Aug 17, 2013, 10:44 am
Last edit by: Bitterroot
Updates to Wiki as of 20 January 2014
Planned changes in aircraft by date and route:
SFO -- SYD: first 772 departs SFO 27 March; turns to 840 at SYD on 29 March
LAX -- SYD: first 772 departs LAX 29 March; turn off 840-29th.
NRT -- ORD: First 744 departs NRT 27 March (aircraft turn at ORD to PVG and FRA in succession the day following arrival from NRT)
ORD -- NRT: First 744 departs ORD 31 March
ORD -- PVG: First 744 departs ORD 28 March
PVG -- ORD: First 744 departs PVG 29 March
ORD -- FRA: First 744 departs ORD 29 March
FRA -- ORD: First 744 departs FRA 30 March
NRT -- SFO: 852 to operate with 772 27 March through 31 March inclusive (772 coming out of rotation)
Or, you can just go look at the good work here (note that info posted above differs from AIRLINEROUTE info dated 4 January 2014 and before):
http://airlineroute.net/2013/08/17/ua-s14update1/
Or, straight to the source if you want to do your own research:
http://www.oag.com/Global
Planned changes in aircraft by date and route:
SFO -- SYD: first 772 departs SFO 27 March; turns to 840 at SYD on 29 March
LAX -- SYD: first 772 departs LAX 29 March; turn off 840-29th.
NRT -- ORD: First 744 departs NRT 27 March (aircraft turn at ORD to PVG and FRA in succession the day following arrival from NRT)
ORD -- NRT: First 744 departs ORD 31 March
ORD -- PVG: First 744 departs ORD 28 March
PVG -- ORD: First 744 departs PVG 29 March
ORD -- FRA: First 744 departs ORD 29 March
FRA -- ORD: First 744 departs FRA 30 March
NRT -- SFO: 852 to operate with 772 27 March through 31 March inclusive (772 coming out of rotation)
Or, you can just go look at the good work here (note that info posted above differs from AIRLINEROUTE info dated 4 January 2014 and before):
http://airlineroute.net/2013/08/17/ua-s14update1/
Or, straight to the source if you want to do your own research:
http://www.oag.com/Global
[Confirmed] SYD going UA 3 Cabin 777 in 2014 [and other 747 route changes]
Aug 15, 2013, 6:47 am
#196
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Always on the move
Programs: Something lifetime here and there
Posts: 1,867
Just because the "company line" is "crew utilization" or some other reason doesn't make it so.
All I know is I used to live on the SIN runs as did a lot of others and when that went away, I started seeing the same people on CX, (especially after the J class seats were upgraded from the coffin ones). Some people told me (that I would see in the lounge in SIN) they moved over to SQ.
All I know (especially with the O&G boom and mining), the traffic to OZ from the US is a significant amount of J class buyers, because I see them (some on the non-stops, some via SIN/JKT) and that is just one industry.
If UA wants to claim leisure travel, utilization, fine....they can think/feel whatever makes them feel good in their own mind, and who knows....maybe it is leisure travel for them....but its not for others. Why do you think SQ has been trying to penetrate the OZ to US market? To get the leisure travelers? I think not.....
YMMV....
While lovely in theory, they simply don't exist 2-3 weeks out when I'm normally booking.
Kudos to greg99 for perfectly describing my scenario, so I won't rehash it too much here, but long story short is I will not fly less than business on the route, have a business/personal travel policy that is flexible enough to allow me to pay business, and therefore have choice among all the carriers. UA is great in that it allows me to travel F. If I'm paying C to travel C, for starters it will be on the cheapest fare I can find on an acceptable airline and it will most certainly will not be on a PMCO 777 (or 757, or 764, though I find the 763s and 787s fine). On that plane, there are at most four acceptable seats to me, which are all guaranteed to be gone by 2-3 weeks out, and no air vents (which is a huge portion of why I fly UA - I like to be able to sleep, not be cooked). Simply will not happen.
