na wrote:

The US domestic market seems to be not very competitive when it comes to aspects alike having a young and fuel-efficient fleet.

Do travelers make purchasing decisions on the age of the aircraft, or do they make purchasing decisions based on schedule/price/reliability/onboard product?

Also, an HD domestic-configured 777's per seat fuel burn is lower than most other aircraft in the skies today.

na wrote:

Ridiculous is to deny they are comparatively very old and not very competitive anymore. Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies? I am not disputing at all that they are well maintained and safe to operate. I know the US majors are, among big airlines, almost unique in the world when it comes to operate old metal. The US domestic market seems to be not very competitive when it comes to aspects alike having a young and fuel-efficient fleet.

Yes they are old but yes they've been maintained and have received periodic interior upgrades. I think you vastly overestimate the importance of a "young and fuel efficient," fleet to the average American passenger. These are the same people who will take a red-eye to save a couple of bucks and often take the cheapest faire period. They don't know the aircraft types and don't care for the most part what they are flying in be it young or old.

DL has done very well and has of late flown mostly older planes which are updated inside and well maintained on the outside and made BILLIONS.

na wrote:

Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies?

DL, AA, BA, AF, LH, KE...should I continue?

na wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

na wrote:

What's going to happen to the PW-powered 777 fleet? With the engine type being troublesome and the subfleet grounded for some time (for the most part at least) and the planes being very much advanced in age for a respectable major airline is there any news if, and when those are being retired for good? I any case only scrappers would take 20 year + old 777s these days.

Literally look up about 12 posts for an answer. Also, "very much advanced in age for a respectable major airline" is a ridiculous statement and shows a complete misunderstanding of the US3. The US3 have massive fleets and use older aircraft effectively and efficiently.

Ridiculous is to deny they are comparatively very old and not very competitive anymore. Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies? I am not disputing at all that they are well maintained and safe to operate. I know the US majors are, among big airlines, almost unique in the world when it comes to operate old metal. The US domestic market seems to be not very competitive when it comes to aspects alike having a young and fuel-efficient fleet.

Outside of the Middle East and Asia most major carriers have fleets of similar ages. It’s not the mid 2000s anymore, many of the wide bodies operated by European airlines are not young…

na wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

na wrote:

What's going to happen to the PW-powered 777 fleet? With the engine type being troublesome and the subfleet grounded for some time (for the most part at least) and the planes being very much advanced in age for a respectable major airline is there any news if, and when those are being retired for good? I any case only scrappers would take 20 year + old 777s these days.

Literally look up about 12 posts for an answer. Also, "very much advanced in age for a respectable major airline" is a ridiculous statement and shows a complete misunderstanding of the US3. The US3 have massive fleets and use older aircraft effectively and efficiently.

Ridiculous is to deny they are comparatively very old and not very competitive anymore. Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies? I am not disputing at all that they are well maintained and safe to operate. I know the US majors are, among big airlines, almost unique in the world when it comes to operate old metal. The US domestic market seems to be not very competitive when it comes to aspects alike having a young and fuel-efficient fleet.

So you’re saying that they’d make more money to buy two fresh off the line A321s to fly SFO-HNL rather than the one 777 they’re flying today? Including cargo?

How about on EWR-HNL?

rjbesikof wrote:

What about SFO-GRU? Would that route be feasible?

As a San Franciscan frequent traveler to Argentina and Brazil, there's nothing I would like more. But time and again, it has been proven SFO does not have the critical mass than an airline like United or LATAM need to make the flights profitable. Heck, even AA struggled at LAX with their flights to EZE and GRU and both have been a COVID casualty. And this from LAX that has way more demand to South America.

And with Asia pretty much flat until 2023, there goes any connecting traffic from EZE, GRU to the region via SFO

COPA is the only one that seems to have succeeded from SFO with the right capacity (737s) and hundreds of connecting possibilities at PTY, that can open untapped markets, such as SFO-MDZ, a route with demand from the wine industry in California.

