EWR764

I would expect a new design in time for the 787-10 and/or A350. The B/E Aerospace Super Diamond (like QR) is an obvious contender and allows for similar density, which would make UA happy.

HkCaGu

All these posts complaining why not SFO-MEL, and nobody mentioned WEATHER. It's a pain to misconnect when short, medium and/or long hauls get delayed into SFO. Already a pain for SoCal-SFO-Asia to have to plan 3-5 hour connections in the morning, if you need some "guarantee" to be able to arrive the day you want.

ORDSteve

Very helpful, thanks. You might also consider mentioning United uses a dedicated customs facility at T7 (instead of TBIT) that makes it quick and easy to get to either curbside or connecting flights.

mjg59

So we're going from 620 economy seats plus 128 premium seats to Australia per day to 599 economy seats plus 170 premium seats to Australia 6 days a week? Suits me fine. I've never seen SYD-MEL anywhere near full enough that it'd be a full 787-9, so it'll be interesting to see whether having a non-stop is attractive enough to pull more people away from Qantas or Delta.

uastarflyer

no they should have designed a new C product that would start with the 787 and work its way fleet wide. They had years to develop it. It is shocking and disappointing that they go with an already aged product. No chance they upgrade for at least 5 years now. It is already regressing and by 2020 - when it is still flying - is a laughingstock.


I assume you mean 744. The sUA 772 just got redone in 3 class config. I assume next stop is Victorville. Sure they can redo those too if they wish, with a C product they don't have yet. Something with aisle access from every seat.

Not taking your troll bait about "awful". The software on sUA is definitely better.

Let's see if this route goes first. CO suits now working for UCH talk a bunch of smack but on game day aren't always there. Like IAH-AKL. Or streaming IFE in the 744 by 2013 EOY. Fail. Fail.

dgdevil

+1. SFO can be scary as hell for connections.

Re: Other posters - Nothing wrong with LAX or with Customs/Immigration - and I say this as a poor sod in the visitors line. Try IAD in the A.M. when UA flights from Middle East and LatAm all arrive at the same time.

Looking forward to new Oz services - and maybe some nice introductory fares?

cyclogenesis

So mixed feelings here..

I actually LIKED the stop over in Sydney.. Access to the AirNZ lounge and if things were running on time you could even squeeze in a shower!

But as some one who had no hope of GF, and only managed to score BF once, not sad to see the 747 go.. Mainly for reliability..

I think this is a winner for UA.. Long thin route, made for the 787.. It would be even nicer if they passed on some savings and made the route very competitive..

Final + is it cuts a few hours off the travel time, I will be very interested to see what time they schedule it for? Part of the usual bank of evening departures, if it goes direct it will be in Mel pretty early..

Madone59

Re the Wiki on the top of the thread. It's going to be an evening departure.


98 LAX - MEL (will not operate on Tuesdays)
10:30p 9:15a+2 1545 (Except Thursday)
9:30p 8:15a+2 1545 (Thursdays Only)

99 MEL - LAX (will not operate on Thursdays)
11:15a 6:50a 1435 (Except Saturday)
3:15p 10:50a 1435 (Saturdays Only)

spin88

It will be interesting to see how this goes. As others have noted the current tag on flight is usually not over half full (with folks from Both LAX and SFO flights combined) and sometimes it is less full. So UAL is going to have to attract many NEW passengers to make this work, and in specific they will need new premium passengers.

Virgin Australia flies LAX-MEL with a 77W with lie flat seats that are better than the CO seats, and with PE which has 38" pitch and 19.5 wide. They also have 32" pitch in Y with 18.5" wide seats. Other than an argument about would you rather have the CO 17" wide seat and 35" pitch in E+ or the wider Virgin seat (and I would take the Virgin seat) Virgin's soft product is much better. Given a choice, taking Virgin Australia over UA (unless the extra humidity and windows on the 789 compensation) would appear the smart move, unless you are tied into UAL's mileage program, yet UAL need to attract new passengers to make a go of this.

QF, it flies a A388 with 12 FC suits and 64 lie flat beds. All are again better than the narrow CO seats on the dream liner. QF also offers PE that has 38-42" pitch and a 19.5" wide seat. Again much much better soft product.

Coach on QF however is as bad as the CO bird, with 31" pitch in non-exit rows and 17.5" wide seats. The soft product is better, and you get free booze!

Most passengers at the Aussi side are tied into QFs program so it will be hard to siphon off those folks, and both AA and DAL fliers are tied into respectively the QF and Virgin flights.