Kudos to greg99 for perfectly describing my scenario, so I won't rehash it too much here, but long story short is I will not fly less than business on the route, have a business/personal travel policy that is flexible enough to allow me to pay business, and therefore have choice among all the carriers. UA is great in that it allows me to travel F. If I'm paying C to travel C, for starters it will be on the cheapest fare I can find on an acceptable airline and it will most certainly will not be on a PMCO 777 (or 757, or 764, though I find the 763s and 787s fine). On that plane, there are at most four acceptable seats to me, which are all guaranteed to be gone by 2-3 weeks out, and no air vents (which is a huge portion of why I fly UA - I like to be able to sleep, not be cooked). Simply will not happen.
I use them all the time now and ticket them out of HKG for a lower price under $8K. I fly QF and CX with them. And if you are in and out of JFK, you wouldn't even have to step foot on a US carrier.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Aug 15, 2013 at 8:00 am Reason: merge
Aug 15, 2013, 6:56 am
#197
Join Date: Sep 2009
Programs: UA GS>1K>Nothing; DL DM 2MM; AS 75K>Nothing>MVP
Posts: 9,341
The problem is that there won't be any good options on SEA<>NRT. I could probably live with the PMUA J seats, but the 787s have the PMCO seats (which I find not great). NH J I don't like either.
For the time being, I'll just try to minimize travel to SEA or maybe get there via LH from FRA (or maybe DL from JFK).
I honestly think UA has no clue how many HVFs have stuck with UA because of the opportunity for UGs to or award tickets in GF. IMHO they are in for a real shock.
Also, the UA Board is moronic IMHO for not replacing Smisek now that it's totally obvious his strategy for achieving profitability by down-sizing, down-gauging, and down-grading is not going to work.
For the time being, I'll just try to minimize travel to SEA or maybe get there via LH from FRA (or maybe DL from JFK).
I honestly think UA has no clue how many HVFs have stuck with UA because of the opportunity for UGs to or award tickets in GF. IMHO they are in for a real shock.
Also, the UA Board is moronic IMHO for not replacing Smisek now that it's totally obvious his strategy for achieving profitability by down-sizing, down-gauging, and down-grading is not going to work.
Aug 15, 2013, 7:03 am
#198
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
And where is your proof of that? Why not run the other 747 from HKG to SGN then instead of the 737? One thought is there is no C traffic on that route therefore it has gone away as well.
Just because the "company line" is "crew utilization" or some other reason doesn't make it so.
All I know is I used to live on the SIN runs as did a lot of others and when that went away, I started seeing the same people on CX, (especially after the J class seats were upgraded from the coffin ones). Some people told me (that I would see in the lounge in SIN) they moved over to SQ.
All I know (especially with the O&G boom and mining), the traffic to OZ from the US is a significant amount of J class buyers, because I see them (some on the non-stops, some via SIN/JKT) and that is just one industry.
If UA wants to claim leisure travel, utilization, fine....they can think/feel whatever makes them feel good in their own mind, and who knows....maybe it is leisure travel for them....but its not for others. Why do you think SQ has been trying to penetrate the OZ to US market? To get the leisure travelers? I think not.....
YMMV....
Just because the "company line" is "crew utilization" or some other reason doesn't make it so.
All I know is I used to live on the SIN runs as did a lot of others and when that went away, I started seeing the same people on CX, (especially after the J class seats were upgraded from the coffin ones). Some people told me (that I would see in the lounge in SIN) they moved over to SQ.
All I know (especially with the O&G boom and mining), the traffic to OZ from the US is a significant amount of J class buyers, because I see them (some on the non-stops, some via SIN/JKT) and that is just one industry.
If UA wants to claim leisure travel, utilization, fine....they can think/feel whatever makes them feel good in their own mind, and who knows....maybe it is leisure travel for them....but its not for others. Why do you think SQ has been trying to penetrate the OZ to US market? To get the leisure travelers? I think not.....
YMMV....
- The fares that every single passenger on every one of their aircraft pays
- How often that specific passenger flies UA
- Whether there are any trends associated with these patterns, down to the individual level (e.g., high-value customer X was purchasing a D fare on this route every 2 weeks for x years, isn't purchasing them anymore)
- The approximate mix of leisure and business travelers on each route (based on fare purchased, analytics from FF program, days of week travelled, etc.)
- Most importantly, the profitability of every route operated by a specific aircraft type, and (to a very high degree of accuracy) what that would move to under a different aircraft type, time of day, etc.
