calpsafltskeds wrote:

Oops, UA cxld 187/12Sep JNB-EWR and renumbered it to 3033/12Sep. Looks like the entire front Business/PP is totally full with only 40 or so in E+/Y. Flight Status doesn't indicate people moved forward for weight and balance.
Yes, the 78X is not listed as capable for that distance, but payload must be low enough to make the trip. I'll bet that's a long takeoff roll at 5510 feet above sea level with 14K foot runway.

The 78P Polaris cabin is larger than the 78J, so if it was full, you're looking at involuntary downgrades to PP. The 78J has been swapped out before on JNB with only about 25 seats blocked for weight restriction.
The public flight status display wouldn't show weight restrictions but it would show on internal devices used by the operating crew. On the public display, blocked economy seats would only show as occupied.

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

BHM is a UGE station, even though operations are generally all UAX. I presume that they handled the mainline flights this weekend. There was a 757-300 diversion though the other week, which may have been handled by Unifi below the wing. Although I am not sure how indicative it is, a DL tug was used during the operation, but I assume that tugs are borrowed at times. I'd be curious to know if UGE is capable of handling the 753 at BHM though

ericm2031 wrote:

jetblastdubai wrote:

If a station is all UAX, are there any requirements for air or ground staffing if UA wants to bring in schedule mainline? Can non-UAL employees work scheduled UA mainline planes or do some staff need to be UAL/union? (above wing/below wing etc.)

If a flight(s) get up-gauged to mainline at airports that are all UAX presently, does UA need to transfer in any non-contract employees?

35 flights per day (any combo of UA/UAX) is the threshold before any work has to be insourced to mainline employees on the ground.

Thanks for the specification.

Before the merger the UA contract was a certain number of days per year with a mainline flight (I believe it was somewhere around a third or a half of a year). That is how they planned to make Miami regional before by only flying mainline during peak. The new contract of course allows them to because MIA is always under 35 flights per day. It was a the reason a lot of outstations often ended up with wingtip regional flights.

sldispatcher wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

N292UX wrote:

IAH-MEM also down to just 2x daily, IIRC that was 5-6x daily in 2019.

That’s because it’s all mainline instead of all RJ.

It’s the same with the others. Instead of 3x RJ, they are 2x mainline.

A random look around definitely is showing up as beefed up plane size feeding Houston. I notice that BHM has made the jump as well. I also agree with others that looking at one hub in isolation to determine network connectivity is not really fair. IAH is my primary hub and it is full of planes and people throughout the day. When the Terminal construction ends on the north side, I can’t imagine that, paired with the new Denver gates and anything they decide to do with Dulles will be significant.
With ORD to the north, they have a ‘diamond’ hub configuration that looks potent for network connection potency.

Did BHM make the jump to mainline or were you looking at this past weekend when UA upgauged BHM to carry the traffic for the UA/UT football game?

Wow, that is about 12 or 13 Empire State Buildings lined up tip to toe!
So if the payload of the 787-10 is limited, where will UA cut to reduce weight? Freight? It is a comfortable aircraft in Polaris for a 16+ hour flight- I assume it’s a nonstop?
What equipment does UA use to Cape Town?

ericm2031 wrote:

35 flights per day (any combo of UA/UAX) is the threshold before any work has to be insourced to mainline employees on the ground.

Thanks for that information. I was wondering if there were staffing issues that would prevent a few mainline flights from being (re)introduced into what are now all UAX stations.

VC10er wrote:

Wow, that is about 12 or 13 Empire State Buildings lined up tip to toe!
So if the payload of the 787-10 is limited, where will UA cut to reduce weight? Freight? It is a comfortable aircraft in Polaris for a 16+ hour flight- I assume it’s a nonstop?
What equipment does UA use to Cape Town?

Normally both JNB and CPT are the 787-9's.

