pinerd

I think this is what he was talking about:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/art...ariant-402363/

jasondc

Delta has for many years been the biggest proponent of yanking capacity down domestically in the winter and expanding in the summer. United is now just getting into this game.

jasondc

for aircraft operational reasons. They need to get the 767 there for the transpac flight. If the transpac flight weren't there, they wouldn't fly it. It's probably a maintenance thing. I don't think that DL has a 767 maintenance facility in SEA. it's probably in MSP or Atlanta or something like that. Aircraft rotation - getting it to the "hub" for the transpac flight is why it's there. In a shoulder season (now), a SEA flight wouldn't have a 767 for any other reason.

goalie

And how much you wanna guess that ErJ's and Emb's are gonna start showing up more and more on flights to/from LAX-IAH/DEN

jasondc

50 seaters are going away

787fan

Inefficient usage of planes. I'd much prefer them to use their widebodies to create a proper comprehensive Asian network out of cities where there is actual local demand to Asia (LA, SF, CHI, NY) instead of a bunch of hub-to-hub.

travelinmanS

What happens when people in LA, SF, CHI and NY who want to fly to Asia realize that they have numerous other options, all of which are better than UA? Oh wait...that's already happening and we see the result. UA is cutting capacity while airlines like CX, MU, CA, BR, AA and Emirates all add routes that directly attack UA's hubs. They are like sharks attracted to UA's blood in the water. It's pretty clear to most flyers that UA is the worst choice to Asia these days.

Perhaps you love the luxuriousness of 8 abreast in business class, for me I'll take CX or even AA over UA any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

channa

That may be the case for this one, but that doesn't explain the domestic widebodies in other markets like SFO on DL. During peak season, DL has more domestic flights on widebodies out of SFO than UA does. And DL has no TPACs out of here.

EWR764

Yes, that's one of DL's non-ER 767-300s in the domestic configuration, among the oldest airplanes in their fleet. Pretty nice ride for a domestic flight, with wifi/AVOD/power, but they are slated to be retired in favor of 737-900ERs and A321s in the next few years.

It's a great option for now as passengers but not exactly a long-term viable strategy for DL, as they have disposition plans. The 787-3 was being purpose-built as a shorthaul widebody, designed for a high number of quick-turn cycles with a dense seating configuration. It didn't gain traction because it couldn't deliver similar operating economics advantages (to the longhaul 787 models) sufficient to justify its high acquisition cost and limited capability. That's why only Japanese carriers were seriously interested in it, with their incredibly-high-volume domestic network and regulated pricing environment.

jasondc

United is still profitable. They are profitable in those destinations. People still fly them. I know several people who for whatever reason fly UA exclusively. AA is flailing on their recent Asia adds. no evidence UA is losing out to them.

jasondc

So what? Why is this an issue? Yes a wide body is a nice ride for sure, but that's not an issue. DL has domestic wide bodies, UA prefers to put their wide bodies internationally. DL has a major hub that it completely dominants (ATL) with both the local and flow traffic (DL dominates the southeast), so can just pull people onto those wide bodies from the whole region. UA's doesn't have a hub that it dominates in such a way, so it prefers to grab business by offering frequency. Different strategies. I don't see many AA domestic wide bodies out there either. Delta has certainly been doing better, but UA is on the upswing. Let's see how things develop.

QUOTE=channa;23574579]That may be the case for this one, but that doesn't explain the domestic widebodies in other markets like SFO on DL. During peak season, DL has more domestic flights on widebodies out of SFO than UA does. And DL has no TPACs out of here.[/QUOTE]

jasondc

My mistake - didnt realize it was a domestic configured one. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it'll go away soon. enjoy your 737-900 in the future!

787fan

You mean AA's luxurious slanted J on most of the 772s which are un-retrofitted ? CX discount Y doesn't earn AA miles unless you book the overpriced codeshare.

What TPAC capacity is UA truly cutting, other than adjusting the 2nd daily IAH-NRT and right-sizing SFO-KIX ? DEN-NRT added, SFO-CTU added, SFO-TPE added, HND access added, IAH-NRT from 7x weekly to 10x weekly, ORD-PEK/PVG upgauged to 744, LAX-PVG upgauged to 789 ....

If you wanna talk SEA-NRT then I present to you : DL SFO-NRT.

JimInOhio

At the risk of not reading the remainder of the thread before posting....

UA seems to really only want to fly TATL, TPAC, and S. America PAX who pay a good amount for a ticket. They need feed into EWR, IAH, SFO and to a lesser extent ORD to do this. Everything else to them is "meh" unless they can get very high revenues and profit.

BearX220

It's an issue for UA because I reject UA aircraft -- especially the miserable slimline A320s -- in favor of competitors, given the option. Especially when I can score a widebody. You act like consumers have no choice and no awareness of the last-place nature of UA's product offerings, which come to think of it is how UA management acts too.

Rationalize UA's shrinkage, pullbacks, small planes, slimmer frequencies all you want, but it adds up to a failure to achieve critical mass outside a couple fortress hubs.

Likewise, CO saw the whole domestic network as a necessary evil -- a break-even nuisance that existed mainly to feed profitable international ops.