I look at the former Braniff route maps and see some routes United might try with the new A321 (XLR or LRs), SFO-BOG, LAX-LIM, SFO-GYE. Braniff used DC-8s for most of these long haul Latin America routes.

http://www.departedflights.com/BN042780.html

One thing to keep in mind regarding potential new transatlantic flying is the JV with LH/LX/OS/SN. These airlines (OS and LH in particular, IIRC) have parked quite a few longhaul aircraft, and UA might need to step up and cover routes/frequencies with their own metal that previously were seeing partner metal. For example, I could see UA launching EWR-VIE, IAD-VIE, or ORD-VIE with their own metal to allow OS to cover other destinations like JFK, MIA, or LAX. On the other hand, if OS and LH aren't flying as much of their metal to Asia-Pac as well, maybe there's not going to be a need for significant TATL rebalancing...

As for added flying going south, I agree with the likes of IAH-MDE/CLO/GYE as good candidates (although not with widebodies). I'd be pretty surprised to see UA enter markets like GEO, PBM, or BSB. Perhaps either IAD-EZE or EWR-EZE could make a return. I also wouldn't expect much, if anything, from LAX/SFO to South America. Maybe BOG or LIM from one or the other, but even a 788 might be too much capacity there (unless AV dropped out of LAX-BOG and left it for UA).

Another 767-400 out of heavy MX. N69063 scheduled to ferry ILN-EWR 23 July then operate 363 EWR-HNL 24 July

FSDan wrote:

One thing to keep in mind regarding potential new transatlantic flying is the JV with LH/LX/OS/SN. These airlines (OS and LH in particular, IIRC) have parked quite a few longhaul aircraft, and UA might need to step up and cover routes/frequencies with their own metal that previously were seeing partner metal. For example, I could see UA launching EWR-VIE, IAD-VIE, or ORD-VIE with their own metal to allow OS to cover other destinations like JFK, MIA, or LAX. On the other hand, if OS and LH aren't flying as much of their metal to Asia-Pac as well, maybe there's not going to be a need for significant TATL rebalancing...

As for added flying going south, I agree with the likes of IAH-MDE/CLO/GYE as good candidates (although not with widebodies). I'd be pretty surprised to see UA enter markets like GEO, PBM, or BSB. Perhaps either IAD-EZE or EWR-EZE could make a return. I also wouldn't expect much, if anything, from LAX/SFO to South America. Maybe BOG or LIM from one or the other, but even a 788 might be too much capacity there (unless AV dropped out of LAX-BOG and left it for UA).

Look at LAX-FRA. During a non pandemic summer, LH would operate a second daily flight from LAX to FRA (LH450/451) in addition to the year round frequency (LH456/457). Do you think UA would replace LH on the 450/451 flight?

rjbesikof wrote:

FSDan wrote:

One thing to keep in mind regarding potential new transatlantic flying is the JV with LH/LX/OS/SN. These airlines (OS and LH in particular, IIRC) have parked quite a few longhaul aircraft, and UA might need to step up and cover routes/frequencies with their own metal that previously were seeing partner metal. For example, I could see UA launching EWR-VIE, IAD-VIE, or ORD-VIE with their own metal to allow OS to cover other destinations like JFK, MIA, or LAX. On the other hand, if OS and LH aren't flying as much of their metal to Asia-Pac as well, maybe there's not going to be a need for significant TATL rebalancing...

As for added flying going south, I agree with the likes of IAH-MDE/CLO/GYE as good candidates (although not with widebodies). I'd be pretty surprised to see UA enter markets like GEO, PBM, or BSB. Perhaps either IAD-EZE or EWR-EZE could make a return. I also wouldn't expect much, if anything, from LAX/SFO to South America. Maybe BOG or LIM from one or the other, but even a 788 might be too much capacity there (unless AV dropped out of LAX-BOG and left it for UA).

Look at LAX-FRA. During a non pandemic summer, LH would operate a second daily flight from LAX to FRA (LH450/451) in addition to the year round frequency (LH456/457). Do you think UA would replace LH on the 450/451 flight?

I wouldn't count it out.