VC10er wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback.
I am here to learn!!!
It is curious that a smaller aircraft with a premium configuration would lose money? (I’m NOT disagreeing! I’m only curious as to why) I would have figured a FULL A321XLR vs an 85% full 763 would have made money.
I searched and searched for a Rio nonstop from NYC and I thought AA flew the route but I could not find it? I will have to look again.
Another thing that defies my small brain is: A metro area of tens of millions cannot fill 2 aircraft? But Edinburgh can?!? Aren’t they both leisure dominant markets?
I would “assume” SCL and EZE would have a greater percentage of business fliers?
Yes, I figured SDU’s runway might have been too short if the aircraft was packed to the gills!
Thanks again.?

It would depend on the seat mix between 1st class, Bremium coach and Coach seats. too much premium? and you sacrifice the lower end product if the Higher end
with 40
f 254 Yproduct is too expensive for the market you're in. I have to admit, the last time I flew to GIG and GRU I was on a DC10-30 with 40F/254Y the 1st class was half and Half revenue and employees. the coach cabin? Filled up with partyers. and the women got OFF the plane half Naked. there wasn't a lot of question about what they came down to do.

SumChristianus wrote:

…but it still seems like United is / will be in a terrible spot as it already seems lacking in frequencies just about everywhere making the loss of Air Wisconsin the worst thing that could happen to them at this time.

UA has already publicly told us what is going to happen to the network with United Next, and the “loss” of 50-seat RJs has been long planned and announced. This not a shocking turn of events, nor the worst thing that could happen. Instead, this is simply UA executing its plan and we are witnessing a major evolution of the network.

The Air Wisconsin deal is supposed to draw down by the end of 2023. If the Next plan stays on course, there will be an additional 40 mainline narrowbodies on the property by the end of this year and 138 by the end of next year with no mainline retirements. To make the math easy, assuming those are 737 MAX 8s at the very least, then the fleet additions through the end of next year are the equivalent lift of 534 CRJ-200s. Of course all that lift will trickle down, and it'll be interesting to watch it happen.

With the industry-wide regional shuffle, some markets will be losers, as we've seen with the EAS fiasco, but I don't think we talk enough about how many markets will likely end up with improved service. I think some smaller markets with a handful of RJ flights to 2-3 hubs can stomach more capacity than we think. It's not the midwest, but one market I follow fairly closely is EUG. Seven years ago, UA was all RJ, with mostly CRJ-200s to SFO and DEN and maybe an E175 or two here and there. Now, EUG is almost entirely mainline. Not every market will jump from a 50 seater to 739s by any means, but there will most certainly be a domino effect all the way down.

SumChristianus wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

…but it still seems like United is / will be in a terrible spot as it already seems lacking in frequencies just about everywhere making the loss of Air Wisconsin the worst thing that could happen to them at this time.

UA has already publicly told us what is going to happen to the network with United Next, and the “loss” of 50-seat RJs has been long planned and announced. This not a shocking turn of events, nor the worst thing that could happen. Instead, this is simply UA executing its plan and we are witnessing a major evolution of the network.

UAs strategy makes sense on a broad level but I just wonder what will happen on a more granular level of individual routes and stations with the loss of Air Wisconsin. We've seen a ton of station exits over the past few years but I can't see that continuing too much longer or including places like DAY, GRB, or FWA.

Simple , capacity is going to trickle down as more mainline a/c come online.

Mainline will cover E175 markets
E175 Markets will then cover 50 seater markets
Markets that can’t support a E175 will go away…

bigb wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

UA has already publicly told us what is going to happen to the network with United Next, and the “loss” of 50-seat RJs has been long planned and announced. This not a shocking turn of events, nor the worst thing that could happen. Instead, this is simply UA executing its plan and we are witnessing a major evolution of the network.

UAs strategy makes sense on a broad level but I just wonder what will happen on a more granular level of individual routes and stations with the loss of Air Wisconsin. We've seen a ton of station exits over the past few years but I can't see that continuing too much longer or including places like DAY, GRB, or FWA.

Simple , capacity is going to trickle down as more mainline a/c come online.

