:
N518LR ferried STL for CR5 conversion

Cmac787 wrote:

Right now they are doing 4 at a time. 3 in AMA and 1 wide body in VCV.

bpat777 wrote:

Has the painting of aircraft been sped up any since the travel industry has been trending downward?

Just out of curiosity, (and this number can be a rough estimate) how long would it take to complete a full fleet repaint at this current rate?

N27261 737 MAX8 entered SEA induction 10Sep. N27260 is still in SEA.

BigPlaneGuy13 wrote:

Cmac787 wrote:

Right now they are doing 4 at a time. 3 in AMA and 1 wide body in VCV.

bpat777 wrote:

Has the painting of aircraft been sped up any since the travel industry has been trending downward?

Just out of curiosity, (and this number can be a rough estimate) how long would it take to complete a full fleet repaint at this current rate?

Using a fleet size of 210 wide body and 628 narrow body aircraft (per Simple Flying, see link below) and assuming a week per paint job with 4 paint lines operating, that equals 4 years to paint every airplane. So it wouldn't take much in the way of delays to stretch that out to a continuous cycle. Once that 4 to 5 year cycle is over, it's probably time to start anew.

https://simpleflying.com/largest-airline-fleets/

This weeks revenue passenger number our out. The number is 2.3 million revenue passengers are on the books throughout the entire system.

For hubs we will do the best day and worst day this week for each hub.

DEN: best Sunday 9/12 @ 45,972 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 35,084 revenue pax
IAH: best Sunday 9/12 @ 40, 119 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 23,363 revenue pax
ORD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 41, 899 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 30,479 revenue pax
EWR: best Friday 9/17 @ 29.763 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 21, 399 revenue pax
SFO: best Thursday 9/16 @ 19, 769 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 15, 246 revenue pax (BTW Thursday barely beat out Friday by 10 revenue pax and beat Sunday by 127 pax.)
IAD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 19,604 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 14,698 revenue pax
LAX: best Sunday 9/12 @ 12,934 revenue pax, worst Tuesday 9/14 8@ 8, 787 revenue pax

Since the summer rush began winding down United (except for last week which contain holiday travel) revenue passenger numbers seems to have settled down between 2.2 and 2.3 million revenue passengers each week. These are the same number we saw from United during spring and over the bring break travel season, however United is operating more flights today than we were in March, April and May of 2021. As we head into the fall season does United have to much capacity in the network if our revenue numbers stay around 2.2 to 2.3 million revenue pax each week until Thanksgiving?

jayunited wrote:

This weeks revenue passenger number our out. The number is 2.3 million revenue passengers are on the books throughout the entire system.

For hubs we will do the best day and worst day this week for each hub.

DEN: best Sunday 9/12 @ 45,972 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 35,084 revenue pax
IAH: best Sunday 9/12 @ 40, 119 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 23,363 revenue pax
ORD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 41, 899 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 30,479 revenue pax
EWR: best Friday 9/17 @ 29.763 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 21, 399 revenue pax
SFO: best Thursday 9/16 @ 19, 769 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 15, 246 revenue pax (BTW Thursday barely beat out Friday by 10 revenue pax and beat Sunday by 127 pax.)
IAD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 19,604 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 14,698 revenue pax
LAX: best Sunday 9/12 @ 12,934 revenue pax, worst Tuesday 9/14 8@ 8, 787 revenue pax

Since the summer rush began winding down United (except for last week which contain holiday travel) revenue passenger numbers seems to have settled down between 2.2 and 2.3 million revenue passengers each week. These are the same number we saw from United during spring and over the bring break travel season, however United is operating more flights today than we were in March, April and May of 2021. As we head into the fall season does United have to much capacity in the network if our revenue numbers stay around 2.2 to 2.3 million revenue pax each week until Thanksgiving?

To some extent yes, and they have been making some capacity adjustments. However, they are also mindful that many have just returned to close-in booking and will leave some excess capacity out there to capture these flyers. This is a short term blip… as cases start to decrease, passengers will pick back up.

jayunited wrote:

This weeks revenue passenger number our out. The number is 2.3 million revenue passengers are on the books throughout the entire system.

For hubs we will do the best day and worst day this week for each hub.

