jbs2886 wrote:

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?

A million over a long stretch of time!
One 737 at a time!

Actually thought about that…if my “guess-tamate” is close, it would take 6,600 737 flights to carry a million people! Maybe one day it will be a hit and see a 767 there?

In a DOT filing to extend its Cuba dormancy waiver that expires October 30th, UA states it intends to restart service to Havana this winter.

No details on route/frequency, but UA holds authority from both EWR and IAH to Havana.

DOT-OST-2016-0021

With Japan annoucing its reopening what are the chances we see UA move up the launch/relaucnh if the remaining HND/NRT routes? Seems like Japan will be a gold mine.

Pinto wrote:

With Japan annoucing its reopening what are the chances we see UA move up the launch/relaucnh if the remaining HND/NRT routes? Seems like Japan will be a gold mine.

my opinion without any inside knowledge is they will just wait til march of next year to restart flights. with that being said, if Japan is still fully open and it doesn't look like it will revert backwards i would not be surprised for flights to japan to exceed what it was in 2019 ie. flying ewr to both nrt and hnd

Pinto wrote:

With Japan annoucing its reopening what are the chances we see UA move up the launch/relaucnh if the remaining HND/NRT routes? Seems like Japan will be a gold mine.

UA has an upcoming schedule change on 10/28..HND, in addition to NRT, was in the bid lines at the end of October for the EWR base. So unless they cancel the trip and re-assign the crews, it's a go.

UA adding second daily SIN-SFO from October 29th. Sorry if already shared, but I think this is brand new (and fantastic) news. Flights already loaded.

Tyroneguy wrote:

Pinto wrote:

With Japan annoucing its reopening what are the chances we see UA move up the launch/relaucnh if the remaining HND/NRT routes? Seems like Japan will be a gold mine.

UA has an upcoming schedule change on 10/28..HND, in addition to NRT, was in the bid lines at the end of October for the EWR base. So unless they cancel the trip and re-assign the crews, it's a go.

it is not a go. originally yes ewr was going to switch from nrt to hnd, not fly both....but on sep 14 they put a pause on that til january 3rd...you can find the link to the article on the previous page...what i was referencing was a previous plan that was set to happen in 2020 that ewr would fly to both nrt and hnd

SFO-SIN #2 is back October 29:

https://www.superadrianme.com/travel/un ... 9-october/

Golfmikey wrote:

Tyroneguy wrote:

Pinto wrote:

With Japan annoucing its reopening what are the chances we see UA move up the launch/relaucnh if the remaining HND/NRT routes? Seems like Japan will be a gold mine.

UA has an upcoming schedule change on 10/28..HND, in addition to NRT, was in the bid lines at the end of October for the EWR base. So unless they cancel the trip and re-assign the crews, it's a go.

it is not a go. originally yes ewr was going to switch from nrt to hnd, not fly both....but on sep 14 they put a pause on that til january 3rd...you can find the link to the article on the previous page...what i was referencing was a previous plan that was set to happen in 2020 that ewr would fly to both nrt and hnd

That may be, but there's been no notification to the crews yet. It was in the line bid award on Sept 17.

Is it simply out of the question to start EWR/SIN? Or EWR to SYD? I assume they would require a special bird for flights that long, Eg: large Polaris and PP cabins and small E+?
Aside from the fact the flights would have to be financially successful, it would also be HUGE bragging rights for UA in the NYC metro area.

VC10er wrote:

Is it simply out of the question to start EWR/SIN? Or EWR to SYD? I assume they would require a special bird for flights that long, Eg: large Polaris and PP cabins and small E+?
Aside from the fact the flights would have to be financially successful, it would also be HUGE bragging rights for UA in the NYC metro area.

SQ flew SIN-JFK some years ago, with a low capacity A340-500 to make the long trip, but it didn't appear to be commercially successful.

Smart for UA to do 2x daily SFO-SIN. SIN is the HIGHEST yielding Asian city right now, ahead of NRT/HND, ICN and then TPE. HKG and Mainland China is out of the picture for now. Any possibly of UA doing MNL, SGN/HAN or BKK?

Wingtips56 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Is it simply out of the question to start EWR/SIN? Or EWR to SYD? I assume they would require a special bird for flights that long, Eg: large Polaris and PP cabins and small E+?
Aside from the fact the flights would have to be financially successful, it would also be HUGE bragging rights for UA in the NYC metro area.

SQ flew SIN-JFK some years ago, with a low capacity A340-500 to make the long trip, but it didn't appear to be commercially successful.