Mainline will cover E175 markets
E175 Markets will then cover 50 seater markets
Markets that can’t support a E175 will go away…

There are markets that still demand service that are can only work with an ERJ/CRJ. Especially from DEN in this case.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

UAs strategy makes sense on a broad level but I just wonder what will happen on a more granular level of individual routes and stations with the loss of Air Wisconsin. We've seen a ton of station exits over the past few years but I can't see that continuing too much longer or including places like DAY, GRB, or FWA.

Simple , capacity is going to trickle down as more mainline a/c come online.

Mainline will cover E175 markets
E175 Markets will then cover 50 seater markets
Markets that can’t support a E175 will go away…

There are markets that still demand service that are can only work with an ERJ/CRJ. Especially from DEN in this case.

Exactly, the remote cities in the Great and High Plains are the only cities that can command the yields to make a 50-Seat plane make sense. If you raise the prices in places like AZO, DBQ, SBN, GRB and ERI to the level that makes a 50-seat aircraft profitable people will just drive to the nearest mainline airport which in the east is usually less than 2 hours away.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

bigb wrote:

SumChristianus wrote:

UAs strategy makes sense on a broad level but I just wonder what will happen on a more granular level of individual routes and stations with the loss of Air Wisconsin. We've seen a ton of station exits over the past few years but I can't see that continuing too much longer or including places like DAY, GRB, or FWA.

Simple , capacity is going to trickle down as more mainline a/c come online.

Mainline will cover E175 markets
E175 Markets will then cover 50 seater markets
Markets that can’t support a E175 will go away…

There are markets that still demand service that are can only work with an ERJ/CRJ. Especially from DEN in this case.

And there are still some Commutair ER4's and Skywest CR2's flying, plus CR5's. I'm conflicted living in a market like SYR that has been a big ER4 market for 2 decades now, but back in the 80's and even into the 90's, it was a small mainline market, with DC9's, F28/F100's and 737/MD80's/727's on all carriers. 9/11 may have initially been a factor, but airlines shaped many of these smaller markets into 50 seat markets, and they can most likely shift them back.

The cities that are going to lose out, are the ones that have been struggling to sustain even 50 seat jets, since the draw down of 30 seat props. The cities that used to have EMB110's or Beech 99's to them lost service many years ago. Perhaps small electric planes (like the ones UA has sort of ordered) might revive some of these markets, particularly if they can be flown with 1 pilot like Cessna 402's.

strfyr51 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Thanks for all the feedback.
I am here to learn!!!
It is curious that a smaller aircraft with a premium configuration would lose money? (I’m NOT disagreeing! I’m only curious as to why) I would have figured a FULL A321XLR vs an 85% full 763 would have made money.
I searched and searched for a Rio nonstop from NYC and I thought AA flew the route but I could not find it? I will have to look again.
Another thing that defies my small brain is: A metro area of tens of millions cannot fill 2 aircraft? But Edinburgh can?!? Aren’t they both leisure dominant markets?
I would “assume” SCL and EZE would have a greater percentage of business fliers?
Yes, I figured SDU’s runway might have been too short if the aircraft was packed to the gills!
Thanks again.?

It would depend on the seat mix between 1st class, Bremium coach and Coach seats. too much premium? and you sacrifice the lower end product if the Higher end
with 40
f 254 Yproduct is too expensive for the market you're in. I have to admit, the last time I flew to GIG and GRU I was on a DC10-30 with 40F/254Y the 1st class was half and Half revenue and employees. the coach cabin? Filled up with partyers. and the women got OFF the plane half Naked. there wasn't a lot of question about what they came down to do.

That must have been the Continental DC-10? I flew that EWR to GIG 20 some odd years ago. It was nice to have a nonstop but the CO BF seat was less comfortable than the VARIG recliner on the MD-11.
I do remember all my VARIG flights, First or Business was very nice (for the 1990’s) but the back of the plane, be it flights from Europe to Brazil or US to Brazil the people were in the aisles talking all night. Brazilians are VERY social creatures!!! You can’t say it was not fun!

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

already for sale!!

20:15 - 19:40 +1 arrival 777-200

CALMSP wrote:

already for sale!!

