United Fleet, Network, and Discussion Thread - Q3 2021

Golfmikey · Thu Jul 29, 2021 7:57 pm

itripreport wrote:
len90 wrote:
KLMatSJC wrote:
Yup, you're right.

Mainline: non-ER 739, 753, 764, 788.
Express: ERJ-170, ERJ-145LR

That is correct. I totally forget about the 788 as I barely ever see them being that I live near EWR.

As for the 737 non ER; a part of me wonders if those 20 year old frames are actually done for good with UA. With the max fully in service and nearly all the ER 900s back, United right now is operating a fleet comparable in size for the 170-180 passenger capacity. We have seen every other fleet type emerge from hibernation.

I believe those are completely done for, their massive range limitation meant United was forced to keep them on shorter sectors out of IAH, I highly doubt we'll see those making a comeback, as they'd end up being another subfleet for the carrier.

I agree 100% and have thought that way for a while a 12 plane sub fleet with all the new planes coming they are easily replaced

jayunited · Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:47 pm

Coalways wrote:
Complimentary meals coming back to Hawaii flights…
https://liveandletsfly.com/united-airli ... 0Nu4NBTpTc

Baby steps but at least these are steps in the right direction that will go a long way in improving the customers onboard experience.

I can't find this anywhere but for some reason I vaguely remember United saying years ago under Smisek they were removing the ovens from the 77As (more specifically the ovens from the 2300 and 2400 series aircraft that were use on international routes before joining the HD domestic fleet). Did this actually happen or am I imagining things?

The reason I'm asking is because starting in August United will bring back full meals on coach that can be served cold. I'm wondering if the reason for them limiting the food options to food that can be served cold is because we removed the ovens in coach or the hot galley carts/equipment completely from the aircraft? It has been awhile since I've paid any type of attention to what goes on in the galley but I know back in the day some equipment in coach could be plugged into aircraft to warm up the food inside. Did United pull all of that equipment out of the coach galley on the 77As or is it still onboard but we just haven't used it since we ended meal service?

Jetport · Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:45 am

Golfmikey wrote:
itripreport wrote:
len90 wrote:

That is correct. I totally forget about the 788 as I barely ever see them being that I live near EWR.

As for the 737 non ER; a part of me wonders if those 20 year old frames are actually done for good with UA. With the max fully in service and nearly all the ER 900s back, United right now is operating a fleet comparable in size for the 170-180 passenger capacity. We have seen every other fleet type emerge from hibernation.

I believe those are completely done for, their massive range limitation meant United was forced to keep them on shorter sectors out of IAH, I highly doubt we'll see those making a comeback, as they'd end up being another subfleet for the carrier.

I agree 100% and have thought that way for a while a 12 plane sub fleet with all the new planes coming they are easily replaced

Based on the linked web site, the 737-900 has 15 percent less range than the 737-900ER. That really doesn't sound like it would result in a "massive range limitation". I think "massive range limitation" sounds like hyperbole to me. The only routes in United's network that the 737-900 would have range issues with vs. 737-900ER are longer Transcons. It really doesn't sound like much of a hassle for United to fly the few standard 737-900's the have on less than TCON routes.

737-900 - 2745 nm range
737-900ER - 3235 nm range

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/7 ... 737-900ER/

FSDan · Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:57 am

IFLYUA767 wrote:
I’m curious as to how BOS-LHR will generate more passengers rather than moving from other flights.

Imagine a BOS-based business traveler who travels frequently to SFO, DEN, and LHR. Said traveler probably would choose to fly UA for their domestic travel based on schedule options, but would likely opt for BA/AA or DL/VS for nonstop travel to LHR. With UA starting their own BOS-LHR, that traveler might well choose to fly UA exclusively to maximize their FF earnings.

Now, just how many of those Star-loyal customers there are in BOS is the million dollar question...

Nicknuzzii · Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:27 am

FSDan wrote:
IFLYUA767 wrote:
I’m curious as to how BOS-LHR will generate more passengers rather than moving from other flights.

Imagine a BOS-based business traveler who travels frequently to SFO, DEN, and LHR. Said traveler probably would choose to fly UA for their domestic travel based on schedule options, but would likely opt for BA/AA or DL/VS for nonstop travel to LHR. With UA starting their own BOS-LHR, that traveler might well choose to fly UA exclusively to maximize their FF earnings.

