lensman

I think this is a problem that everyone knows that UA has.

The possibilities:
1. Upgauge to a 787. It's bigger so you'd have to sell more discounted tickets to break even. Operating efficiencies of the 787 might make this still profitable.
2. Upgauge to a 767-300. Same problem as the 787 but the route would end up less profitable because the 767 has higher CASM.
3. Hope that Boeing or Airbus pulls off a miracle and has a replacement aircraft that fills this gap.

If global demand continues to go up, 1&2 might make sense anyway. OTOH, will there be even smaller destinations that would be targets for this strategy? If so, then there would be a need for a ~200 seat aircraft with range greater than 4000 nm.

I wonder if the A319neo would do? It's much smaller but maybe that would be a good thing?

Hey, do any carriers fly the current A319 TATL? I came across a post from 2006 saying that LH did, but I don't see them flying one nowadays.

BayAreaPilot

Not an A319, but BA flies an all-business-class A318 twice daily LCY-JFK. Non-stop eastbound, stop at SNN for fuel (and customs pre-clearance on one of the two) westbound. Very niche case connecting two financial centers. Not a general solution for thin transatlantic routes.

UA-NYC

You forgot the most obvious, 4. turn them into less frequent / seasonal service or end entirely. IMO that's the most likely scenario for those Scandinavia routes, some of the very thin UK routes, etc.

halls120

#1 isn't a realistic option. The reason these routes are being served by 757s is because they can't support a larger aircraft, absent a significant uptick in demand.

#2 isn't a realistic option. The 767s are of the same vintage as the 757, so they aren't a long term solution, and in the short term it means taking an aircraft off a more profitable route - unless UA decides to keep them around longer.

It would be nice if Airbus or Boeing would build a modern 200 seat aircraft with 4000 mile range, but really, how many sales would such a design really produce?

sbm12

AC does seasonal service from YYT-LHR on the A319.

WOW Air is an Iceland-based LCC which will launch service KEF-BOS in the summer of 2014 on A320s, though they have also said they are looking to find 757s they can wet-lease to offer other US destinations. Sun Country has served London on 737s in the past.

TWA Fan 1

This is a low-density (32 J seats) plane, so the payload is lower than the typical A-318.

Also, if the flight took off from one of the other London airports (LHR, LGW) it wouldn't require a westbound fuel stop. But since the runway at LCY is so short there is a MTOW restriction that means they stop at SNN.

Although discontinued currently, for a few years PrivatAir used to operate 737 BBJ's and A320's with an all J service as a sub-contractor to LH and LX, flying TATL.

As it stands today, there is no single-aisle jet made by either Airbus or Boeing that could replace the 752 in a standard cabin configuration, except on a small handful of the most westerly European destinations.

That's a shorter route than, say, JFK-LAX.

fly18725

Today's A330 is much more capable of the original A330.

The 767 did not have ETOPS when designed or delivered.

At the end of huge day, who cares what the aircraft was designed for. I am more interested in whether it can safely serve the mission it is used for. If you're not a fan, or confident in the aircraft's capability, take another flight.

Always Flyin

Perhaps passengers would if the restrictions were disclosed at the time of booking, but they are not.

TWA Fan 1

Of course, however, by the time you're at the airport it's doubtful that any alternative would get you to your destination any more quickly.

fly18725

Diversion rates are disclosed. Regardless, any flight could be diverted due to weather conditions.

Often1

Diversions are expensive money losers for the carrier. Compensation aside, the cost of the extra rotation likely makes the flight a money loser.

But, it's likely that the current frequency & equiptment are simply the best PRASM the route supports.

The likely choice here is not to put a larger or more valuable (in terms of value on another route) aircraft on the oft-diverted route, but to either cancel it or reduce its frequency.

mduell

PrivatAir used to do a mix of TATL 737/32S flying on behalf of several airlines (LX, LH, KL). They're redeployed the capacity to Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia now.

EmailKid

Exactly @:-)

My LAX-IAH about 5 years ago was diverted to AUS for refueling after circling IAH for about 40 minutes.

And because some pax were allowed to deplane, I was moved from back to Int'l Biz on 757, even if only on the short hop back to IAH

WIRunner

AA 121 CDG-JFK is expected to visit us on snowy Bangor today. Nothing from UA the past few days.

The past week there have been 3 US, 3 UA, and 1 AA visit.

Always Flyin

Show me when I book a ticket on united.com where it discloses that the flight is subject to diversion.

The flights are not diverted due to weather conditions. Weather conditions are, e.g., when it is snowing and an aircraft can't land.

This is a situation where an aircraft is used that only marginally has the range capability to complete the flight and has to stop for fuel if conditions are less than ideal, if the aircraft is routed on a less than ideal track, or if the aircraft has to hold before landing due to other traffic.