20:15 - 19:40 +1 arrival 777-200

One former TPAC 772 found a new home, probably another 20 more to figure out yet for 2023. Congrats on new route and partnership. I'm "interested" in how the discussion on the EWR>ATH route went, I would have thought that UA would have said that the flight needs to switch to JFK. If early bookings are good, you might see the 77W on this one.

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin?

As pointed out before, UA Polaris seat is better than EK's. Service and food, sure up for debate. I'd rather have a nice seat without a stranger sitting next to me. EK doesn't offer PE yet (or very little).

Same/Same 10 across in the back of the wagon.

fun2fly wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin?

As pointed out before, UA Polaris seat is better than EK's. Service and food, sure up for debate. I'd rather have a nice seat without a stranger sitting next to me. EK doesn't offer PE yet (or very little).

Same/Same 10 across in the back of the wagon.

"As pointed out before, UA Polaris seat is better than EK's". Pointed out by who?

EK Business Class has seats you can pick that will ensure you have no neighbor, on the A380 anyway, with the seat closer to the window. I would rate their seat to be better than UA's. EK rolling out P/E but yes, UA has the edge there.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

We get, you don't like United and that's perfectly fine. But it does not make people who choose United over other airlines not in their right mind.

Up to right before COVID and a career change I traveled extensively (was Global Services for over 15 years) and, naturally, I would choose UA (or LH if UA was not available) over any other airline. It was not just the benefits: it is the feeling of boarding the plane in Australia, Argentina or Hong Kong and knowing that I was home from the moment I stepped on that plane, on flights staffed by my people, who understand me as a frequent traveler. I will take any United Senior Mama over the Emirates disposable flight attendants every time. Different strokes for different folks.

dcajet wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

We get, you don't like United and that's perfectly fine. But it does not make people who choose United over other airlines not in their right mind.

Up to right before COVID and a career change I traveled extensively (was Global Services for over 15 years) and, naturally, I would choose UA (or LH if UA was not available) over any other airline. It was not just the benefits: it is the feeling of boarding the plane in Australia, Argentina or Hong Kong and knowing that I was home from the moment I stepped on that plane, on flights staffed by my people, who understand me as a frequent traveler. I will take any United Senior Mama over the Emirates disposable flight attendants every time. Different strokes for different folks.

That's basically what I said as it relates to high tier status holders and your point about the familiarity experience. I will say the crew on my recent EK flight were fine and gracious, but cold, and the UA ones on the flight back were actually engaging and looked like they wanted to try, which is a huge improvement over what it was just a few years ago. I don't dislike UA. They're just not my first choice. The hubs I'd have to fly them out of have a lot of choice on UA's schedule, and that's great, but the delays are frequent and I just don't find them all that reliable, so when the service is nice and the flight lands on time, it is a welcome surprise. Foreign flag carriers, at least the ME3 + TK, and most European network carriers, with some exceptions, offer a much better experience overall than the US3 with exceptions for high tier status holders of course.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

"As pointed out before, UA Polaris seat is better than EK's". Pointed out by who?

EK Business Class has seats you can pick that will ensure you have no neighbor, on the A380 anyway, with the seat closer to the window. I would rate their seat to be better than UA's. EK rolling out P/E but yes, UA has the edge there.

The EK J 777 product is substantially worse than UA's 777 J offering. Seven abreast without all aisle access in an undeniably dated product is hardly competitive with Polaris. No, that doesn't address the differences in soft product, which is certainly up for debate, but I don't think the hard product is debatable. The A380 J is certainly a better product than what's offered on their 777, but EK serves EWR with the 777, so that's the comparative product.

