United Airlines Network Thread - 2022

TWA772LR · Fri May 27, 2022 3:35 am

dlphoenix wrote:
The only TPAC destination where UA is short on capacity now is ICN.
ERW-ICN, ORD-ICN or a second SFO-ICN will fill up quickly IMHO

DLP

I think it'll be EWR-ICN we see next for Seoul. The EWR-NRT flight number used to carry on to ICN and the gate in EWR would flash between Narita and Seoul. NRT-ICN was operated with a GUM 738 for the equipment.

LAXdude1023 · Fri May 27, 2022 5:01 am

TWA772LR wrote:
dlphoenix wrote:
The only TPAC destination where UA is short on capacity now is ICN.
ERW-ICN, ORD-ICN or a second SFO-ICN will fill up quickly IMHO

DLP

I think it'll be EWR-ICN we see next for Seoul. The EWR-NRT flight number used to carry on to ICN and the gate in EWR would flash between Narita and Seoul. NRT-ICN was operated with a GUM 738 for the equipment.

Doubt it simply because, pre-pandemic, UA chose to go 2x at SFO instead. UA compartmentalizes their hubs unlike DL and AA which lends itself more to putting as much of its Asia network from one hub.

sfojvjets · Fri May 27, 2022 6:11 am

adamblang wrote:
I wonder if we'll see the second daily SFO-ICN start that was intended for spring 2020 but never launched.

IIRC that second daily SFO-ICN was seasonal. It was launched pre-covid as another poster said so which is why you may be confused about it launching, since it did flew in 2019 but not in 2020.

United787 · Fri May 27, 2022 3:51 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
dlphoenix wrote:
The only TPAC destination where UA is short on capacity now is ICN.
ERW-ICN, ORD-ICN or a second SFO-ICN will fill up quickly IMHO

DLP

I think it'll be EWR-ICN we see next for Seoul. The EWR-NRT flight number used to carry on to ICN and the gate in EWR would flash between Narita and Seoul. NRT-ICN was operated with a GUM 738 for the equipment.

Doubt it simply because, pre-pandemic, UA chose to go 2x at SFO instead. UA compartmentalizes their hubs unlike DL and AA which lends itself more to putting as much of its Asia network from one hub.

I actually don't think UA compartmentalizes the hubs to the level of DL and nowhere near AA. UA has a robust Trans-Atlantic network from SFO. UA had a robust Trans-Pacific network from EWR and IAD pre-COVID. ORD is well balanced and even flies to GRU. DEN has flights to Asia and Europe and growing. IAH is also well connected to Asia and Europe despite it's geographical advantage to Latin America.

So much has changed in the ICN market since UA decided to go 2x at SFO. And SFO might still warrant 2x to ICN purely on local demand.

But UA has no problem over flying it's hubs. IMHO, they have a history of adding service to destinations by connecting additional hubs in addition to additional frequencies...

codc10 · Fri May 27, 2022 4:05 pm

United787 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
I think it'll be EWR-ICN we see next for Seoul. The EWR-NRT flight number used to carry on to ICN and the gate in EWR would flash between Narita and Seoul. NRT-ICN was operated with a GUM 738 for the equipment.

Doubt it simply because, pre-pandemic, UA chose to go 2x at SFO instead. UA compartmentalizes their hubs unlike DL and AA which lends itself more to putting as much of its Asia network from one hub.

I actually don't think UA compartmentalizes the hubs to the level of DL and nowhere near AA. UA has a robust Trans-Atlantic network from SFO. UA had a robust Trans-Pacific network from EWR and IAD pre-COVID. ORD is well balanced and even flies to GRU. DEN has flights to Asia and Europe and growing. IAH is also well connected to Asia and Europe despite it's geographical advantage to Latin America.

So much has changed in the ICN market since UA decided to go 2x at SFO. And SFO might still warrant 2x to ICN purely on local demand.

But UA has no problem over flying it's hubs. IMHO, they have a history of adding service to destinations by connecting additional hubs in addition to additional frequencies...

While EWR-ICN has a large PDEW, probably the largest unserved non-ULR Asia market from EWR, KE/OZ have a firm grip on the local NYC metro-Seoul market. There is a strong preference for Korean brands among the US-based VFR crowd (a massive piece of which actually is based in New Jersey) and the Seoul point of sale is similarly geared to KE/OZ.

I think if there were some daylight for a US carrier to get into NYC-Seoul, it would have been Delta pre-pandemic. Now, it would not surprise me to see EWR-ICN from United, as it won't be nearly as large to China going forward and it needs somewhere to fly all of those 787s!

atrude777 · Fri May 27, 2022 4:08 pm

Lincoln Airport-LNK has announced they plan to add LNK-IAH on United.

https://www.1011now.com/2022/05/26/linc ... t-houston/

LINCOLN, Neb. (KOLN) - The Lincoln Airport is adding a flight to and from Houston beginning in September.

Rachel Barth, Director of Communications for the Lincoln Airport, said the Airport Authority approved the contract with United Airlines Thursday morning. The Lincoln Airport will offer one flight a day to the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston. It will be the first flight out of LNK and last flight in.

