flybit

maybe UA should put the 789 on ewr-bom, the 777 is on fumes when it arrives and the reliability for whatever reason on this flight is awful.
however I thought I read the 789 had problems when its rear gas tank was full?

EmailKid

NW had 10 or so weekly 747s on DTW-NRT that took off five or ten minutes apart IIRC. GAs would urge pax to check that they are at the correct gate (not right gate, as they were next to each other ).

Not sure why UA would not do that if it's just the timing that's off

spin88

I'll believe the upgage when it actually happens, and if you have some data on AA's loads vs. UAs loads, I would be curious to see it. I know no where to find that stuff on a route specific basis. Checking fares, they bounce around (as does how full the plane is) but I see no decernable advantage to UAL. Currently MU (skyteam) flies 1x or 2x 333 as I recall, UAL 1x 788, and AAL 1x 772ER.

AAL has traditionally had very little pacific network, while UAL was the "go to" carrier for West Coast to Asia service, with that edge (and until recently the largest presence at LAX) its surprising that UAL is not doing better.

There are a few basic things you are forgetting. First, EWR-HKG is a polar route exclusively. NYC and HKG are basically opposite each other. Plane flies East to HKG then flies East back to NYC. The plane basically picks up range going both ways. Even then, its at the edge of the 772ER range,and has weight restrictions at times. Flight time at about 16 hours is the max for a 772ER.

SFO (or LAX, another 350 mi longer) to India can't go East then East again,. It has to go West to India. So it looses range going to India. This puts it well outside of the range of a 787-8. I think SFO-India would be more like 17-19 hours.

There is some history here. In 2008-9 Jet airways flew to SFO from BOM, used a 772ER/77W, but they had to make a stop, did so in PVG. The plane could not fly the route going back to India w/o a fuel stop. Jet chose PVG hoping to pick up some of the us-china traffic.

This said, before it went belly up (to the bar? ) and the recession hit, Kingfisher announced that it was going to fly BLR-SFO N/S. They could do this as they had A340-500s they got cheap from Airbus. That plane has a range of 10,000 mi, and was at the time (and with the 772LR, range of 10,793 mi) the only aircraft with the legs for that flight in all conditions.

Its possible (someone would need to run the actual workable routing, there is lots of airspace blocked out on that route) that the 787-9 just might make it (its designed range is to be 9550 mi, if they actually hit that) but barring that possibility, West Coast to India flights are either going to have to be on a 772LR, have a tech stop going to India, or be ex-SEA or ex-YVR which makes the flight 600-700 miles shorter.

My guess is that West Coast to India routing will only happen once the 777-8x comes on line, it will have the range, and better fuel economy, to make these routes dueable.


You are welcome to think UA has a good rep in China and HKG, it does not. Ask any frequent traveler in either HKG or in a major Chinese City (PEK/Shanghai) and you will find that UAL has a very bad reputation. A series of bad cancellations with resulting riots at PEK and PVG basically tanked what little rep UAL had.

AA is retrofiting those A/C, and I'm not sure that a "very dated 772" with AA service is worse than a United "dream liner". In Y, I'll take the "very dated 772" on AA anyday over the cramped Y on the 787 on UAL.

United has a hub at LAX. CX flies to YVR(x2), SFO (x2), LAX(x4), ORD(x2), yyz (x1), EWR (x1), JFK (x3), all of these CX flights are on 77W or 747 A/C. If your explanation for why CX has 4 77Ws daily to LAX is CX is transferring the passangers to AA at LAX, I think you might want to rethink that.

p.s. and AA flies HKG-DFW on its own metal on the 77W.

the 789 would be perfect for EWR-BOM (or DEL), its a place that the 15% or so better fuel burn (over the 772ER) would make a very major impact on CASM at that range. At 9500 mi range, its also well within the 789s range.

787fan

I am Chinese from Hkg, so I know what reputation they have. Your qualification is ... ?

SFODEL is also polar if u bother to graph it out. shall someone remind you UA is the only US carrier that knows how to fly to India nonstop, while both DL and AA's attempts flopped like no tomorrow ?

Wow AA flies 77W to hkg .... big whoop. That's 1x daily versus 3x for UA. And it's meaningless to bring in CX since it's not a Jv partner. If u think AA has better reputation in China and hkg please be my guest. I'm sure their pacific network performance is totally reflecting that point of view.

And I find it VERY amusing you include CX's Canadian services as a way to make UA look bad. Totally apples to apples indeed.

skidooman

I don't know what Chinese think about UA out of PVG. I think the ground service is pretty poor. Not sure who they are using, I guess an independent contractor, but I did complain about them to 1K voice. They were the only ones I ever complained about besides BOM (but they were better than the BOM guys, whom are clueless in my opinion).