It might make FT members like uastarflyer feel better to think that specific aircraft moves are driven by nostalgia, prestige, etc. but it's a far more sober view than that. If a 737-800 makes sense (taking the immense amount of data available into account to make such a decision) on a route for a few months instead of a 747-400 then that's what will go on the route. If there is a subsequent change, that doesn't mean "they" were "kicked off" the route. It's called fleet planning - nothing more than that.
So while your post above is interesting anecdotal information, the tone is highly surprising - you're indicating that for some reason UA is desperately trying to get out of certain markets and making up reasons for doing so, while your anecdotal evidence shows that they're wrong. They're an airline - run with an objective of making a profit. With the amount of data they have (and you and I don't) - why do you believe you're right and they're wrong?
That is a naive comment at best. I'm sure they have a much better idea on the exact number than you do.
Aug 15, 2013, 7:29 am
#200
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
th sides of the merged company. Don't be scared by rash generalisations. They are not all g
d or all bad.
Aug 15, 2013, 7:39 am
#201
Suspended
Join Date: Jun 2012
Programs: UA PP, AA, DL, BA, CX, SPG, HHonors
Posts: 2,002
Technical stops in Honolulu and Nadi, Fiji.
Look for the feature in the Wall Street Journal. IAD-CDG and EWR-TXL on a 757 round 2. The return of the gander hub the "pacific edition"
I'm all for this, as long as the plane flies LAX-SYD without as stop as advertised. UA lacks credibility in this department, especially after the IAD-CDG and EWR-TXL frequent Gander stopovers.
Look for the feature in the Wall Street Journal. IAD-CDG and EWR-TXL on a 757 round 2. The return of the gander hub the "pacific edition"
I'm all for this, as long as the plane flies LAX-SYD without as stop as advertised. UA lacks credibility in this department, especially after the IAD-CDG and EWR-TXL frequent Gander stopovers.
I understand Cali-SYD has more wind, but it should be able to handle it fine if they don't oversell the plane.
Aug 15, 2013, 7:46 am
#202
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ANP
Programs: UA 1k, Marriott Plat, HH gold, Avis/Hertz Pres
Posts: 1,408
I don't see the sCO 777 making stops on EWR-HKG runs. That flight is longer than LAX/SFO-SYD. DEL/BOM-EWR is about the same length too and those flights flies against the winds on the westbound sector.
The sCO 777ERs are not the same as the sUA ones, those birds were specifically modified for flights of those lengths.
The sCO 777ERs are not the same as the sUA ones, those birds were specifically modified for flights of those lengths.
Aug 15, 2013, 7:48 am
#203
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: ORD / DUB / LHR
Programs: UA 1K MM; BA Silver; Marriott Plat
Posts: 8,243
Why wouldn't they care? This sort of comment (along with others that talk about a "hostile" attitude towards customers, which is actually more like indifference by some employees) is repeated on a regular basis here as though it were the truth but I don't get the motivation. Why would they "claim" that they want HVFs but then not care about whether they get them or not? Who would they be fooling?
Aug 15, 2013, 8:19 am
#204
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Between AUS, EWR, and YTO In a little twisty maze of airline seats, all alike.. but I wanna go home with the armadillo
Programs: CO, NW, & UA forum moderator emeritus
Posts: 35,432
Aug 15, 2013, 8:37 am
#205
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Always on the move
Programs: Something lifetime here and there
Posts: 1,867
I'm quite sure that UA has better detail on the following than you, me or any other poster on FT:
- The fares that every single passenger on every one of their aircraft pays
- How often that specific passenger flies UA
- Whether there are any trends associated with these patterns, down to the individual level (e.g., high-value customer X was purchasing a D fare on this route every 2 weeks for x years, isn't purchasing them anymore)
- The approximate mix of leisure and business travelers on each route (based on fare purchased, analytics from FF program, days of week travelled, etc.)
- Most importantly, the profitability of every route operated by a specific aircraft type, and (to a very high degree of accuracy) what that would move to under a different aircraft type, time of day, etc.
It might make FT members like uastarflyer feel better to think that specific aircraft moves are driven by nostalgia, prestige, etc. but it's a far more sober view than that. If a 737-800 makes sense (taking the immense amount of data available into account to make such a decision) on a route for a few months instead of a 747-400 then that's what will go on the route. If there is a subsequent change, that doesn't mean "they" were "kicked off" the route. It's called fleet planning - nothing more than that.