Now, just how many of those Star-loyal customers there are in BOS is the million dollar question...

And how many people are in the scenario you mention? Doesn’t seem like many to me unfortunately.

airplanedriver6 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:47 am

Jetport wrote:
Golfmikey wrote:
itripreport wrote:

I believe those are completely done for, their massive range limitation meant United was forced to keep them on shorter sectors out of IAH, I highly doubt we'll see those making a comeback, as they'd end up being another subfleet for the carrier.

I agree 100% and have thought that way for a while a 12 plane sub fleet with all the new planes coming they are easily replaced

Based on the linked web site, the 737-900 has 15 percent less range than the 737-900ER. That really doesn't sound like it would result in a "massive range limitation". I think "massive range limitation" sounds like hyperbole to me. The only routes in United's network that the 737-900 would have range issues with vs. 737-900ER are longer Transcons. It really doesn't sound like much of a hassle for United to fly the few standard 737-900's the have on less than TCON routes.

737-900 - 2745 nm range
737-900ER - 3235 nm range

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/7 ... 737-900ER/

When comparing the -900 to the -900ER it’s not just range, but payload/range and runway performance.

There’s a reason why the regular -900 is routed via sea level airports with long runways. It’s the same reason why -900 sales were initially poor and Boeing developed the -900ER as a result.

I have no idea of the economics and the impact on the loss of operational flexibility with a small sub fleet, but significant differences between the two exist. As stated in this discussion, in the past UAL has managed this well and assigned the -900s in markets suited for its capabilities.

And yes, I’ve flown both as a pilot and have seen this first hand.

DualQual · Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:46 am

masseybrown wrote:
jayunited wrote:
There is more information starting to leak out about what United is looking at doing with pilot bases later this year into next year, some of this I think we already knew.
.

Minor matter, but is there still a CLE 737 base?

They’ve got uniforms and everything. It’s really great! :lol:

ContinentalEWR · Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:11 am

jayunited wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
UA's BOS-LHR is a way to hit back at JetBlue, but also fill a gap in the LHR network for UA (moreso than JFK that is mostly covered by EWR). BOS is likely to generate more new UA passengers versus just moving them from other flights. I am surprised, however, we haven't seen a flight shift from EWR to JFK though for that reason.

United's upcoming BOS-LHR slot has nothing to do with JetBlue at all, United has had this in the works for some time long before JetBlue push into EWR as a result of COVID. United and Air New Zealand did a secret LHR slot swap in 2019 which was to take effect in October of 2020 at the time that was the date when NZ was scheduled to end their service to LHR. United gave NZ our 23:00 arrival and 22:40 departure slots (slot UA was not using) in exchanged for NZ's 10:50 arrival 15:20 departure slots. United already had acquired an extra seasonal slot from a different carrier and they were planning on using the seasonal slot starting in the summer of 2020 out of EWR which would have increase UA's EWR-LHR daily operation from 6x daily to 7x daily for the entire IATA summer reverting back to 6x daily for IATA winter.

United never intended on making LAX-LHR daily double those plans had been tabled with United saying a singular LAX-LHR flight was enough for us instead choosing to launch DEN-LHR.

So it is entirely possible that back in 2019 when United was negotiating this deal with Air New Zealand to swap slots the end goal for United was to launch BOS-LHR and the time slot works perfectly for a BOS-LHR-BOS flight. And that is assuming the negotiations with NZ started in 2019 we only found out about the slot swap in 2019 but who know negotiations could have begun in 2018. Who knows when NZ internally decided they were leaving LHR and when or how UA found out about NZ plans and began hatch plans of their own to acquire NZ's LHR slot. To boil this down and say this about hitting back at JetBlue is not true at all when you look at how long UA has been working on getting more LHR slots and not just NZ's slot but also the season slot we aquired as well.

As far as JFK I don't see UA moving slots from EWR to JFK, but I do think UA will try to find and purchase 2 additional year around slots (if any are available) to launch 2x daily JFK-LHR flights.

