kluau88

Well one of the big mistakes UA made was dump the guppy on HKG-SIN in October 2011. I know many of you said what were they thinking! Well I am happy to announce that UA 895/896 are returning. United can now show face again on HKG-SIN route with service on a 747-400 effective October 27 on HKG-SIN and on October 28 SIN-HKG.

A change I like and I know many of you will too!





Finally a win for PMUA flyers!

restlessinRNO

kluau88 - Thanks for posting. Excellent news - a change I will like!

warreng24

It looks like due to HKG-SIN going 744, NRT-SIN goes 772.

Either way, its a change I'll like. Thanks for posting kluau88.

So, now the question is, what other route got "enhanced" to free up a 744 for the HKG-SIN route.

kluau88

Well I don't think any other route will be impacted with the above change, because the 744's having just been overnighting in HKG since HKG-SIN and HKG-SGN went guppy on us.

star_world

Would people rejoice if the aircraft operating every route was replaced with an aircraft 10-20 years older?

tuolumne

While some led and still lead us to believe every decision made by ex-CO network planners is unfallable and buttressed by some supreme superior knowledge, every backtack (which were originally defended by some until they literally turned blue) shows just how shortsided and miscalculated each change was. Most likely utilizing the "let's make any knee jerk change has any potential to save a dollar and roll it back of the fire gets too hot".

channa

This is neither a change nor a win. It's a rollback of a change to restore service to what it was before.


If the seat comfort improved substantially, I'm sure they would. If you're flying in Business or First, wouldn't you agree the 747 is a far superior aircraft?

JFKSFOLAX_friend

Guppy? Huh?

What do you mean "you" are happy to announce? Did you play a part in the decision making for UA? (Just not sure if you work for UA.)

Singapore_Schwing

That's Fantastic. That flight on a 737 was awful. I ran into a couple of times where I couldn't even get a seat on that flight, if only to connect to / from 895/6, when that flight was wide open.

Having a relatively last minute schedule, it's also the only flight I've been stuck in a middle seat on in some time (and it's happened several times).

Now if only I could convince them to move the 896 departure back an hour...

EWR764

The 737 has always had the nickname "the Guppy", especially at UA.

I will admit, without being privy to any sort of proprietary information, that a 747 on a 1600mi route didn't make a great deal of sense to me at first, especially with UA's 744 fleet beginning to get up there in hours on the airframes. It seemed to be motivated more out of necessity, since pre-merger UA only had heavy metal in Pacific, while CO had the flexibility of the GUM 737 base. That's not the first time I've been wrong about something... hell, not even the first time today!

I am excited about the possibility that UA may be starting to walk back some of its 'ramrod' post-merger changes, although there are plenty of other entirely plausible explanations for the return of a 747 on this route, beginning with cargo.

zrs70

What an odd post! I've never been turned off by an older plane, so long as the interior is comfortable.

LASUA1K

Great news! The 737 could not compete on this route. After a 14 hour flight, having to connect to a domestic first product was awful!

And to the person who said, we shouldn't be happy going back to a 20 year plane, have you flown on a 747? Also, some of UA's 747's were delivered in 99.

UA flyers finally win. It was a bad decision in the first place.

No one should compare a Pacific 737 to a 747. First and business way better with economy being equal or better on the 747.

Thank You UA!

terminalc

I agree with the others: it does't matter. It's the hard product that counts. NW's 742s were 25 years old (some maybe older) when retired. At the time their upper deck was fantastic & I always preferred it to their newer 744s.

All in all, GREAT NEWS. I was about to book a trip in Sep/Oct & that 738 leg was a burden I could not overcome. I decided on going via NRT. This change puts this route back on my travel map.

eponymous_coward

http://www.iata.org/whatwedo/economi...ges/index.aspx

It's all about the Benjamins at UA- the ones it costs to feed a 747 as opposed to a 737. I wouldn't fool yourself into thinking this was about the customers- it's about what makes money for UA. If they could make money flying 50 seat RJs TPAC they would. If they could make money flying 747s EWR-IAD, they would.

JFKSFOLAX_friend

Best post I've read today.

Flyertalk is rife with threads questioning management decisions. Why are they flying this aircraft or that aircraft? Why is this route being cancelled...whenever I fly the flights are full? etc. etc.

Airline management have detailed financial models that spit out these decisions. Threads debating these issues are nothing more than drivel unless Flyertalkers can produce their own detailed calculations/models refuting management determinations.