STT757 wrote:

I look at the former Braniff route maps and see some routes United might try with the new A321 (XLR or LRs), SFO-BOG, LAX-LIM, SFO-GYE. Braniff used DC-8s for most of these long haul Latin America routes.

http://www.departedflights.com/BN042780.html

Except they all stopped at LAX. Braniff ran those routes to LAX and ran an LAX-SFO tag-on.

rjbesikof wrote:

What about SFO-GRU? Would that route be feasible?

LAX-GRU has been tried and dropped many times over. Varig flew Brazil LAX enroute to TYO and failed. Probably one or two other airlines before and after that and they failed. AA was the last to give it a go daily, and even tried a 4/wk to GRU 3/wk to EZE in an effort to keep some S.A. Flying from LAX before finally throwing in the towel.

If LAX can’t get Brazil to work, it seems SFO would be doomed from the start.

Even though UA has traditionally maintained a strong hub in SFO there it does not have good partner on the GRU side. Plus those connecting from Asia to S.A. Are better off with the better connection experience found in DXB, AUH, IST and Europe over the unfriendly USCBP experience found in US gateways. The O&D market is not there to support service to GRU. UA is better off connecting to dots with *A hubs.

jbs2886 wrote:

na wrote:

Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies?

DL, AA, BA, AF, LH, KE...should I continue?

Not true. As I said, BA is an exception. Only small numbers of subfleets under retirement plans are left elsewhere from mid-90s vintage. AAs 777s are for the most part years younger than the UA PW-powered-777s. KE has a small number of 777s from the late 90s left, LH some A343s which are due for retirement soon, AF has started the phase-out of the 77E, and so on.

na wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

na wrote:

Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies?

DL, AA, BA, AF, LH, KE...should I continue?

Not true. As I said, BA is an exception. Only small numbers of subfleets under retirement plans are left elsewhere from mid-90s vintage. AAs 777s are for the most part years younger than the UA PW-powered-777s. KE has a small number of 777s from the late 90s left, LH some A343s which are due for retirement soon, AF has started the phase-out of the 77E, and so on.

AA 777-200s are about the same age, DL has a 767s still running around. BA still has early built 777s running around. You really are over playing the need to retire the the 77A models. They are fully paid off and the cost to maintain and operate them them hasn’t out weigh the money they make United....

Has there been any more news on UA launching BOS-LHR? Thought when they announced it they said it was going to start this year

SonomaFlyer wrote:

na wrote:

Ridiculous is to deny they are comparatively very old and not very competitive anymore. Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies? I am not disputing at all that they are well maintained and safe to operate. I know the US majors are, among big airlines, almost unique in the world when it comes to operate old metal. The US domestic market seems to be not very competitive when it comes to aspects alike having a young and fuel-efficient fleet.

Yes they are old but yes they've been maintained and have received periodic interior upgrades. I think you vastly overestimate the importance of a "young and fuel efficient," fleet to the average American passenger. These are the same people who will take a red-eye to save a couple of bucks and often take the cheapest faire period. They don't know the aircraft types and don't care for the most part what they are flying in be it young or old.

DL has done very well and has of late flown mostly older planes which are updated inside and well maintained on the outside and made BILLIONS.

Put in new interiors - as DL did with 757s, 763s, and A320s - and Americans except avgeeks can't tell/don't care. Age and fuel efficiency of aircraft just don't figure in top passenger purchase criteria.

Anybody worried about the 13% fuel burn improvement from a 738 to a MAX8 just ought to fly less. Really - it's easy.

na wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

na wrote:

Who beside UA (and BA) does operate such a number of old widebodies?

DL, AA, BA, AF, LH, KE...should I continue?

Not true. As I said, BA is an exception. Only small numbers of subfleets under retirement plans are left elsewhere from mid-90s vintage. AAs 777s are for the most part years younger than the UA PW-powered-777s. KE has a small number of 777s from the late 90s left, LH some A343s which are due for retirement soon, AF has started the phase-out of the 77E, and so on.

