eng3

In the past, I was able to GPU EWR-SIN somewhat easily then use SIN as a jumping point to other SE asia destinations (ie. Indonesia). I guess I will have to use HKG now.

It seems like UA's goal is to have all intl destinations direct from the US. (except the island hopper)


I haven't actually monitored SFO-SIN for a while. Is it still pretty much always R=0?

ermintrude

I was hoping for BKK but glad that this route is launching.

JVPhoto

Bummer can't fly BKK-SIN-LAX from what I see the earliest BKK-SIN flight arrives at 11:15am.

Yes I know it is longer than going BKK-NRT-LAX but I hate having two flights of those lengths. I'd rather have a 2-2.5h and then a really long one.

pbartp

UGGGHHHH! I'm booked EWR-HKG-SIN over Thanksgiving weekend. I hope this gets postponed until after that. I don't mind flying ULH on the pmCO 777 in E+. Now, a west coast connection and the 787 E+ seats + an extra 5 hours travel time!

I also preferred arriving SIN late in the evening-head straight to hotel and sleep after the long trip. Now only option is to arrive in morning and push through the first day--makes dealing with jet lag much harder IMHO.

eng3

Same here. Last time I went to BKK, I flew EWR-HKG (overnight) HKG-BKK

I had the flexibility and it was far cheaper to stay a night in a hotel in HKG and book a separate ticket to BKK.

I much prefer to maximize my time in J. UA's options were mainly EWR-NRT then NRT-BKK (in Y on *A)

JOSECONLSCREW28

The HKG base will remain .

spin88

I have seen nothing published suggesting that the 787-9 actually has a longer range than the published figures, and nothing suggesting the range of the A350-9 is shorter. Both A/C have had enough useage on ULR flights that I assume we would know if the figures were wrong by now.

The planes are infact run side by side on SFO-SIN, both going against the wind. United's (789) flight is weight limited, with blocked off seats, and likely no cargo, for part of the year. Perhaps I have missed it, but I see no signs that SQ (359) has had to block off seats.

That said, no one is going to run out of fuel (and MNL would not be a diversion point, the routing is similar to that of the LAX/SFO-HKG flights, just a little to the west) given the extra 300-350 sm needed for the flight, United will likely either (a) add a tech stop, or (b) will block of even more seats.

Longboater

Actually the 275 tonne A350-900 has slightly shorter range than the 787-9, coming in at 7,590 nm as opposed to the 787-9's 7,635 nm range. While the A350-900 has a roughly ten per cent higher capacity as compared to the 787-9, SQ's A350-900 configuration seats only one more passenger as compared to UA's 787-9. This will change when the 280 tonne A350-900 debuts in 2020. Unlike the ULR 280 tonne version, this does not have extra fuel tanks and will have a range of 8,100 nm. With SQ's low density on their A350-900s, the standard 280 tonne version could do LAX-SIN without blocking seats and could probably carry some cargo in the summer.

LAX-SIN and QF's upcoming PER-LHR will really stretch the limits of the 787-9. QF's configuration will seat 236 whereas UA seats 252. However UA's 787-9 seats more upfront than either QF's 787-9 configuration or SQ's A350-900 configuration. Granted its an outmoded 2-2-2 product and lack of a W product, UA should have no trouble selling upfront. It may become problematic in the future when SQ restarts LAX-SIN but its a good sign UA was able to hold its own on SFO-SIN when competing directly with SQ. Obviously, that probably won't be sustainable in the long run if the 787-9s are the last UA aircraft to receive the Polaris hard product. Sooner versus later UA will launch a W product and I imagine it would be installed on the 787-9 at the same time as the Polaris hard product.

DetroitFlyer

And why would UA postpone this after just announcing?

eng3

I remember looking at the routes of SFO-SIN several times and it was not uncommon for them to "turn south" towards SIN earlier and fly right over MNL. I would assume LAX-SIN would have a similar routing. I don't see any reason why MNL couldn't be a diversion point, it just depends on what routing they fly.

N830MH

I doubt about that. It going to happens. You will see LAX or SFO-BKK nonstop by operated 787-9 Dreamliner. If they have any weight restrictions.

PVDtoDEL

You're better off having UA rebook you via NRT (UA - NH) instead of flying the extra 5 hours.

FlytheTail

I've got an idea: use it to fly HKG-BKK, of course!

FlyHighInTheSky

Exciting new route indeed!

Why is J blocked on the inaugural? I'd love to get on it if possible!

eng3

^^^^^^^