However, you can’t book the flights yet. Barth said United Airlines still needs to approve the agreement, which is expected to happen next week.

Barth said the contract will be paid with federal grant money.

This will be a great flight for Business Travelers, and to help boost what LNK lost with Delta.

Alex

fun2fly · Fri May 27, 2022 4:11 pm

codc10 wrote:
United787 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

Doubt it simply because, pre-pandemic, UA chose to go 2x at SFO instead. UA compartmentalizes their hubs unlike DL and AA which lends itself more to putting as much of its Asia network from one hub.

I actually don't think UA compartmentalizes the hubs to the level of DL and nowhere near AA. UA has a robust Trans-Atlantic network from SFO. UA had a robust Trans-Pacific network from EWR and IAD pre-COVID. ORD is well balanced and even flies to GRU. DEN has flights to Asia and Europe and growing. IAH is also well connected to Asia and Europe despite it's geographical advantage to Latin America.

So much has changed in the ICN market since UA decided to go 2x at SFO. And SFO might still warrant 2x to ICN purely on local demand.

But UA has no problem over flying it's hubs. IMHO, they have a history of adding service to destinations by connecting additional hubs in addition to additional frequencies...

While EWR-ICN has a large PDEW, probably the largest unserved non-ULR Asia market from EWR, KE/OZ have a firm grip on the local NYC metro-Seoul market. There is a strong preference for Korean brands among the US-based VFR crowd (a massive piece of which actually is based in New Jersey) and the Seoul point of sale is similarly geared to KE/OZ.

I think if there were some daylight for a US carrier to get into NYC-Seoul, it would have been Delta pre-pandemic. Now, it would not surprise me to see EWR-ICN from United, as it won't be nearly as large to China going forward and it needs somewhere to fly all of those 787s!

EWR>ICN discussed for years, passed over for 2nd SFO and we're still discussing it. Where is KE with regard to their recovery? If they don't have a full compliment of planes and staff returning like many airlines, they may not have the volume to recreate the frequency.

As for the VFR and who they chose, that's not UA's target. Corporate contracts dictate what airlines pax fly and UA knows where they stand with those companies that will buy Polaris in NYC. A lot of things have changed in 2 years and UA may have won new clients to make this work. We'll see as UA does have to figure out somewhere to fly the former TPAC widebodies.

codc10 · Fri May 27, 2022 4:33 pm

fun2fly wrote:
codc10 wrote:
United787 wrote:

I actually don't think UA compartmentalizes the hubs to the level of DL and nowhere near AA. UA has a robust Trans-Atlantic network from SFO. UA had a robust Trans-Pacific network from EWR and IAD pre-COVID. ORD is well balanced and even flies to GRU. DEN has flights to Asia and Europe and growing. IAH is also well connected to Asia and Europe despite it's geographical advantage to Latin America.

So much has changed in the ICN market since UA decided to go 2x at SFO. And SFO might still warrant 2x to ICN purely on local demand.

But UA has no problem over flying it's hubs. IMHO, they have a history of adding service to destinations by connecting additional hubs in addition to additional frequencies...

While EWR-ICN has a large PDEW, probably the largest unserved non-ULR Asia market from EWR, KE/OZ have a firm grip on the local NYC metro-Seoul market. There is a strong preference for Korean brands among the US-based VFR crowd (a massive piece of which actually is based in New Jersey) and the Seoul point of sale is similarly geared to KE/OZ.

I think if there were some daylight for a US carrier to get into NYC-Seoul, it would have been Delta pre-pandemic. Now, it would not surprise me to see EWR-ICN from United, as it won't be nearly as large to China going forward and it needs somewhere to fly all of those 787s!

EWR>ICN discussed for years, passed over for 2nd SFO and we're still discussing it. Where is KE with regard to their recovery? If they don't have a full compliment of planes and staff returning like many airlines, they may not have the volume to recreate the frequency.

As for the VFR and who they chose, that's not UA's target. Corporate contracts dictate what airlines pax fly and UA knows where they stand with those companies that will buy Polaris in NYC. A lot of things have changed in 2 years and UA may have won new clients to make this work. We'll see as UA does have to figure out somewhere to fly the former TPAC widebodies.

The Korean companies (conglomerate, banking, insurance, manufacturing, etc.) that drive much of the corporate traffic between NYC and Seoul generally fly KE/OZ, too.

The question is where does the traffic migrate that was previously doing business in Shanghai and elsewhere in China? SIN is a big target.

STT757 · Fri May 27, 2022 7:16 pm

codc10 wrote:
fun2fly wrote:
codc10 wrote:

While EWR-ICN has a large PDEW, probably the largest unserved non-ULR Asia market from EWR, KE/OZ have a firm grip on the local NYC metro-Seoul market. There is a strong preference for Korean brands among the US-based VFR crowd (a massive piece of which actually is based in New Jersey) and the Seoul point of sale is similarly geared to KE/OZ.

I think if there were some daylight for a US carrier to get into NYC-Seoul, it would have been Delta pre-pandemic. Now, it would not surprise me to see EWR-ICN from United, as it won't be nearly as large to China going forward and it needs somewhere to fly all of those 787s!

