golfingboy

Not enough range, the 739 max can't do TATL from NYC due to ETOPs fuel requirement and adding aux fuel tanks will severly erode cargo capacity thereby eating into profit margins and will render most routes unprofitable.

For comparison, the 752W's range is 4100nm.

UA does not, and will not, have 73Gmax on order, so moot point there.

star_world

Sorry, but almost this entire post is incorrect. There is no spin involved, nor would I have any need to introduce any.

About the only thing you did get correct is the fact that the IAD-CDG-IAD route is no longer operated by a 757 but by a different aircraft.

I suggest you take a close look at the statistics and plethora of posts from last year and let us know if you'd like to post an update to the post above

Often1

Never quite sure what people want. If a route can't be profitably operated by a 777 and is therefore downguaged to an aircraft which can profitably route, but with an occasional pit stop, that's better than the altermative of dropping the route.

The days of simply flying routes and then setting fares to fill the aircraft are long gone.

Samething is true for those who rant about replacing a 319 with a 200. That's what's gonna happen if the 50-seater is the aircraft which most profitably flies the route. Need to get your friends to fly more at full F/Y and soon enough it will be a 3-class intl. configured widebody.

aacharya

Well said. My friends and parents would fly Spirit if it were $10 less (even though I can get them all free bags and E+ if they fly UA with me).

LASUA1K

TXL-EWR has diverted twice in 14 days. Too me the numbers prove that this route should probably not be flown with a 757 anymore.

uastarflyer

Indeed, it was cringe inducing spin

This platitude works in theory - like in a college course textbook.

But we have seen the new UA dump the 747 from HKG-SIN and 3-class widebody IAD-CDG-IAD, only to reverse course a short while later tail between their legs.

So lemme ask you this: Were they misguided when they made the switch or misguided on the reversal? Or were they genius both times?

UA-NYC

Agreed - it's the same spin in saying "there's no market for 3 cabin domestic service, so UA is ditching PS F". No, there is a market, it's just that UA isn't choosing to play in it.

tuolumne

What a bunch of a fatuous nonsense.

The 757 was the wrong aircraft for this route. While you were busy debating the definition of an "unplanned fuel stop", United was busy limiting payloads and blocking 30 seats in the back. This was a disastrous equipment swap, one that elicited outrage from the media and corporate accounts alike, and one that was reversed.

SFO777

Finally, TATL service returns to CLE.

star_world

There are extremely frequent equipment swaps in every airline that can - the days of a consistent aircraft type operating the same route with no changes are gone in the US airline industry, which can barely scrape two pennies together so resorts to whatever cost cutting measures it takes. This was one of them. I can't say I saw any outrage, except from you and about ten other people on FT. I saw a bit of annoyance from other parties, at a stretch.

The day it makes more financial sense for UA to operate a load-managed 757 on IAD-CDG-IAD is the day they will do it again. And again. And on other "precious" routes too. You may have to face that reality - just an early warning.

It really isn't as emotional a subject or decision as you would have us believe.

halls120

If and when that happens, you will be vindicated. Given the beating that UA took with running two 757's on that route last year, I doubt they will be interested in repeating that experience.

tuolumne

I don't even know what you're talking about at this point. First you claim everything I stated to be wholly inaccurate (none of it was), and now you're speaking in circles about the financial performance of a route you don't have the proprietary information to make any credible conclusion about.

Claiming that this only outraged "10 people on FlyerTalk" only digs your hole further deeper given the sheer ridiculousness of that statement. Hundreds of travelers were inconvenienced,and the company took a rightful beating in the media for it. If you want credibility, and I'm not sure you do, I'd suggest not spinning the facts so brazenly as to support whatever CO apologist agenda you have. It's just getting boring at this point.

TravellingMan

Why would one pay $100+ more to fly a CRJ50 when I can fly a 737? I agree with your downsizing to meet demand but you cannot price your inferior product higher than a superior product.

lensman

What's so much worse about the experience of flying a 737 vs a 757?

The days of simply flying routes and then setting fares to fill the aircraft are long gone.[/quote]
I don't think that's a good argument for IAD-CDG-IAD. The route can clearly support a 767. UA decided to try to support it by flying two 757s in the winter. I don't think the IAD-CDG-IAD change was a downgauge because the capacity was too great for a 767/777.

In retrospect it was a mistake and they corrected it. We can argue that were we highly paid analysts we would not have made this mistake. In fact, many have, are, and will continue to have this argument!

BTW, it's also worth noting that this year UA has a *lot* more two class 763s with popular lie-flat seating in C/J. This should reduce the pressure on UA to fly the 757-200 to primary TATL destinations. Now they just need unified union contracts and they'll be able to have more freedom to put appropriate equipment out of every U.S. gateway.

hobo13

CLE? Let's not sell ourselves short! DEN-LHR. Make it an E145 so only one FA necessary.