Planeboy17 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

mah584jr wrote:

Air Wisconsin will exit its partnership with United Airlines by March of 2023 and will begin flying for AA.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/air-wisco ... -airlines/

I don't believe United ever got over ZW stabbing them in the back years ago. especially after they built the B concourse exeension at ORD hust for their use.
I'm not surprised. now, because they wanted to fly for American then. That mess was UGLY!

Can you explain the ZW stabbing UA in the back comment? As I recall, after UA declared bankruptcy they dropped ZW like an anvil. Maybe there’s more to the story than that?

cosyr wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

codc10 wrote:

And the 747s… the pilot domicile was GUM too?

Yes. For a time, there was a GUM 747 pilot base. At that time, it was the only 747 pilot base at CO.

codc10 wrote:

The only gap I have now is the brief moment 757s were flying in Micronesia in the late 90s. Was there a GUM 757 domicile then?

Yes. That base didn't last real long before the 757s were moved back to the mainland.

intotheair wrote:

Wasn't there a subfleet of GUM/HNL 764s? I thought there was a special configuration of maybe four frames?

Yes. IIRC - and my memory isn't great on this question - six of the 16 764s had a higher density cabin configuration for Hawaii flights. Those aircraft also served HNL-GUM. I don't recall if they flew NGO-HNL, though.

There were 4 764's with only 20 J seats, instead of the usual 35. There was a pilot group based in GUM for those.

Planeboy17 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

mah584jr wrote:

Air Wisconsin will exit its partnership with United Airlines by March of 2023 and will begin flying for AA.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/air-wisco ... -airlines/

I don't believe United ever got over ZW stabbing them in the back years ago. especially after they built the B concourse exeension at ORD hust for their use.
I'm not surprised. now, because they wanted to fly for American then. That mess was UGLY!

Can you explain the ZW stabbing UA in the back comment? As I recall, after UA declared bankruptcy they dropped ZW like an anvil. Maybe there’s more to the story than that?

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

Well I am thinking we should be hearing more about the TATL schedule within the next month or 2. From what I have heard so far is that UA is planning to return to MAN, having acquired the rights to do so already. BUD is also heavily rumored. PRG will finally be launching as well. As for new routes I’d expect to see 2-3 spots from EWR. Seville, Spain would perform well in my opinion and is probably being considered based off PMI success.

Would UA give EWR-ORY/LGW a shot? It seems to me as though there is not enough capacity on EWR-LHR. As for a fact, most of UA’s well established TATL routes came up short in terms of capacity this year. Many routes were completely sold out for days on end over the summer. Additional capacity on EWR-AMS/BCN/MAD/LIS/MXP/MUC is long over due in my opinion.

fun2fly wrote:

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

Well I am thinking we should be hearing more about the TATL schedule within the next month or 2. From what I have heard so far is that UA is planning to return to MAN, having acquired the rights to do so already. BUD is also heavily rumored. PRG will finally be launching as well. As for new routes I’d expect to see 2-3 spots from EWR. Seville, Spain would perform well in my opinion and is probably being considered based off PMI success.

Would UA give EWR-ORY/LGW a shot? It seems to me as though there is not enough capacity on EWR-LHR. As for a fact, most of UA’s well established TATL routes came up short in terms of capacity this year. Many routes were completely sold out for days on end over the summer. Additional capacity on EWR-AMS/BCN/MAD/LIS/MXP/MUC is long over due in my opinion.

BUD + return to MAN/PRG would be great. CLE>LHR or FRA? Not sure about a slot for LHR. LGW - AC makes this work, why can't UA?

Simply use the 8 new 78J's to upgauge or launch new gateways?

CALMSP wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

Well I am thinking we should be hearing more about the TATL schedule within the next month or 2. From what I have heard so far is that UA is planning to return to MAN, having acquired the rights to do so already. BUD is also heavily rumored. PRG will finally be launching as well. As for new routes I’d expect to see 2-3 spots from EWR. Seville, Spain would perform well in my opinion and is probably being considered based off PMI success.

Would UA give EWR-ORY/LGW a shot? It seems to me as though there is not enough capacity on EWR-LHR. As for a fact, most of UA’s well established TATL routes came up short in terms of capacity this year. Many routes were completely sold out for days on end over the summer. Additional capacity on EWR-AMS/BCN/MAD/LIS/MXP/MUC is long over due in my opinion.