EWR>ICN discussed for years, passed over for 2nd SFO and we're still discussing it. Where is KE with regard to their recovery? If they don't have a full compliment of planes and staff returning like many airlines, they may not have the volume to recreate the frequency.

As for the VFR and who they chose, that's not UA's target. Corporate contracts dictate what airlines pax fly and UA knows where they stand with those companies that will buy Polaris in NYC. A lot of things have changed in 2 years and UA may have won new clients to make this work. We'll see as UA does have to figure out somewhere to fly the former TPAC widebodies.

The Korean companies (conglomerate, banking, insurance, manufacturing, etc.) that drive much of the corporate traffic between NYC and Seoul generally fly KE/OZ, too.

The question is where does the traffic migrate that was previously doing business in Shanghai and elsewhere in China? SIN is a big target.

The Korean companies have their US headquarters in New Jersey, Samsung USA is in Ridgefield Park. Hanjin Shipping is in Paramus, Hankook Tires is in Wayne, LG Electronics is in Englewood Cliffs, Daewoo is in Ridgefield Park, Hyundai Shipping is based in Ridgefield Park, Kumho Tires in in Fort Lee etc..

Korean air used to serve EWR, via Boston. This is a route United needs to establish, the Korean American community in New Jersey is huge, as is it's corporate presence. Even with loyalty to Korean Airlines United should be able to pull some traffic just on the convenience of the nonstop vs. driving to Kennedy Airport. Same with Taiwan, Eva serve EWR-TPE for 25 + years. United should jump on EWR-ICN, EWR-TPE.

x1234 · Fri May 27, 2022 8:15 pm

With OZ/Asiana merging with KE, *A needs a presence on EWR/ORD-ICN.

dlphoenix · Fri May 27, 2022 11:06 pm

STT757 wrote:
codc10 wrote:
fun2fly wrote:

EWR>ICN discussed for years, passed over for 2nd SFO and we're still discussing it. Where is KE with regard to their recovery? If they don't have a full compliment of planes and staff returning like many airlines, they may not have the volume to recreate the frequency.

As for the VFR and who they chose, that's not UA's target. Corporate contracts dictate what airlines pax fly and UA knows where they stand with those companies that will buy Polaris in NYC. A lot of things have changed in 2 years and UA may have won new clients to make this work. We'll see as UA does have to figure out somewhere to fly the former TPAC widebodies.

The Korean companies (conglomerate, banking, insurance, manufacturing, etc.) that drive much of the corporate traffic between NYC and Seoul generally fly KE/OZ, too.

The question is where does the traffic migrate that was previously doing business in Shanghai and elsewhere in China? SIN is a big target.

The Korean companies have their US headquarters in New Jersey, Samsung USA is in Ridgefield Park. Hanjin Shipping is in Paramus, Hankook Tires is in Wayne, LG Electronics is in Englewood Cliffs, Daewoo is in Ridgefield Park, Hyundai Shipping is based in Ridgefield Park, Kumho Tires in in Fort Lee etc..

Korean air used to serve EWR, via Boston. This is a route United needs to establish, the Korean American community in New Jersey is huge, as is it's corporate presence. Even with loyalty to Korean Airlines United should be able to pull some traffic just on the convenience of the nonstop vs. driving to Kennedy Airport. Same with Taiwan, Eva serve EWR-TPE for 25 + years. United should jump on EWR-ICN, EWR-TPE.

Both NYC-ICN and NYC-TPE are served from JFK by airlines that offer superior product and service at a lower cost. For VFR it’s a no brainer.
Post pandemic the competitive landscape is changing in favor of United (PE, Gaining loyalty with VFR that fly domestic for business) .
I hope EWR-ICN route will materialize.

DLP

adamblang · Sat May 28, 2022 2:05 am

United Airlines sees big lift at SFO for Memorial Day weekend; more international flights coming in early June - SF Business Times

On SFO strengthening:

United Airlines said its expected passenger traffic over Memorial Day weekend at San Francisco International Airport is up nearly 30% compared to a year ago.

“San Francisco is finally coming back,” Nocella said. “Our performance out of San Francisco over the last four or five weeks has been incredibly good.”

On new routes:

The carrier plans to resume routes and add additional service to some of its international destinations. United will offer daily flights to Zurich from SFO, starting June 1; three-times weekly service to Melbourne, Australia, beginning June 2; and daily service to Calgary from SFO starting June 3.

LHUSA · Tue May 31, 2022 4:08 pm

It looks like the 777PW return has already had a positive benefit on the TATL schedule and allowed for increased capacity on several routes. United loaded these over the weekend.

From July 1 to July 31:
• EWR-BCN | 764 > 772
• EWR-CDG (UA 54/55) | 763 > 764
• EWR-MUC | 763 > 772
• EWR-MXP | 763 > 772
• IAD-BCN |764 > 772
• IAD-DUB | 752 > 772
• IAD-EDI | 752 > 764

STT757 · Tue May 31, 2022 8:13 pm

IAD-DUB 752-772 is a huge increase in capacity.

RyanairGuru · Tue May 31, 2022 9:26 pm

STT757 wrote:
IAD-DUB 752-772 is a huge increase in capacity.