Are you sure about UA/NZ trading slots? NZ ended LHR service completely, so it doesn't sound right that a slot was traded, unless there was a third party in the mix. NZ either sold their slot or are on suspension like everything else at LHR. As to UA and JFK-LHR, there's wild speculation on this forum about it, but I don't see it happening any time soon. For one, UA needs a premium lounge at JFK to make this work, and it needs a few more slots just to make LAX/SFO relevant, which, right now, isn't really the case. I can see UA looking aggressively for slots to re-enter JFK-LHR but it will need more than one flight to be a factor in that market.

jayunited · Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:38 am

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Are you sure about UA/NZ trading slots? NZ ended LHR service completely, so it doesn't sound right that a slot was traded, unless there was a third party in the mix. NZ either sold their slot or are on suspension like everything else at LHR. As to UA and JFK-LHR, there's wild speculation on this forum about it, but I don't see it happening any time soon. For one, UA needs a premium lounge at JFK to make this work, and it needs a few more slots just to make LAX/SFO relevant, which, right now, isn't really the case. I can see UA looking aggressively for slots to re-enter JFK-LHR but it will need more than one flight to be a factor in that market.

This was insider information in 2019 it became public information in 2020 (don't take this the wrong way no disrespect) but all one needs to do is a simple google search to see UA/NZ traded slots at LHR. UA gave NZ their 22:40 departure slot 23:00 arrival slot (slots we were not using) in exchange for NZ much more favorable 10:50 arrival 15:20 departure slot. NZ did sell the slots they inherited from UA as a result of the slot swap but for a US carrier like UA an arrival time into LHR of 23:00 and a departure time out of LHR of 22:40 doesn't do UA any good because the departure and arrival times into the US would be terrible for an airline like UA.

ContinentalEWR · Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:41 am

jayunited wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

Are you sure about UA/NZ trading slots? NZ ended LHR service completely, so it doesn't sound right that a slot was traded, unless there was a third party in the mix. NZ either sold their slot or are on suspension like everything else at LHR. As to UA and JFK-LHR, there's wild speculation on this forum about it, but I don't see it happening any time soon. For one, UA needs a premium lounge at JFK to make this work, and it needs a few more slots just to make LAX/SFO relevant, which, right now, isn't really the case. I can see UA looking aggressively for slots to re-enter JFK-LHR but it will need more than one flight to be a factor in that market.

This was insider information in 2019 it became public information in 2020 (don't take this the wrong way no disrespect) but all one needs to do is a simple google search to see UA/NZ traded slots at LHR. UA gave NZ their 22:40 departure slot 23:00 arrival slot (slots we were not using) in exchange for NZ much more favorable 10:50 arrival 15:20 departure slot. NZ did sell the slots they inherited from UA as a result of the slot swap but for a US carrier like UA an arrival time into LHR of 23:00 and a departure time out of LHR of 22:40 doesn't do UA any good because the departure and arrival times into the US would be terrible for an airline like UA.

Got it. Thanks for the info.

sldispatcher · Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:49 pm

airplanedriver6 wrote:
Jetport wrote:
Golfmikey wrote:

I agree 100% and have thought that way for a while a 12 plane sub fleet with all the new planes coming they are easily replaced

Based on the linked web site, the 737-900 has 15 percent less range than the 737-900ER. That really doesn't sound like it would result in a "massive range limitation". I think "massive range limitation" sounds like hyperbole to me. The only routes in United's network that the 737-900 would have range issues with vs. 737-900ER are longer Transcons. It really doesn't sound like much of a hassle for United to fly the few standard 737-900's the have on less than TCON routes.

737-900 - 2745 nm range
737-900ER - 3235 nm range

https://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/7 ... 737-900ER/

When comparing the -900 to the -900ER it’s not just range, but payload/range and runway performance.

There’s a reason why the regular -900 is routed via sea level airports with long runways. It’s the same reason why -900 sales were initially poor and Boeing developed the -900ER as a result.

I have no idea of the economics and the impact on the loss of operational flexibility with a small sub fleet, but significant differences between the two exist. As stated in this discussion, in the past UAL has managed this well and assigned the -900s in markets suited for its capabilities.

And yes, I’ve flown both as a pilot and have seen this first hand.

Sounds like they would be good to base in IAH/ORD and let them be Florida haulers.

christao17 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:17 pm

Can I check with anyone in the know, please?

N68061, a 767-400, arrived in HKG today (July 30) as UA2717. What is the purpose for this flight? There for maintenance?

I see on Flightradar24 that it left ROW on July 27 for SFO as UA 2728, continued to HNL as UA 2729 and GUM as UA2716 before arriving in HKG.