DEN: best Sunday 9/12 @ 45,972 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 35,084 revenue pax
IAH: best Sunday 9/12 @ 40, 119 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 23,363 revenue pax
ORD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 41, 899 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 30,479 revenue pax
EWR: best Friday 9/17 @ 29.763 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 21, 399 revenue pax
SFO: best Thursday 9/16 @ 19, 769 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 15, 246 revenue pax (BTW Thursday barely beat out Friday by 10 revenue pax and beat Sunday by 127 pax.)
IAD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 19,604 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 14,698 revenue pax
LAX: best Sunday 9/12 @ 12,934 revenue pax, worst Tuesday 9/14 8@ 8, 787 revenue pax

Since the summer rush began winding down United (except for last week which contain holiday travel) revenue passenger numbers seems to have settled down between 2.2 and 2.3 million revenue passengers each week. These are the same number we saw from United during spring and over the bring break travel season, however United is operating more flights today than we were in March, April and May of 2021. As we head into the fall season does United have to much capacity in the network if our revenue numbers stay around 2.2 to 2.3 million revenue pax each week until Thanksgiving?

Why is the gap between best and worst so high at IAH? Perhaps a lot of its traffic being bound for Latin America?

LAXdude1023 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

This weeks revenue passenger number our out. The number is 2.3 million revenue passengers are on the books throughout the entire system.

For hubs we will do the best day and worst day this week for each hub.

DEN: best Sunday 9/12 @ 45,972 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 35,084 revenue pax
IAH: best Sunday 9/12 @ 40, 119 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 23,363 revenue pax
ORD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 41, 899 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 30,479 revenue pax
EWR: best Friday 9/17 @ 29.763 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 21, 399 revenue pax
SFO: best Thursday 9/16 @ 19, 769 revenue pax; worst Wednesday 9/15 @ 15, 246 revenue pax (BTW Thursday barely beat out Friday by 10 revenue pax and beat Sunday by 127 pax.)
IAD: best Sunday 9/12 @ 19,604 revenue pax; worst Tuesday 9/14 @ 14,698 revenue pax
LAX: best Sunday 9/12 @ 12,934 revenue pax, worst Tuesday 9/14 8@ 8, 787 revenue pax

Since the summer rush began winding down United (except for last week which contain holiday travel) revenue passenger numbers seems to have settled down between 2.2 and 2.3 million revenue passengers each week. These are the same number we saw from United during spring and over the bring break travel season, however United is operating more flights today than we were in March, April and May of 2021. As we head into the fall season does United have to much capacity in the network if our revenue numbers stay around 2.2 to 2.3 million revenue pax each week until Thanksgiving?

Why is the gap between best and worst so high at IAH? Perhaps a lot of its traffic being bound for Latin America?

I don't know why there is such a large drop off at IAH on their worst day, we saw the same thing 2 weeks ago as well and I've confirmed it isn't a type-O.

Scarebus34 wrote:

To some extent yes, and they have been making some capacity adjustments. However, they are also mindful that many have just returned to close-in booking and will leave some excess capacity out there to capture these flyers. This is a short term blip… as cases start to decrease, passengers will pick back up.

I don't know if this is a short-term blip or your meaning of short-term may differ from what I consider short-term.

First of all I don't think the drop off in passengers has anything to do with the Delta variant I think this is the normal cycle the industry sees at the end of summer as people head back to work and school. Having said that I don't think we are going to see weekly passenger counts in the 2.5 million, 2.6 million, or even 2.7 million (we were averaging those number for most of the summer) until we get closer to Thanksgiving. In April and May United and United Express were averaging around 3000 daily flights, this week United and United Express will average around 4100 daily flights. The last time United had 2.3 million revenue passengers on the books was this past April and May. We all remember the constant complaints this past spring about extremely full flights or United not having any seats to sell on certain routes because every seat was book. I'm not suggesting United reduce the schedule back down to 3000 daily flights, I guess what I am asking is what if United took 250 or 300 daily flights off the schedule.

With so many flights operating our revenue load factor is coming down as are yields in certain markets. Take this coming Tuesday United's revenue load factor is an abysmal 55.7%, we haven't seen a revenue load factor that low since early January 2021. Do we have to many flights on the schedule heading into fall?

N12116 757-200 exited ROW storage and entered GSO MX 12Sep

N662UA 767-300 is being scheduled to exit ROW storage on 14Sep and ferry ROW-SFO-HNL-GUM-HKG for MX. This bird is non Polaris so I’m not sure if it’s going in for conversion or will keep the non Polaris configuration.

Are the schedules set for November?