J.Edward

With respects, are you sure you've figured out UA's fleet scheduling as your implied claim (UA somehow did *not* have fleet scheduling figured out) seems to suggest you are in better position to direct UA equipment than UA itself is (or was.)

For starters the new UA - and the old one for that matter - was never the niche fortress operation pmCO was, nor were they as starved for widebodies. As a result, one would often see widebody international aircraft rotated through the network to provide connecting international service to the various hubs.

(For example, UA running a 777 on an afternoon flight from ORD to LAX to provide onwards 3-class connection from the incoming European flight bank as well as supporting the SYD flight later that evening ex LAX before returning the next day to IAD after undergoing regular MX that allowed both three-class connection options to the international destinations as well as being positioned to become the aircraft for Europe or the Middle East.)

In fact, pmCO did the same with regular rotations of 76's and 77's between IAH and EWR (it's just that we never saw them to the extent of UA, or even AA, as pmCO just did not have the multiple hub footprint of pmUA.)

The only dedicated widebodies to domestic service were the 763 "ghetto birds", and those were primarily assigned to Hawaii, although you would also see them rotate though the system. But again, from anything west of DEN, you'd need a widebody to be able to make the trip (e.g. ORD/IAD/IAH/EWR) *and* even from the west coast, the 76's could supplement passenger revenue with cargo.

That said, I personally would guess the conversion of the ghetto birds to the international 2-class standard made sense as it quickly allowed "newish" AC to come online to support expanded international service, especially when pmCO aircraft (753s and 739ERs) can help pick up the Hawaii slack from the West Coast, but I am not sure I agree with your claim that UA only now has "*finally* start[ed] to get domestic fleet utilization figured out"
I'm not sure what you're reaching at here -- neither p.s. nor international flights (excluding the "near international markets" such as Mexico, northern South America, Canada, etc.) are eligible for CPUs, and as such, I'm not sure how they could become CPU magnets.

fieldeng

The lack of big plane frequency on the routes I flew was one of the bigger reasons I switched back to AA. We used to have several mainline flights a day from TUL but CO/UA changed those to ERJ, CRJ's and Q400s (sans the 1 morning flight a day to DEN on a 737).

That being said, once I landed at a hub, I became more irritated that I was connecting to yet another ERJ/CRJ.

I believe DL is working to get rid of CRJ/ERJ style planes. I can only hope UA follows that same path.

flavorflav

To those of us who fly mostly on regional equipment, this is like reading people argue over brands of top-shelf booze. I'm happy to get the occasional CR7 instead of the usual ERJ-145.

Madone59

hahahahah ^ Well said.

Gone are my days of ROC-IAD-CLT-IAD-ROC every 2 weeks where a CRJ7 w/ "F" was a blessing.

Beerman92

That's unfortunate for the employees of those airlines but how is that relevant to a customer who can still fly to all of the places those airlines flew?

This forum seems to have a brisk participation by posters who want to discuss the merits of United as a stock pick as opposed to the flyers' experiences. Maybe we should rename it stockpickertalk.com

Imagine how ridiculous it would be for a flyer of United to go onto an investment forum and post complaints about upgrade policies or seat assignments. The inverse which is going on here is just as perverse.

I'm not saying flyers should live in a vacuum. Just that like many others have said, the polarization of views on this forum makes useful discourse scarce. Not everything United does is aimed at screwing its customers and not everything United does makes good business sense.

Often1

Nope. If you can find a three-class international bird in F/J/C flying ORD-SFO and costing approximately the same as F on a 319, you should definitely pick the former. But, you can't anymore (or if it happens, it's rare and likely to be more rare).