So while your post above is interesting anecdotal information, the tone is highly surprising - you're indicating that for some reason UA is desperately trying to get out of certain markets and making up reasons for doing so, while your anecdotal evidence shows that they're wrong. They're an airline - run with an objective of making a profit. With the amount of data they have (and you and I don't) - why do you believe you're right and they're wrong?
- The fares that every single passenger on every one of their aircraft pays
- How often that specific passenger flies UA
- Whether there are any trends associated with these patterns, down to the individual level (e.g., high-value customer X was purchasing a D fare on this route every 2 weeks for x years, isn't purchasing them anymore)
- The approximate mix of leisure and business travelers on each route (based on fare purchased, analytics from FF program, days of week travelled, etc.)
- Most importantly, the profitability of every route operated by a specific aircraft type, and (to a very high degree of accuracy) what that would move to under a different aircraft type, time of day, etc.
It might make FT members like uastarflyer feel better to think that specific aircraft moves are driven by nostalgia, prestige, etc. but it's a far more sober view than that. If a 737-800 makes sense (taking the immense amount of data available into account to make such a decision) on a route for a few months instead of a 747-400 then that's what will go on the route. If there is a subsequent change, that doesn't mean "they" were "kicked off" the route. It's called fleet planning - nothing more than that.
So while your post above is interesting anecdotal information, the tone is highly surprising - you're indicating that for some reason UA is desperately trying to get out of certain markets and making up reasons for doing so, while your anecdotal evidence shows that they're wrong. They're an airline - run with an objective of making a profit. With the amount of data they have (and you and I don't) - why do you believe you're right and they're wrong?
Second, I used to be in the business that actually dealt with these type issues that you have raised, which I would say most people on FT have not (or currently in).
Third I couldn't give a flying .....(well you know) what UA does with its aircraft and their fleet utilization. So, no your interpretation of me being right wrong or indifferent is not accurate based upon the HKG-SIN equipment debacle that was brought up (not the equipment change to OZ). I am out of that business now..(thankfully). UA can say all they want about reasons for this...or reasons for that (i.e. PRASM numbers, OT performance, blame this....blame that) I really don't care. The HKG-SIN equipment issue is a good example as they had to say "something" because with this management the word sorry is not in their vocabulary and hence I have zero trust in this management. Unfortunately, I still have a few MM in my account and have to fly them sometimes when I have no choice...(being in IAH area now) and my wife is still involved with UA...so to some extent....I care about the UA staying afloat for those reasons.....
Again...I ask you...why is SQ so interested in flying OZ to US? To pick up leisure travel? Why is QF being extremely defensive on letting SQ in that market? Losing the leisure traveler? Just because UA's numbers say one thing, doesn't mean QF's or SQ's say the same thing. Again, I could care less what UA does or say around this....just stay afloat so I can cash in my miles and not affect my wife....outside of that, I don't have a dog in this fight...
Lastly, I voted with my wallet...as did others.....I don't care about all the people that are hub centric to CO/UA (in particular EWR, CLE and IAH), monday am quarterbacking saying...I found this...or do that...or....(acting like they have been or are in those people's shoes), and those people bring up things as to why its a problem/issue for them: Automatically its all about "stop your whining" or something along those lines....
I sit back and watch a lot when people raise an issue....and I say...well...get ready to get flamed as they know best because they walk in your shoes more than that person themselves......Bottom line....why even bother raising a complaint/concern? I sure wouldn't....and don't (again, I could care less what UA does on its OZ routes, they could fly CR7's for all I care).....
Heck I was even hesitant to bring up or start a new thread about something as simple as adding another row in economy on the CR7's. Again as someone who used to be in the business, I am still privy to quite a bit of information (through various people) and a lot of it, I don't bother to post or mention because of all the Monday am Quarterbacking here on why it should/shouldn't be an issue for a person..."just suck it up".....(or something along those lines).