Years ago it was EWR-SIN. Now it is served from both EWR/JFK with an ULR.

With Hong Kong dropping their mandatory hotel quarantine requirement on 9/26, makes me wonder if United would consider restarting SFO-HKG earlier than Jan 2023? Even on a less than daily basis. There's certainly enough VFR demand willing to pay $3000+ RT economy fares who haven't visited in 3 years.

theasianguy wrote:

With Hong Kong dropping their mandatory hotel quarantine requirement on 9/26, makes me wonder if United would consider restarting SFO-HKG earlier than Jan 2023? Even on a less than daily basis. There's certainly enough VFR demand willing to pay $3000+ RT economy fares who haven't visited in 3 years.

United won’t lay crews over in HKG with current testing and quarantine (if positive) requirements. Even as changed.

For HKG, per the notice I saw, while the mandatory hotel quarantine has gone away for visitors, everyone including crews are still required to perform a PCR test on arrival followed by medical monitoring via a government app, and unable to visit public places like bars, restaurants, shopping malls during first 3 days in the territory. Additional PCR test are required on days two, four and six. Should someone test positive, then off one goes to the government-managed quarantine center.

For Japan while they also loosened its requirements, visitors must have a negative PCR test taken within 72 hours prior to arrival, or be triple vaxed and arrive from and have spent the last 14-days in a "Blue List" (low risk) country. If arriving from a higher-risk country, travelers will need to undergo a PCR test at the airport and self-quarantine for at least three days. I could see the list of nations changing as Covid cases shift globally this winter making air travel harder.

In summary, don't see UA and its crew unions eager to mount services to HKG that would risk crew member quarantines, while Japan could be a market that might look suitable one day, turn into a no-go market again should cases again rise in the U.S. as many expect over the winter and could see US drops out of the Blue List. A cautious approach is probably prudent especially over the winter low season before mounting a more aggressive Japan schedule next spring.

VC10er wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

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?

A million over a long stretch of time!
One 737 at a time!

Actually thought about that…if my “guess-tamate” is close, it would take 6,600 737 flights to carry a million people! Maybe one day it will be a hit and see a 767 there?

using the UA 737 seating config before the 737-new gen airplanes from my time on the line working the Terminal at UA from 1984 until 2000 I estimated with the 120 737-200 series airplanes alone with 8F/101Y we flew 38,193,000 pax. But the 737-300's and 500's we flew another 44,000.000 pax before the merger with CO; I can't even count after that but it's damn sure a lot. as United flies 275 737's at the moment. so whatewver the number is? I probably Can't Estimate it with all the different Models flying.

B6SpiritofEWR wrote:

Wingtips56 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Is it simply out of the question to start EWR/SIN? Or EWR to SYD? I assume they would require a special bird for flights that long, Eg: large Polaris and PP cabins and small E+?
Aside from the fact the flights would have to be financially successful, it would also be HUGE bragging rights for UA in the NYC metro area.

SQ flew SIN-JFK some years ago, with a low capacity A340-500 to make the long trip, but it didn't appear to be commercially successful.

Years ago it was EWR-SIN. Now it is served from both EWR/JFK with an ULR.

Thanks for the correction....wasn't sure if EWR or JFK.

LHUSA wrote:

UA adding second daily SIN-SFO from October 29th. Sorry if already shared, but I think this is brand new (and fantastic) news. Flights already loaded.

adamblang wrote:

SFO-SIN #2 is back October 29:

https://www.superadrianme.com/travel/un ... 9-october/

This flight never needed to be loaded as it never left the schedule... Been booked on it in Jan since Spring.

Golfmikey wrote:

Tyroneguy wrote:

Pinto wrote:

With Japan annoucing its reopening what are the chances we see UA move up the launch/relaucnh if the remaining HND/NRT routes? Seems like Japan will be a gold mine.

UA has an upcoming schedule change on 10/28..HND, in addition to NRT, was in the bid lines at the end of October for the EWR base. So unless they cancel the trip and re-assign the crews, it's a go.

it is not a go. originally yes ewr was going to switch from nrt to hnd, not fly both....but on sep 14 they put a pause on that til january 3rd...you can find the link to the article on the previous page...what i was referencing was a previous plan that was set to happen in 2020 that ewr would fly to both nrt and hnd

UA is not dropping NRT from EWR. The plan was to fly both HND and NRT fro. EEWR LAX, and SFO . Right now they are justin doing NRT out of EWR.

jplatts wrote:

While UA has already resumed most of its domestic nonstop routes out of SFO that were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, UA has completely dropped SFO-DTW/MSN/OKC/STL nonstop flights from its flight schedules (which were scheduled to resume on 1/4/2023 prior to getting completely dropped from UA flight schedules).