BUD + return to MAN/PRG would be great. CLE>LHR or FRA? Not sure about a slot for LHR. LGW - AC makes this work, why can't UA?

Simply use the 8 new 78J's to upgauge or launch new gateways?

I thought PRG was already announced as coming back next year.

agree on MAN, would like to see that come back. I'd like to see the UK market rebuilt with the new 321's coming onboard. I'd like for LGW to come back as well. I always thought it could have stuck around simply with a 757 after the entrance to LHR.

jetblastdubai wrote:

To staff these new arriving aircraft, UA will need to hire more pilots from somewhere and it will more than likely be from the pool of regional pilots that are left which will further deplete the regional ranks.

jetblastdubai wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

FWIW, UAL has about 40 new mainline aircraft arriving in the 2nd half of 2022 and another 100 in 2023 so the solution to this "problem" not only exists, but UAL told the world last year with "United Next" that the 50 seat CRJs were gonna go away with the shift to larger mainline jets.

Airlines often hold their cards close to their chests, but UAL shouted from the rooftops its fleet plan.

To staff these new arriving aircraft, UA will need to hire more pilots from somewhere and it will more than likely be from the pool of regional pilots that are left which will further deplete the regional ranks. I was trying to convey the point that in the shorter-term UA cannot afford to let these smaller, domestic markets dry up due to a lack of aircraft or crews and it might be prudent to pump the brakes on International expansion and keep their resources on the domestic side of things for a while.

Manchester and Casablanca will always be there for the taking when UA wants it. If they start closing down domestic stations and allow a competitor to monopolize some of them, they've lost that business forever.

Just my opinion though. I don't live in a United hub anymore so I probably have a different perspective on things.

jetblastdubai wrote:

fun2fly wrote:

Simply use the 8 new 78J's to upgauge or launch new gateways?

Or...UA could use this opportunity to finally beef up their domestic offerings which has been their weakness in past years. London, Budapest and Cape Town are cool destinations but if passengers need to build in 5-6 hour layovers because of a lack of frequency to a hub or they need to start the dream vacation they've been planning for years on a CR2 it's easy to see customers looking at competitors.

Is it better to put a 78J on the 7-8 hour flight from EWR/IAD to FRA or BRU or put them on a 10 1/2 hour EWR/IAD-Hawaii route? Those 767s, currently on EWR/IAD - Hawaii, would be great domestic/mainland planes that would also fit in more domestic gates (at ORD specifically) The 78J's sweet spot is definitely in the longer segments.

With some E175s already parked/stored due to lack of pilots, upgauging to substitute the departing CR2s from Air Wisc probably can't happen anytime soon. Mainline narrowbodies will need to be freed up.

Velocirapture wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

After the Merger, United got the "Bright" idea to base 747-400's at IAH. they found out soon enough that IAH didn't have the experience nor the knowhow to maintain the 747-422 because they'd not sallowed any of the United mechanics to even Bid IAH. (mainly becaue of their senority) So IAH didn't kniw the airplane and seemingly didn't WANT to know the airplane. Threey pitched a fit about having the Airbus airplanes there as well but WHQ evidently told them to get over it. Even in Maintenance control the S/CO guys stayed well away from the 747. While the S/UA guys had to work all the fleets. Now that the 747's are gone? I'm sure the load is much more equitable as the 787 and 777's are common to both sides of the aisle. the A320 and A319's are still pretty segregated to the UA side though there is no CO side anymore.

Where did the 747s fly to from IAH? I don't have any memory of them, but I wasn't based there after early 2012.

I do recall when the Smisek regime sent Airbus' to IAH without any parts and only 3 sCO mechanics were trained on them. This was according to two sCO line mechanics.

That same first summer of cross-fleeting, Smisek, et al, sent 737s to DEN and ORD but didn't bother to send parts until very late July.

Penny wise and pound foolish seemed to rule the day then.

strfyr51 wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

After the Merger, United got the "Bright" idea to base 747-400's at IAH. they found out soon enough that IAH didn't have the experience nor the knowhow to maintain the 747-422 because they'd not sallowed any of the United mechanics to even Bid IAH. (mainly becaue of their senority) So IAH didn't kniw the airplane and seemingly didn't WANT to know the airplane. Threey pitched a fit about having the Airbus airplanes there as well but WHQ evidently told them to get over it. Even in Maintenance control the S/CO guys stayed well away from the 747. While the S/UA guys had to work all the fleets. Now that the 747's are gone? I'm sure the load is much more equitable as the 787 and 777's are common to both sides of the aisle. the A320 and A319's are still pretty segregated to the UA side though there is no CO side anymore.

