Wowowowow https://twitter.com/crankyflier/status/ ... 5dLtwLVyyw

4th daily IAD to SAN will be with a 777

Right after alaska announced IAD SAN

This is also being discussed on the WAS, AS & SAN threads....

bb

PITFlyer330 wrote:

Wowowowow https://twitter.com/crankyflier/status/ ... 5dLtwLVyyw

4th daily IAD to SAN will be with a 777

Right after alaska announced IAD SAN

Odds of them actually filling this bird?

Guppy or triple 7?

Really?

Lamp1009 wrote:

PITFlyer330 wrote:

Wowowowow https://twitter.com/crankyflier/status/ ... 5dLtwLVyyw

4th daily IAD to SAN will be with a 777

Right after alaska announced IAD SAN

Odds of them actually filling this bird?

Probably greater than the odds of AS being able to maintain the route with the 777 on it.

I think the timing is off for this flight. If the 777 flew west in the evening, spent the night at SAN, then back east in the morning, it would give them a nice big plane to feed into the Europe flights. Timed the way it is, this is going to miss the Europe flights and feels like it will be mostly O&D.

Right. It’s about the o&d

hawaiian717 wrote:

I think the timing is off for this flight. If the 777 flew west in the evening, spent the night at SAN, then back east in the morning, it would give them a nice big plane to feed into the Europe flights. Timed the way it is, this is going to miss the Europe flights and feels like it will be mostly O&D.

jasoncrh wrote:

Right. It’s about the o&d

hawaiian717 wrote:

I think the timing is off for this flight. If the 777 flew west in the evening, spent the night at SAN, then back east in the morning, it would give them a nice big plane to feed into the Europe flights. Timed the way it is, this is going to miss the Europe flights and feels like it will be mostly O&D.

US/AA flew DCA-SAN, but abandoned it to use the slot for a second daily LAX flight. SAN point of sale probably slightly favors Alaska.

Reminds me of when AS announced LAX-YYZ and AC’s reaction. Hopefully AS puts up a fight this time.

Can anyone with T-100 (or whatever it is) access post average fare data for this route? I would be surprised if IAD-SAN was a profitable enough route to defend-at-all-costs, including putting a 777 on it that they couldn't use better elsewhere. Maybe it is.

UALFAson wrote:

Can anyone with T-100 (or whatever it is) access post average fare data for this route? I would be surprised if IAD-SAN was a profitable enough route to defend-at-all-costs, including putting a 777 on it that they couldn't use better elsewhere. Maybe it is.

As was mentioned above, remember SAN-DCA does not exist from here; it's either Dulles or Baltimore for a nonstop. And SAN-WAS is a healthy market, with lots of military in it.

I'll tell you what. If UA really wanted to screw with AS, they'd move their SFO-DCA flght to SAN (which they could do!) I know, I know, it will never happen...

One of the recent "Largest Unserved Domestic Routes" list for 2023Q2 showed SAN-DCA traffic alone at over 250 PDEW; that means that every day, over 250 people flew between San Diego and Reagan Airport EACH WAY, every one of them with either a stop or a connection. People who don't want to suffer thru the extra time or possible lost baggage will fly a nonstop to either Dulles or Baltimore. With the new Silver Line now operating from IAD, I'd bet that split between these 2 airports will tip toward IAD being the busier route. (And of course that's why AS picked it!)

bb

hawaiian717 wrote:

I think the timing is off for this flight. If the 777 flew west in the evening, spent the night at SAN, then back east in the morning, it would give them a nice big plane to feed into the Europe flights. Timed the way it is, this is going to miss the Europe flights and feels like it will be mostly O&D.

It's likely a domestically configured 772. They occasionally operate to DUB, but that's generally about as far as they'll go outside of domestic US. Nearly all of the domestic flying for the Polaris 772s is between hubs.

SANFan wrote:

This is also being discussed on the WAS, AS & SAN threads....

bb

I'm supposed to look at a thread about Alaska Airlines to find something out about United Airlines?

AirKevin wrote:

SANFan wrote:

This is also being discussed on the WAS, AS & SAN threads....

bb

I'm supposed to look at a thread about Alaska Airlines to find something out about United Airlines?

