Why are United's worst planes used on longest routes?
Jan 20, 2015, 10:24 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Programs: UA 1K, 1.2 MM
Posts: 129
Why are United's worst planes used on longest routes?
I recently took two long range flights (SFO to NRT and SFO to FRA) and got W fares on both. Tried to use globals but they didn't clear, tough luck. Actually, last year my luck with globals was so bad that I have left overs.
But that's not my question, my question is why does United use their worse planes on these routes? In one of the flights the plane had only those ancient overhead monitors, and the other had no entertainment system at all. What's the deal? Why not use better planes on those long busy routes and these crappy ones to shorter flights to South America for example?
But that's not my question, my question is why does United use their worse planes on these routes? In one of the flights the plane had only those ancient overhead monitors, and the other had no entertainment system at all. What's the deal? Why not use better planes on those long busy routes and these crappy ones to shorter flights to South America for example?
Jan 20, 2015, 10:47 pm
#2
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: GVA (Greater Vancouver Area)
Programs: DREAD Gold; UA 1.035MM; Bonvoy Au-197; PCC Elite+; CCC Elite+; MSC C-12; CWC Au-197; WoH Dis
Posts: 52,140
What you consider the worst planes are the ones that some of us consider the best. Everyone has their own preferences, and United puts the planes on the routes that they feel result in the most profitable use of their resources.
Jan 20, 2015, 10:51 pm
#3
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Jan 20, 2015, 11:04 pm
#5
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MEL
Programs: VAG
Posts: 1,865
For what it's worth, though, United's longest flights aren't all on 744s. According to this old thread, MEL-LAX is the longest route that UA has ever operated (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...d-flights.html) and that's a shiny new 787. ORD-HKG is the second longest and that seems to be a 777 nowadays. LAX-SYD is the third longest and that's a 777 as well.
SFO-HKG is probably a 747 (I can't be bothered looking it up) but that's nearly a thousand miles off being the longest route.
Jan 20, 2015, 11:34 pm
#7
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2012
Programs: UA 1K, 1.2 MM
Posts: 129
The ones that fly from IAH to HNL.
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Jan 21, 2015 at 3:23 am Reason: merge
Jan 20, 2015, 11:42 pm
#8
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: WAS-ish
Programs: UA 1K-MM + UC, Marriott Plat, National Exec
Posts: 1,341
Actually, the 10 UA routes that clock in at over 7,000 statute miles are:
1. EWR-HKG: 8,065 mi (772)
2. LAX-MEL: 7,921 mi (789)
3. EWR-BOM: 7,807 (772)
4. ORD-HKG: 7,793 (772)
5. LAX-SYD: 7,488 (772)
6. SFO-SYD: 7,417 (772)
7. EWR-PVG: 7,384 (772)
8. EWR-DEL: 7,324 (772)
9. IAD-DXB: 7,069 (772)
10. ORD-PVG: 7,057 (744)
Only one (the shortest) is flown on a 747. All the rest are 777 or 787. The routes mentioned in OP's complaint (SFO-NRT and SFO-FRA) aren't even in the running (5,118 and 5,691, respectively).
About the only justification for saying that UA puts 744s on its longest routes is the obscure fact that UA's longest route ever was JFK-HKG, at 8,072... and it was on a 744. Of course, they weren't so old back in 2001.
1. EWR-HKG: 8,065 mi (772)
2. LAX-MEL: 7,921 mi (789)
3. EWR-BOM: 7,807 (772)
4. ORD-HKG: 7,793 (772)
5. LAX-SYD: 7,488 (772)
6. SFO-SYD: 7,417 (772)
7. EWR-PVG: 7,384 (772)
8. EWR-DEL: 7,324 (772)
9. IAD-DXB: 7,069 (772)
10. ORD-PVG: 7,057 (744)
Only one (the shortest) is flown on a 747. All the rest are 777 or 787. The routes mentioned in OP's complaint (SFO-NRT and SFO-FRA) aren't even in the running (5,118 and 5,691, respectively).