Remind me again, though, what plane are you using to haul 400 passengers to Hawaii from ORD or EWR that you’ll buy new with better total costs?

jayunited wrote:

I agree with your post I think we will see United resume as much TATL as the can, and we will see United try some new stuff (case and point IAD-ATH is working out really well for UA this year as is ORD-KEF).

Do you have data or insight on IAD-ATH? Would be keen to know how that's doing.

AA is allegedly doing extremely well on ORD-ATH so it might indeed make sense for UA to give it a shot.

OlympicATH wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I agree with your post I think we will see United resume as much TATL as the can, and we will see United try some new stuff (case and point IAD-ATH is working out really well for UA this year as is ORD-KEF).

Do you have data or insight on IAD-ATH? Would be keen to know how that's doing.

AA is allegedly doing extremely well on ORD-ATH so it might indeed make sense for UA to give it a shot.

United has never publicly put out data for a any specific routes and believe it or not I don't have access to that internal data especially if you are talking about yield or the profitability of a specific route in this case IAD-ATH or ORD-KEF. All I can say is what United states which is all they ever state which is the route is exceeding expectations.

I haven't heard anything on how EWR-DBV is performing but I have heard IAD-ACC is performing well and this December and part of January United will increase frequency for the holidays and they are looking at increasing frequency in 2022 from 3x weekly to 5x weekly. EWR-JNB is another route United has remains silent on for the time being and for now there the US still has a travel ban banning nonessential travel from South Africa which continues to impact South African's trying to come to the US. However US citizens can travel freely to/from South Africa.

When it comes to United and routes the only information they will every release is this: A) The route is exceeding expectation, B) The route is meeting expectations, or C) The route failed to meet expectations. United will never give out more information than that publicly, and like I said I don't have access to any specific data as it pertains to specific routes.

With that being said I do think come spring/summer of 2022 if the US has dropped its travel ban effecting European citizens and if Europe is totally reopened to fully vaccinated Americans I think there will be demand on both sides of the Atlantic for leisure travel and we might see United perhaps add some leisure destinations like ORD-ATH or ORD-BCN to chase some leisure fares. If demand is strong enough leisure fares to/from Europe next year probably won't be cheap not like they were in 2018 and 2019.

I'm waiting with my list of flights I 'd like to see United try in spring/summer of 2022 even if only for one season. I know they all won't happened but I would like to see.
IAH-CDG, IAH-FCO, LAX-FRA, LAX-TLV, DEN-AMS, DEN-CDG, ORD-BCN, ORD-ATH, EWR-NCE, EWR-PMO, IAD-VIE, (crazy as this may sound make peace with Emirates) try EWR-DXB, and also bring back/resume SFO-CDG, SFO-AMS. Again I know all of this won't happen but it would be good to see United try some of the more logical routes next summer.

Another route is EWR-Cairo, at one point Continental announced the route and was about the launch but events altered that plan. Also EWR-Casablanca. And if China is sunk for a while due to many factors, they could put more into India. EWR-Hyderabad, EWR-Bangalore, EWR-Chennai.

Wonder if we'd see Karachi or Lahore come on line.

It’s been doing very well. Load factors in the 90’s

OlympicATH wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I agree with your post I think we will see United resume as much TATL as the can, and we will see United try some new stuff (case and point IAD-ATH is working out really well for UA this year as is ORD-KEF).

Do you have data or insight on IAD-ATH? Would be keen to know how that's doing.

AA is allegedly doing extremely well on ORD-ATH so it might indeed make sense for UA to give it a shot.

737-MAX8 number 3. N27253 scheduled to exit SEA induction and ferry to ORD on July 25th. F2755

Cmac787 wrote:

737-MAX8 number 3. N27253 scheduled to exit SEA induction and ferry to ORD on July 25th. F2755

Wow they are really moving along. How many new narrow body Airplanes will be delivered this year?

Anyone know the first aircraft to be refitted with the new interior?

I’m not sure of the total number. But a bunch in the next 5 years.

Coalways wrote:

Cmac787 wrote:

737-MAX8 number 3. N27253 scheduled to exit SEA induction and ferry to ORD on July 25th. F2755

Wow they are really moving along. How many new narrow body Airplanes will be delivered this year?