So, when I see people posting "I heard this".....without a disclaimer....or backing it up (especially when I know something is false)... I am going to "throw" something back at them as another reason/thought/question. But then again....I will probably just defer to the paragraph right above this one and offer advice/recommendations or ideas to people (i.e. buying CPAC OW tickets) vs dealing with what UA is going to do next with its aircraft utilization or whatever the issue maybe. This actually is the best way IMHO to go to OZ if you have other business in Asia. Better cost, seat, and service....@:-)
So, maybe if people focus more on trying to offer solutions (when people raise an issue for them on a change, in this case no F/C on OZ flights) and get a full understanding of what the issue is/are, before jumping to conclusions, it might be more helpful.
YMMV...
Last edited by iluv2fly; Aug 15, 2013 at 8:40 am Reason: merge
Aug 15, 2013, 9:40 am
#206
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Shared Troll
Programs: The Marina. Comic Relief. UA 1K and 1MM. MacBook Pro.
Posts: 1,913
Aug 15, 2013, 9:41 am
#207
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,453
Correct, they are the GE90-94B model with a software mod that permits a 4k max thrust bump to 94k. They also have the 3D Aero blade package installed, but AFAIK all sUA 777s have this now too.
Yes, but the notion that the 777 is a less capable freight hauler than the 747 is mostly untrue. sCO 777 ultra longhauls frequently carry considerable cargo while 744s on the SYD flights often go out weight restricted, so it absolutely goes both ways.
Yes, but the notion that the 777 is a less capable freight hauler than the 747 is mostly untrue. sCO 777 ultra longhauls frequently carry considerable cargo while 744s on the SYD flights often go out weight restricted, so it absolutely goes both ways.
Aug 15, 2013, 9:53 am
#208
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: HaMerkaz/Exit 145
Programs: UA, LY, BA, AA
Posts: 13,167
I wonder - would you have posted that as well had the sUA seat won, or is this a concern only because more voted for the sCO seat?
The "covered plywood" is the 737. The sCO 772 has seats that are just as comfortable (or not) as the sUA 772. More so, IMO, than the sUA 744.
Just when you think that it can't get any worse... well it does. I'm at the point where I just expect very little from the 'new UA' and am RARELY disappointed.
The IFE might be an upgrade if half of the movies on there weren't the likes of 'Foot Loose' or 'Gone with the Wind'.... I don't know why they even bother with putting in all these IFE systems and there is nothing but oldies on it---this was pretty much the case for CO pre-merger---obviously they go cheap on the content. In general I know if traveling on UA, you're on your own for IFE ... whether on a CO plane or a UA 747.
If you're in coach, it's going to stink no matter what. Trade the more comfortable UA coach seats for the CO covered pieces of plywood containing IFE where the most interesting thing on it is the flight map. I'm sure Jeff is going to rip out the more comfy seats out of the 747 anyways.. I've flown UA coach to SYD/MEL several times and it's not a good time but the thought of flying on those CO rock hard seats is hard to take.
Do they ever wonder why QF flies the A380 to the states and UA evidently can only muster a 777? Clearly they're not concerned in winning over more business but only in shrinking to the point where capacity match those who are captive.
The IFE might be an upgrade if half of the movies on there weren't the likes of 'Foot Loose' or 'Gone with the Wind'.... I don't know why they even bother with putting in all these IFE systems and there is nothing but oldies on it---this was pretty much the case for CO pre-merger---obviously they go cheap on the content. In general I know if traveling on UA, you're on your own for IFE ... whether on a CO plane or a UA 747.
If you're in coach, it's going to stink no matter what. Trade the more comfortable UA coach seats for the CO covered pieces of plywood containing IFE where the most interesting thing on it is the flight map. I'm sure Jeff is going to rip out the more comfy seats out of the 747 anyways.. I've flown UA coach to SYD/MEL several times and it's not a good time but the thought of flying on those CO rock hard seats is hard to take.
Do they ever wonder why QF flies the A380 to the states and UA evidently can only muster a 777? Clearly they're not concerned in winning over more business but only in shrinking to the point where capacity match those who are captive.
Aug 15, 2013, 10:55 am
#209
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Always on the move
Programs: Something lifetime here and there
Posts: 1,867
Never said it was or wasn't.....Cargo...(regardless of type of A/C), is always the wildcard....
Aug 15, 2013, 11:18 am
#210
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: ANP
Programs: UA 1k, Marriott Plat, HH gold, Avis/Hertz Pres
Posts: 1,408