Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Sign in using an external account

    Hide Wikipost
Old Feb 3, 14, 8:34 pm   -   Wikipost
FlyerTalk Forums Thread Wiki: [Confirmed] SYD going UA 3 Cabin 777 in 2014 [and other 747 route changes]
Please read: this is a community-maintained wiki post containing the most important information from this thread.
 
Last edit by: Bitterroot

Updates to Wiki as of 20 January 2014

Planned changes in aircraft by date and route:

SFO -- SYD: first 772 departs SFO 27 March; turns to 840 at SYD on 29 March

LAX -- SYD: first 772 departs LAX 29 March; turn off 840-29th.

NRT -- ORD: First 744 departs NRT 27 March (aircraft turn at ORD to PVG and FRA in succession the day following arrival from NRT)
ORD -- NRT: First 744 departs ORD 31 March

ORD -- PVG: First 744 departs ORD 28 March
PVG -- ORD: First 744 departs PVG 29 March

ORD -- FRA: First 744 departs ORD 29 March
FRA -- ORD: First 744 departs FRA 30 March

NRT -- SFO: 852 to operate with 772 27 March through 31 March inclusive (772 coming out of rotation)

Or, you can just go look at the good work here (note that info posted above differs from AIRLINEROUTE info dated 4 January 2014 and before):

http://airlineroute.net/2013/08/17/ua-s14update1/

Or, straight to the source if you want to do your own research:

http://www.oag.com/Global


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 18, 13, 12:31 pm   #361
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by TravellingMan View Post
Do check your optimizer, it looks like you have lost the plot. This down gauging is going to leave you with fewer and fewer passengers that ultimately it might be cheaper for you to buy consolidator style seats on other carriers and send your passengers to them. Maybe that is what the Star Alliance is for you.
Strange comment as the Star Alliance hubs (where UA is pushing a lot of beyond traffic onto LH and NH metal in the JV) are largely the beneficiary of increased capacity with 747 upgauges while competitive OAL hubs which are essentially dead-ends w/r/t connecting traffic see the downgauges.
EWR764 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 12:35 pm   #362
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hoboken, NJ; Pembroke Pines, FL
Programs: CO Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,752
Is UA downgauging across the board or are they reallocating equipment into other markets? It seems to me that in the international markets they've only retired the 762s as the 787s come online so there aren't any international downgauges only reallocations, right?

Domestically mainline capacity is about what it was before the merger, right? I understand that there has been a lot of reallocation of mainline equipment into some markets and out of others markets.

The second of these questions is off-topic to the thread topic but I thought I'd bring it up as complementary to the first question.
lensman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 12:38 pm   #363
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Mileage Plus; VX Elevate; DL SkyMiles; WN Rapid Rewards A list
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by ORDnHKG View Post
PMUA 772 had been using on ORD-HKG since the end of March, ORD-HKG is longer than both SFO-SYD and LAX-SYD, so you know if it can work or not.
The 777s can obviously work on the SFO/LAX/SYD routes and have proven to be a very reliable plane since they came out in 1995. That being said, pilots will candidly tell you that flying a 2 engine plane over the vast reaches of the Pacific Ocean with no landing strip available for hours on end makes them a lot more nervous that flying the polar routes.
davidsfo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 12:49 pm   #364
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsfo View Post
That being said, pilots will candidly tell you that flying a 2 engine plane over the vast reaches of the Pacific Ocean with no landing strip available for hours on end makes them a lot more nervous that flying the polar routes.
Why? I'm sure you're much farther from any landing site on the polar routes than over the ocean.
DaviddesJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 12:56 pm   #365
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco/Sydney
Programs: UA 1K, DJ Plat, Hilton Diamond, SPG/PC Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
Why? I'm sure you're much farther from any landing site on the polar routes than over the ocean.
Based on gcmap.com, SFO-LHR or SFO-HKG are both within range of ETOPS 90 (ie, never more than 90 minutes from a suitable landing site).

For SFO-SYD you need to go up to ETOPS 180 before it's possible (The actual number appears to be somewhere around 150 - ETPOS 138 is not enough).

Personally I've historically avoided the twins on the Australia-US flights - sounds like other than moving back to QF there's not going to be any option now...
docbert is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 1:00 pm   #366
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SFO
Programs: UA Mileage Plus; VX Elevate; DL SkyMiles; WN Rapid Rewards A list
Posts: 270
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
Why? I'm sure you're much farther from any landing site on the polar routes than over the ocean.
Nope. There are many remote landing strips on the polar routes. Not the best, better than open water.
davidsfo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 1:09 pm   #367
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,626
Quote:
Originally Posted by docbert View Post
Based on gcmap.com, SFO-LHR or SFO-HKG are both within range of ETOPS 90 (ie, never more than 90 minutes from a suitable landing site).
Those aren't really polar routes. EWR-PEK (which I flew last year, on a UA 777) is an example of a polar route. Not ETOPS 90 or even 120, unless you deviate significantly from the great circle route.
DaviddesJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 1:48 pm   #368
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 2,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidsfo View Post
Nope. There are many remote landing strips on the polar routes. Not the best, better than open water.
This is true, as a ditching in the Pacific is not going to be an eminently survivable event. That said, a remote polar strip with subfreezing temperatures, a broken airplane and insufficient facilities is a serious concern, too.