Thanks for any info.

codc10 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 2:29 pm

jayunited wrote:
ContinentalEWR wrote:

Are you sure about UA/NZ trading slots? NZ ended LHR service completely, so it doesn't sound right that a slot was traded, unless there was a third party in the mix. NZ either sold their slot or are on suspension like everything else at LHR. As to UA and JFK-LHR, there's wild speculation on this forum about it, but I don't see it happening any time soon. For one, UA needs a premium lounge at JFK to make this work, and it needs a few more slots just to make LAX/SFO relevant, which, right now, isn't really the case. I can see UA looking aggressively for slots to re-enter JFK-LHR but it will need more than one flight to be a factor in that market.

This was insider information in 2019 it became public information in 2020 (don't take this the wrong way no disrespect) but all one needs to do is a simple google search to see UA/NZ traded slots at LHR. UA gave NZ their 22:40 departure slot 23:00 arrival slot (slots we were not using) in exchange for NZ much more favorable 10:50 arrival 15:20 departure slot. NZ did sell the slots they inherited from UA as a result of the slot swap but for a US carrier like UA an arrival time into LHR of 23:00 and a departure time out of LHR of 22:40 doesn't do UA any good because the departure and arrival times into the US would be terrible for an airline like UA.

It was actually a slot sale to UAL ($27m for the pair) which closed just as the pandemic was spooling up. The “trade” was only on paper, as LHR slots at those times are readily available and generally uneconomical/unworkable for airline operations. UAL obtained the late slots to effectuate the acquisition as a trade, which is common practice for such transactions. AFAIK NZ just let the slots lapse as they have no plan to return to LHR any time soon.

christao17 wrote:
Can I check with anyone in the know, please?

N68061, a 767-400, arrived in HKG today (July 30) as UA2717. What is the purpose for this flight? There for maintenance?

I see on Flightradar24 that it left ROW on July 27 for SFO as UA 2728, continued to HNL as UA 2729 and GUM as UA2716 before arriving in HKG.

Thanks for any info.

Heavy maintenance at HAECO prior to return to service (from storage). No Polaris mod at this time.

airplanedriver6 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 3:17 pm

sldispatcher wrote:
Sounds like they would be good to base in IAH/ORD and let them be Florida haulers.

Yup. Prior to the Covid grounding, that's exactly what UAL did and concentrated the 737-900s (non -ER) in IAH and operated them mostly to Florida with an additional mix of west coast. If they return I can't see a rational reason to operate them differently going forward.

We'll know UAL's plans for them if they return and then later if they get the new interiors. They might be gone forever, they might come back for a bit, or they might come back for years.

adamh8297 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:14 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
FSDan wrote:
IFLYUA767 wrote:
I’m curious as to how BOS-LHR will generate more passengers rather than moving from other flights.

Imagine a BOS-based business traveler who travels frequently to SFO, DEN, and LHR. Said traveler probably would choose to fly UA for their domestic travel based on schedule options, but would likely opt for BA/AA or DL/VS for nonstop travel to LHR. With UA starting their own BOS-LHR, that traveler might well choose to fly UA exclusively to maximize their FF earnings.

Now, just how many of those Star-loyal customers there are in BOS is the million dollar question...

And how many people are in the scenario you mention? Doesn’t seem like many to me unfortunately.

1)I'm sure no one on this site knows and that means you do not know exactly. What we do know: UA is the market leader for BOS-SFO/DEN and BOS-LHR is larger than many US Destinations. One example: its larger than BOS-IAH!!!
2) There may be others flying BOS-EWR/IAD/AC HUB/LH Group Hub-LHR in premium and the JV sees some extra profit that can be squeezed out of passengers by offering BOS-LHR.
3) Think about the passengers across the pond - I'm sure there are a few LH Miles and More or even Aeroplan members in the UK.
4) Lots of Star Alliance Carriers in BOS - UA AC LH LX TP CM TK SK. The only thing missing is East Asia when everything is back to normal.

ContinentalEWR · Fri Jul 30, 2021 4:34 pm

christao17 wrote:
Can I check with anyone in the know, please?

N68061, a 767-400, arrived in HKG today (July 30) as UA2717. What is the purpose for this flight? There for maintenance?