I think they were just mentioning those other threads for reference.

atcsundevil wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

I think the timing is off for this flight. If the 777 flew west in the evening, spent the night at SAN, then back east in the morning, it would give them a nice big plane to feed into the Europe flights. Timed the way it is, this is going to miss the Europe flights and feels like it will be mostly O&D.

It's likely a domestically configured 772. They occasionally operate to DUB, but that's generally about as far as they'll go outside of domestic US. Nearly all of the domestic flying for the Polaris 772s is between hubs.

I assume that. I didn’t mean that the 777 itself won’t be able to operate to Europe, but rather the people on board. The timing of the 777 flight means it will be mostly O&D passengers, with maybe a few connections to/from early morning or late night flights at IAD. I would have thought that a flight timed to connect to/from Europe would better be able to utilize the extra capacity versus the 739s operating the other three frequencies. But that’s not considering other factors such as availability of the airplane itself.

hawaiian717 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

I think the timing is off for this flight. If the 777 flew west in the evening, spent the night at SAN, then back east in the morning, it would give them a nice big plane to feed into the Europe flights. Timed the way it is, this is going to miss the Europe flights and feels like it will be mostly O&D.

It's likely a domestically configured 772. They occasionally operate to DUB, but that's generally about as far as they'll go outside of domestic US. Nearly all of the domestic flying for the Polaris 772s is between hubs.

I assume that. I didn’t mean that the 777 itself won’t be able to operate to Europe, but rather the people on board. The timing of the 777 flight means it will be mostly O&D passengers, with maybe a few connections to/from early morning or late night flights at IAD. I would have thought that a flight timed to connect to/from Europe would better be able to utilize the extra capacity versus the 739s operating the other three frequencies. But that’s not considering other factors such as availability of the airplane itself.

Possibly UA is not really set up to RON the 777 at SAN?... I don't know why as it should be able to just spend the night at a gate but there might be reasons that we don't know, as there usually are. Then they could perhaps have scheduled that plane on one of the 2 morning departures from here.

Actually, that brings up a question: can any of UA's regular gates handle the T7 or will they need to use one of the int'l gates to load/unload her? That might account for the "early" time of the visit to SAN -- to make sure she's gone before BA, LH, AS Mexico arrivals, etc. are here.

I hope that some of our great photographers will be up to the task of getting some shots of the new regular visitor at SDIA come June!

bb

SANFan wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

It's likely a domestically configured 772. They occasionally operate to DUB, but that's generally about as far as they'll go outside of domestic US. Nearly all of the domestic flying for the Polaris 772s is between hubs.

I assume that. I didn’t mean that the 777 itself won’t be able to operate to Europe, but rather the people on board. The timing of the 777 flight means it will be mostly O&D passengers, with maybe a few connections to/from early morning or late night flights at IAD. I would have thought that a flight timed to connect to/from Europe would better be able to utilize the extra capacity versus the 739s operating the other three frequencies. But that’s not considering other factors such as availability of the airplane itself.

Possibly UA is not really set up to RON the 777 at SAN?... I don't know why as it should be able to just spend the night at a gate but there might be reasons that we don't know, as there usually are. Then they could perhaps have scheduled that plane on one of the 2 morning departures from here.

Actually, that brings up a question: can any of UA's regular gates handle the T7 or will they need to use one of the int'l gates to load/unload her? That might account for the "early" time of the visit to SAN -- to make sure she's gone before BA, LH, AS Mexico arrivals, etc. are here.

I hope that some of our great photographers will be up to the task of getting some shots of the new regular visitor at SDIA come June!

bb

Unless they plan to repaint some lines I would expect UA will use one of the common use / international gates. That’s what DL typically does for widebody flights. This would be pretty seamless considering it’s all in the same terminal.

They should be able to RON if they’d like to, especially considering there is remote parking for widebodies near their gates.

hawaiian717 wrote:

I think the timing is off for this flight. If the 777 flew west in the evening, spent the night at SAN, then back east in the morning, it would give them a nice big plane to feed into the Europe flights. Timed the way it is, this is going to miss the Europe flights and feels like it will be mostly O&D.