You could profitably fill an A380 to Dublin in summer. That DUB (and EDI) were 757s is an indication of how stretched the wide-body fleet was, using 757s on the shortest TATL routes even though demand would justify a larger aircraft.

panam330 · Tue May 31, 2022 9:34 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
STT757 wrote:
IAD-DUB 752-772 is a huge increase in capacity.

You could profitably fill an A380 to Dublin in summer. That DUB (and EDI) were 757s is an indication of how stretched the wide-body fleet was, using 757s on the shortest TATL routes even though demand would justify a larger aircraft.

Bingo. All of those destinations will fill those seats if current booking trends continue. CDG, DUB, MUC and the like can fill practically any seat thrown at them in the summer - especially right now. Demand is through the roof.

fun2fly · Tue May 31, 2022 9:35 pm

RyanairGuru wrote:
STT757 wrote:
IAD-DUB 752-772 is a huge increase in capacity.

You could profitably fill an A380 to Dublin in summer. That DUB (and EDI) were 757s is an indication of how stretched the wide-body fleet was, using 757s on the shortest TATL routes even though demand would justify a larger aircraft.

There really must be an insatiable demand for TATL traffic even with the nonsensical return to the US testing requirements. The extra capacity will also help IRROPS. Rumored 75/76 pilot shortage also contributing?

ScorpioMC3 · Wed Jun 01, 2022 1:05 am

fun2fly wrote:
RyanairGuru wrote:
STT757 wrote:
IAD-DUB 752-772 is a huge increase in capacity.

You could profitably fill an A380 to Dublin in summer. That DUB (and EDI) were 757s is an indication of how stretched the wide-body fleet was, using 757s on the shortest TATL routes even though demand would justify a larger aircraft.

There really must be an insatiable demand for TATL traffic even with the nonsensical return to the US testing requirements. The extra capacity will also help IRROPS. Rumored 75/76 pilot shortage also contributing?

Yes, the 757/767 category is still stretched incredibly thin. The PW777 coming back is the best thing to happen to United all summer.

Golfmikey · Wed Jun 01, 2022 2:35 pm

LHUSA wrote:
It looks like the 777PW return has already had a positive benefit on the TATL schedule and allowed for increased capacity on several routes. United loaded these over the weekend.

From July 1 to July 31:
• EWR-BCN | 764 > 772
• EWR-CDG (UA 54/55) | 763 > 764
• EWR-MUC | 763 > 772
• EWR-MXP | 763 > 772
• IAD-BCN |764 > 772
• IAD-DUB | 752 > 772
• IAD-EDI | 752 > 764

Looks like
EWR-HNL
And
EWR-OGG

Are back for July also

codc10 · Wed Jun 01, 2022 4:04 pm

Golfmikey wrote:
LHUSA wrote:
It looks like the 777PW return has already had a positive benefit on the TATL schedule and allowed for increased capacity on several routes. United loaded these over the weekend.

From July 1 to July 31:
• EWR-BCN | 764 > 772
• EWR-CDG (UA 54/55) | 763 > 764
• EWR-MUC | 763 > 772
• EWR-MXP | 763 > 772
• IAD-BCN |764 > 772
• IAD-DUB | 752 > 772
• IAD-EDI | 752 > 764

Looks like
EWR-HNL
And
EWR-OGG

Are back for July also

Yes these were just June suspensions following the second PW 777 AD (for heat exchanger leak inspections). All of the last-minute frequency reductions made in early May for the June schedule should be limited to the next four weeks.

Nedzua · Fri Jun 03, 2022 3:40 pm

Looks like Korea is removing their quarantine requirements later this month even for unvaccinated visitors, though keeping the testing requirements according to Rueters. Maybe we could see a resumption of the extra seasonal SFO-ICN this summer? I also read that ICN is increasing their capacity, which I wasn't even aware that they had capped their arrivals until now. I saw some discussion above about UA adding another route to ICN but I would think that they would just restart the seasonal route before adding another route from another hub, but having another route would be cool. I know demand probably isn't there but I wish DEN and IAH had more Asian routes.

Acey559 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:36 am

EWR-PMI just inaugurated. Loads look pretty strong so far, which is great. Hopefully this route sticks around a while.

DeltaRules · Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:44 am

adamblang wrote:
United Airlines sees big lift at SFO for Memorial Day weekend; more international flights coming in early June - SF Business Times

On SFO strengthening:
United Airlines said its expected passenger traffic over Memorial Day weekend at San Francisco International Airport is up nearly 30% compared to a year ago.

“San Francisco is finally coming back,” Nocella said. “Our performance out of San Francisco over the last four or five weeks has been incredibly good.”

On new routes:
The carrier plans to resume routes and add additional service to some of its international destinations. United will offer daily flights to Zurich from SFO, starting June 1; three-times weekly service to Melbourne, Australia, beginning June 2; and daily service to Calgary from SFO starting June 3.

More domestic, too. The first post-COVID SFO-CMH flight leaves later tonight.

wxtech · Sat Jun 04, 2022 12:46 am

IAH-LNK beginning in September. Looks like it is real 1X E145.