The side by side picture in this article is fairly telling.
https://onemileatatime.com/news/united-airlines-dubai/

United unions not enthused the carrier partnering with EK


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcojC0qWQAE ... =4096x4096

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

I would! Why? First I really like UA and I have never had a serious problem with them (ok, once about 10/12 years ago) and they knocked themselves out to apologize. But aside from familiarity and the fact that EK is not offering something as compellingly different (Eg: Singapore seat or 747-8) I find Polaris odd number seats to be impossible to complain about— plus I want to get to 5 million lifetime miles (maybe in 3/4 years I’ll get there) is why I’d choose UA on most long-hauls.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

dcajet wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

We get, you don't like United and that's perfectly fine. But it does not make people who choose United over other airlines not in their right mind.

Up to right before COVID and a career change I traveled extensively (was Global Services for over 15 years) and, naturally, I would choose UA (or LH if UA was not available) over any other airline. It was not just the benefits: it is the feeling of boarding the plane in Australia, Argentina or Hong Kong and knowing that I was home from the moment I stepped on that plane, on flights staffed by my people, who understand me as a frequent traveler. I will take any United Senior Mama over the Emirates disposable flight attendants every time. Different strokes for different folks.

That's basically what I said as it relates to high tier status holders and your point about the familiarity experience. I will say the crew on my recent EK flight were fine and gracious, but cold, and the UA ones on the flight back were actually engaging and looked like they wanted to try, which is a huge improvement over what it was just a few years ago. I don't dislike UA. They're just not my first choice. The hubs I'd have to fly them out of have a lot of choice on UA's schedule, and that's great, but the delays are frequent and I just don't find them all that reliable, so when the service is nice and the flight lands on time, it is a welcome surprise. Foreign flag carriers, at least the ME3 + TK, and most European network carriers, with some exceptions, offer a much better experience overall than the US3 with exceptions for high tier status holders of course.

ifvyou fly the ME3 carriers out of the USA? then they're subject to the SAME delays the USA carriers are subject to. they don't have any more power here than any of the US carriers do, Probably less! Nobody is going to revamp their terminals to handle their A380's. they can't land at just any airport not even for a diversion. if their Airplanes have a problem? They're just as likely for a delay or cancellation as anybody else. They might get some "Run" in Europe or Asia. But in the USA? they're just another airplane. And they need all the perks and extras because other than that? Who are they? Just another pair of wings.

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

All things being equal I probably would fly UA but only since I’m a 1K.

But since I live in Houston, I definitely won’t make an extra stop if I can just book a codeshare nonstop flight to DXB on a 380

LAXintl wrote:

United unions not enthused the carrier partnering with EK


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcojC0qWQAE ... =4096x4096

I am as pro-union as the next pawn in the airline industry, but the flight is being flown on UA metal with UA crews...

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

Right now, all of the customers with onward connections to BOM, BLR and any other Indian city that requires Russian overflights would fly on UA and xfer to EK via DXB.
Things aren't as simple as you think. The codeshare will be of great benefit to a LOT of people. I know it's en vogue to continue bashing US carriers but they have a lot more value than you give them credit for. Try being unbiased for once.

ScorpioMC3 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

United unions not enthused the carrier partnering with EK


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FcojC0qWQAE ... =4096x4096

I am as pro-union as the next pawn in the airline industry, but the flight is being flown on UA metal with UA crews...

They're trying to prevent a DL style situation where the DL pilots union sued DL for giving away too much capacity to JV partners. UA and EK aren't in a JV but for all we know this is a precursor of one and the unions are doing their duty of protecting what they can. If UA decides to kill EWR-DXB in the future and EK launches another frequency to EWR with a UA code share or full JV, that has effectively taken away some job security.

My sentiments are echoed exactly by the union, and this letter almost exactly outlines a paper I wrote on Open Skies between the US and UAE/Qatar in college, over 5 years ago, using employee treatment, safety cultures, and state funding creating an unfair playing field as my main arguing points.

well? United is going back to Dubai again. Hope the revenue is there again this time.

SumChristianus wrote:

One of the most interesting parts of the United press release to me is Scott Kirby's self-description of United:
"This agreement unites two iconic, flag carrier airlines"

What specifically gives an airline a claim to be a "flag carrier"?
https://united.mediaroom.com/2022-09-14 ... -Agreement

Tyroneguy wrote:

Right now, all of the customers with onward connections to BOM, BLR and any other Indian city that requires Russian overflights would fly on UA and xfer to EK via DXB.