I see on Flightradar24 that it left ROW on July 27 for SFO as UA 2728, continued to HNL as UA 2729 and GUM as UA2716 before arriving in HKG.

Thanks for any info.

UA sends its planes to HKG all the time for heavy maintenance to HEICO. Not uncommon to see UA planes parked at HKG that aren't operating scheduled passenger flights. My guess is that UA is starting to send the 767-400s for overhauls as all but 2 I think have been in long term storage and I don't believe Polaris modifications though have started on these birds, as none of the 16 764s have the new cabins but no announcement yet on further cabin mods.

calpsafltskeds · Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:23 pm

Almost all the 320s are older than the 739 nonER. Beside range issues that can be dealt with by a subfleet, the 739s provide more F and total seats at probably minimal cost vs 320s. I've seen 739s on transcons, but burying 12 units in a 737 fleet of 300+ shouldn't be hard to do.

mmahpeel · Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:40 pm

jayunited wrote:
Coalways wrote:
Complimentary meals coming back to Hawaii flights…
https://liveandletsfly.com/united-airli ... 0Nu4NBTpTc

I can't find this anywhere but for some reason I vaguely remember United saying years ago under Smisek they were removing the ovens from the 77As (more specifically the ovens from the 2300 and 2400 series aircraft that were use on international routes before joining the HD domestic fleet). Did this actually happen or am I imagining things?

The ovens were not removed - pretty much still have the original galley configurations from when the planes were delivered.

STT757 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:47 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Almost all the 320s are older than the 739 nonER. Beside range issues that can be dealt with by a subfleet, the 739s provide more F and total seats at probably minimal cost vs 320s. I've seen 739s on transcons, but burying 12 units in a 737 fleet of 300+ shouldn't be hard to do.

My first flight on one of CO's 737-900s (non ER) was EWR-CUN January 2002, it seemed so modern. As you mentioned they're younger than most of the A320s and a good bunch of the A319s, 73Gs and 738s. They could do EWR-Florida-IAH-Florida, IAH-Cancun, IAH-MSY all day long.

Scarebus34 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 5:54 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Almost all the 320s are older than the 739 nonER. Beside range issues that can be dealt with by a subfleet, the 739s provide more F and total seats at probably minimal cost vs 320s. I've seen 739s on transcons, but burying 12 units in a 737 fleet of 300+ shouldn't be hard to do.

The non-ER 739's were not routed on transcon routes as they have performance issues. Randomly may have seen one on an eastbound routing, if it was the only option, but certainly not going west.

Pinto · Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:28 pm

Interesting sight at ORD today, a 777-300ER gate C29. I saw a 787 there yesterday, however I have never seen a widebody there before that. Is this common or is this a result of the pandemic and some of the widebodies added to domestic routes?

lightsaber · Fri Jul 30, 2021 9:56 pm

Discuss the topic, not other users. This is your warning.

Lightsaber

ScorpioMC3 · Fri Jul 30, 2021 10:19 pm

Pinto wrote:
Interesting sight at ORD today, a 777-300ER gate C29. I saw a 787 there yesterday, however I have never seen a widebody there before that. Is this common or is this a result of the pandemic and some of the widebodies added to domestic routes?

We've been running it on MCO turns and HNL during the summer.

calpsafltskeds · Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:25 pm

Scarebus34 wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
Almost all the 320s are older than the 739 nonER. Beside range issues that can be dealt with by a subfleet, the 739s provide more F and total seats at probably minimal cost vs 320s. I've seen 739s on transcons, but burying 12 units in a 737 fleet of 300+ shouldn't be hard to do.

The non-ER 739's were not routed on transcon routes as they have performance issues. Randomly may have seen one on an eastbound routing, if it was the only option, but certainly not going west.

A bit hard to check routings since they haven't flown in over a year, but I check aircraft all the time for the fleet site and either viewed or on my own travels remember seeing them on routes like IAD-SAN, of course I could be wrong in my recollection. Seasonal winds can make a big difference as well.

airplanedriver6 · Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:15 am

Pinto wrote:
Interesting sight at ORD today, a 777-300ER gate C29. I saw a 787 there yesterday, however I have never seen a widebody there before that. Is this common or is this a result of the pandemic and some of the widebodies added to domestic routes?