Anyone know the first aircraft to be refitted with the new interior?

The next 2 737-MAX8 7254 and 7255 are at BFI and ready for delivery

Cmac787 wrote:

I’m not sure of the total number. But a bunch in the next 5 years.

Coalways wrote:

Cmac787 wrote:

737-MAX8 number 3. N27253 scheduled to exit SEA induction and ferry to ORD on July 25th. F2755

Wow they are really moving along. How many new narrow body Airplanes will be delivered this year?

Anyone know the first aircraft to be refitted with the new interior?

This year I think its around 14, around 50ish next year, and close to 150 in 2023.

What do you think the chances are of UA returning to a couple of the second tier routes they dropped from EWR? The biggest one that comes to mind is EWR-MAN, which I'm shocked was completely dropped in the first place. Among the others that UA left: Birmingham, Hamburg, and Copenhagen would make sense as summer seasonals if they're looking for places to put airplanes that would normally go to Asia. As far as others that might make sense that neither CO or UA ever tried-Krakow/Warsaw and Budapest would follow Prague, and I think would be popular with summer tourists (although LOT does all three ex-JFK; UA's not that close to LOT though). In Western Europe, I also wonder if there's a market for a NYC-Lyon nonstop; Delta also did JFK-Malaga for years seasonally before dropping it; that would all be a question of yields though.

Scarebus34 wrote:

Cmac787 wrote:

I’m not sure of the total number. But a bunch in the next 5 years.

Coalways wrote:

Wow they are really moving along. How many new narrow body Airplanes will be delivered this year?

Anyone know the first aircraft to be refitted with the new interior?

This year I think its around 14, around 50ish next year, and close to 150 in 2023.

Have they given a tentative estimate of how many retirements in that time? I know they plan to grow, and take in more new aircraft than retirements, but some have to be getting ready to go.

jayunited wrote:

I'm waiting with my list of flights I 'd like to see United try in spring/summer of 2022 even if only for one season. I know they all won't happened but I would like to see.
IAH-CDG, IAH-FCO, LAX-FRA, LAX-TLV, DEN-AMS, DEN-CDG, ORD-BCN, ORD-ATH, EWR-NCE, EWR-PMO, IAD-VIE, (crazy as this may sound make peace with Emirates) try EWR-DXB, and also bring back/resume SFO-CDG, SFO-AMS. Again I know all of this won't happen but it would be good to see United try some of the more logical routes next summer.

That list is pretty reasonable and logical, IMO. In addition to your list, I'd like to see SFO/LAX-BNE, IAH-MVD/Cuzco/HKG/PVG/LOS, SFO-MEM/GRU, IAD-AKL/JNB/BDA/BER, ORD-BER, and a return of EWR to the dropped Scandinavian routes as well as HEL.

TWA772LR wrote:

I'd like to see SFO/LAX-BNE, IAH-MVD/Cuzco/HKG/PVG/LOS, SFO-MEM/GRU, IAD-AKL/JNB/BDA/BER, ORD-BER, and a return of EWR to the dropped Scandinavian routes as well as HEL.

There's no way new trans-Pac routes get launched next summer when Nocella et. al. are communicating many pre-COVID trans-Pac routes aren't coming back 'til 2023 due to slow recovery.

adamblang wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

I'd like to see SFO/LAX-BNE, IAH-MVD/Cuzco/HKG/PVG/LOS, SFO-MEM/GRU, IAD-AKL/JNB/BDA/BER, ORD-BER, and a return of EWR to the dropped Scandinavian routes as well as HEL.

There's no way new trans-Pac routes get launched next summer when Nocella et. al. are communicating many pre-COVID trans-Pac routes aren't coming back 'til 2023 due to slow recovery.

I'd love to see it happen but I acknowledge it won't be anytime soon.

Cmac787 wrote:

It’s been doing very well. Load factors in the 90’s

OlympicATH wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I agree with your post I think we will see United resume as much TATL as the can, and we will see United try some new stuff (case and point IAD-ATH is working out really well for UA this year as is ORD-KEF).