Tracks · Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:03 am

Looks like UA 120/121 (EWR/BCN) has been upgauged earlier than the planned 7/1. I just got a notification that my flight on 6/21 (UA120) is now a 772 (up from a 764). Having flown this route three times in the last 3 months (so six legs), all flights have been completely full so not surprised they're upgauging as early as they can with these 772s coming back on line.

While the 764s have a more dated cabin they do have more E+ and wider seats than the internationally configured 772, so while the change is good for upgrading, it's bad for passengers with status hoping to get E+ for their group.

dlphoenix · Sat Jun 04, 2022 2:21 pm

Nedzua wrote:
Looks like Korea is removing their quarantine requirements later this month even for unvaccinated visitors, though keeping the testing requirements according to Rueters. Maybe we could see a resumption of the extra seasonal SFO-ICN this summer? I also read that ICN is increasing their capacity, which I wasn't even aware that they had capped their arrivals until now. I saw some discussion above about UA adding another route to ICN but I would think that they would just restart the seasonal route before adding another route from another hub, but having another route would be cool. I know demand probably isn't there but I wish DEN and IAH had more Asian routes.

Airfares to ICN from anywhere in the US on any airline are ridiculous. I would expect UA to add capacity from somewhere.
SFO and/or EWR make the most sense for O&D, but ORD will provide better connections.

Happy Travels
DLP

LHUSA · Sat Jun 04, 2022 2:25 pm

Tracks wrote:
Looks like UA 120/121 (EWR/BCN) has been upgauged earlier than the planned 7/1. I just got a notification that my flight on 6/21 (UA120) is now a 772 (up from a 764). Having flown this route three times in the last 3 months (so six legs), all flights have been completely full so not surprised they're upgauging as early as they can with these 772s coming back on line.

While the 764s have a more dated cabin they do have more E+ and wider seats than the internationally configured 772, so while the change is good for upgrading, it's bad for passengers with status hoping to get E+ for their group.

Some other upgauges that were just published:

• EWR-BCN | 764 > 772 | Eff: 16Jun2022-30Jun2022
• EWR-CDG (UA 54/55) | 764 > 772 | Eff: 15Jul2022-31Jul2022
• IAD-BCN | 764 > 772 | Eff: 24Jun2022-30Jun2022

MDC862 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 2:57 pm

I try to avoid EWR at every opportunity and just doing some rough math, that is a lot of WB aircraft on the ground. Obviously they will fit, but are they taking up 2 gates to do so?

avi8 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 2:57 pm

dlphoenix wrote:
Nedzua wrote:
Looks like Korea is removing their quarantine requirements later this month even for unvaccinated visitors, though keeping the testing requirements according to Rueters. Maybe we could see a resumption of the extra seasonal SFO-ICN this summer? I also read that ICN is increasing their capacity, which I wasn't even aware that they had capped their arrivals until now. I saw some discussion above about UA adding another route to ICN but I would think that they would just restart the seasonal route before adding another route from another hub, but having another route would be cool. I know demand probably isn't there but I wish DEN and IAH had more Asian routes.

Airfares to ICN from anywhere in the US on any airline are ridiculous. I would expect UA to add capacity from somewhere.
SFO and/or EWR make the most sense for O&D, but ORD will provide better connections.

Happy Travels

I would not be surprised if UA gets into the ICN-LAX game. They might use the resurgence of demand in Korea to get market share. Do not be surprised if ORD/IAH get a flight to Korea; lots of connections are offered at those airports and UA has been upping their game and surprising everyone.

codc10 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:23 pm

MDC862 wrote:
I try to avoid EWR at every opportunity and just doing some rough math, that is a lot of WB aircraft on the ground. Obviously they will fit, but are they taking up 2 gates to do so?

I believe as of this summer Terminal C at EWR can handle up to 21 widebodies at a time, which would result in a net loss of 7 narrowbody parking positions out of the total 53 contact gates. I believe at least 6 (75, 90, 98, 121, 123, 138) are full-time ADG-V which can handle up to 777 without completely blocking adjacent gates. 102, 120, 125, can each accommodate ADG-IV (767) without blocking adjacent gates. The other gates (71, 74, 108, 110, 112, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136) have widebody J-lines which result in a slightly different parking configuration that block varying adjacent gates.

With the opening of Terminal A later this year -- hopefully -- United will gain at least two more WB parking position at the new building. Finally, while UA uses a number of Terminal B gates for WB international arrivals, as of now United has no departures from Terminal B.

STT757 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 3:40 pm

codc10 wrote:
MDC862 wrote:
I try to avoid EWR at every opportunity and just doing some rough math, that is a lot of WB aircraft on the ground. Obviously they will fit, but are they taking up 2 gates to do so?

I believe as of this summer Terminal C at EWR can handle up to 21 widebodies at a time, which would result in a net loss of 7 narrowbody parking positions out of the total 53 contact gates. I believe at least 6 (75, 90, 98, 121, 123, 138) are full-time ADG-V which can handle up to 777 without completely blocking adjacent gates. 102, 120, 125, can each accommodate ADG-IV (767) without blocking adjacent gates. The other gates (71, 74, 108, 110, 112, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136) have widebody J-lines which result in a slightly different parking configuration that block varying adjacent gates.