It gets into IAD in time to connect to: LHR, FRA. LIS (both UA and TP flights), EDI, DUB, TLV, MUC (LH), IST (TK), and CDG in addition to a very comprehensive UA 10 PM short haul domestic bank.

Current seat map is suggesting a domestic configuration product. No idea if that holds. Where else do they fly domestic 772s from IAD? The utilization ought to be interesting. The traffic definitely is there and they can always route some Euro connections off this to fill the airplane.

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/ai ... ce-in-s20/

Just found this from 2020, it looks like UA had planned on adding 777 IAD-SEA service just before the pandemic hit. It would be interesting to see UA try this again in addition to the new IAD-SAN 777 flight as a response to AS.

AC4500 wrote:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/289074/united-adds-boeing-777-washington-seattle-service-in-s20/

Just found this from 2020, it looks like UA had planned on adding 777 IAD-SEA service just before the pandemic hit. It would be interesting to see UA try this again in addition to the new IAD-SAN 777 flight as a response to AS.

yeah, was surprised that didn't come back after the 777A were put back in service.

SANFan wrote:

UALFAson wrote:

Can anyone with T-100 (or whatever it is) access post average fare data for this route? I would be surprised if IAD-SAN was a profitable enough route to defend-at-all-costs, including putting a 777 on it that they couldn't use better elsewhere. Maybe it is.

As was mentioned above, remember SAN-DCA does not exist from here; it's either Dulles or Baltimore for a nonstop. And SAN-WAS is a healthy market, with lots of military in it.

I'll tell you what. If UA really wanted to screw with AS, they'd move their SFO-DCA flght to SAN (which they could do!) I know, I know, it will never happen...

One of the recent "Largest Unserved Domestic Routes" list for 2023Q2 showed SAN-DCA traffic alone at over 250 PDEW; that means that every day, over 250 people flew between San Diego and Reagan Airport EACH WAY, every one of them with either a stop or a connection. People who don't want to suffer thru the extra time or possible lost baggage will fly a nonstop to either Dulles or Baltimore. With the new Silver Line now operating from IAD, I'd bet that split between these 2 airports will tip toward IAD being the busier route. (And of course that's why AS picked it!)

bb

AS applied for beyond-perimeter slots during the last opportunity for SAN-DCA, but got denied.

Can't access twitter at work. Will the plane make a turn in SAN and fly back to IAD or continue on to Hawaii or TPAC?

btfarrwm wrote:

Can't access twitter at work. Will the plane make a turn in SAN and fly back to IAD or continue on to Hawaii or TPAC?

It flies back to IAD

Thoughts from a SAN based UA ff. Awesome adding additional capacity from SAN, full 320's and 737's make fares a bit steeper. I recall on a UA thread that SAN was running 98% capacity early 22. I go back to the days when UA had lots of 757 flights here, but those are gone.

Regarding IAD, I'm not sure capacity is sustainable to run a 777 plus 3 other flights daily, will need to see the numbers. One thing for sure, if the flight continues in the winter, there won't be a fuel stop somewhere because of strong jet streams. I like others would rather see a 1st flight out in the morning to take advantage of the European bank. I know UA is putting an emphasis on EWR, but IAD is less prone to delays than the NYC area. I'm traveling to BCN in June and there were more options outta EWR.

As for the competition at SAN, it's about time UA tries to be more competitive with AA, code share AS and DL. They can't compete with WN's model and advance fares, see Denver as an example. There are lots of UA ff's here as indicated by the long upgrade lists every time I fly.

As for gates, I don't remember any 777 marks on the normal UA gates, but they could use the shared gates, 48 and 51 are used by LH, BA, JA, HA and DL. I also think 50 might be capable of handling large aircraft. LH 359 pushed off of 50 last night with HA's 330 next to it on 51.

Finally, with T1 rebuild, capacity for SAN's single runway will eventually come to a point where larger aircraft are needed, and as of now, I don't see AS or WN even thinking about that, though the MAX 10 might help whenever it's FAA certified. So UA bringing in a 777 is a good 1st step, and I believe domestic daily service on a 777 here would be a first.

btfarrwm wrote:

Can't access twitter at work. Will the plane make a turn in SAN and fly back to IAD or continue on to Hawaii or TPAC?