Where did the 747s fly to from IAH? I don't have any memory of them, but I wasn't based there after early 2012.

I do recall when the Smisek regime sent Airbus' to IAH without any parts and only 3 sCO mechanics were trained on them. This was according to two sCO line mechanics.

That same first summer of cross-fleeting, Smisek, et al, sent 737s to DEN and ORD but didn't bother to send parts until very late July.

Penny wise and pound foolish seemed to rule the day then.

i thought they were there for about 9 months in total. the Mayor of Houston made the Big deal out of them being there. though basing them there and flying through there are 2 different things. the Co/Alpa group got one airplane painted with proudly operated Bu Continental airlines ALPA and even had the N number changed to N505MC I had to go out to SFO for systems training and the airplane was sitting on the ramp. we took a picture of it and showed it to the United flight duty managers. who were al UA/ALPA and pretty quickly after? the airplane came up "missing". Have no idea where it went but i remember it's nose number was 8182 which is the ACARS call sign as well. which we would need to render tech support in Maintenance control. we tech support by the nose numbers rather than the N-number.

strfyr51 wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

After the Merger, United got the "Bright" idea to base 747-400's at IAH. they found out soon enough that IAH didn't have the experience nor the knowhow to maintain the 747-422 because they'd not sallowed any of the United mechanics to even Bid IAH. (mainly becaue of their senority) So IAH didn't kniw the airplane and seemingly didn't WANT to know the airplane. Threey pitched a fit about having the Airbus airplanes there as well but WHQ evidently told them to get over it. Even in Maintenance control the S/CO guys stayed well away from the 747. While the S/UA guys had to work all the fleets. Now that the 747's are gone? I'm sure the load is much more equitable as the 787 and 777's are common to both sides of the aisle. the A320 and A319's are still pretty segregated to the UA side though there is no CO side anymore.

Where did the 747s fly to from IAH? I don't have any memory of them, but I wasn't based there after early 2012.

I do recall when the Smisek regime sent Airbus' to IAH without any parts and only 3 sCO mechanics were trained on them. This was according to two sCO line mechanics.

That same first summer of cross-fleeting, Smisek, et al, sent 737s to DEN and ORD but didn't bother to send parts until very late July.

Penny wise and pound foolish seemed to rule the day then.

i thought they were there for about 9 months in total. the Mayor of Houston made the Big deal out of them being there. though basing them there and flying through there are 2 different things. the Co/Alpa group got one airplane painted with proudly operated Bu Continental airlines ALPA and even had the N number changed to N505MC I had to go out to SFO for systems training and the airplane was sitting on the ramp. we took a picture of it and showed it to the United flight duty managers. who were al UA/ALPA and pretty quickly after? the airplane came up "missing". Have no idea where it went but i remember it's nose number was 8182 which is the ACARS call sign as well. which we would need to render tech support in Maintenance control. we tech support by the nose numbers rather than the N-number.

United1 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

Where did the 747s fly to from IAH? I don't have any memory of them, but I wasn't based there after early 2012.

I do recall when the Smisek regime sent Airbus' to IAH without any parts and only 3 sCO mechanics were trained on them. This was according to two sCO line mechanics.

That same first summer of cross-fleeting, Smisek, et al, sent 737s to DEN and ORD but didn't bother to send parts until very late July.

Penny wise and pound foolish seemed to rule the day then.

i thought they were there for about 9 months in total. the Mayor of Houston made the Big deal out of them being there. though basing them there and flying through there are 2 different things. the Co/Alpa group got one airplane painted with proudly operated Bu Continental airlines ALPA and even had the N number changed to N505MC I had to go out to SFO for systems training and the airplane was sitting on the ramp. we took a picture of it and showed it to the United flight duty managers. who were al UA/ALPA and pretty quickly after? the airplane came up "missing". Have no idea where it went but i remember it's nose number was 8182 which is the ACARS call sign as well. which we would need to render tech support in Maintenance control. we tech support by the nose numbers rather than the N-number.

N505MC is a 742 formerly operated by Atlas and was never part of the UA fleet. You may be thinking of Atlas operating flights between IAH and Luanda. They did lease a 744 from UA N194UA (ship 8194).