Do you have data or insight on IAD-ATH? Would be keen to know how that's doing.

AA is allegedly doing extremely well on ORD-ATH so it might indeed make sense for UA to give it a shot.

Thanks for the info. Loads aren’t everything but that’s a good sign.
I hope the route stays - and ORD-ATH is added in the next few years.

GSP psgr wrote:

What do you think the chances are of UA returning to a couple of the second tier routes they dropped from EWR? The biggest one that comes to mind is EWR-MAN, which I'm shocked was completely dropped in the first place. Among the others that UA left: Birmingham, Hamburg, and Copenhagen would make sense as summer seasonals if they're looking for places to put airplanes that would normally go to Asia.

IMHO widebodies are too many seats into those thin markets, and the smallest (the 763s) in a much too premium config (30J/49E+/135Y) especially as summer seasonals. Maybe when there's a fair number of 321XLRs.

CO ran 757s to a lot of secondary Europe - even tertiary, like Bristol and Belfast.

jayunited wrote:

OlympicATH wrote:

jayunited wrote:

I agree with your post I think we will see United resume as much TATL as the can, and we will see United try some new stuff (case and point IAD-ATH is working out really well for UA this year as is ORD-KEF).

Do you have data or insight on IAD-ATH? Would be keen to know how that's doing.

AA is allegedly doing extremely well on ORD-ATH so it might indeed make sense for UA to give it a shot.

United has never publicly put out data for a any specific routes and believe it or not I don't have access to that internal data especially if you are talking about yield or the profitability of a specific route in this case IAD-ATH or ORD-KEF. All I can say is what United states which is all they ever state which is the route is exceeding expectations.

I haven't heard anything on how EWR-DBV is performing but I have heard IAD-ACC is performing well and this December and part of January United will increase frequency for the holidays and they are looking at increasing frequency in 2022 from 3x weekly to 5x weekly. EWR-JNB is another route United has remains silent on for the time being and for now there the US still has a travel ban banning nonessential travel from South Africa which continues to impact South African's trying to come to the US. However US citizens can travel freely to/from South Africa.

When it comes to United and routes the only information they will every release is this: A) The route is exceeding expectation, B) The route is meeting expectations, or C) The route failed to meet expectations. United will never give out more information than that publicly, and like I said I don't have access to any specific data as it pertains to specific routes.

With that being said I do think come spring/summer of 2022 if the US has dropped its travel ban effecting European citizens and if Europe is totally reopened to fully vaccinated Americans I think there will be demand on both sides of the Atlantic for leisure travel and we might see United perhaps add some leisure destinations like ORD-ATH or ORD-BCN to chase some leisure fares. If demand is strong enough leisure fares to/from Europe next year probably won't be cheap not like they were in 2018 and 2019.

I'm waiting with my list of flights I 'd like to see United try in spring/summer of 2022 even if only for one season. I know they all won't happened but I would like to see.
IAH-CDG, IAH-FCO, LAX-FRA, LAX-TLV, DEN-AMS, DEN-CDG, ORD-BCN, ORD-ATH, EWR-NCE, EWR-PMO, IAD-VIE, (crazy as this may sound make peace with Emirates) try EWR-DXB, and also bring back/resume SFO-CDG, SFO-AMS. Again I know all of this won't happen but it would be good to see United try some of the more logical routes next summer.

jayunited I agree with your whole list except DXB. Sadly, with the US Government contract going to JetBlue on codeshare agreement, I don’t think any US carriers will be able to make that route work. What a DOT award mistake that was . . .

How much is UA losing in the Pacific? If I remember correctly the highest yielding routes in the UA Pacific network were SYD, MEL, HND/NRT, PVG, HKG and SIN.

gwrudolph wrote:

jayunited I agree with your whole list except DXB. Sadly, with the US Government contract going to JetBlue on codeshare agreement, I don’t think any US carriers will be able to make that route work. What a DOT award mistake that was . . .

GSA, not DOT. But I digress.