I usually have much better luck with the CA ladies out of PEK.

As for possible India routings, I think SFO-DEL is douable in theory on a eCO 777 at 7700 miles, since EWR-BOM is 7800 miles, but I also remember being denied boarding on BOM-EWR because of a snow storm on the way to EWR (so weight limitation). Since this is indeed a polar route, I imagine DEL-SFO could see some weight limitation from time to time.

cesco.g

What class of service were you able to get those award seats?

cesco.g

yes - and add LAX-FRA to that!

spin88

First, you clearly are not looking at the routing. Flying SFO-DEL/BOM/BLR is a polar flight, but (1) part of it going to India involves a western vector, so you have to fight the jet stream for a number of hours, reducing range, (2) the direct path crosses Tibet, which due to the elevation has special rules, so that the direct route is not possible, (3) if you look at the "great circle mapper" EWR-DEL is 7324 mi, and avoids the Tibet issue, SFO-DEL is 7706 mi, and requires you go around Tibet, so its actually longer; (4) the money is not in SFO-DEL, its high tech/media/finance traffic, and that is BLR/BOM. Flying SFO-DEL, and then changing planes in DEL is not an attractive option compaired to FLYing CX/SQ/Europe and then direct to your final city.

SFO-BLR is 8704 mi, SFO-BOM is 8406 mi. Both have the Tibet issue, along with sharply restricted airspace. EWR-HKG is only 8065mi, and going to HKG it is often weight restricted as it too has to fight the jet stream for a number of hours.

As I've noted, its possible that the 787-9 will have the range (I can't plot the exact flight path as I don't know the transit corridors over Western China), but I would expect to see YVR-India before SFO-India.

Second, I've lived part time in HKG in the past, and have been going there for at least 20 years, my wife grew up in the mid-levels, and I personally know at least 50 friends/wife's ex-coworkers all of which are frequent travelers ex-HKG, and a similar number who are ex-PEK/PVG. These are HVFers.

In the 90s most folks in HKG would be happy to fly UAL to the US, and often had corporate deals. Folks in HKG started to fly CX on that route more and more as UAL deteriorated in the 2000s, and then everyone I know gave up on them in HKG after the merger, and those people I know in PEK/PVG who used to take UAL over Chinese carriers now fly DAL or they fly a Chinese carrier (Hainan and China Southern are good, and Air China is now much better than it used to be. Only ChinaEastern is still dodgy.

A combination of bad service quality, bad reliability, and poor IRROPs handling has really hurt UAL with China/HKG based HVFers. They have to compete on price or get traffic from a corporate account at this point.

Third, I list the CX (and AA) flights to respond to your claim that CX has 4 77Ws daily to LAX vs. zippo from UAL as CX was - you claimed - connecting passengers to AA. Given the large number of places/flights CX has to the US, and AA's flight to its hub, CX is not filling its 4x 77W to LAX with connecting passengers. That was my only point.

WineCountryUA

Topic Reminder --- IAH-NRT

Discussion of other routes, such as flights to India, should not become a major topic.

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

LoungeBum

I got them economy, but all classes were available...

flyer081900

I wish the second flight was on ANA metal. I would never consider flying UA overseas being a US based ANA Platinum member. IAH is categorically less delay prone than ORD and would be easier for me to get to. I know it is all the same revenue-wise due to the JV, but there are many US based ANA flyers who are also concerned about reliability, customer satisfaction and seating.

Phoenixtinct

Well, you got your wish for more ANA service already when UA switched the frequency from SEA to IAH as ANA picked up that SEA flight. Not sure where you're located and what other airports ANA serves in the US but that's one more option for you to fly ANA. Personally, I wouldn't pick ANA or JAL as a carrier of choice as their planes are designed for small frame people, which I'm not. I have status on United as an US-based carrier and flying in the US and abroad and prefer to be traveling in Economy Plus.

flyer081900

This is the reason I am an advocate for ANA/UA to double team certain hubs and markets. It would be a win for the JV and IAH.

EWR764

Much like UA's wifi rollout, where the pace of mods is immaterial to me if the airplane I'm flying on is not equipped, AA's plan to retrofit its 772s with a (very good) flat bed business class product is vapor unless you're flying select DFW-SCL frequencies at this point.

Given AA's network focus at present, I suspect LAX-PVG will not see the new configuration for quite some time. Until then, it's a heck of a stretch (or 'spin' ) to argue that UA's product to PVG is unsatisfactory as compared to the competition...

artvandalay

Last two times UA tried LAX-HKG, they failed. Besides, so far, UA has done nothing but downsize AC or eliminate routes from HKG, like they're doing in SEA. What's the incentive for them to try a former route again just because they get a new plane?