That in particular made me feel at first like it was a pragmatic tie-up almost entirely due to the Russian overflight situation (i.e. United would still be against the Gulf carriers were it not for that difficulty)...

Although United is currently still operating flights to India... which surprised me, for some reason I was sure they had suspended them due to the Russia situation... Given EK's limited rights to India this makes me also feel like the deal is more for the sake of Middle East/Pakistan/etc. than India as the opportunity cost of flowing additional UA customers onto EK India flights might be untenable. Looking at United.com this seems confirmed by the fact that Air India and Vistara domestic connections through DEL are cheaper for Indian secondary cities than EK although EK's schedule is arguably better for some routes

This is also quite weird news to me personally as an analysis on "The Gulf Carriers" was the first article I wrote for Airways Magazine way back in 2015 back when it seemed like the US Big 3 and the Gulf Big 3 would be forever enemies.

With UA’s international coverage they make a very strong argument to be the flag carrier of the US.

I don't quite understand the union's problem here. It seems like their primary argument is that they don't like this deal because of poor labor practices in the UAE. Do they want to stick their necks out and complain about the labor practices of Air China too? I'm sure you wouldn't find good things going on at Egyptair either.

UA to DXB is a good feeder as many mention to the myriad of stops on the other side of Dubai, including a ton of cities in India not named BOM, BLR or DEL that UA doesn't serve or serve yet. I think it will be successful and grow as time goes on. How's the cargo market? UA is a pretty good cargo hauler too and that may affect the final a/c assigned.

strfyr51 wrote:

well? United is going back to Dubai again. Hope the revenue is there again this time.

The last time UA served DXB, it had no benefit of connectivity on the DXB end was almost exclusively reliant on US government contracts, which required staff travel to be booked on a US carrier. The route operated from IAD. It, along with KWI and Bahrain, were all dropped. This time, it will be different with EK having such a huge hub and the ability to flow traffic to points beyond, including to South Asia, Southeast Asia, Africa, etc...

Tyroneguy wrote:

ContinentalEWR wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

As hinted at prior, EWR-DXB is effective March 27th.

Who in their right mind would fly UA over EK, in a premium cabin? I get that EK's only EWR service isn't nonstop and goes via ATH, which is unlikely to change, but I guess its the same as AA's JFK-DOH route, only difference being that there are other nonstop choices on the partner carrier, and the high tier status holders on UA may want to stick with the recognition benefits they get on UA metal.

Having very recently flown EK to Europe and back on UA, in Business (EK) and Polaris (UA), there is a huge difference in every aspect of the offering. EK almost knocks it out of the park. UA, far from it beyond the aesthetics and basics of the Polaris seat. The catering, for one, on UA, is terrible.

Right now, all of the customers with onward connections to BOM, BLR and any other Indian city that requires Russian overflights would fly on UA and xfer to EK via DXB.
Things aren't as simple as you think. The codeshare will be of great benefit to a LOT of people. I know it's en vogue to continue bashing US carriers but they have a lot more value than you give them credit for. Try being unbiased for once.

Since you asked so nicely, sure thing.

It does not appear that passengers of EK to/from US can earn miles on United Mileage plus. They can earn miles only on flights connecting at US hubs on United. At least that is what I understood from the press release.

Flyers from Newark already have one stop connections to several Indian cities since AI flies non stop, this will be a good addition no doubt since United cannot serve any Indian city except DEL due to Russian airspace restrictions. For passengers from other than NY area, there is no change at this time unless UA starts service from SFO, ORD, IAH or IAD.

UA TPAC update:
https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/220915-uanw22apac

intotheair wrote:

I don't quite understand the union's problem here. It seems like their primary argument is that they don't like this deal because of poor labor practices in the UAE. Do they want to stick their necks out and complain about the labor practices of Air China too? I'm sure you wouldn't find good things going on at Egyptair either.