My biggest fear on long haul overwater ops is blind to the 2 vs. 4 engine issue... fire. I think many pilots feel that way too.
EWR764 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 2:14 pm   #369
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Seattle/Gainesville/Orlando
Programs: UA-G MM, Priority Club Platinum, Avis First, Hertz 5*, Red Lion
Posts: 1,435
Quote:
Originally Posted by docbert View Post
Based on gcmap.com, SFO-LHR or SFO-HKG are both within range of ETOPS 90 (ie, never more than 90 minutes from a suitable landing site).

For SFO-SYD you need to go up to ETOPS 180 before it's possible (The actual number appears to be somewhere around 150 - ETPOS 138 is not enough).

Personally I've historically avoided the twins on the Australia-US flights - sounds like other than moving back to QF there's not going to be any option now...
unless you are flying out of AKL, the biggest ETOPS gap is between Hawaii and the mainland. I've never thought twice about flying to Hawaii on a twin (although I pick my carriers carefully, AS does not have a long enough ETOPS history for me and has a troubled maintenance past). That said, longest ETOPS diversion was when pilots shut down an engine because of oil pressure issues on a UA AKL-LAX flight, they diverted to KOA right at the 180 min mark. That would be a long time on one engine
__________________
channel 9...more than tower communication...it brings flights to life!
prestonh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 2:21 pm   #370
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,626
When was the last time a large passenger plane had to ditch when flying between Hawaii and the US mainland (which, as noted, is the biggest gap for most routes across the "vast Pacific")?

It seems that the reliability of modern engines is such that a systems failure that affects the whole plane, or a threat like a fire onboard, is a more serious concern than multiple engine failures. Although there's always a first time.
DaviddesJ is online now   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 2:28 pm   #371
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: WN AL+/CP, IHG AMB/Plat, HH Gold, UA Dirt
Posts: 33,544
[Confirmed] SYD going UA 3 Cabin 777 in 2014 [and other 747 route changes]

Now that this thread has gone dark I'm out.

sUA stays sUA bottom line. So 3 class to/from SYD is intact. Cool. Thanks all.
__________________
Flying the friendly skies, on actually flyer-friendly airlines.
uastarflyer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 4:06 pm   #372
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,377
Talk about being in the dark , are we talking about 2 or 3 777s to Australia each day?

I pay for J for half my trips to the US and buy W or H/M for the rest in the hope of getting upgraded.

If UA is going for 2 x 777s only , that is a real reduction in terms of seating and seat comfort as well as decreased upgrade availability.

Three flights per day to Australia would be ok but 2 !!!
__________________
Ozflier
ozflier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 5:49 pm   #373
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Syd
Programs: UA 1k, VA G
Posts: 413
Quote:
Originally Posted by ozflier View Post
Talk about being in the dark , are we talking about 2 or 3 777s to Australia each day?

I pay for J for half my trips to the US and buy W or H/M for the rest in the hope of getting upgraded.

If UA is going for 2 x 777s only , that is a real reduction in terms of seating and seat comfort as well as decreased upgrade availability.

Three flights per day to Australia would be ok but 2 !!!
My hope at this point is that this becomes seasonal
777's during australian offpeek winter and 747's during aussie summer
from a buisness standpoint this makes some sense and also explains why they are not doing it effective much sooner then april next year

I do have a question around Pilot rest though....
do the SUA 777's have a bed area like the 747's do?
or are we going to lose a F seat to them as well?
__________________
Giving up my 1K in 2014 to spend time with my newly minted kids
LordTentacle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 6:00 pm   #374
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; San Diego
Programs: LH Senator; UA 1K MM (but not many flights on UA); BA Silver; Starwood Lifetime Platinum
Posts: 6,608
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordTentacle View Post
I do have a question around Pilot rest though....
do the SUA 777's have a bed area like the 747's do?
or are we going to lose a F seat to them as well?
Due to the length of the flight, you will either lose two F seats if the bunks are not installed in the aircraft flying the route, or two business class seats if they are.

At least that's how it used to be. I do not believe UA has installed overhead crew rest areas on its 777s.
Always Flyin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 18, 13, 6:39 pm   #375
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: 30 miles south IAD 1R
Posts: 18,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ View Post
When was the last time a large passenger plane had to ditch when flying between Hawaii and the US mainland (which, as noted, is the biggest gap for most routes across the "vast Pacific")?
In 1956, a Pan Am Boeing 377 was flying from HNL to SFO. Halfway across, they lost two engines, and because they didn't have enough fuel to make to SFO or return to HNL, they turned back towards Hawaii and headed for the USCGC Pontchartrain at Ocean Station November. Once arriving at OSN, the aircraft circled around until daybreak when it ditched - all 31 on board survived.
halls120 is online now   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 6:09 pm.




SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.