With the opening of Terminal A later this year -- hopefully -- United will gain at least two more WB parking position at the new building. Finally, while UA uses a number of Terminal B gates for WB international arrivals, as of now United has no departures from Terminal B.

I'm hoping United utilizes the new Terminal A for mainline, specifically West Coast flights. The two widebody gates can handle LAX, SFO. The other gates can handle SAN, SNA, PDX, SEA, SMF, YVR etc.. They can market the new United club in the terminal specifically for West Coast flyers, United has a long history of flying transcontinental flights. They can fill the club with memorabilia.

codc10 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:07 pm

STT757 wrote:
codc10 wrote:
MDC862 wrote:
I try to avoid EWR at every opportunity and just doing some rough math, that is a lot of WB aircraft on the ground. Obviously they will fit, but are they taking up 2 gates to do so?

I believe as of this summer Terminal C at EWR can handle up to 21 widebodies at a time, which would result in a net loss of 7 narrowbody parking positions out of the total 53 contact gates. I believe at least 6 (75, 90, 98, 121, 123, 138) are full-time ADG-V which can handle up to 777 without completely blocking adjacent gates. 102, 120, 125, can each accommodate ADG-IV (767) without blocking adjacent gates. The other gates (71, 74, 108, 110, 112, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136) have widebody J-lines which result in a slightly different parking configuration that block varying adjacent gates.

With the opening of Terminal A later this year -- hopefully -- United will gain at least two more WB parking position at the new building. Finally, while UA uses a number of Terminal B gates for WB international arrivals, as of now United has no departures from Terminal B.

I'm hoping United utilizes the new Terminal A for mainline, specifically West Coast flights. The two widebody gates can handle LAX, SFO. The other gates can handle SAN, SNA, PDX, SEA, SMF, YVR etc.. They can market the new United club in the terminal specifically for West Coast flyers, United has a long history of flying transcontinental flights. They can fill the club with memorabilia.

Whatever it ends up being, the plan is to focus A on high O&D markets. Because A will be mainline (GoJet CR5 operation moving to the odd side of C-2), if the flights are heavy on connections, that will turn the airside busing operation into a choke point because of increased volume. UA and Academy are working on more frequent service and larger buses, but the idea is to minimize A-C transfers. Think about it: if UA replaces the dozen or so gates on current A, which serve 50-seaters, with a dozen or so gates on new A with 150+-seaters, at similar ratios of local to flow pax, the demand for transfer busing increases commensurately.

Expect leisure heavy, e.g., Florida, Caribbean, LAS, PHX, etc., and some LAX-SFO that aren't as strong on international connections.

dlphoenix · Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:23 pm

STT757 wrote:

I'm hoping United utilizes the new Terminal A for mainline, specifically West Coast flights. The two widebody gates can handle LAX, SFO. The other gates can handle SAN, SNA, PDX, SEA, SMF, YVR etc.. They can market the new United club in the terminal specifically for West Coast flyers, United has a long history of flying transcontinental flights. They can fill the club with memorabilia.

I think they would focus on routes that are O&D Heavy.
- I would add LHR to the list above

Happy Travels
DLP

intotheair · Sat Jun 04, 2022 4:57 pm

Anyone have any idea on the plans to return to OAK? Scott Kirby said in an interview 3 years ago that it was only a matter of when, not if, UA would return. OAK is a really unremarkable airport and I’m obviously willing to make it all the way over to SFO just to fly UA, but it is a nice option for those of us living in the East Bay. I definitely miss the DEN-OAK flights. I also try to avoid WN whenever I can.

codc10 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 6:33 pm

dlphoenix wrote:
STT757 wrote:

I'm hoping United utilizes the new Terminal A for mainline, specifically West Coast flights. The two widebody gates can handle LAX, SFO. The other gates can handle SAN, SNA, PDX, SEA, SMF, YVR etc.. They can market the new United club in the terminal specifically for West Coast flyers, United has a long history of flying transcontinental flights. They can fill the club with memorabilia.

I think they would focus on routes that are O&D Heavy.
- I would add LHR to the list above

Happy Travels
DLP

LHR and international departures will remain at C for Polaris Lounge access.

cosyr · Sat Jun 04, 2022 7:31 pm

codc10 wrote:
STT757 wrote:
codc10 wrote:

I believe as of this summer Terminal C at EWR can handle up to 21 widebodies at a time, which would result in a net loss of 7 narrowbody parking positions out of the total 53 contact gates. I believe at least 6 (75, 90, 98, 121, 123, 138) are full-time ADG-V which can handle up to 777 without completely blocking adjacent gates. 102, 120, 125, can each accommodate ADG-IV (767) without blocking adjacent gates. The other gates (71, 74, 108, 110, 112, 126, 128, 130, 132, 134, 135, 136) have widebody J-lines which result in a slightly different parking configuration that block varying adjacent gates.

With the opening of Terminal A later this year -- hopefully -- United will gain at least two more WB parking position at the new building. Finally, while UA uses a number of Terminal B gates for WB international arrivals, as of now United has no departures from Terminal B.

