No one needs bumped if you weight restrict the aircraft and do not sell the seats in the first place, and thus provide the service that you are selling.

Do you have a special crystal ball that can predict the high altitude winds in the future with utmost accuracy? Months in advance so they don't sell the seats?

The basic point that people are making here is that UA schedules and sells these flights knowing that some percentage of passengers are going to be significantly inconvenienced by a fuel stop because UA is flying an aircraft that's unsuited for the route. UA doesn't know which flights, or which days, but they know it's going to happen.

The counter-argument is that UA would not otherwise be able to fly certain routes. Whether that's sufficient justification can (and has been) endlessly debated.

very nicely put.

I think UA should make it very clear to folks who buy a ticket on the affected routes that fuel diversions are likely to happen. Last thing I want is to buy and fly UA and wind up having to stop for fuel. I could have booked a different airline that actually has and flies the right equipment to get the job done.

The thing is, as Kacee said, this HAS been debated endlessly here. The final word is UA thinks it does have the right equipment for the job and accepts that some small percentage of flights will get diverted and is willing to pay the compensation for that small percentage. The thing is, we have no idea why UA feels it is necessary to use the equipment it does.

UA clearly does not have the right equipment for the job. If they did then they wouldn't be making so many diversions for fuel. It happened once, twice even three times then fine, maybe its the right equipment however, It happens quite often. Therefore, its clearly not the right equipment.

I didn't say they had the right equipment, I said UA thinks it has the right equipment and accepts the consequences of diversions. And can you post what the actual percentage of flights diverted is? I think it will be a lot smaller than you think it is. Not saying as a passenger it is acceptable because it would only be the one flight you are on that gets diverted that would make it unacceptable to you, but if it was really as high a percentage as some think it is then UA wouldn't be using the equipment. And 747's to Australia got diverted before years ago before the longer range planes of today. Is there better equipment for that route back then? And I have seen winds aloft high enough that some wide bodies would have to divert from Europe to America. It makes no sense to have overkill for the demand of a route, or airport capacity by using a long range plane when it is better utilized on other routes. Yeah, it sucks to get diverted, but until UA releases the reasons for their decisions I doubt it is going to change. If you don't like it fly another airline that uses the planes you feel are correct for the route you fly.

I'm not saying they shouldn't fly it, I am only saying they should be a little more transparent with the facts of it. While many of the Europe to USA 752 routes divert each year, some are far more of a problem than others. For example, I read that CDG just diverted, and a LHR. Those are extremely rare diversions. Flights like TXL and BCN are not rare and should be marketed accordingly.

The company wants to eventually move the TATL 757s away from Continental Europe and relegate them to UK & domestic markets over the next couple of years. Part of this involves reconfiguring the 3-cabin 763s to the 2-cabin 76E standard.

AFAIK DL's 752 aircraft all have P&W engines. I was under the impression that the RR engines UA uses on it's ex-CO 752 aircraft afforded the aircraft a slightly longer range. What are the lengths of TATL flights DL has scheduled its 752 f:confused:r? Do they really have no diversions in winter on these routes?

Am I correct to assume the availability of the right equipment is an issue?

We are probably also seeing the concept of "diminishing returns" at work here.

Are they still retiring 11 767's this year?

If they move all the 767's to EWR what will ORD be left with? 787?

We have 3 x LHR, 1 CDG, 1 AMS. I'm sure I'm missing another.

It does seem like UA has some extra slack in the 67 fleet. I had 2 cancel the same day and they still found a 3rd.

Because the 752s are all they've got, and UA has taken a good CO idea (752s on short TATLs to secondary stations like DUB / BRS / BFS) and turned it into a bad idea (752s on longer TATLs on the edge of their range capability to primary markets).

Knowing what I know about UA's reliability here I absolutely book 767s / 777s for those routes, on other airlines. But less knowledgeable travelers are not likely to know the 752's range vulnerabilities and how they could lead to an unwanted night at the EWR Red Roof Inn.

The same cynical Wacker calculus that says it's not worth trying to run more than 80% on time?

I agree with you that CO had a g:cool::cool:d idea with TATL 752 service. I've taken these routes to almost every TATL destination with great success. In reality, there are very few diversions. Not much has changed in the last couple of years. I think your premise is incorrect. The longest of these routes (TXL, HAM) were initiated by CO well before the merger.

yep - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/conti...zed-757-a.html

and a TATL diversion thread from 2007 - http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/conti...ds-merged.html