I am surprised that UA would completely drop SFO-DTW/OKC/STL nonstop service with UA having recently resumed SFO-MCI/MSP/OMA nonstop service.

DTW and STL still have transpacific connectivity to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand through UA's ORD and IAH hubs on UA and its partners.

UA can also easily push STL-Asia and MSN-Asia connections through its ORD hub with STL-ORD-Asia being shorter than STL-SFO-Asia and MSN-ORD-Asia being shorter than MSN-SFO-Asia.

STL-ORD-TYO is approximately 300 miles shorter than STL-SFO-TYO, and MSN-ORD-TYO is approximately 500 miles shorter than MSN-SFO-TYO.

Asia service is still very much in the tank, save SIN....i doubt UA has any plans to beef up transpacific connections that aren't there. China service may never be what it was before the pandemic...please stop asking these questions.

USPIT10L wrote:

jplatts wrote:

While UA has already resumed most of its domestic nonstop routes out of SFO that were suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic, UA has completely dropped SFO-DTW/MSN/OKC/STL nonstop flights from its flight schedules (which were scheduled to resume on 1/4/2023 prior to getting completely dropped from UA flight schedules).

I am surprised that UA would completely drop SFO-DTW/OKC/STL nonstop service with UA having recently resumed SFO-MCI/MSP/OMA nonstop service.

DTW and STL still have transpacific connectivity to Asia, Australia, and New Zealand through UA's ORD and IAH hubs on UA and its partners.

UA can also easily push STL-Asia and MSN-Asia connections through its ORD hub with STL-ORD-Asia being shorter than STL-SFO-Asia and MSN-ORD-Asia being shorter than MSN-SFO-Asia.

STL-ORD-TYO is approximately 300 miles shorter than STL-SFO-TYO, and MSN-ORD-TYO is approximately 500 miles shorter than MSN-SFO-TYO.

Asia service is still very much in the tank, save SIN....i doubt UA has any plans to beef up transpacific connections that aren't there. China service may never be what it was before the pandemic...please stop asking these questions.

I'm not sure how much Asia traffic actually connected on from these flights, I definitely think its a bit overstated.

Especially since these cuts go to Summer 2023, when Asia will have been opened up again

With deltas announcement to return to cities it has previously served i wonder if UA will match them... most of the cites UA already serves but 3 they do not... Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, and Gatwick. All 3 previously served by CO. Could a comeback be in place?

Golfmikey wrote:

With deltas announcement to return to cities it has previously served i wonder if UA will match them... most of the cites UA already serves but 3 they do not... Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, and Gatwick. All 3 previously served by CO. Could a comeback be in place?

UA or CO have served both Stuttgart and Dusseldorf in the past. I'm not sure what's changed, but now that Deutsche Bahn is joining Star Alliance, I wouldn't think that UA would follow suit.

Golfmikey wrote:

With deltas announcement to return to cities it has previously served i wonder if UA will match them... most of the cites UA already serves but 3 they do not... Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, and Gatwick. All 3 previously served by CO. Could a comeback be in place?

An airline simply does not start looking at destinations they've served in the past if a competitor does that. Besides, STR and DUS have always been served by DL, unlike UA, until the pandemic axed it.

I found DL's announcement to be quite underwhelming and representative of just how different and how much bolder UA's network planning is. Most of the DL routes are resumptions or existing destinations they serve.

DL has a partner (VS) at LGW and also has competitive reasons to try to harm B6, so that's not a surprise. I believe they also announced that route pre-pandemic, but never flew. I don't think UA would have much to gain at LGW. It would be a better use of resources to continue building up LHR, which UA has done pretty well in the last few years.

ATL-STR, as has long been discussed on this site, is believed to be driven by the automotive contracts, so I don't necessarily think that's a sign that there's huge unfilled O&D passenger demand ex-STR. The secondary German markets might be nice to have connected again to EWR, especially DUS, but as cosyr pointed out, DB is soon becoming a Star partner, and you can get to FRA from Stuttgart or Dusseldorf in less than 90 minutes by train.

cosyr wrote:

Golfmikey wrote:

With deltas announcement to return to cities it has previously served i wonder if UA will match them... most of the cites UA already serves but 3 they do not... Stuttgart, Dusseldorf, and Gatwick. All 3 previously served by CO. Could a comeback be in place?