I'm gonna guess it's more a consequence of the ramp construction above the B/C pedestrian tunnel. As a result, the "alley" between B and C is down to one line of aircraft traffic which makes parking a wide-body at that gate less of an obstacle than it normally would be.

But that's just a guess.

ordramper98 · Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:19 am

Interesting sight at ORD today, a 777-300ER gate C29. I saw a 787 there yesterday, however I have never seen a widebody there before that. Is this common or is this a result of the pandemic and some of the widebodies added to domestic routes?

Wide bodies have gone into C29 for years. It’s not ideal because C31 must be closed to use it. With the extra widebody departures it is necessary. In fact, several years ago, a widebody line was painted at C24 (C22 would need to be shut down)), but I don’t believe it has ever been used for this. I believe it was only for extreme circumstances. The push out of C24 would have to go out onto taxiway Alpha

Ps, I was trying to quote Pinto above, but it didn’t work right on my ipad

sldispatcher · Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 am

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Almost all the 320s are older than the 739 nonER. Beside range issues that can be dealt with by a subfleet, the 739s provide more F and total seats at probably minimal cost vs 320s. I've seen 739s on transcons, but burying 12 units in a 737 fleet of 300+ shouldn't be hard to do.

The more F seats is a big deal in my book.
That helps keep flyers and the bottom line happy.

christao17 · Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:35 am

codc10 wrote:
Heavy maintenance at HAECO prior to return to service (from storage). No Polaris mod at this time.

Many thanks for the information.

FSDan · Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:03 am

airplanedriver6 wrote:
Pinto wrote:
Interesting sight at ORD today, a 777-300ER gate C29. I saw a 787 there yesterday, however I have never seen a widebody there before that. Is this common or is this a result of the pandemic and some of the widebodies added to domestic routes?

I'm gonna guess it's more a consequence of the ramp construction above the B/C pedestrian tunnel. As a result, the "alley" between B and C is down to one line of aircraft traffic which makes parking a wide-body at that gate less of an obstacle than it normally would be.

But that's just a guess.

At one point in time I'm pretty sure you could see a 772 parked at C29 on Google Maps (years ago, now...). I'm pretty sure none of the gates in the alley between B and C can accommodate a 777. B16 and B17 can, but I wouldn't really say those are in the alley. The odd C gates in the alley can only fit up to a 767 last I heard.

UAinAUS · Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:46 am

UAX Update:

E145XR:
N10156 entered revenue service with CommutAir
N17196 entered revenue service with CommutAir

CR5:
N505MJ re-registered as N561GJ
N506MJ re-registered as N559GJ
N510MJ re-registered as N558GJ
N519LR entered revenue service as CR5 with GoJet

jayunited · Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:07 pm

Pinto wrote:
Interesting sight at ORD today, a 777-300ER gate C29. I saw a 787 there yesterday, however I have never seen a widebody there before that. Is this common or is this a result of the pandemic and some of the widebodies added to domestic routes?

C29 has long be a widebody gate for United the gate can even handle the A346, the 744 and the 748.

United has been using C29 for widebodies for at least the last 22 years.

Golfmikey · Sat Jul 31, 2021 4:05 pm

763:
N676UA scheduled to depart HKG to GUM on 8/2. UA 2787..I would think N666UA the last moded 763 in storage will replace it.

Cmac787 · Sat Jul 31, 2021 8:41 pm

N13718 737-700 scheduled to ferry from IAD to AMA for paint.

superking722 · Sat Jul 31, 2021 10:07 pm

Is United going back to using terminal A at Newark. I was checking in for my flight tomorrow, Aug 1st, and it’s scheduled to leave from Gate A28 (UA 4396). I looked at some other express flights that came to mind and they all seem to be leaving from terminal A.

Nicknuzzii · Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:08 am

superking722 wrote:
Is United going back to using terminal A at Newark. I was checking in for my flight tomorrow, Aug 1st, and it’s scheduled to leave from Gate A28 (UA 4396). I looked at some other express flights that came to mind and they all seem to be leaving from terminal A.

Yes

res77W · Sun Aug 01, 2021 5:34 am

[*]

Pinto wrote:
Interesting sight at ORD today, a 777-300ER gate C29. I saw a 787 there yesterday, however I have never seen a widebody there before that. Is this common or is this a result of the pandemic and some of the widebodies added to domestic routes?