About the only justification for saying that UA puts 744s on its longest routes is the obscure fact that UA's longest route ever was JFK-HKG, at 8,072... and it was on a 744. Of course, they weren't so old back in 2001.
Jan 20, 2015, 11:57 pm
#9
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
The last time I did that it was the 767-400. What is wrong with that ???
It is 2-1-2 in business and all lay flat
Economy is 2-3-2 which is fine
All seats have seat back entertainment with free content
They have channel 9
If this is the worst to you, maybe flying isn't for you...
It is 2-1-2 in business and all lay flat
Economy is 2-3-2 which is fine
All seats have seat back entertainment with free content
They have channel 9
If this is the worst to you, maybe flying isn't for you...
Jan 21, 2015, 12:08 am
#10
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: BDL/NYC/BOS
Programs: UA/*A Gold, Global Entry, Marriott Plat, Hilton+IHG Gold, Hertz PC, DL
Posts: 1,752
The last time I did that it was the 767-400. What is wrong with that ???
It is 2-1-2 in business and all lay flat
Economy is 2-3-2 which is fine
All seats have seat back entertainment with free content
They have channel 9
If this is the worst to you, maybe flying isn't for you...
It is 2-1-2 in business and all lay flat
Economy is 2-3-2 which is fine
All seats have seat back entertainment with free content
They have channel 9
If this is the worst to you, maybe flying isn't for you...
Jan 21, 2015, 1:43 am
#11
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: NYC
Programs: AA EXP, Hilton GLD, Marriott Plat, NEXUS/GE
Posts: 2,872
Wifi's nice to have, though. (Before anyone says "power," my laptop has a 24 hour battery life
)
Jan 21, 2015, 1:47 am
#12
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: South Coast NSW, Australia
Programs: UA and SQ; Hilton, Fairmont, Marriott, Rydges Priority
Posts: 290
Just completed a return transpacific in economy.
SYD-SFO was in what seemed a reasonably new 777.
LAX-SYD in a bit of a tatty 777.
I do miss the 747s on that route however. the seats were more comfortable. the IFE being overhead never worried me. I read and sleep.
Now you have someone thumping the back of your seat. It's a touchscreen people, not a thumpscreen,
SYD-SFO was in what seemed a reasonably new 777.
LAX-SYD in a bit of a tatty 777.
I do miss the 747s on that route however. the seats were more comfortable. the IFE being overhead never worried me. I read and sleep.
Now you have someone thumping the back of your seat. It's a touchscreen people, not a thumpscreen,
Jan 21, 2015, 2:12 am
#13
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: LAS HNL
Programs: DL DM, 5.7 MM, UA 3.1 MM, MARRIOTT PLATINUM, AVIS FIRST, Amex Black Card
Posts: 4,479
Jan 21, 2015, 6:14 am
#14
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: EWR, BDL
Posts: 4,471
Just completed a return transpacific in economy.
SYD-SFO was in what seemed a reasonably new 777.
LAX-SYD in a bit of a tatty 777.
I do miss the 747s on that route however. the seats were more comfortable. the IFE being overhead never worried me. I read and sleep.
Now you have someone thumping the back of your seat. It's a touchscreen people, not a thumpscreen,
SYD-SFO was in what seemed a reasonably new 777.
LAX-SYD in a bit of a tatty 777.
I do miss the 747s on that route however. the seats were more comfortable. the IFE being overhead never worried me. I read and sleep.
Now you have someone thumping the back of your seat. It's a touchscreen people, not a thumpscreen,
Jan 21, 2015, 6:21 am
#15
Join Date: Sep 2010
Programs: UA -GS 4.5 MM, Marriott Gold, Hyatt Discoverist, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 116
Out of EWR it seems like UA uses the "oldest" planes on the "mid-haul" routes to Europe. I have not encountered the big overhead tvs in a long time, but I often get those small square squares in the back of the seat. I mean small - smaller than my phone, a handful of movies that just play (poorly at that) - no on demand. Best I can figure these plans (mainly 767 as I recall) still have the three classes of service and I guess there is some demand for those. However those of us in economy just see these planes as old with severely outdated technology.