The simple fact is there's no market for what people want, namely ultra-premium, cheap & frequent. So, customers seek out the best they can.

star_world

I'm saying that PMUA placed less of a priority on fleet efficiency than several of its peers did, notably CO. The influence of the fleet planners from the CO entity (generally considered as the best in the US industry) can clearly be seen in the new airline. Specifically:

- Winglets on everything that can get winglets
- Some very specific fleet adjustments based on climate and altitude for the shorthaul fleet
- The overhaul of the seating on the A319, which is an inefficient aircraft, to attempt to improve its operating metrics
- A transition away from using expensive, premium-cabin-equipped longhaul aircraft on domestic routes wherever possible

Of course - but that doesn't make it the right decision. If you have an abundance of premium-cabin-equipped longhaul aircraft and you don't have suitable international routes to operate them on, you have too many of them. Sell the excess aircrat or put them in the desert. The alternative approach, which UA adopted in the past, was to keep elite FF members happy by operating them on a fairly high number of domestic routes and handing out upgrades. You can achieve a comparable level of domestic capacity using short-haul aircraft in higher quantities at a much lower cost.

And now they are being phased out on UA. I don't think that is a deliberate attempt to annoy elite FF members; rather I think it is due to finding more profitable uses for these aircraft.

I've read this three times and I'm not sure what you're getting at. PMUA had a large number of inefficient longhaul aircraft operating short domestic routes. UA now has far less of these, and instead is starting to operate more efficient, shorthaul aircraft. That's a step in the right direction towards figuring out domestic fleet utilization.

787fan

UA needs to do more of this. At least 1x a day for each of SFO/LAX-ORD/IAD/EWR to connect to each other's international banks. A 2-class 767 with flat bed BusinessFirst suffices.

If I were a GF-paying passenger, I'd hate the prospect of a 5-hour transcon trek in 38" pitch domestic F before getting on the 767 to ZRH.

ps : and stop wasting widebodies on DEN turns.

star_world

I don't think there's a market for this, and it looks like UA doesn't think so either.

There are hundreds more combinations of international-domestic connections (and vice versa) where this type of "premium intl. cabin all the way" approach would never apply and it seems to work fine. Look at the vast numbers of international flights that arrive into EWR or IAD every day with passengers connecting on to SAN, SEA, DEN, PDX, YVR, MEX, etc. - these are long onward flights, and they are operated exclusively using shorthaul domestic aircraft.

The same applies the other way around too. LH doesn't carve out "exclusive" destinations in Europe where it uses longhaul premium cabin aircraft - if you arrive in FRA and are going North Africa, Russia or anywhere in Europe you're doing it on an A319/320/321.

(Replace LH with almost any other EU airline and the same is also true).

CMK10

Sadly, domestic widebodies belong in the good old days with the free food in coach and all that fun stuff. I'm on one today from IAD-ORD but it's certainly a rarity. Personally I'd rather have expanded international operations than more domestic widebodies.

WhiteOut

Holy crap these people would die if they earned status the way I and my regional brethren do...(segs not miles).

Yesterday ROC-CLE-IND was a pair of Q200's (No air until well into flight). At least i get to choose 4D.

The run before that (IND-IAD-BDL) was a 170-145. The 170's are like a dream come true...E+ row three really not bad for non-F seat...big legroom and large underseat storage under the last F seat (actually more legroom than an F seat).

I have noticed I am winding up on the Q200s more and more...not so bad in winter but in the summer...just bring a towel...real great in dress clothes...

granted, on the longer flights i do seek out the routes with larger planes. but to me, E+ on a 170 row 3 is comparable to F on a 319/320, especially if it means i have more options to get my butt home asap.

the 1-2 times/year when I head west on a 319/320...it's nirvana! I guess the way i look at it is, will I remember that crummy seat 5 years from now? the whole domestic air travel scene is nothing more than glorified greyhound bus these days...and i feel that way about all carriers...i flew them all just a couple years ago before going solely on UA (based on routes to my destinations -- pre-merger). So just get me there and back...low expectations, just give me my points so i can use em for vacation, and on to the next task...

sbm12

Do you really believe that it is related to better serving the specific routes versus a simple fleet utilization calculation? I don't.

Indelaware

I have read this three times, and my only real question is: why?

I can see no logical reason either for UA to do this or for passengers, regardless of fare class, to care about WB vs. NB -- especially on a flight as short as a transcon. One who cares so much about maximizing distance on WBs can simply fly SFO or LAX nonstop to Europe.

jacroweORD

i would be happy with just a 757...

LASUA1K

I care! I always picked the widebody. Now that the widebody is gone, ill just fly AA to SFO. At least I get wifi.