UA or CO have served both Stuttgart and Dusseldorf in the past. I'm not sure what's changed, but now that Deutsche Bahn is joining Star Alliance, I wouldn't think that UA would follow suit.

UA will probably add those back once the 321XLRs arrive. Ua 757s are probably needed on more profitable routes rn. Also UA has LH which means all of Germany is accessible vus FRA or BRU.

intotheair wrote:

DL has a partner (VS) at LGW.

No, VS left LGW. So if the JV is going to launch NYC-LGW, DL makes sense.

jbs2886 wrote:

intotheair wrote:

DL has a partner (VS) at LGW.

No, VS left LGW. So if the JV is going to launch NYC-LGW, DL makes sense.

Ah! I didn't realize they never restarted LGW. Oh well – it's not like the VS portfolio ex-LGW was anything that would offer much value to DL fliers anyway. I suppose DL stil perhaps has something to gain at LGW, though I doubt UA would. The vast majority of UA's fliers are perfectly well-served by LHR. Terminal 2 is a beautiful facility and quite a Star powerhouse when you consider it's not a true hub for any Star airline. There's also a reason why all the US airlines largely abandoned LGW once they had the chance post-Bermuda II.

What do we think the chances of UA restarting EWR-GLA/MAN?

gkirk wrote:

What do we think the chances of UA restarting EWR-GLA/MAN?

Pretty good in 2024/2025. UA just needs the A321XLRs to arrive for them to start reopening those secondary destinations.

Pinto wrote:

gkirk wrote:

What do we think the chances of UA restarting EWR-GLA/MAN?

Pretty good in 2024/2025. UA just needs the A321XLRs to arrive for them to start reopening those secondary destinations.

Correct. Reportedly, UAL has already begun training Airbus pilots on ETOPS.

FlyHossD wrote:

Pinto wrote:

gkirk wrote:

What do we think the chances of UA restarting EWR-GLA/MAN?

Pretty good in 2024/2025. UA just needs the A321XLRs to arrive for them to start reopening those secondary destinations.

Correct. Reportedly, UAL has already begun training Airbus pilots on ETOPS.

I'm not sure UA needs to wait for the XLR's to open these markets. They have more w/b in their fleet than the competition + 41 x 752's (and several new 78J's coming online) and well below average TPAC needs for the foreseeable future freeing up more capacity. Sending a 199 seat 767 or a 176 seat XLR/752 shouldn't matter to one of the largest carriers in the world from one of the largest markets in the world - NYC market. If nothing else, move the two LHR AM flights from IAD/EWR from 752's to 767's to free up two birds for MAN/GLA.

Rumor is MAN is returning next summer, I think with the 764. GLA isn’t really in the cards right now to my knowledge.

Some color on some of smaller market shuffles we’ve been seeing:

Flight Global: ‘All of us are in the exact same spot’: regional airline CEOs on pilot shortage

“We fly exclusively for United Airlines, so United has to make those tough choices about where they deploy their assets,” Hoefler says. “Obviously, having 104 aircraft – but being able to only have 64 in the air – puts pressure on them.

fun2fly wrote:

FlyHossD wrote:

Pinto wrote:

Pretty good in 2024/2025. UA just needs the A321XLRs to arrive for them to start reopening those secondary destinations.

Correct. Reportedly, UAL has already begun training Airbus pilots on ETOPS.

I'm not sure UA needs to wait for the XLR's to open these markets. They have more w/b in their fleet than the competition + 41 x 752's (and several new 78J's coming online) and well below average TPAC needs for the foreseeable future freeing up more capacity. Sending a 199 seat 767 or a 176 seat XLR/752 shouldn't matter to one of the largest carriers in the world from one of the largest markets in the world - NYC market. If nothing else, move the two LHR AM flights from IAD/EWR from 752's to 767's to free up two birds for MAN/GLA.

Those 20 seats make a difference, a 752 has 16 Polaris Seats and a 763 has 30-46 Polaris seats. So if they don't have a 757 then they have to at minimum double the amount of J seats they offer. Those are expensive seats to have open.

It's not only the about filling the seats it is also about thr opportunity cost of flying a plane to point B instead of point A. So say UA swaps the 757 to the 767 on the early morning IAD - LHR flight. That 767 sits at LHR for 12 hours overnight. UAwill have to either rotate it in from LHR to IAD or have it come in from an overnight flight which then eats up more aircraft time.