0830 - 1038 IAD-SAN
1250 - 2033 SAN-IAD

jetblastdubai wrote:

btfarrwm wrote:

Can't access twitter at work. Will the plane make a turn in SAN and fly back to IAD or continue on to Hawaii or TPAC?

0830 - 1038 IAD-SAN
1250 - 2033 SAN-IAD

2 hours and 12 minutes is quite a long turnaround time, even for a domestic 777 flight. I assume it's timed like this so UA can meet a particular IAD flight bank.

I'll be honest here, Alaska adding SAN-IAD is really odd in itself, but this 777... I really don't see this lasting, but if it does, I'll be really happy for United's San Diego presence!

Especially since during the high season, Delta has been known for sending 1+ daily 767/A330 between San Diego, JFK, ATL, and sometimes even DTW

N1120A wrote:

Current seat map is suggesting a domestic configuration product. No idea if that holds. Where else do they fly domestic 772s from IAD? The utilization ought to be interesting. The traffic definitely is there and they can always route some Euro connections off this to fill the airplane.

UA currently just flies Domestic 772 from IAD to LAX 1x daily and to DEN 2x Daily. However, a second flight to LAX is on a Polaris 777-200, a third DEN flight is on a Polaris 772, and SFO has one Polaris 772 and one 777-300. Any or all of these flights could be swapped to a domestic 772 to accommodate equipment swaps, especially in summer when the Polaris equipped aircraft will be more in demand for long-haul flights.

drdisque wrote:

N1120A wrote:

Current seat map is suggesting a domestic configuration product. No idea if that holds. Where else do they fly domestic 772s from IAD? The utilization ought to be interesting. The traffic definitely is there and they can always route some Euro connections off this to fill the airplane.

UA currently just flies Domestic 772 from IAD to LAX 1x daily and to DEN 2x Daily. However, a second flight to LAX is on a Polaris 777-200, a third DEN flight is on a Polaris 772, and SFO has one Polaris 772 and one 777-300. Any or all of these flights could be swapped to a domestic 772 to accommodate equipment swaps, especially in summer when the Polaris equipped aircraft will be more in demand for long-haul flights.

I believe the Polaris planes are year round and are rotations off Europe flights, so probably not.

IAH gets a 777 from IAD at least next month...as I'm booked on it.

All this talk of SAN up-gaging makes me wonder if the market could support hub status for the city, it's already arguably the most under served airport in the US, but admittedly, its location is terrible as a hub.

Lamp1009 wrote:

All this talk of SAN up-gaging makes me wonder if the market could support hub status for the city, it's already arguably the most under served airport in the US, but admittedly, its location is terrible as a hub.

I think its single runway, corner of the country geography, and proximity to LAX and PHX make that unlikely. Between WN and AS, SAN has a pretty robust array of destinations. It’s already the busiest single runway airport in the country.

This has to be all about putting pressure on AS and not so much about funneling connections through IAD or sustaining this long-term. It reminds me of when VX added 3x SFO-DEN, and UA responded with something crazy like 14x frequency (mostly all narrowbody as this was before they had the 777s in the current HD configuration.)

This isn't to say that UA won't make money by putting a 777 on this route. They probably will, but it's not a coincidence that they add this just days after AS added IAD-SAN. UA will be able to sell seats at trash yields, which will force AS to do the same to try to compete but with much less inventory and only one frequency.

intotheair wrote:

This has to be all about putting pressure on AS and not so much about funneling connections through IAD.

Agreed, but maybe more a shot a both AS/AA as well as OW. AS alone I don’t believe would withstand the fare pressure. But combined, it’s possible. Either way it great for SAN and it’s flyers.

The 777 is SO preferred on a longer flight over a 737. It is faster, smoother, more room to walk around and less claustrophobic. It will be interesting to see how it is handled in SAN though with the ramp congestion.

Lamp1009 wrote:

All this talk of SAN up-gaging makes me wonder if the market could support hub status for the city, it's already arguably the most under served airport in the US, but admittedly, its location is terrible as a hub.

