Aug 17, 2013, 10:44 am

FlyerTalk Forums Expert How-Tos and Guides

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

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

Closed Thread Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Aug 13, 2013, 11:28 pm

#91

kevanyalowitz

Join Date: Mar 2002

Location: SEA, WAS, PEK

Programs: UA 3K UGS 3MM

Posts: 2,176

Quote:

Originally Posted by CO_Nonrev_elite

I'm a 1K. I fly roughly 10-15 long haul (8hr+) trips per year. Usually it's booked in economy and GPU assisted into business class. It's been a long time since I took a long haul flight in economy.

Based on your travel patterns, I can see why you don't have a problem with this change. United J (sCO or sUA) is a outstanding when you are paying a small fraction of the price for it.

Aug 13, 2013, 11:38 pm

#92

CO_Nonrev_elite

Join Date: May 2005

Programs: Million Miler, 1K - Basically spend a lot of time on planes

Posts: 2,202

Quote:

Originally Posted by kevanyalowitz

Based on your travel patterns, I can see why you don't have a problem with this change. United J (sCO or sUA) is a outstanding when you are paying a small fraction of the price for it.

as said, we paid BF for all three of these china trips. Nonstop, and cheaper than the competition that I would be willing to fly. I would assume, but accept that it's only an assumption that there are a lot of people that are pay Y and GPU into BF type folks around. Most, but not all of mine are that way. Doesn't everyone want to pay less and get more ?

Aug 13, 2013, 11:59 pm

#93

AeroWesty

Join Date: Oct 2004

Location: PDX

Posts: 2,284

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaviddesJ

We were talking about NZ, and looking at their actual Premium Economy seats they don't seem hugely better than UA E+.

If you detour via LAX as well, you get an even better PE on NZ:

http://www.airlinereporter.com/2012/...g-to-auckland/

Aug 14, 2013, 12:16 am

#94

meFIRST

Join Date: Oct 2000

Posts: 2,657

I'm surprised this route hasn't been cut yet. I guess a 777 is better than nothing. UA would like nothing better than to switch to RJ flying and close the Global First Lounge at LAX. Just wait. That will be next.

In all seriousness : This really sucks for UA non revs, (who basically dominate Global First anyway) . Major upgrade for Y class flyers.

I'm surprised the 777-200ER can fly that far overwater. Will there be technical stops in HNL? ( in the fashion on EWR-TXL and IAD-CDG?)

Aug 14, 2013, 12:36 am

#95

uastarflyer

A FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Aug 2003

Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond

Posts: 60,172

Quote:

Originally Posted by cranky1K

I agree this would be an improvement for Y but a setback for J and a total loss for GF.

Smisek promised power and free IFE streaming in Y on the 747s. Apparently he lied.

That said, if he was correct, then what is the practical difference.

On the other hand, you can't compensate for all the capacity taken away. Which is what happens when 777s replace 747s.

PMCO doesn't even offer the full can of Coke in Y as standard beverage service. Terrible.

The 747 also shaves a bit of flight time. Always good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kziel777

Something tells me United knows more about the economics of the route than some people on FlyerTalk, but hey, that's just me.

That is what the defenders said when hKG-SIN went from widebody to a 737.

It pretty quickly stopped being a 737.

So no, a conclusion that COdbaUA is brilliant is by no means solid.

Last edited by iluv2fly; Aug 14, 2013 at 5:30 am Reason: merge

Aug 14, 2013, 12:53 am

#96

Kacee

A FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Apr 2013

Location: PHX

Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)

Posts: 56,450

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaviddesJ

We were talking about NZ, and looking at their actual Premium Economy seats they don't seem hugely better than UA E+.

Uninformed opinion and totally wrong. There's a reason that seat commands a premium price.

Aug 14, 2013, 1:02 am

#97

SeaRaptor

Join Date: Jul 2010

Location: IAH

Programs: UA nada, Hyatt Disc, Hilton Gold

Posts: 846

Quote:

Originally Posted by meFIRST

I'm surprised the 777-200ER can fly that far overwater. Will there be technical stops in HNL? ( in the fashion on EWR-TXL and IAD-CDG?)

Given that UA routinely operates this aircraft on a route 500 miles longer (EWR-HKG), I'm not sure I see an issue with range.

Aug 14, 2013, 1:06 am

#98

hotturnip

Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Atlanta Metro

Programs: DL , AC, BA, Hhonors Diamond, IH Platinum, Bonvoy Gold, Hyatt Discoverist

Posts: 2,353

Quote:

Originally Posted by fly18725

What is "better for pax"? An improved product that is provides better value or more capacity than needed so the pax can pay less and then easily upgrade?