I flew in on a 739 from MCI yesterday morning and we parked next to it. Ship 2135 was going to Orlando. What a beauty.

-Rowen

jayunited · Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:33 pm

Starting today August 1st United increases ORD-FRA weekly frequencies to 13x weekly.

Every day except Monday's are daily double 1x daily 788 and 1x daily 789.

On Monday's only 1x daily 789.

ILikeTrains · Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:23 pm

jayunited wrote:
Starting today August 1st United increases ORD-FRA weekly frequencies to 13x weekly.

Every day except Monday's are daily double 1x daily 788 and 1x daily 789.

On Monday's only 1x daily 789.

Is it because of cargo demand or is the route seeing great LF’s?

Cmac787 · Sun Aug 01, 2021 2:46 pm

N26970 787-9 scheduled to exit Maint/Polaris mod and ferry XMN-NRT-SFO on Monday 2aug. N26960 and N38950 both scheduled to enter XMN for Maint/Polaris mod.

jayunited · Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:00 pm

This is just speculation on my part but I think it is about passenger demand especially since we are talking about the resumption of UA's early afternoon flight to FRA that is scheduled to arrive in FRA around 06:20 am the next morning. Judging from the passengers book on UA904 I would say LH must have increased their early morning departure schedule out of FRA to secondary airports all throughout Europe and perhaps beyond, and the reason I say that is because over 90% of the customers booked on today's UA904 ORD-FRA flight are connecting to a LH flight out of FRA tomorrow morning. Less than 10% of passengers are actually remaining in FRA so I think LH resuming more flights is part of the reason we are seeing an increase in demand to FRA from the US.

LAXintl · Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:16 pm

United and the AFA last week exchanged notices marking the official intention of start negotiations on the 2016 flight attendant agreement that became amendable this year.

Let see how long this process takes - last one took 4-years. While United has publicly stated they want an "industry leading contract", its obviously a murky subject as two sides might have very different views as to what that means.

codc10 · Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:20 pm

LAXintl wrote:
United and the AFA last week exchanged notices marking the official intention of start negotiations on the 2016 flight attendant agreement that became amendable this year.

Let see how long this process takes - last one took 4-years. While United has publicly stated they want an "industry leading contract", its obviously a murky subject as two sides might have very different views as to what that means.

At least this one will have a unified starting point. The last negotiation brought three workgroups to the table, with different cultures/rules/expectations that made for a brutally difficult process.

jetmatt777 · Sun Aug 01, 2021 3:39 pm

Kirby doesn’t want a labor battle right now. I imagine both sides will seek a swift agreement.

I know in my workgroup, ramp, our contract becomes amendable this year. I, as well as many others I talk to, would be happy with just an extension of our contract with just a few changes. I am not speaking on behalf of the whole work group and the sentiment may be different in others stations, but largely people I interact with are satisfied and not seeking major changes.

I don’t know the flight attendant contract or their feelings on it, but hopefully they can all come to the table and get a deal done sooner rather than later. I think the company is ready to make a deal.

fun2fly · Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:09 pm

Just off a quick hop to ATH on AA via ORD. T5 USCBP is totally overwhelmed as the line was in excess of 90 min. + the train is still down so you got to the domestic terminals by bus taking longer. So many flight connections were missed. Good investment by UA to make it's own terminal with customs clearance at ORD, it will be a huge differentiator for them when it opens. I really feel corporate customer negotiators will vote UA on contracts in ORD because of this...what a mess.

Based on the hearsay in the USCBP line and those on the AA ATH flight, there seems to be an insatiable demand to go to Europe. Rates are low on airfare and hotels. For the 2022 TATL routes, I'd bet a mix of resumption of key markets for business travelers, but don't discount the routes the lie flat 767/757's can do for the leisure demand. The Dubrovnik route, a steal from AA to UA, is a prime example of what routes could happen. If nothing else, it helps carriers deplete FF mile accruals. PMI, NCE, NCL, AGP and more are all fare game. If you look back, we guessed everything under the sun when CO ramped up the 757 game (DL did some of this too).

sldispatcher · Sun Aug 01, 2021 6:43 pm

So at ORD, IAH, IAD and DEN as the August schedule rolls out, are they all omni-directional or have some directional banking tendencies getting back in the schedule?

