757 overseas flights to avoid (unless you like fuel stops)
Jan 18, 2012 | 9:42 am
#166
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 18,059
I do not believe the 757 was originally conceived to fly long overwater routes such as TATL and also between the U.S. West Coast and Hawaii. The same goes for later models of the 737 specifically with regard to the aforementioned Hawaii routes but also on some TATL routes as well such as IAH-AMS with the aircraft operating in an all business class configuration.
For many years, 757s did not fly such routes. They were, by and large, an aircraft that U.S. air carriers primarily used for domestic services. ETOPS changed all that, of course, and twin engine operations on the long, overwater routes became the norm. And with that change, CO saw an opportunity to serve long, thin routes that otherwise might not be profitably served by a larger aircraft such as the 764.
Back to the West Coast-Hawaii routes, air carriers such as UA, DL, AA and NW began replacing aging DC-10 (UA, AA & NW) and L-1011 (DL) aircraft with the 757 as these wide bodies were retired. I'm not aware of any problems concerning fuel (or lack of) specifically with regard to such 757 and 737 operations over the Pacific; however, the fact remains there are no alternate airfields whatsoever on the way to Hawaii. On the other hand, most of the TATL routes have viable alternate airports which can be used for unscheduled fuel stops should the need arise. These have obviously come in handy this winter.
For many years, 757s did not fly such routes. They were, by and large, an aircraft that U.S. air carriers primarily used for domestic services. ETOPS changed all that, of course, and twin engine operations on the long, overwater routes became the norm. And with that change, CO saw an opportunity to serve long, thin routes that otherwise might not be profitably served by a larger aircraft such as the 764.
Back to the West Coast-Hawaii routes, air carriers such as UA, DL, AA and NW began replacing aging DC-10 (UA, AA & NW) and L-1011 (DL) aircraft with the 757 as these wide bodies were retired. I'm not aware of any problems concerning fuel (or lack of) specifically with regard to such 757 and 737 operations over the Pacific; however, the fact remains there are no alternate airfields whatsoever on the way to Hawaii. On the other hand, most of the TATL routes have viable alternate airports which can be used for unscheduled fuel stops should the need arise. These have obviously come in handy this winter.
It seems pretty clear from the track record that distance is the key factor contributing to diversion. Boston to Europe, no problemo. EWR is more of a stretch, but still doable for UK. IAD is simply too far for 757 to go the distance when there are headwinds or other issues.
If I lived at one of these east coast hubs I suppose I would have to look at the time saved with the nonstop v. the potential cost of diversion and general distaste for 757 (particularly on such a long trip where I like to walk the aisles). From the West Coast (and indeed the midwest), it has zero appeal - I'll most likely catch a 747 nonstop to Europe or connect elsewhere. It is already a very long trip, makes no sense to risk diversion simply because the airline made a bad decision on equipment. Penny wise, pound foolish.
Jan 18, 2012 | 10:09 am
#167
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LFT
Programs: AA Plat, lots of AA, AS & UA miles, former top level CO Elite (sigh...)
Posts: 11,577
A good historical perspective. But keep in mind that to a large extent the 757 service to Hawaii originated or terminated on the West Coast, leaving a rather large margin for headwinds etc. as the flight duration is 5 hours. By contrast many of the TATL flights require 7+ hours of flight time, which simply does not leave sufficient margin for error.
It seems pretty clear from the track record that distance is the key factor contributing to diversion. Boston to Europe, no problemo. EWR is more of a stretch, but still doable for UK. IAD is simply too far for 757 to go the distance when there are headwinds or other issues.
If I lived at one of these east coast hubs I suppose I would have to look at the time saved with the nonstop v. the potential cost of diversion and general distaste for 757 (particularly on such a long trip where I like to walk the aisles). From the West Coast (and indeed the midwest), it has zero appeal - I'll most likely catch a 747 nonstop to Europe or connect elsewhere. It is already a very long trip, makes no sense to risk diversion simply because the airline made a bad decision on equipment. Penny wise, pound foolish.
It seems pretty clear from the track record that distance is the key factor contributing to diversion. Boston to Europe, no problemo. EWR is more of a stretch, but still doable for UK. IAD is simply too far for 757 to go the distance when there are headwinds or other issues.