What is "better for pax" is an aircraft that will actually get them to their destination in some halfway reliable fashion, somewhere vaguely near the scheduled arrival time.

It's quite surreal to me to see people whimpering about the (rumored) end of UA 747 service to SYD, when there are literally thousands of posts over many years documenting the horrendous record of these flights with their broken-down equipment. I'm sure many of the victims of this poor service will heave a vast, collective sigh of relief.

Aug 14, 2013, 1:14 am

#99

DaviddesJ

Suspended

Join Date: May 2011

Location: SFO

Programs: UA 1K

Posts: 1,961

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kacee

Uninformed opinion and totally wrong. There's a reason that seat commands a premium price.

It's not uninformed because it's based on looking at the actual seats and their specifications. Of course, you can disagree. The 773 Premium Economy seats do look very nice.

Aug 14, 2013, 1:26 am

#100

LordTentacle

Join Date: Mar 2012

Location: Syd

Programs: UA 1k 1MM, VA G

Posts: 886

Quote:

Originally Posted by hotturnip

It's quite surreal to me to see people whimpering about the (rumored) end of UA 747 service to SYD, when there are literally thousands of posts over many years documenting the horrendous record of these flights with their broken-down equipment. I'm sure many of the victims of this poor service will heave a vast, collective sigh of relief.

Not all of us have such the "horrid" time
The vast majority of us never have an issue and thus never post

50 segments on TPAC to and fro SYD in 36 months
1 MX and 0 delays
The one MX was caused when a catering truck drove into the side of the plane which isn't exactly UA's complete fault.... and they booked me onto airNZ so I got to my destination early in the end

Aug 14, 2013, 1:41 am

#101

Always Flyin

Join Date: Jan 2000

Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas

Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond

Posts: 8,745

Quote:

Originally Posted by SeaRaptor

Given that UA routinely operates this aircraft on a route 500 miles longer (EWR-HKG), I'm not sure I see an issue with range.

Perhaps you should factor in no-wind polar routes versus So. Pacific routes.

The CO 777 can certainly make it non-stop, but there will be some weight penalties, particularly westbound.

Aug 14, 2013, 1:59 am

#102

IADDCA

Used to be 'IAD22066'

Join Date: Jan 2010

Location: IAD

Programs: UA 1K AA

Posts: 282

Any chance that the 787s will take over the LAX/SFO to SYD route if they stop catching on fire? Boeing claims that their 787-9 has a range of 8000-8500 miles. I haven't flown in a 787 yet but it seems like it would be a nice ride.

Other question... in this thread you have people lamenting the crews that will be taken off the LAX-SYD and SFO-SYD routes while another thread makes these crews sound like an over-entitled group who have too much seniority to be bothered. So are they good or not good? (I've seen both)

Aug 14, 2013, 2:27 am

#103

swm61230

Join Date: Nov 2009

Location: LAX

Programs: AA(EXP)UA(1K/1MM) Marriott(PP,LifeTime Plat) Hertz(5*)

Posts: 449

Quote:

Originally Posted by born sleepy

I don't get all the hate for the CO BF seat. I have slept like a log in those on long-haul CO 777s many times. Once I flew UA 744 in F (before it was GF, ca 2002, I think it was called First Suite) to SYD and back and I know I slept better in the CO seat.

Haven't experienced the new GF seat but the CO BF seat is fiiiine. I'm not a tall man so maybe that's in my favor.

yes the first suite was horrible so was the old business class recliner seat.

Have you flown in the pmUA BF seat. even at 4 wide i feel i have more room to stretch out and relax. I got to compare the two within three hours of each other. First the pmUA BF then pmCO BF. I felt so claustrophobic in the pmCO seat that I just couldn't sleep at all.

Aug 14, 2013, 2:29 am

#104

halls120

A FlyerTalk Posting Legend

Join Date: Jun 2005

Posts: 57,571

Quote:

Originally Posted by JC1120

I don't disagree with you, but I think the last poll that was done on the sUA vs the sCO seats shows that significantly more people on FT prefer the sCO seat.

Yes, it was around a 60/40 split in favor of the sCO seat, IIRC. I just wonder how many of the respondents in that poll had actually experienced both seats.

Aug 14, 2013, 3:53 am

#105

XCstud

Join Date: Jan 2013

Location: Houston

Programs: UA - 1K, Marriott - Gold, Hilton - Gold, Global Entry,

Posts: 632

Quote:

Originally Posted by swm61230

And I agree that the pmCO BF seat is the worst. I never thought it really could get much worse then a pmUA BF seat but I was proven wrong when I was on a 787 NRT-LAX. Which is another one of the pmUA LAX based flights that has gone by way of the dodo bird.

The 787 BF seats are smaller than the 772 BF seats.