Also, with the forthcoming addition of gates at Denver, does the group think that there will be more rolling banks throughout the day or stay concentrated on discreet arrival/departure windows for maximum connectivity with minimum connection time?

bigb · Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:03 pm

calpsafltskeds wrote:
Scarebus34 wrote:
calpsafltskeds wrote:
Almost all the 320s are older than the 739 nonER. Beside range issues that can be dealt with by a subfleet, the 739s provide more F and total seats at probably minimal cost vs 320s. I've seen 739s on transcons, but burying 12 units in a 737 fleet of 300+ shouldn't be hard to do.

The non-ER 739's were not routed on transcon routes as they have performance issues. Randomly may have seen one on an eastbound routing, if it was the only option, but certainly not going west.

A bit hard to check routings since they haven't flown in over a year, but I check aircraft all the time for the fleet site and either viewed or on my own travels remember seeing them on routes like IAD-SAN, of course I could be wrong in my recollection. Seasonal winds can make a big difference as well.

IAD-SAN is a stretch for the 739 non-ER to do with with the required reserve fuel.

codc10 · Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:11 pm

sldispatcher wrote:
Also, with the forthcoming addition of gates at Denver, does the group think that there will be more rolling banks throughout the day or stay concentrated on discreet arrival/departure windows for maximum connectivity with minimum connection time?

I think future DEN schedules with additional gates will enable bigger banks, to compete primarily with DFW. A rolling hub schedule is more efficient in terms of use of gates and personnel, but generally leads to longer layovers and worse connectivity. A major goal for Kirby and the domestic network planning team is connectivity and competitive schedules with AA and DL, so the only way to get there is bigger banks with more connecting opportunities and shorter layovers.

jetmatt777 · Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:25 pm

They won't be going to a rolling system.

I wish United, DIA, and the FAA would sit down in a room and come up with some sort of operational plan to address the ramp congestion in Denver. These banks routinely back up the alley 15-20 airplanes deep that are trying to exit, while the next bank is arriving. This results in some enormous taxi-in times where the gates are open for the inbounds, but the departures backed up into the alley so far the arrivals can't get to their gates. It's absolute mayhem, and that's on clear days without major weather issues contributing. We have a metering program in place but I don't know how effective it is.

It seems like the bottleneck is going from ramp control to ground. After that things flow pretty smooth.

GmoneyCO · Sun Aug 01, 2021 8:38 pm

jayunited wrote:
This is just speculation on my part but I think it is about passenger demand especially since we are talking about the resumption of UA's early afternoon flight to FRA that is scheduled to arrive in FRA around 06:20 am the next morning. Judging from the passengers book on UA904 I would say LH must have increased their early morning departure schedule out of FRA to secondary airports all throughout Europe and perhaps beyond, and the reason I say that is because over 90% of the customers booked on today's UA904 ORD-FRA flight are connecting to a LH flight out of FRA tomorrow morning. Less than 10% of passengers are actually remaining in FRA so I think LH resuming more flights is part of the reason we are seeing an increase in demand to FRA from the US.

I just got back from a 2 week vacation to Europe. Demand for Europe is strong right now and can feel it picking up steam. When we started our vacation in mid-July, things were initially pretty quiet and we did not encounter many Americans. Towards the end, we encountered a lot more Americans and airports were definitely more full. Zurich, Rome, and Munich were the three major airports that we transited for reference.

Based on award availability in August looking forward, travel demand is definitely pick up.

DEN1895 · Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:13 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
They won't be going to a rolling system.

I wish United, DIA, and the FAA would sit down in a room and come up with some sort of operational plan to address the ramp congestion in Denver. These banks routinely back up the alley 15-20 airplanes deep that are trying to exit, while the next bank is arriving. This results in some enormous taxi-in times where the gates are open for the inbounds, but the departures backed up into the alley so far the arrivals can't get to their gates. It's absolute mayhem, and that's on clear days without major weather issues contributing. We have a metering program in place but I don't know how effective it is.

It seems like the bottleneck is going from ramp control to ground. After that things flow pretty smooth.

When there are 7-8 ramp controllers handing off to 2 ground controllers, 1 east and 1 west, there always seems be a delay. It seems to be worse when they are pushing east. I am not sure of how the FAA should split it up but they need to do something as it a complete mess. It will only get worse as the additional gates, runway come on line in the years to come.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net