If I lived at one of these east coast hubs I suppose I would have to look at the time saved with the nonstop v. the potential cost of diversion and general distaste for 757 (particularly on such a long trip where I like to walk the aisles). From the West Coast (and indeed the midwest), it has zero appeal - I'll most likely catch a 747 nonstop to Europe or connect elsewhere. It is already a very long trip, makes no sense to risk diversion simply because the airline made a bad decision on equipment. Penny wise, pound foolish.
BTW, here is an excerpt from the follow up article concerning CO's 752 TATL diversions for fuel which appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Jan. 12:
"Gordon Bethune, a former Boeing executive who went on to become Continental's chief executive and retired in 2004, said Wednesday (1/11/12) that the airline talked to Boeing about installing extra fuel tanks in the bellies of the aircraft. "But you give up a lot of luggage space and it's not economical," he said, "And it's fairly complicated." According to some pilots and industry safety officials, the airline took a fresh look at the idea after Mr. Bethune left Continental. According to some of these people, United Continental management is now revisiting that option. The United spokeswoman declined to comment on the auxiliary fuel tanks."
Jan 18, 2012 | 1:53 pm
#168
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 27,884
I get the complaints about the IAD routes given their higher likelihood of diversions given distance and what seem to be important routes. However, none of us have seen the yield information on these routes, so we really can't say with any authority whether it was the right decision or not. I would have to guess that their analysis showed the routes would be more profitable with a 757, although the higher-than-expected winter headwinds and fuel diversions may very will have tipped that equation in the other direction. Whether their analysis factored in the "pissed off" element of a handful of FTers, I can't say.
Jan 18, 2012 | 2:02 pm
#169
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LFT
Programs: AA Plat, lots of AA, AS & UA miles, former top level CO Elite (sigh...)
Posts: 11,577
Quite true....but I also seem to recall that initially PMCO did not fly the 752s TATL into the larger markets such as LHR and CDG from EWR. Instead, they reserved their larger metal (777 & 764) for these routes.....
Jan 18, 2012 | 3:15 pm
#170
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 62,517
The best minds that put equipment on an ex-UA route that has been an unmitigated disaster, internally and externally? I'm sure these great minds from your company had every intention of blocking 30 Y seats, making promises to customers they couldn't keep, and making an appearance in the Wall Street Journal. This was a decision of ex-CO, please do not misrepresent the facts. They know they made a mistake, and so should we.
I have not seen details about blocking seats and internal/external strife, other than them making sorry excuses for not being to actually complete non-stop routes without a fuel stop.
Jan 18, 2012 | 4:50 pm
#171
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,240
The best minds that put equipment on an ex-UA route that has been an unmitigated disaster, internally and externally? I'm sure these great minds from your company had every intention of blocking 30 Y seats, making promises to customers they couldn't keep, and making an appearance in the Wall Street Journal. This was a decision of ex-CO, please do not misrepresent the facts. They know they made a mistake, and so should we.
Who knows it was a mistake exactly? Other than hyperbole, what are you adding to the discussion here? Will these routes be an "unmitigated disaster" when the weather patterns come down from their 10-year anomaly and everything works just fine? What will your complaint be then?
The reality is the Dulles-Paris has been experiencing problems since it was commenced. It was and is the wrong aircraft for this route, no matter the excuses the company is making to the media about winter winds, which did see an increase in diversions (6/7 days at one point), but the problem will not be resolved as the winds settle.
It is entirely legitimate to then question the decision to replace 3-cabin intl. aircraft with 2-cabin domestic ones on the intra-Asia network and the impact on UA's TPAC operation, of which CO never had.
I have no idea why you feel the need to write unnecessary childish contributions like this.
I have not seen details about blocking seats and internal/external strife, other than them making sorry excuses for not being to actually complete non-stop routes without a fuel stop.
Jan 18, 2012 | 4:59 pm
#172
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 62,517
A 767 doesn't have the weather issue
So it is not merely a weather issue
Simply parroting PR is not very incisive analysis
So it is not merely a weather issue
Simply parroting PR is not very incisive analysis
Jan 18, 2012 | 8:51 pm
#173
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,240
Nothing to do with 767s - it's a weather issue for 757s. If you get an abnormal weather pattern every decade or so they'll be more affected than other types.