I'm hoping United utilizes the new Terminal A for mainline, specifically West Coast flights. The two widebody gates can handle LAX, SFO. The other gates can handle SAN, SNA, PDX, SEA, SMF, YVR etc.. They can market the new United club in the terminal specifically for West Coast flyers, United has a long history of flying transcontinental flights. They can fill the club with memorabilia.

Whatever it ends up being, the plan is to focus A on high O&D markets. Because A will be mainline (GoJet CR5 operation moving to the odd side of C-2), if the flights are heavy on connections, that will turn the airside busing operation into a choke point because of increased volume. UA and Academy are working on more frequent service and larger buses, but the idea is to minimize A-C transfers. Think about it: if UA replaces the dozen or so gates on current A, which serve 50-seaters, with a dozen or so gates on new A with 150+-seaters, at similar ratios of local to flow pax, the demand for transfer busing increases commensurately.

Expect leisure heavy, e.g., Florida, Caribbean, LAS, PHX, etc., and some LAX-SFO that aren't as strong on international connections.

Do you know when they plan to move GoJet to C? I didn't realize that any flights were still using A right now. Are they going to keep using the banjo right up until the opening day of new terminal A? It looks like there's enough room for taxiing planes, but it looks like a squeeze for when they start demo on the 3 banjos.

codc10 · Sat Jun 04, 2022 9:10 pm

cosyr wrote:
codc10 wrote:
STT757 wrote:

I'm hoping United utilizes the new Terminal A for mainline, specifically West Coast flights. The two widebody gates can handle LAX, SFO. The other gates can handle SAN, SNA, PDX, SEA, SMF, YVR etc.. They can market the new United club in the terminal specifically for West Coast flyers, United has a long history of flying transcontinental flights. They can fill the club with memorabilia.

Whatever it ends up being, the plan is to focus A on high O&D markets. Because A will be mainline (GoJet CR5 operation moving to the odd side of C-2), if the flights are heavy on connections, that will turn the airside busing operation into a choke point because of increased volume. UA and Academy are working on more frequent service and larger buses, but the idea is to minimize A-C transfers. Think about it: if UA replaces the dozen or so gates on current A, which serve 50-seaters, with a dozen or so gates on new A with 150+-seaters, at similar ratios of local to flow pax, the demand for transfer busing increases commensurately.

Expect leisure heavy, e.g., Florida, Caribbean, LAS, PHX, etc., and some LAX-SFO that aren't as strong on international connections.

Do you know when they plan to move GoJet to C? I didn't realize that any flights were still using A right now. Are they going to keep using the banjo right up until the opening day of new terminal A? It looks like there's enough room for taxiing planes, but it looks like a squeeze for when they start demo on the 3 banjos.

G7 will stay at A-2 until the building is decommissioned when the first phase of new A opens. A-2 is in full use right now with UAX (G7), AC and B6. A-1 is already gone, to be paved over as a taxiway/hardstand area.

ucdtim17 · Mon Jun 06, 2022 4:33 pm

intotheair wrote:
Anyone have any idea on the plans to return to OAK? Scott Kirby said in an interview 3 years ago that it was only a matter of when, not if, UA would return. OAK is a really unremarkable airport and I’m obviously willing to make it all the way over to SFO just to fly UA, but it is a nice option for those of us living in the East Bay. I definitely miss the DEN-OAK flights. I also try to avoid WN whenever I can.

Probably safe to assume that got back burnered (if it was ever front-burnered) with the pandemic, staffing shortages and California being slower to recover than the rest of the network. Hopefully it'll get back on the itinerary soon.

codc10 · Mon Jun 06, 2022 4:52 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
Anyone have any idea on the plans to return to OAK? Scott Kirby said in an interview 3 years ago that it was only a matter of when, not if, UA would return. OAK is a really unremarkable airport and I’m obviously willing to make it all the way over to SFO just to fly UA, but it is a nice option for those of us living in the East Bay. I definitely miss the DEN-OAK flights. I also try to avoid WN whenever I can.

Probably safe to assume that got back burnered (if it was ever front-burnered) with the pandemic, staffing shortages and California being slower to recover than the rest of the network. Hopefully it'll get back on the itinerary soon.

Plus OAK would most likely open as a UAX station, presumably with E75 service to DEN. With staffing woes, United has been cutting regional markets, not adding, so a return to OAK will probably have to wait until things stabilize on that front.

intotheair · Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:27 pm

codc10 wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
Anyone have any idea on the plans to return to OAK? Scott Kirby said in an interview 3 years ago that it was only a matter of when, not if, UA would return. OAK is a really unremarkable airport and I’m obviously willing to make it all the way over to SFO just to fly UA, but it is a nice option for those of us living in the East Bay. I definitely miss the DEN-OAK flights. I also try to avoid WN whenever I can.

Probably safe to assume that got back burnered (if it was ever front-burnered) with the pandemic, staffing shortages and California being slower to recover than the rest of the network. Hopefully it'll get back on the itinerary soon.

Plus OAK would most likely open as a UAX station, presumably with E75 service to DEN. With staffing woes, United has been cutting regional markets, not adding, so a return to OAK will probably have to wait until things stabilize on that front.

