Hartmann

I have a suspicion that NH wanted to launch this flight earlier but was unable to do so for some reason (a theory is that they were still waiting to sort out some of their fleet issues with the 788 and still needed 77Ws as a backup). The second UA frequency was there as a stop gap.

We also have to remember that NH and UA are part of an ATI JV across the Pacific and share the risk and reward of another flight. They share revenue so I'm guessing UA is thrilled to free up an airframe and still make money on the route.

Lastly, I think part of this has to do with marketing. ANA has a strong presence all over Asia where UA's "brand" has shrunk with their removal of flights out of NRT. ANA can now market SIN/BKK-USA and include Latin America as well. NH even added flights to SIN/BKK to coincide with the new IAH service. I hadn't even thought about it before but it could be a dig at SQ even.

CALMSP

NH can already market the destinations you talk about with the JV.

787fan

it would be quite impressive if UA can't make this work with a 787 but NH can with a 77W .....

UA-NYC

Why not? Not like there isn't a large gap in product quality. And if you're flying ex-Japan, why would you ever choose UA now over NH?

Hartmann

Sure but I mean marketing from the perspective of putting the ANA name on it as offering the service. From a service side, offering a true Premium Economy product and First Class, ANA can better match the demand from Asian destinations.

787fan

3-4-3 in Y on NH versus 3-3-3 on UA ? it's a big gap in comfort in Y. More and more NH birds are going 10-abreast so the chance of stepping into a landmine is higher and higher.

UA has free Y+ for elites while NH doesn't have it. Their PY is priced quite high.

F and J on NH (both of which I've flown), it's NH no questions.

UA-NYC

While you're praising UA, don't forget to hit on its legendary food, warm service, and operational reliability!

This doesn't look half bad by way of comparison :-:

http://www.ana.co.jp/wws/japan/e/asw...light/guide/y/

787fan

I've flown both F and J on NH, so I know how great their food and service is.

But for Y, it's not a black and white choice. No amount of IFE, food, and service can get me to sit in a 3-4-3.

nerdbirdsjc

Ultimately, I see United switching its IAH-NRT flight to a daily 787-9, which can effectively get the 77E out of IAH altogether and transition IAH longhaul to a 767/787-only operation.

But above all else, Jeff needs to get the flight attendant deal done....there's ALOT of longhaul metal movement that's sitting on ice until the airline can truly operate as one airline. Once that happens, your heads will spin on the changes that will take place.

Hartmann

They are scheduled to bring their lower density 77Ws to Houston (2-4-3 seating in Y). Sure there is potential for it to be swapped to a 3-4-3 bird from time to time but they have stated the lower pax number plane is what they are putting on the schedules.

spin88

This is 110% correct, but Jeff is not going to get a FA contract unless he tosses lots and lots of $$$ out the door. Given the blow back from the animus that Jeff has created with trying to fly the sCO vs sUA FAs against each other, and how he and his team is unliked, and that lower fuel will lead to outsized profits, the FAs will demand a few pounds of flesh. As I've said many times, one of Jeff's biggest mistakes (on a long list of them) was not doing a FA deal back in 2012, and instead trying to squeeze the sUA side into taking the sCO contract. Bad, bad move....

Re the JV, i think it is not a straight profit sharing agreement, Instead it is a revenue sharing agreement, and as revenue shifts it takes the profits with it in relationship to the overall pie. The agreement is such that United will make more money if they can profitably operate the flight than having ANA run it, but if flights are run side by side, United selling a ticket on ANA vs. UA will not impact the profitability. ANA has been expanding its US flights, and as a result is getting more of the profits from the JV, with UA getting less overall, as it carries more of the traffic.

So if the flying has become unprofitable (see ex-SEA) then having ANA run it is better for UA, but if the flying is profitable, then its a loss to UA when ANA takes over routes, as they are doing here.

Hartmann

Good points. The Yen falling could have something to do with ANA wanting the flight as well. They see potential and are going after it.

bocastephen

As the thread states, NH is adding IAH-NRT service later this year. Given UA's fascination with JVs and codeshares, will UA cancel this route and focus on their SFO/EWR and (for the time being) IAD flights?

UA couldn't run two daily IAH-NRT flights successfully, so perhaps this route isn't deep enough for two daily flights even from different carriers.

EWR764

I think the simple answer to this is no. We may see IAH-NRT go to a UA 787 at some point since the capacity is metal-neutral, but still, I highly doubt UA exits this market with its own equipment.

ANA will operate alongside UA on all but the NRT-DEN and EWR routes (NH at JFK). Obviously the partners see value in providing both UA and NH service to the US.

KnightInWhiteSatin

Not enough business travel up front to profitably operate two UA 777's to NRT. I don't see how IAH could support a 772 and a three class 777W. There is a small chance UA could leave this to NH except for MP accrual and NH's crappy Y product.