Originally Posted by
uanj
Quayle has said network planning is looking for additional routes beyond NRT where UA does not have connectivity with NH and GUM based 737s could be deployed. This X posted rumor is about a "new" and "heavy" volume destination in SE Asia.
If the rumor is true, it is difficult to reconcile the two points of view. They are then, perhaps, two discreet objectives and one does not preclude the other. UA could announce SFO-BKK or SFO-SGN. The heaviest volume airport UA is not serving in SE Asia is BKK and while not exactly new to UA, it is newish to current UA management. The same can be said for SGN, and regardless of either choice I suspect freight will be a major component from SFO. In the meantime, network planning continues to look for other opportunities for the GUM based 737s.
The last rumor I still cannot make sense of is TPAC out of HNL.
Well, BKK is just a matter of time. We need to move on and start working on the next flyertalk obsessed destination not served by UA.
Realistically, thinking of non-NH NRT-Intra-Asia flying, only NRT-DVO/MPH/CRK many any real sense, starting in that order. And that is if should NRT-CEB work. NH/UA have the four biggest US-Philippines markets served well via NRT, HNL/SFO/LAX/EWR. These one-stop opportunities that could make service on these routes, which have no chance of being served from the US Mainland because of trash yields, work. As others have mentioned here and elsewhere, connecting from INTL to Domestic at MNL, especially from an INTL carrier like UA/NH, will take years off your life and UA's timing on MNL-SFO prohibits any same-day flying from XXX-MNL.
There just aren't many destinations where the GUM 737-800 fleet could be deployed. But at least UA is trying to get creative here while trying to keep the GUM operation viable. NRT-DPS has been popularly mentioned but unless UA decides to introduce the 737 MAX 8 to the GUM fleet, might help with the fuel costs since GUM-Japan is already struggling because of the weak Yen, it can't happen as its too far.
If and when UA decides to fly to SGN/BKK again, it will be from SFO. As stated in a different thread, SFO-SGN is in range of the 77W, it's actually slightly shorter than SFO-MEL. UA won't have issues filling seats in W/Y. It's the 60 Polaris seats that may pose a problem, same issue on SFO-MNL. But we just don't know about SFO-MNL in regards to financial performance. NRT-CEB may be a sign that UA is doing well enough on it. UA had to wait years to resume it because of bad landing and takeoff times. (The landing times UA kept getting stuck with were shortly after 4 AM and takeoff times before 7 AM which would have made MNL-SFO impossible due to the time change.) After reading about that, I surmised that UA won't be flying to MNL until the new airport is complete, which is looking like 2028 at the earliest. But UA finally received good landing/takeoff times.
As for SFO-BKK, that current 787-9 configuration seems awfully premium for it. Funny how UA is considering/planning on an even more premium configuration for the aircraft for those destinations that sell the seats upfront and the middle, thinking SIN here. I would at least figure UA will want the BKK market to become more geopolitically stable as we've seen with BKK in the past 18 years. But even with that UA still flew until as mentioned, management thought the 747-400 could be flown more profitably elsewhere.