None of UA's 744s were ever reregistered while in UA service and there was never a 744 with the nose number of 8182.

jplatts wrote:

Here are the Q1 2022 PDEW's out of SFO/OAK/SJC of the top contiguous U.S. markets traveled to from the San Francisco Bay Area that don't currently have UA nonstop service out of SFO:
SF Bay Area-MIA/FLL - 1213 (UA SFO-MIA nonstop service scheduled to resume on 10/16/2022)
SF Bay Area-MSP - 371 (UA SFO-MSP nonstop service scheduled to resume on 9/6/2022)
SF Bay Area-DTW - 318 (UA SFO-DTW nonstop service scheduled to resume on 1/4/2023)
SF Bay Area-CLT - 219
SF Bay Area-MCI - 147 (UA SFO-MCI nonstop service scheduled to resume on 9/6/2022)
SF Bay Area-STL - 143 (UA SFO-STL nonstop service scheduled to resume on 1/4/2023)
SF Bay Area-BDL - 102
SF Bay Area-RSW - 98 (UA SFO-RSW nonstop service scheduled to resume on 12/16/2022)
SF Bay Area-CVG - 92
SF Bay Area-JAX - 73
SF Bay Area-MKE - 68
SF Bay Area-ELP - 67
SF Bay Area-OMA - 64 (UA SFO-OMA nonstop service scheduled to resume on 9/6/2022)
SF Bay Area-OKC - 60 (UA SFO-OKC nonstop service scheduled to resume on 1/4/2023)
SF Bay Area-MEM - 57
SF Bay Area-BLI - 55 (BLI is not served by UA)
SF Bay Area-RIC - 54
SF Bay Area-CHS - 53
SF Bay Area-SDF - 48
SF Bay Area-ORF - 47

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Looks like IAH-YVR/YYC are out of the system effective November.

cnunn wrote:

N292UX wrote:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL200/history/20211231/2310Z/PGUM/PHNL
Interesting thing I saw today. UA 200 (773) took off from Guam on Jan. 1 2022, and landed in Honolulu on December 31, 2021.

Might have to put that one on the bucket list. Celebrate NYE in Guam, catch the morning flight over to HNL, then celebrate NYE again in Hawaii. Time zones (especially around the international date line) are wonky.

United1 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

Where did the 747s fly to from IAH? I don't have any memory of them, but I wasn't based there after early 2012.

I do recall when the Smisek regime sent Airbus' to IAH without any parts and only 3 sCO mechanics were trained on them. This was according to two sCO line mechanics.

That same first summer of cross-fleeting, Smisek, et al, sent 737s to DEN and ORD but didn't bother to send parts until very late July.

Penny wise and pound foolish seemed to rule the day then.

i thought they were there for about 9 months in total. the Mayor of Houston made the Big deal out of them being there. though basing them there and flying through there are 2 different things. the Co/Alpa group got one airplane painted with proudly operated Bu Continental airlines ALPA and even had the N number changed to N505MC I had to go out to SFO for systems training and the airplane was sitting on the ramp. we took a picture of it and showed it to the United flight duty managers. who were al UA/ALPA and pretty quickly after? the airplane came up "missing". Have no idea where it went but i remember it's nose number was 8182 which is the ACARS call sign as well. which we would need to render tech support in Maintenance control. we tech support by the nose numbers rather than the N-number.

N505MC is a 742 formerly operated by Atlas and was never part of the UA fleet. You may be thinking of Atlas operating flights between IAH and Luanda. They did lease a 744 from UA N194UA (ship 8194).

None of UA's 744s were ever reregistered while in UA service and there was never a 744 with the nose number of 8182.

avi8 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Looks like IAH-YVR/YYC are out of the system effective November.

That’s odd. It seems like IAH has evolved into a bit of an awkward hub when it comes to retaining connectivity in North America. I personally love IAH and it’s my favorite UA hub due to its connectivity with Latin America, so I always root for it.

strfyr51 wrote:

United1 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

i thought they were there for about 9 months in total. the Mayor of Houston made the Big deal out of them being there. though basing them there and flying through there are 2 different things. the Co/Alpa group got one airplane painted with proudly operated Bu Continental airlines ALPA and even had the N number changed to N505MC I had to go out to SFO for systems training and the airplane was sitting on the ramp. we took a picture of it and showed it to the United flight duty managers. who were al UA/ALPA and pretty quickly after? the airplane came up "missing". Have no idea where it went but i remember it's nose number was 8182 which is the ACARS call sign as well. which we would need to render tech support in Maintenance control. we tech support by the nose numbers rather than the N-number.