When is the GSA award next up for new bids? I've spend the last 10 minutes Googling but can't find when the next opportunity is to bid on the GSA contract for middle east traffic.

MIflyer12 wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

What do you think the chances are of UA returning to a couple of the second tier routes they dropped from EWR? The biggest one that comes to mind is EWR-MAN, which I'm shocked was completely dropped in the first place. Among the others that UA left: Birmingham, Hamburg, and Copenhagen would make sense as summer seasonals if they're looking for places to put airplanes that would normally go to Asia.

IMHO widebodies are too many seats into those thin markets, and the smallest (the 763s) in a much too premium config (30J/49E+/135Y) especially as summer seasonals. Maybe when there's a fair number of 321XLRs.

CO ran 757s to a lot of secondary Europe - even tertiary, like Bristol and Belfast.

That's true, although I think you could probably wedge a 764 into MAN and have the numbers work as a summer seasonal, especially given that AA isn't running ORD/PHL-MAN anymore. MAN has traditionally been something of a top of the tree second tier destination-closer to something like DUB than DUS. Then again, maybe the fact that AC isn't back to running YYZ-MAN is telling.

If we're talking about a lot of widebody capacity, that means 1) backfilling a shrinking OS on EWR/ORD/IAD-VIE, 2) Reconnecting some of the bigger hitters in Europe to UA hubs: IAH-CDG and SFO-BRU come to mind, 3) Chasing the bucket and spade traffic to Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal, and 4) Maybe chasing some VFR and leisure flows to like likes of Prague, Dubrovnik, and maybe markets like Krakow, Warsaw, and Budapest.

UAX Update:

CR5:
N502MJ has been reregistered as N556GJ
N507MJ has been reregistered as N557GJ
N519LR exited AMA in EvoBlu livery, ferried STL awaiting service entry

CR7:
N518LR ferried CKB for maintenance
N516LR ferried STL for CR5 modification

gwrudolph wrote:

jayunited I agree with your whole list except DXB. Sadly, with the US Government contract going to JetBlue on codeshare agreement, I don’t think any US carriers will be able to make that route work. What a DOT award mistake that was . . .

I just did some research this morning on US-Dubai tourism numbers pre-pandemic and the numbers for 2019 were not impressive. According to the number I could find the total number of passenger who flew from the US to Dubai (not connecting to another flight) just O&D passengers only was a paltry 659,000 passengers for the entire year. Of course a lot more people flew to DXB from the US but it would appear as though the bulk of the traffic between the US and DXB is connecting traffic not O&D.

You are correct EWR-DXB would not be a good route for UA to attempt because the O&D numbers are not the greatest and United would have no chance of capturing connecting traffic at DXB. So yeah lets scratch EWR-DXB off my list I should have looked it up before posting it.

Since BOM/DEL is so successful why not start SFO-BOM or EWR-BLR?

I know that DEN was mentioned earlier in the thread but I was wondering what are some possible international routes that UA could try from DEN. CDG seems logical but I read in sone art UA while back that AKL was considered as a possibility. AKL obviously won’t happen anytime soon with the travel restrictions. Could they try anything to South America from DEN?

I almost forgot. TPE, which Taiwan is in the US Visa Waiver program. I'd like to see EWR-TPE.

jayunited wrote:

gwrudolph wrote:

jayunited I agree with your whole list except DXB. Sadly, with the US Government contract going to JetBlue on codeshare agreement, I don’t think any US carriers will be able to make that route work. What a DOT award mistake that was . . .

I just did some research this morning on US-Dubai tourism numbers pre-pandemic and the numbers for 2019 were not impressive. According to the number I could find the total number of passenger who flew from the US to Dubai (not connecting to another flight) just O&D passengers only was a paltry 659,000 passengers for the entire year. Of course a lot more people flew to DXB from the US but it would appear as though the bulk of the traffic between the US and DXB is connecting traffic not O&D.

You are correct EWR-DXB would not be a good route for UA to attempt because the O&D numbers are not the greatest and United would have no chance of capturing connecting traffic at DXB. So yeah lets scratch EWR-DXB off my list I should have looked it up before posting it.