Given that there are better options from the eastern seaboard (taking CX via HKG, or the middle eastern airlines, EK in particular) which are only an hour or two longer in travel time, and allow things like a shower/decent lounge at the connection, and don't involve a small plane/RJ, crappy domestic F, I don't think this will appeal much to folks from the Eastern US.

So at the end of the day, I think UAL will have to pick up daily 20-30 BF fares and 60-80 Y fares, EACH WAY and I wonder how UAL can do this other than being the low price leader enough to attract traffic (since its product is either substandard in the market or at best no better) which is not a way to make this flight profitable.

Ultimately, IMHO I think this route shows the limits of Jeff's vision of running a bargain basement airline when it comes to product and service when you need to attract new passengers to make a route work. Anyone want to step up here and say UAL will be able to attract new, high fare traffic to this route?

Yet, UAL has a BUNCH of new international A/C coming, and it will have to find something to do with them, and that will involve, each time, attracting new passengers from other airlines, and I see that being very hard to do at this point.

cyclogenesis

Ahh apologies..

Decent time table.. Man that is a LONG time in a seat.. ouch..

BTW, a search for a one week turn around in November yields a $1,333.40 LAX-MEL-LAX AI fare.. that is down right decent.. and $1,617.20 ORD-LAX-MEL-LAX-ORD.. again, not too shabby.

uastarflyer

Having stated my doubts, I do hope this takes off as planned. I want to go to the Aussie Open either this time or next!!

kenn0223

Two things,

1) Many of the customers on the SYD flights are connecting beyond SYD (and not to MEL) so they terminate with UA at SYD and then take another carrier (QF/VA/JS). There are about as many domestic connection options from MEL as there are from SYD so I expect that you'll see some of this connecting traffic move to the MEL flight (UA likely has insight into this since they can see the on-ward connections if they are on the same PNR/Ticket as the UA flights).

2) My, informed purely via personal observation, guess is that a good amount of UA's international premium traffic comes from American corporate contracts and/or passengers with "Buy American" obligations. For these passengers they aren't really competing against QF and VA but really only with DL (who only has service to SYD).

Col Ronson

QF doesn't provide all aisle access business seats, neither does VA. Pretty sure QF has no problem commanding the lead on USA-AU flights....

VA doesn't have "first class" either and QF doesn't have it on non-A380 flights. All aisle access is overrated, i like the current UA (not CO) BF seat vs the DL business seat. I dont like sitting at an angle, but thats just my two cents. Nevermind that a lot of people travel in pairs and prefer the current config.

Actually now that i think of it, only QF and UA are offering "First" class on USA-AU routes and since most people don't pay for the mediocre F product that is UA, i don't see why UA would invest in putting some F seats in when 90% of those seats will be upgrades.

-----------------

MEL is also easier for domestic connections since you can walk from the intl terminal to the QF or VA terminal, as opposed to SYD where you have to take a shuttle, a train, or pay a taxi. I also routinely fly LAX-MEL because the landing fees of SYD sometimes make it more expensive than flying to MEL.

My personal observation has noticed a lot of Aussies on UA flights who simply bought the "cheapest ticket." That's who UA is catering to mostly, Americans already committed to UA and common leisure travelers.

787fan

First, I have no idea why you had to underline "lie flat" - all 3 airlines on the route are 100% flat bed, so that's not a disadvantage at UA. No one's J is all-aisle access either, no disadvantage UA. Also, UA still sells 3-class F to SYD from 2 cities while neither DL nor VA sell any.

second, the 789 is 32" at Y, not 31, and the Y+ is not sold as a separate cabin, so it's totally apples-to-oranges when comparing that to VA's 38" 2-4-2 PE cabin

UA has roughly half the seats to fill compared to QF's A380, so it's a lot easier to maintain yields even if QF has higher loyalty (QF+AA). VA is only 3x weekly (99 J seats a week) while UA is 6x weekly (288 J seats, nearly 3x).

Key difference is : QF INTL will implode if Aussie-US falters, but for UA, it's pure icing on the cake.

SFO_Runner

Missing flame bait:

1. Why doesn't UA remotely station and fly SYD - MEL with a 73G?! Surely they can continue the GUM - CNS tag, as GUM - CNS - SYD - MEL!

2. Shame on UA for not coming up with a new, innovative C seat that is "more than flat"! Flat seats are so yesterday! I hear SQ has a more-than-flat C seat that will blow the industry away.

3. Surely this is too much capacity for UA's bad product. A 73G certainly has the range for the few people who would pick UA over QF/VA/DL!

4. Why doesn't UA fly LAX - HKG?

5. Does the 788 or 789 have the legs for SYD - ORD?