While yes UA can make 757s available to them or even fly a larger aircraft it doesn't mean that it will happen. It all comes down to $$$.

UA's 321neo fleet must be ETOPS capable as many or all will be in standard seating configuration, which would be perfect for Hawaiian routes. With a 4,000nm range (100 more than the 752) and 700 more than the MAX10 it should be heavily used on Hawaiian service, with DEN being in range. IAH could also be within the range of the A321neo, but could struggle westbound during heavy eastbound jet streams.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

UA's 321neo fleet must be ETOPS capable as many or all will be in standard seating configuration, which would be perfect for Hawaiian routes. With a 4,000nm range (100 more than the 752) and 700 more than the MAX10 it should be heavily used on Hawaiian service, with DEN being in range. IAH could also be within the range of the A321neo, but could struggle westbound during heavy eastbound jet streams.

Note that the UA 321neo fleet will come in two flavors: the ‘basic’ neo and the XLR. Only the XLR will have ~4000nm range, so IMHO, it would not be shocking if they have different interior configurations for different missions. But, yes, I would expect ETOPS is a given for the 321 fleet and just like how UA maintains the entire 737 fleet.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

it would not be shocking if they have different interior configurations for different missions

A321neos will have ~20 United First seats, ~64 Economy Plus seats, and the remainder Economy (123 seats?): https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... -strategy/

A321neo XLRs will have a new Polaris seat, Premium Plus, Economy Plus, and Economy: https://onemileatatime.com/news/united- ... mium-plus/

adamblang wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

it would not be shocking if they have different interior configurations for different missions

A321neos will have ~20 United First seats, ~64 Economy Plus seats, and the remainder Economy (123 seats?): https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... -strategy/

Pretty sure the United A321neo door config is exit limited to 195 pax, so 111 economy seats would be max with that many premium seats.

Gyrfalcon wrote:

adamblang wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

it would not be shocking if they have different interior configurations for different missions

A321neos will have ~20 United First seats, ~64 Economy Plus seats, and the remainder Economy (123 seats?): https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... -strategy/

Pretty sure the United A321neo door config is exit limited to 195 pax, so 111 economy seats would be max with that many premium seats.

The UA renderings all show the 240-seat door configuration (dual overwing exits per side plus hatch aft of wing). I am not sure if that is just a standard rendering, as there's no way United's configuration will have that many seats. AA, for example, has the 210-seat exit limit (single overwing per side plus hatch) on its domestic 321neo, meanwhile Delta has the 195-seat max layout (dual overwing, no hatch).

I haven't yet seen the actual LOPA for the UA configuration.

codc10 wrote:

Gyrfalcon wrote:

adamblang wrote:

A321neos will have ~20 United First seats, ~64 Economy Plus seats, and the remainder Economy (123 seats?): https://thepointsguy.com/news/united-ai ... -strategy/

Pretty sure the United A321neo door config is exit limited to 195 pax, so 111 economy seats would be max with that many premium seats.

The UA renderings all show the 240-seat door configuration (dual overwing exits per side plus hatch aft of wing). I am not sure if that is just a standard rendering, as there's no way United's configuration will have that many seats. AA, for example, has the 210-seat exit limit (single overwing per side plus hatch) on its domestic 321neo, meanwhile Delta has the 195-seat max layout (dual overwing, no hatch).

I haven't yet seen the actual LOPA for the UA configuration.

It's just a standard rendering, the points guy article quoted above specifies the plugged #3 door, with dual overwings. It standardizes the entire UA airbus fleet with one forward and aft door and dual overwings.

Gyrfalcon wrote:

It's just a standard rendering, the points guy article quoted above specifies the plugged #3 door, with dual overwings. It standardizes the entire UA airbus fleet with one forward and aft door and dual overwings.

True, but the way it's written in the article suggests that UA only confirmed that the NEO will have the ACF, and the author interprets that to be the 195-seat limit with two overwing exit pairs:

United also confirmed that its A321neos will sport the Airbus Cabin Flex fuselage, which means that there will be four cabin doors, two at each end of the plane, along with four overwing window exits.

That said, I would expect United's configuration to look more like Delta's, but perhaps with some more E+ seats, which would mean the 195-seat exit layout should be sufficient.

There’s no way UA would put 240 seats on an A321. Isn’t that the max, all-coach capacity?

airplanedriver6 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

UA's 321neo fleet must be ETOPS capable as many or all will be in standard seating configuration, which would be perfect for Hawaiian routes. With a 4,000nm range (100 more than the 752) and 700 more than the MAX10 it should be heavily used on Hawaiian service, with DEN being in range. IAH could also be within the range of the A321neo, but could struggle westbound during heavy eastbound jet streams.