N505MC is a 742 formerly operated by Atlas and was never part of the UA fleet. You may be thinking of Atlas operating flights between IAH and Luanda. They did lease a 744 from UA N194UA (ship 8194).

None of UA's 744s were ever reregistered while in UA service and there was never a 744 with the nose number of 8182.

I saw the airplane up close as I walked by it for the 2 weeks I was in 747-400 class. IT WAS 505mc ON the side and the former nose number was 8182, The ACARS was working and it has a sign big as day in it "proudly operated By CALPA pilots"! Except they Never got to fly a single revenue flight ON that airplane! One of the other Controller's and I took pictures with our Phones and brought them back to WHQ where we showed them to the Flight ops Duty managers. I guess the Flight ops duty managers took them to UA/Alpa because that airplane came up missing pretty damn quick and it wasn't a bad looking airplane either with that Purple tail.

Pi7472000 wrote:

avi8 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Looks like IAH-YVR/YYC are out of the system effective November.

That’s odd. It seems like IAH has evolved into a bit of an awkward hub when it comes to retaining connectivity in North America. I personally love IAH and it’s my favorite UA hub due to its connectivity with Latin America, so I always root for it.

Not surprised to see more cuts to IAH.

avi8 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Looks like IAH-YVR/YYC are out of the system effective November.

That’s odd. It seems like IAH has evolved into a bit of an awkward hub when it comes to retaining connectivity in North America. I personally love IAH and it’s my favorite UA hub due to its connectivity with Latin America, so I always root for it.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

[twoid][/twoid]

Pi7472000 wrote:

avi8 wrote:

That’s odd. It seems like IAH has evolved into a bit of an awkward hub when it comes to retaining connectivity in North America. I personally love IAH and it’s my favorite UA hub due to its connectivity with Latin America, so I always root for it.

Not surprised to see more cuts to IAH.

Are you surprised by this?

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news ... rport.html

strfyr51 wrote:

United1 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

i thought they were there for about 9 months in total. the Mayor of Houston made the Big deal out of them being there. though basing them there and flying through there are 2 different things. the Co/Alpa group got one airplane painted with proudly operated Bu Continental airlines ALPA and even had the N number changed to N505MC I had to go out to SFO for systems training and the airplane was sitting on the ramp. we took a picture of it and showed it to the United flight duty managers. who were al UA/ALPA and pretty quickly after? the airplane came up "missing". Have no idea where it went but i remember it's nose number was 8182 which is the ACARS call sign as well. which we would need to render tech support in Maintenance control. we tech support by the nose numbers rather than the N-number.

N505MC is a 742 formerly operated by Atlas and was never part of the UA fleet. You may be thinking of Atlas operating flights between IAH and Luanda. They did lease a 744 from UA N194UA (ship 8194).

None of UA's 744s were ever reregistered while in UA service and there was never a 744 with the nose number of 8182.

I saw the airplane up close as I walked by it for the 2 weeks I was in 747-400 class. IT WAS 505mc ON the side and the former nose number was 8182, The ACARS was working and it has a sign big as day in it "proudly operated By CALPA pilots"! Except they Never got to fly a single revenue flight ON that airplane! One of the other Controller's and I took pictures with our Phones and brought them back to WHQ where we showed them to the Flight ops Duty managers. I guess the Flight ops duty managers took them to UA/Alpa because that airplane came up missing pretty damn quick and it wasn't a bad looking airplane either with that Purple tail.

FlyingSicilian wrote:

YYC has several flights a day including AC, YEG is back on the books for next summer for now and YUL and YYT are fine. I would presume YVR will back late next spring at some point from IAH. I would expect YYC back on UA metal also. UA had a good contract on the route for both pax and small cargo with an NOV subsidiary at one point recently. I need to check if it is gone but regardless I think it comes back on UA metal.

FlyingSicilian wrote:

YYT are fine.

3D101CA wrote:

With Nigeria holding funds from foreign carriers (EK is suspending service to LOS), could UA suspend IAD-LOS? Wonder how UA is being impacted on this issue.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

With Nigeria holding funds from foreign carriers (EK is suspending service to LOS), could UA suspend IAD-LOS? Wonder how UA is being impacted on this issue.