When AA created their current livery the brief to the design agency was to make them look like “THE” USA flag carrier. They already had the right brand name the rest was the visual representation with an American flag inspired tail (ala: BA, Swiss, AF and a zillion other flag carriers) when I have asked my friends and Biz colleagues in other countries “which airline in your opinion is the national airline of the USA?” And the answer changes by region! EU (Germans & Swiss) mostly say United, Israeli’s surely say United. Brazilians quickly say American, my Aussy friends say United (then snicker or tell a story about steak they couldn’t cut) as do some Asian friends. Delta ironically has very high awareness but is rarely the first airline off their tongues. The Brits usually say “The US has a National Airline???” Smarty-pants!!! Lol (The UK also sees Smirnoff vodka is on par with Stoli or Ketel One!) so EVERYTHING is perception.

Net: it’s very much about regional dominance.

The truth is that the USA is an enormous country and has a population where most people fly (even if they fly infrequently) and often international as well as domestic (no other country has as many major cities) so the safest and most accurate answer is “the United States has 3 National Airlines” - and old folks still say PanAm with a sentimental tear in their eyes!

In my thinking being able to avoid Delhi as a transfer point and being able to fly directly to places like Kolkata without going through Customs and Immigration in Delhi or Mumbai, as one can do with the ME3 airlines, still continues to be a winning proposition, and for that reason I will probably continue using them, either wholly or via United connection at DXB. If I can earn United miles that is merely a side benefit.

In that list:
Here's what's gone until 1/3/2023:
DEN-NRT
LAX/EWR-HND
SFO-HKG/KIX
Here's what's gone until 3/24/2023
All Mainland China except SFO-PVG (with the crew stop in ICN)
EWR-HKG
HNL-NRT
IAD-HND
Pushing LAX/EWR-HND and DEN-NRT to January does not surprise me since they want to wait for Japan demand to solidify. I am surprised they are pushing out HNL-NRT especially with DL resuming the HNL-HND route in early December. IAD-HND they can wait with ANA operating split IAD-TYO service.
https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/220915-uanw22apac

“Flag carrier” in this sense has a legal definition as a certificated air carrier in the USA that is authorized to operate international flights carrying fare-paying passengers and cargo.

rjbesikof wrote:

I am surprised they are pushing out HNL-NRT especially with DL resuming the HNL-HND route in early December. IAD-HND they can wait with ANA operating split IAD-TYO service.
https://www.aeroroutes.com/eng/220915-uanw22apac

That’s exactly why. DL doesn’t have a JV partner in the market, and most traffic is Japan-originating right now.

Wow. I would've guessed something more mainstream like IAD-BCN to be their most profitable Spanish route, not an exotic route like EWR-PMI. How did Tenerife do?
https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com/ho ... spain.html

rjbesikof wrote:

Wow. I would've guessed something more mainstream like IAD-BCN to be their most profitable Spanish route, not an exotic route like EWR-PMI. How did Tenerife do?
https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com/ho ... spain.html

No competition. That probably helps.

rjbesikof wrote:

Wow. I would've guessed something more mainstream like IAD-BCN to be their most profitable Spanish route, not an exotic route like EWR-PMI. How did Tenerife do?
https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com/ho ... spain.html

They will certainly book 2 people to Tenerife this fall. I’m going to take that flight before it ever gets cut. I actually have friend who’s from Tenerife who wants to come to NYC on a first time in a long time nonstop service. That 3 people talking, but if I’m itching to see it I am sure millions more might too.

VC10er wrote:

rjbesikof wrote:

Wow. I would've guessed something more mainstream like IAD-BCN to be their most profitable Spanish route, not an exotic route like EWR-PMI. How did Tenerife do?
https://www.majorcadailybulletin.com/ho ... spain.html

They will certainly book 2 people to Tenerife this fall. I’m going to take that flight before it ever gets cut. I actually have friend who’s from Tenerife who wants to come to NYC on a first time in a long time nonstop service. That 3 people talking, but if I’m itching to see it I am sure millions more might too.

Millions?