Note that the UA 321neo fleet will come in two flavors: the ‘basic’ neo and the XLR. Only the XLR will have ~4000nm range, so IMHO, it would not be shocking if they have different interior configurations for different missions. But, yes, I would expect ETOPS is a given for the 321 fleet and just like how UA maintains the entire 737 fleet.

I'm using Wikipedia for info and they show the 321neoLR at 4,000 nm range. The Airbus website shows the XLR at 4,700nm.
Wike says the 321neo has a 500 nm range improvement over the standard 321, meaning it should have a range of 3,700 nm. 737NG and 737MAX units don't match the 321neo range without aux tanks.

codc10 wrote:

Gyrfalcon wrote:

It's just a standard rendering, the points guy article quoted above specifies the plugged #3 door, with dual overwings. It standardizes the entire UA airbus fleet with one forward and aft door and dual overwings.

True, but the way it's written in the article suggests that UA only confirmed that the NEO will have the ACF, and the author interprets that to be the 195-seat limit with two overwing exit pairs:

United also confirmed that its A321neos will sport the Airbus Cabin Flex fuselage, which means that there will be four cabin doors, two at each end of the plane, along with four overwing window exits.

That said, I would expect United's configuration to look more like Delta's, but perhaps with some more E+ seats, which would mean the 195-seat exit layout should be sufficient.

I understand your reluctance but I’m not sole sourcing from just the article. It IS one forward, one aft, dual overwing for the UA 321neo. Probably best to move this to the fleet thread if we need to debate further.

Gyrfalcon wrote:

codc10 wrote:

Gyrfalcon wrote:

It's just a standard rendering, the points guy article quoted above specifies the plugged #3 door, with dual overwings. It standardizes the entire UA airbus fleet with one forward and aft door and dual overwings.

True, but the way it's written in the article suggests that UA only confirmed that the NEO will have the ACF, and the author interprets that to be the 195-seat limit with two overwing exit pairs:

United also confirmed that its A321neos will sport the Airbus Cabin Flex fuselage, which means that there will be four cabin doors, two at each end of the plane, along with four overwing window exits.

That said, I would expect United's configuration to look more like Delta's, but perhaps with some more E+ seats, which would mean the 195-seat exit layout should be sufficient.

I understand your reluctance but I’m not sole sourcing from just the article. It IS one forward, one aft, dual overwing for the UA 321neo. Probably best to move this to the fleet thread if we need to debate further.

This is no debate... I trust you! Like I said, it makes perfect sense for the configuration to be closer to Delta's than AA. I only raised that issue not to doubt you at all, but because: a) I haven't seen the LOPA; b) the renderings showed something else (and those are not particularly reliable in the first instance); and c) I do not view TPG as a credible source of aviation technical news.

Believe me, there are times I've shared information with people on public forums, and often I am unable to offer anything more than, "just take my word for it" as a source!

calpsafltskeds wrote:

airplanedriver6 wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

UA's 321neo fleet must be ETOPS capable as many or all will be in standard seating configuration, which would be perfect for Hawaiian routes. With a 4,000nm range (100 more than the 752) and 700 more than the MAX10 it should be heavily used on Hawaiian service, with DEN being in range. IAH could also be within the range of the A321neo, but could struggle westbound during heavy eastbound jet streams.

Note that the UA 321neo fleet will come in two flavors: the ‘basic’ neo and the XLR. Only the XLR will have ~4000nm range, so IMHO, it would not be shocking if they have different interior configurations for different missions. But, yes, I would expect ETOPS is a given for the 321 fleet and just like how UA maintains the entire 737 fleet.

I'm using Wikipedia for info and they show the 321neoLR at 4,000 nm range. The Airbus website shows the XLR at 4,700nm.

Yes, and that’s the point as UA did not order the LR. Instead, UA bought the standard neo and the XLR for two distinctly different markets.

airplanedriver6 wrote:

Yes, and that’s the point as UA did not order the LR. Instead, UA bought the standard neo and the XLR for two distinctly different markets.

Perfect. The standard 321neo will service everything the 738/739/38M/39M can handle rangewise plus a few hundred miles. So the 321neo will have no issues transcon, handle Hawaii nicely (probably including DEN) and markets like EWR-ANC, IAH-ANC, Azores. Just 200 nm less range than the 752.