That was the primary reason IAH-LOS was canned.

TWA772LR wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

3D101CA wrote:

With Nigeria holding funds from foreign carriers (EK is suspending service to LOS), could UA suspend IAD-LOS? Wonder how UA is being impacted on this issue.

That was the primary reason IAH-LOS was canned.

I was surprised when UA launched IAD-LOS because of this reason.

jbs2886 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

FWIW, UAL has about 40 new mainline aircraft arriving in the 2nd half of 2022 and another 100 in 2023 so the solution to this "problem" not only exists, but UAL told the world last year with "United Next" that the 50 seat CRJs were gonna go away with the shift to larger mainline jets.

Airlines often hold their cards close to their chests, but UAL shouted from the rooftops its fleet plan.

To staff these new arriving aircraft, UA will need to hire more pilots from somewhere and it will more than likely be from the pool of regional pilots that are left which will further deplete the regional ranks. I was trying to convey the point that in the shorter-term UA cannot afford to let these smaller, domestic markets dry up due to a lack of aircraft or crews and it might be prudent to pump the brakes on International expansion and keep their resources on the domestic side of things for a while.

Manchester and Casablanca will always be there for the taking when UA wants it. If they start closing down domestic stations and allow a competitor to monopolize some of them, they've lost that business forever.

Just my opinion though. I don't live in a United hub anymore so I probably have a different perspective on things.

Huh? Your initial post was on using widebodies domestically and not internationally. But the stations closing are CRJ stations, which certainly won’t have UA wide body domestic service.

Closing stations sucks for those cities, but I think UA knows what passengers it will lose and the impact on its network. I don’t understand how posters think airlines don’t operate with data.

USAirALB wrote:

FlyingSicilian wrote:

YYT are fine.

UA hasn't served YYT in years.

strfyr51 wrote:

I saw the airplane up close as I walked by it for the 2 weeks I was in 747-400 class. IT WAS 505mc ON the side and the former nose number was 8182, The ACARS was working and it has a sign big as day in it "proudly operated By CALPA pilots"! Except they Never got to fly a single revenue flight ON that airplane! One of the other Controller's and I took pictures with our Phones and brought them back to WHQ where we showed them to the Flight ops Duty managers. I guess the Flight ops duty managers took them to UA/Alpa because that airplane came up missing pretty damn quick and it wasn't a bad looking airplane either with that Purple tail.

MCIsundevil wrote:

found something odd in trying to book MCI EWR the latter part of the month… for the week of Sept 19 only there are no nonstops - there are usually 3x/day exc Sat (2 mainline) - and they are back the following week - I’ve seen an early or late flight come or go at different times of the year but never all flights to a hub for just a week.

avi8 wrote:

MCIsundevil wrote:

found something odd in trying to book MCI EWR the latter part of the month… for the week of Sept 19 only there are no nonstops - there are usually 3x/day exc Sat (2 mainline) - and they are back the following week - I’ve seen an early or late flight come or go at different times of the year but never all flights to a hub for just a week.

UA is reducing the EWR schedule by almost half for part of September due to runway work if I'm not mistaken.

N292UX wrote:

UA got permission to cut at least 50 domestic flights at EWR mainly due to congestion, but I think it was supposed to be temporary. Wouldn't be surprised if some of those CRJ-550 routes they moved to EWR from IAD (MDT, AVP, SCE, ITH) end up moving back to IAD eventually due to congestion.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

N292UX wrote:

UA got permission to cut at least 50 domestic flights at EWR mainly due to congestion, but I think it was supposed to be temporary. Wouldn't be surprised if some of those CRJ-550 routes they moved to EWR from IAD (MDT, AVP, SCE, ITH) end up moving back to IAD eventually due to congestion.

Yes that 50 number is separate from the September runway work though. Those CRJ-550 flights really gotta go.

VC10er wrote:

Hello all,

Quick question, with the A321XLR can UA fly to Deep South America nonstop from EWR? Or do you think they may add some interesting South America destinations from IAH? For example:
Brasília
Manaus
Congoinas, SP
Rio de Janeiro (Santos Dumont)
Cordoba, Argentina
The basic idea would be the same as secondary, tertiary cities in LATAM like the new secondary nonstop European destinations.

I’m not sure if CGH or SDU would require a narrow body AND can CGH & SDU manage International flights? WOW, (Nossa!) the time saved by landing downtown in either city!
-R