shttrdrvr

Great analogy. Takes a lot for me to do the lol. Thanks.

fly18725

Where would you suggest United fly the 787 if not from LAX?

sinoflyer

Not surprised with HND, somewhat surprised with TPE, and VERY surprised with ICN, especially considering that this is a big downgauge in the middle of the busy summer season.

anc-ord772

Well, these guys are pros.

LASUA1K

Maybe ICN will go 2 x a day, or better yet an ORD-ICN flight to supplement the loss. I know ORD has a few ICN flights already but would love to see ICN open up.

spin88

I think this change looks good on a spreadsheet as they only need one set of spare parts, and one set of pilots, but I agree it will not fix either of the big issues. I do think that United hopes that having a slightly smaller plane (the 787-9 seats 14 less in Y) will help them re discounting.

I don't like the J seat on these birds (its too short for me at 6'2"), and I certainly don't think its a premium experience hard product wise, and certainly not soft product wise. I see this move as basically throwing in the towel on any high value traffic ex-LAX, which is surprising as I would expect there to be a lot of it LAX-SYD/LHR/PEK/PVG. If they can't attact any premium on these routing, its a sad commentary.

But I think this is also going to hurt badly in Y. The cabin on the 777 is 19'3", and the 787 is 18" Both are at 9 across, and while United claims the seats are 17.3" they feel to me to be 17" vs 18" on the 777. The result not just a more crammed seat, but that each isle is also 4.5" narrower. And to the poster who said there is more recline, no there is not. The 787-9 has 1" less recline (in both Y- and Y+) than the 777-200 on UA. This also means that United is flying planes that have a worse E+ ratio.

We have always known that United was getting killed at LAX, and I can't see this as anything other than confirmation that the bloodletting is worst amongst the HVFer traffic.

mduell

LAX and EWR are perfect for me -- two airports I mostly avoid flying longhaul UA out of.

But my point was it doesn't really matter where they fly them until they address the issues.

halls120

I've flown the 787 in J and Y. It's a grand experience in J. It's miserable in Y, with seats a full inch narrower than on a 777, and with narrower aisles, so if you sit there, you're continually getting bumped.

hirohito888

I guess this is also implies that EWR will remain 767/777/77W in the near future.

Capacity change on the 2 remaining 777 routes (SYD/LHR) are: -8F/+8J/-14Y. And -22 Econ plus/+8 Econ minus.

EWR764

This impacts all of two routes out of LAX, both of which are extremely competitive and the move to 787-9 does not result in a meaningful loss of capacity... in fact, it's a slightly more premium-heavy ratio. Plus, it eliminates 2-4-2 J to SYD and LHR.

I think the move has a bigger effect on SFO, although justifiable. IMO HND was a lock to go 787 eventually with JPY weakness and the undesirability of Haneda slot timing, despite the strength of the SFO hub. UA and others are probably taking a bath in ICN this summer with the decline in tourism amidst the earlier MERS scare, currency weakness and the latest North Korea nonsense (see OZ reports of losses... by the way, they too are slashing what is certainly a 'competitive' F product). Finally, TPE surprises me, but BR is adding a lot of nonstop capacity to the U.S. market and the 777-789 again isn't a major loss of seats.

What it also does is perhaps puts more pressure on the senior sUA flight attendant bases in LAX and SFO, and management is probably hoping against hope they either choose to retire or urge their MEC leadership to get serious about agreeing to a joint contract. Heavy-handed, but one can argue that AFA isn't blameless, either.

spin88

Well according to Jeff the 787 was going to be a "game changer" and would be used on long thin routes, where it would be more comfortable than prior generation aircraft. Short of DEN-NRT and SFO-CTU, and IAH-LOS (see how long this one lasts....) it has instead been used to downgage existing routes hub-major city, as United has lost more and more valuable traffic.

The perfect plane for an airline that has been more like a shrinky dink than a competitive force....

CALMSP

every time I've flown to ICN, I've always gone in first, along with all the other employees! Financially, prolly best for the 789 switch.

JOSECONLSCREW28

Nothing has been announced but the company is looking into opening an international base in SFO for sCO FAs to work the 787 flights out of SFO rather then deadheading FAs from LA to work the 787 trips.

spin88

It can also be (and I would not rule out to LHR, or TPE or HND as competition ramps up ex-SFO) -8F/-2J/-40 Y+/+5Y-

Kacee

I suspect there's too much capacity to ICN. SFO-ICN is probably the easiest GPU in the system. UA's competing directly with OZ and SQ ex-SFO, plus there's a ton of capacity to ICN ex-LAX (including 3 daily 380s).