Haha! I liked your list otherwise. Sadly, that GSA contract award to JetBlue killed DXB for the US3

IFLYUA767 wrote:

I know that DEN was mentioned earlier in the thread but I was wondering what are some possible international routes that UA could try from DEN. CDG seems logical but I read in sone art UA while back that AKL was considered as a possibility. AKL obviously won’t happen anytime soon with the travel restrictions. Could they try anything to South America from DEN?

I would not bet on it. From a connections standpoint, DEN doesn’t offer anything IAH can’t already do. Better to concentrate those resources at IAH. As for OD traffic from DEN to South America, I don’t get the impression that there is too much. Most of the local OD traffic is likely Central America, which they are already covering

Next weeks numbers just came out United is back up to 2.6 million total revenue passengers for next week. This is the same number of passengers who flew United during the week of July 4th for the holiday. The good news is the numbers are spread out more evenly this week than they were in the days leading into July 4th. Also for the first time since the pandemic ORD will slightly exceed 44,000 O&D revenue passenger in a single day. However its not enough to over take either DEN or IAH as both of these hubs will see multiple days next week north of 45,000 O&D revenue passengers.

ORD is struggling, putting up a valiant effort, fighting to take back its crown, but is still mired in 3rd place as DEN and IAH continue to duke it out for United’s busiest hub. Will ORD ever reign supreme again who knows only time will tell.

jayunited wrote:

Next weeks numbers just came out United is back up to 2.6 million total revenue passengers for next week. This is the same number of passengers who flew United during the week of July 4th for the holiday. The good news is the numbers are spread out more evenly this week than they were in the days leading into July 4th. Also for the first time since the pandemic ORD will slightly exceed 44,000 O&D revenue passenger in a single day. However its not enough to over take either DEN or IAH as both of these hubs will see multiple days next week north of 45,000 O&D revenue passengers.

ORD is struggling, putting up a valiant effort, fighting to take back its crown, but is still mired in 3rd place as DEN and IAH continue to duke it out for United’s busiest hub. Will ORD ever reign supreme again who knows only time will tell.

ORD will definitely retake its place as United’s number one hub eventually. Chicago is, always has been, and always will be United’s number one priority. It has huge OD, room to grow (eventually), a ton of connecting opportunities, one of the bigger business cities in the US., and United has market share edge there. However, my guess is it might be a close call until full recovery and that expansion project is complete.

x1234 wrote:

Since BOM/DEL is so successful why not start SFO-BOM or EWR-BLR?

SFO-BOM/ EWR-BLR are mostly only low yield VFR traffic. SFO/EWR/ORD-DEL work because the O&D demand is very high. SFO-DEL also works because DEL is also a pretty big tech hub with connections on Air India/Vistara. For BOM, I think the next logical destinations after EWR-BOM for United to Mumbai are LAX-BOM or ORD-BOM. LAX-BOM mostly due to the film traffic between LA and Mumbai and VFR traffic. You could call it the Hollywood - Bollywood express . ORD-BOM as United could easily cash on connecting traffic from the West Coast.

portola2727 wrote:

x1234 wrote:

Since BOM/DEL is so successful why not start SFO-BOM or EWR-BLR?

SFO-BOM/ EWR-BLR are mostly only low yield VFR traffic. SFO/EWR/ORD-DEL work because the O&D demand is very high. SFO-DEL also works because DEL is also a pretty big tech hub with connections on Air India/Vistara. For BOM, I think the next logical destinations after EWR-BOM for United to Mumbai are LAX-BOM or ORD-BOM. LAX-BOM mostly due to the film traffic between LA and Mumbai and VFR traffic. You could call it the Hollywood - Bollywood express . ORD-BOM as United could easily cash on connecting traffic from the West Coast.

For the next few years, some of this low-yielding VFR traffic may be the only game in town. Business travel isn’t likely to rebound and as others have said Asia and Oceania will be a while yet. The alternative to trying to make a few bucks on some of these VFR routes, might be keeping airplanes on the ground.