Would you like to define underserved, and make that argument in another thread? In terms of limited seat capacity driving up avg fares, the DOT's Domestic Airline Consumer Airfares Report for 2Q2022 (the most recent) doesn't show it. SAN's premium is 0%. Other UA major markets:

IAD, +16%

IAH, +8%

ORD, +12%

SFO, +6%

EWR, +4%

https://www.transportation.gov/office-p ... report-pdf

Is runway length an issue for such a big plane at SAN?

Ziyulu wrote:

Is runway length an issue for such a big plane at SAN?

This flight won't even be close to MTOW due to the "short" 2000nm distance traveled.

Ziyulu wrote:

Is runway length an issue for such a big plane at SAN?

No. It’s not even the biggest plane currently serving SAN; that would be the BA A350-1000 currently assigned to the SAN-LHR route. BA has used bigger aircraft to SAN as well, the 747-400 and 777-300ER. BA has also used the 777-200ER, going back to when BA inaugurated nonstop service from SAN to LGW, replacing the previous LGW-PHX-SAN service on the 747-400.

hawaiian717 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Is runway length an issue for such a big plane at SAN?

No. It’s not even the biggest plane currently serving SAN; that would be the BA A350-1000 currently assigned to the SAN-LHR route. BA has used bigger aircraft to SAN as well, the 747-400 and 777-300ER. BA has also used the 777-200ER, going back to when BA inaugurated nonstop service from SAN to LGW, replacing the previous LGW-PHX-SAN service on the 747-400.

JAL used 777-200ER's on the SAN-NRT route before the 787's were grounded.

hawaiian717 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Is runway length an issue for such a big plane at SAN?

No. It’s not even the biggest plane currently serving SAN; that would be the BA A350-1000 currently assigned to the SAN-LHR route. BA has used bigger aircraft to SAN as well, the 747-400 and 777-300ER. BA has also used the 777-200ER, going back to when BA inaugurated nonstop service from SAN to LGW, replacing the previous LGW-PHX-SAN service on the 747-400.

While the 777 is a big airplane, it's runway performance is quite good. Please note the number of UA 777 flights out of Maui (OGG). SAN's runway is about 9400' and Maui's is just shy of 7,000'.

Velocirapture wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Is runway length an issue for such a big plane at SAN?

No. It’s not even the biggest plane currently serving SAN; that would be the BA A350-1000 currently assigned to the SAN-LHR route. BA has used bigger aircraft to SAN as well, the 747-400 and 777-300ER. BA has also used the 777-200ER, going back to when BA inaugurated nonstop service from SAN to LGW, replacing the previous LGW-PHX-SAN service on the 747-400.

While the 777 is a big airplane, it's runway performance is quite good. Please note the number of UA 777 flights out of Maui (OGG). SAN's runway is about 9400' and Maui's is just shy of 7,000'.

Unfortunately, with terrain issues, only 8700' is available departing runway 27 for four engine aircraft and approx 1000' less than that for two engine aircraft. Maybe someone could give us the exact numbers.

wedgetail737 wrote:

JAL used 777-200ER's on the SAN-NRT route before the 787's were grounded.

I’d forgotten about that one. Actually it was while the 787s were grounded. In addition, Omni 777s have been to SAN for charters, including the 2017 Holiday Bowl.

Coronado990 wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

No. It’s not even the biggest plane currently serving SAN; that would be the BA A350-1000 currently assigned to the SAN-LHR route. BA has used bigger aircraft to SAN as well, the 747-400 and 777-300ER. BA has also used the 777-200ER, going back to when BA inaugurated nonstop service from SAN to LGW, replacing the previous LGW-PHX-SAN service on the 747-400.

While the 777 is a big airplane, it's runway performance is quite good. Please note the number of UA 777 flights out of Maui (OGG). SAN's runway is about 9400' and Maui's is just shy of 7,000'.

Unfortunately, with terrain issues, only 8700' is available departing runway 27 for four engine aircraft and approx 1000' less than that for two engine aircraft. Maybe someone could give us the exact numbers.

That is not correct. All 9400' are available for takeoff calculations on runway 27. The TORA and ASDA of runway 9 are 8280' for takeoff only, while the TODA (basically, the space to get out of ground effect and accelerate into the initial climb) is still 9400'. All of these are regardless of how many engines the airplane has. Both ends have displaced thresholds for landing distance.