Jan 18, 2012 | 11:43 pm
#174
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hoboken, NJ; Pembroke Pines, FL
Programs: CO Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,940
Is the idea of "unexpected" fuel stops due to the strength and configuration of the jet stream totally unacceptable to some or is there some level of acceptability? I'm interested in whether people think the only acceptable level is zero or whether you are willing to put up with a certain level of incidents?
For example, the fellow in the other thread threatening legal action for fraud because of a single incident of a fuel stop due to a strong jet stream on a transcon would say that the acceptable level is zero.
Perhaps star_world would put the number at something like no more than a one month period of greater than 20% fuel diversion every 10 years. Uastarflyer would be somewhere in-between.
My point (as boring as it might be) is that different people have different preferences for this level. We all have our choice of carrier (unless you live in northern New Jersey). It is the UA's job to model our behavior and to make good business decisions based on their modeling of our behavior.
I'm sure UA is thinking about the impact of this unexpected weather and whether to rethink their assignment of 752s to CDG-IAD.
I'm not familiar with the previous UA schedule. Do you think they will upgrade from 752x2 to 764x2? Reduce frequency to 764x1 or 772x1? Eliminate it entirely?
For example, the fellow in the other thread threatening legal action for fraud because of a single incident of a fuel stop due to a strong jet stream on a transcon would say that the acceptable level is zero.
Perhaps star_world would put the number at something like no more than a one month period of greater than 20% fuel diversion every 10 years. Uastarflyer would be somewhere in-between.
My point (as boring as it might be) is that different people have different preferences for this level. We all have our choice of carrier (unless you live in northern New Jersey). It is the UA's job to model our behavior and to make good business decisions based on their modeling of our behavior.
I'm sure UA is thinking about the impact of this unexpected weather and whether to rethink their assignment of 752s to CDG-IAD.
I'm not familiar with the previous UA schedule. Do you think they will upgrade from 752x2 to 764x2? Reduce frequency to 764x1 or 772x1? Eliminate it entirely?
Jan 19, 2012 | 11:01 am
#175
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 62,517
So it is not merely a weather issue
Simply parroting PR is not very incisive analysis
Originally Posted by lensman
I'm sure UA is thinking about the impact of this unexpected weather and whether to rethink their assignment of 752s to CDG-IAD.
Jan 19, 2012 | 12:27 pm
#176
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,240
What I wrote in my last post is actually quite a simple concept. I'm afraid I don't feel the need to repeat it or explain it even more.
Jan 19, 2012 | 1:14 pm
#177
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Sure it does. But it also has the ability to mitigate it better.
It really is more fun if the full truth is used in these discussions.
And you've come to this conclusion based on what? That they haven't changed policies when a VERY small group of their customers expresses outrage on an internet bulletin board?
It really is more fun if the full truth is used in these discussions.
And you've come to this conclusion based on what? That they haven't changed policies when a VERY small group of their customers expresses outrage on an internet bulletin board?
Jan 19, 2012 | 1:28 pm
#178
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 72,080
Can't speak for the other poster, but when management's board advocate responds quickly to oversize baggage charging complaints, but sluggishly to TOD upgrade complaints, and not at all to boarding process and MP program change complaints, then yes, arrogance is an appropriate description.
Jan 19, 2012 | 1:34 pm
#179
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,092
In addition, while the CO leadership may have been arrogant, I think the merger has been an eye-opener for a lot of things. E+ is a very visible example of that. Not only did CO not do it, but they said many times they don't see how it could work. Now they're doing it and Smisek even said it makes sense before adding in the loyalty factor. That's certainly an attitude shift.
We can play the numbers game all day. If we're talking about the AMS/CDG-IAD routes, that's a VERY small group of customers to begin with given the size of the overall operation. So what?
Jan 19, 2012 | 1:35 pm
#180
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,092
Can't speak for the other poster, but when management's board advocate responds quickly to oversize baggage charging complaints, but sluggishly to TOD upgrade complaints, and not at all to boarding process and MP program change complaints, then yes, arrogance is an appropriate description.
I think the TOD stuff is more incompetence rather than arrogance. Not flattering either way, but a different reasoning nonetheless.