Go Back  FlyerTalk Forums > Miles&Points > Airlines and Mileage Programs > United Airlines | MileagePlus
Reload this Page >

[Confirmed] SYD going UA 3 Cabin 777 in 2014 [and other 747 route changes]

Old Aug 17, 2013, 10:44 am
FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides
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
Print Wikipost

[Confirmed] SYD going UA 3 Cabin 777 in 2014 [and other 747 route changes]

Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:01 pm
  #61  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Syd
Programs: UA 1k 1MM, VA G
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by halls120
What sCO routes currently flown by 777s will lose those birds? In favor of what - 787s?
I would bet that they are going to kill the BHM/KWI flights and then have the spare 777 for the syd flight
LordTentacle is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:07 pm
  #62  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
Originally Posted by B787938
Granted, a Continental 777 200 ER with the GE 90 engines can easily make it from the West Coast to Sydney they cannot do it fully loaded with passengers and freight.
.
The actual in air time looks to be roughly 14hrs and 25 min. This is a few hours shorter than EWR-HKG. I can't imagine too much of a payload restriction.
CO_Nonrev_elite is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:15 pm
  #63  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by LordTentacle
The service on airNZ and the availability of a real PE product is a reason I have been considering moving.
What is a PE product? Obviously not Private Equity?
DaviddesJ is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:15 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,424
Originally Posted by B787938
That said, I highly doubt that United will give up it's freight revenue that the 747 400 can provide. Granted, a Continental 777 200 ER with the GE 90 engines can easily make it from the West Coast to Sydney they cannot do it fully loaded with passengers and freight.
I'm not sure this is the case. First of all, it's a common misconception that UA does not haul cargo on its 777s to HKG, BOM, PVG, etc. Quite often, these flights go out right at MGTOW with pax, bags, freight and fuel. Weight restrictions come into play when weather conditions and/or winds aloft cause problems, but under normal conditions these flights can carry a healthy freight load. Second, the 772 actually has a larger freight volume than the 744, owing to the shape of the fuselage. Finally, the 744 has a lower CASM than the 772, and can still be a big moneymaker, but this is only if you can fill a substantial portion of those 374 seats with a reasonable mix of traffic. By subbing in the 772 (if it happens), UA is attempting to 'fire' the lowest-yield Y traffic by reducing the number of economy class seats by over 100 while making a smaller cut to premium capacity. In a competitive market (see SEA-NRT, LAX-NRT, LAX-PVG) with a lot of downward fare pressure, this strategy makes sense, as the alternative - a capacity dump a la SFO/LAX-EWR - is not feasible nor advisable.
EWR764 is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:16 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orygun
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by CO_Nonrev_elite
The actual in air time looks to be roughly 14hrs and 25 min. This is a few hours shorter than EWR-HKG. I can't imagine too much of a payload restriction.
I will certainly give you that. The question is though can the 777 – 200 ER offer as much freight lift as the 747 – 400?
B787938 is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:18 pm
  #66  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
I think it's cool that everyone has their own preferences. While I hear that some of you prefer the UA J seat so much that you'd take 2-4-2 over 2-2-2, I'd take the Continental plane very single day of the week over the UA plane.
CO_Nonrev_elite is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:18 pm
  #67  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: DEN
Programs: United Premier 1K, Hyatt Platinum, HHonors Gold, Marriott Gold Elite, SPG Gold
Posts: 70
Something tells me United knows more about the economics of the route than some people on FlyerTalk, but hey, that's just me.
kziel777 is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:18 pm
  #68  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Orygun
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by EWR764
I'm not sure this is the case. First of all, it's a common misconception that UA does not haul cargo on its 777s to HKG, BOM, PVG, etc. Quite often, these flights go out right at MGTOW with pax, bags, freight and fuel. Weight restrictions come into play when weather conditions and/or winds aloft cause problems, but under normal conditions these flights can carry a healthy freight load. Second, the 772 actually has a larger freight volume than the 744, owing to the shape of the fuselage. Finally, the 744 has a lower CASM than the 772, and can still be a big moneymaker, but this is only if you can fill a substantial portion of those 374 seats with a reasonable mix of traffic. By subbing in the 772 (if it happens), UA is attempting to 'fire' the lowest-yield Y traffic by reducing the number of economy class seats by over 100 while making a smaller cut to premium capacity. In a competitive market (see SEA-NRT, LAX-NRT, LAX-PVG) with a lot of downward fare pressure, this strategy makes sense, as the alternative - a capacity dump a la SFO/LAX-EWR - is not feasible nor advisable.
Absolutely! Two three years ago United was offering $800 round-trip San Francisco - Sydney. Have you seen any of those lately? It seems they would rather left a somewhat empty 747 go out at $2000 a head in whY versus $800 a head and a full plane.
B787938 is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:20 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
Originally Posted by B787938
I will certainly give you that. The question is though can the 777 200 ER offer as much freight lift as the 747 400?
I doubt it, but it may get there for a lower costs with a more appropriate amount of passengers. I'd need to look up what the freight lift is for UA on these routes. I'm not sure if that's a huge business for them on that route
CO_Nonrev_elite is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:25 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: MEL
Programs: VAG
Posts: 1,865
Originally Posted by B787938
Now back on topic: There's way too much capacity on the US to Australia routes right now.
Is there? It's been about seven years since I flew on a US-Australia flight with any significant number of empty seats.

And it's not like fares are low, either. You'll pay a lot more to fly SFO-SYD than the comparable-length SFO-FRA or the even longer SFO-SIN.
Jorgen is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:42 pm
  #71  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northeast Kansas | Colorado Native
Programs: Amex Gold/Plat, UA *G, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott LT Gold, NEXUS, TSA Disparager Unobtanium
Posts: 21,558
Originally Posted by CO_Nonrev_elite
and Australia doesn't have too much paid C anyways, almost all upgrades
Do you have any data to support this claim?
FriendlySkies is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:48 pm
  #72  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Syd
Programs: UA 1k 1MM, VA G
Posts: 886
Originally Posted by CO_Nonrev_elite
I doubt it, but it may get there for a lower costs with a more appropriate amount of passengers. I'd need to look up what the freight lift is for UA on these routes. I'm not sure if that's a huge business for them on that route
Within the last 12 months alone I have seen them dump Y passengers (VDB/IDB) twice because of heavy cargo and MTOW limits

I talk to the pilots on every trip I take (747 captains are generaly the only ones that know a family memeber also with UA) and always ask about cargo loads and how they relate to MTOW
on the SYD fights they are always at rated MTOW with as much cargo as they can hold
LordTentacle is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 9:57 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes
Posts: 2,202
Originally Posted by FriendlySkies
Do you have any data to support this claim?
Sure, none that I can post here though
CO_Nonrev_elite is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 10:05 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: PDX
Posts: 2,284
Originally Posted by DaviddesJ
What is a PE product? Obviously not Private Equity?
PE = Premium Economy. A better than Coach seat, often with better service and perks, vs. something like merely extra legroom as UA offers in Economy Plus.
AeroWesty is offline  
Old Aug 13, 2013, 10:19 pm
  #75  
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 1,961
Originally Posted by AeroWesty
PE = Premium Economy. A better than Coach seat, often with better service and perks, vs. something like merely extra legroom as UA offers in Economy Plus.
OK, got it. But Premium Economy SFO-SYD on NZ is pricing out around $3400 even months out. Seems pretty steep for not that much better a seat. Upgrading to C on UA nonstop seems like a better deal, at least if you have UA status.
DaviddesJ is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.