Coronado990 wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

hawaiian717 wrote:

No. It’s not even the biggest plane currently serving SAN; that would be the BA A350-1000 currently assigned to the SAN-LHR route. BA has used bigger aircraft to SAN as well, the 747-400 and 777-300ER. BA has also used the 777-200ER, going back to when BA inaugurated nonstop service from SAN to LGW, replacing the previous LGW-PHX-SAN service on the 747-400.

While the 777 is a big airplane, it's runway performance is quite good. Please note the number of UA 777 flights out of Maui (OGG). SAN's runway is about 9400' and Maui's is just shy of 7,000'.

Unfortunately, with terrain issues, only 8700' is available departing runway 27 for four engine aircraft and approx 1000' less than that for two engine aircraft. Maybe someone could give us the exact numbers.

Not sure where you’re coming up with that but it’s not correct. TODA is 9401 for both 9/27.

flight152 wrote:

Coronado990 wrote:

Velocirapture wrote:

While the 777 is a big airplane, it's runway performance is quite good. Please note the number of UA 777 flights out of Maui (OGG). SAN's runway is about 9400' and Maui's is just shy of 7,000'.

Unfortunately, with terrain issues, only 8700' is available departing runway 27 for four engine aircraft and approx 1000' less than that for two engine aircraft. Maybe someone could give us the exact numbers.

Not sure where you’re coming up with that but it’s not correct. TODA is 9401 for both 9/27.

To be completely accurate, the TORA and ASDA, which the airlines must use for calculations, is shorter on 9, but yeah. I'm not sure where these urban legends come from.

Question: does anyone other than us aviation geeks (sorry to use that term, but, you know...) care about the airplane when booking their trip? Short answer: no. They will go with whomever is cheaper.

To me, this is only United utilizing an airplane that otherwise would simply be sitting around. An airplane sitting on the ground is not making anyone any money, hence why it should be up in the air carrying passengers.

Don't get me wrong - I am THRILLED to see widebodies flying domestically again! But I'm not following the logic of the "this is a response to AS beginning SAN-IAD". When competition arises at a hub airport, such as this, airlines respond by lowering fares to drive out the competition, not saying, "hey, look at the big beautiful plane we're flying!". That doesn't attract passengers - only the fares do.

I don't think I posted this on this thread but let's remember that AS is already flying between SAN and EWR and SAN and SFO. Now they're adding SAN and IAD. Those destinations sound familiar to United folks?

My theory is that perhaps AS finally poked the sleeping giant here in SAN and we have ourselves a bit of a battle. I don't for a minute think AS intention was to wake UA into war but these happen to be destinations that AS wants to offer to their growing legion of frequent flyers and that happen to be 3 of UA's hubs! SAN is an AS focus city and now with 35 nonstop destinations and a typical and very healthy daily departure count of 60-70 flights, I wonder if AS might see SAN heading toward Hub-dom in the not-too-distant future?

Could we see, if this is truly a battle or at least a skirmish, UA decide to fly SAN-SEA again -- as they did in the pre-historic past -- or AS decide the time is right for a new route for their customers between say, SAN and DEN or IAH? Probably not on UA's part, but I could certainly see it from AS; UA is nothing but a hub-hugger here in SAN.

AS has been interested in offering SAN-WAS for years. As has been posted, they missed out on SAN-DCA, and they flew SAN-BWI for years, ending that route as covid took over the world. The decision to fly to Dulles was because of the welcomed operation of the Silver Line and the desire to fly SAN-D.C. for themselves and OW.

bb

itripreport wrote:

I'll be honest here, Alaska adding SAN-IAD is really odd in itself, but this 777... I really don't see this lasting, but if it does, I'll be really happy for United's San Diego presence!

Especially since during the high season, Delta has been known for sending 1+ daily 767/A330 between San Diego, JFK, ATL, and sometimes even DTW

Why is AS adding SAN-IAD odd. They flew SAN-BWI until covid, applied for SAN-DCA, fly SAN-EWR and SFO-IAD....Seems to fit right in Now if they added DEN-IAD, that would be strange