UA69 (ARN-EWR): Wrong plane, wrong fuel calculations, or bad weather?
Dec 16, 2013, 9:12 am
#181
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
Asia.
Dec 16, 2013, 3:34 pm
#183
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
EY operates A319-100s, A320-200s, and A321-200s. They have 26 A321neos on order. JU which is 49% owned by EY and wholly managed by EY is entirely narrow body.
QR operates A319-100LRs, A320-200s, A321-100s and has a combined 50 A320neo/A321neos on order.
Dec 16, 2013, 3:38 pm
#184
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,167
My QR A320 last month also had a Old-PS C-like (but completely new w/electronics) recliner chair in F, so it's not quite an apples to apples comparison. That was also a 300 mile flight that was served w/ a 787 the day before.
Dec 20, 2013, 5:26 pm
#185
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Calif./Eastern Ida.
Programs: Amethyst Premier Plutonium Medallion
Posts: 20,634
thinking outside the box, why would it not be possible for UA to fly something larger and hit two cities, the way they do SYD->MEL?
for instance one could envision EWR-OSL-ARN, or EWR-MAD-BCN, using a larger plane like a 767 or 787 presuming cabotage isn't an issue if intra-EU flights were not marketed for sale as independent sectors.
for instance one could envision EWR-OSL-ARN, or EWR-MAD-BCN, using a larger plane like a 767 or 787 presuming cabotage isn't an issue if intra-EU flights were not marketed for sale as independent sectors.
Dec 20, 2013, 5:45 pm
#186
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA
Programs: DL SM Plat, B6 TrueBlue, UA MP, AAdvantage
Posts: 10,008
thinking outside the box, why would it not be possible for UA to fly something larger and hit two cities, the way they do SYD->MEL?
for instance one could envision EWR-OSL-ARN, or EWR-MAD-BCN, using a larger plane like a 767 or 787 presuming cabotage isn't an issue if intra-EU flights were not marketed for sale as independent sectors.
for instance one could envision EWR-OSL-ARN, or EWR-MAD-BCN, using a larger plane like a 767 or 787 presuming cabotage isn't an issue if intra-EU flights were not marketed for sale as independent sectors.
In any case, if the point is to avoid the need for a fuel stop out of ARN or BCN, the fact that these flights would now make a scheduled stop would hardly seem like a solution.
Dec 20, 2013, 5:51 pm
#187
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Northern Calif./Eastern Ida.
Programs: Amethyst Premier Plutonium Medallion
Posts: 20,634
additionally the scheduled stop would presumably only affect the ~50% of the passengers embarking or disembarking at the 2nd destination of the flight, rather than pax in both ARN and OSL being affected on a particularly "breezy" day given the status quo.
agreed that the economics are probably not in favor or it would have been done by now, much the way they'd fly a CR7 to some of these places if they could make the math work.