Maybe, maybe not. Before they left in 2012, the handful of flights that remained were all to DEN and all mainline on either a 319 or 320. Maybe they'd start it on UAX today, but I don't ever recall flying UAX on DEN-OAK.

jetblastdubai · Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:49 pm

codc10 wrote:

Plus OAK would most likely open as a UAX station, presumably with E75 service to DEN.

A sure way to make a market fail is to put new, UAX service up against established mainline service. We all know the E175 is a nice ride but when many people see "United Express" and they have visions of CR2s and E145s. The Bay-area airports are not RJ markets to other hubs. UA should do it right if they do it at all.

codc10 · Mon Jun 06, 2022 5:52 pm

intotheair wrote:
codc10 wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:

Probably safe to assume that got back burnered (if it was ever front-burnered) with the pandemic, staffing shortages and California being slower to recover than the rest of the network. Hopefully it'll get back on the itinerary soon.

Plus OAK would most likely open as a UAX station, presumably with E75 service to DEN. With staffing woes, United has been cutting regional markets, not adding, so a return to OAK will probably have to wait until things stabilize on that front.

Maybe, maybe not. Before they left in 2012, the handful of flights that remained were all to DEN and all mainline on either a 319 or 320. Maybe they'd start it on UAX today, but I don't ever recall flying UAX on DEN-OAK.

That was really a generation ago... before the proliferation of 76-seaters in the UAX fleet. Maybe in the future it could be a mainline launch, but there have been very, very few new domestic UAL stations opened in the last few years with mainline service at the start.

jetblastdubai wrote:
A sure way to make a market fail is to put new, UAX service up against established mainline service. We all know the E175 is a nice ride but when many people see "United Express" and they have visions of CR2s and E145s. The Bay-area airports are not RJ markets to other hubs. UA should do it right if they do it at all.

And I think as we see... United is not doing it at all. I would note that SJC-DEN is a regular SkyWest E75 market, alongside mainline.

It is entirely within the realm of possibility, and IMO most likely, that a relaunch of OAK is 2x daily DEN with E75 service.

MDC862 · Mon Jun 06, 2022 6:16 pm

Going to have to wait until the 500 NB order takes hold. UA is short on domestic fleet right now.

CIDFlyer · Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:44 pm

LNK-IAH is an interesting add but now that UA is the only game in town and doesn’t have to compete with DL/ATL or AA/DFW hopefully it do good. It at least gives an one stop connection to the southeast and Texas

jplatts · Mon Jun 06, 2022 11:58 pm

CIDFlyer wrote:
LNK-IAH is an interesting add but now that UA is the only game in town and doesn’t have to compete with DL/ATL or AA/DFW hopefully it do good. It at least gives an one stop connection to the southeast and Texas

The LNK market has some leakage to OMA which has AA nonstop service to DFW and WN nonstop service to DAL/HOU. There are some travelers in the LNK market who would continue to make the drive to OMA to fly down to Texas on AA or WN, even with UA starting nonstop service to IAH from LNK in September 2022.

jplatts · Tue Jun 07, 2022 1:20 am

ucdtim17 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
Anyone have any idea on the plans to return to OAK? Scott Kirby said in an interview 3 years ago that it was only a matter of when, not if, UA would return. OAK is a really unremarkable airport and I’m obviously willing to make it all the way over to SFO just to fly UA, but it is a nice option for those of us living in the East Bay. I definitely miss the DEN-OAK flights. I also try to avoid WN whenever I can.

Probably safe to assume that got back burnered (if it was ever front-burnered) with the pandemic, staffing shortages and California being slower to recover than the rest of the network. Hopefully it'll get back on the itinerary soon.

UA has nonstop service out of DEN to some destinations in AR, CO, KS, LA, MO, NE, ND, IL, IA, WI, and WY that don't have WN service, and there would be some connecting opportunities to these destinations from OAK if UA re-adds service to OAK.

UA also likely has a FF base in the East Bay due to the UA SFO hub to support the return of UA service out of OAK.

airplanedriver6 · Tue Jun 07, 2022 3:52 am

MDC862 wrote:
Going to have to wait until the 500 NB order takes hold. UA is short on domestic fleet right now.

FWIW, the flood gates are starting to open for aircraft deliveries with 44 MAX’s arriving in the second half of ‘22. After that, the tempo of new aircraft equates to 1 every 3 days.

rjbesikof · Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:29 pm

IAD-DUB is now year round.
The 2nd daily EWR-DUB that was added this summer is now seasonal

USAirALB · Tue Jun 07, 2022 7:57 pm

rjbesikof wrote:
IAD-DUB is now year round.

I'm surprised there is that much demand on IAD-DUB, especially considering that IAD-MAD and IAD-FCO cannot support year round service, although I do think AZ was on IAD-FCO on a year round basis pre-pandemic. I would have thought that IAD-MAD/FCO were much larger markets.

EI is also just expanded their IAD-DUB service, going to twice daily through the end of December.

Nicknuzzii · Tue Jun 07, 2022 8:34 pm

rjbesikof wrote:
IAD-DUB is now year round.
The 2nd daily EWR-DUB that was added this summer is now seasonal

The second daily was always seasonal I think.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net