warrenw

Idk if that's the case then I didn't have good luck. I fly the route 6-7 times a year and always had trouble - of course I was flying on business heavy days such as Friday, but still.

PsiFighter37

I do wonder if there is additional demand from the East Coast that could fill a plane - as has been noted, there's really no reason (except for lifetime miles) for anyone to go East Coast-SFO-ICN, which is quite inefficient. It would make a lot of sense if the NRT-ICN flight was filled with a bunch of EWR/IAD/ORD-NRT folks. But maybe it wasn't, and that's why it got cut.

Honestly, given Kirby's comments around focusing on building out the domestic network, I wouldn't expect anything earth-shattering on the international side soon, unless they were incremental moves (like the seasonal SFO-MUC flight).

ermintrude

I haven't flown a budget airline in a long time (though I guess you could now put UA in this group with BE), but just looking at the relatively low budget airline prices, I wonder if they were taking market share from UA ICN - NRT? either way this route deletion makes my life more difficult in the future and IMO is just one example of why loyalty with at least a couple of carriers is typically a good strategy nowadays.

catocony

ICN-NRT is what, 1.5 hours out and 2 hours back? A 737 isn't a 777 but for that short of a flight, suffering through a 737 is a minor thing.

If they are ramping up the relationship with Asiana, then things won't be completely bad. Then again, I have read that the economy product on Asiana isn't very good, at least the hard product isn't.

If UA could at least stagger its own flights a bit and add in new flights on UA metal to fill a few holes from the East Coast to NRT and ICN, then that's doable. I can suffer through a tight seat for a 2-5 hour flight on a partner airline. I can't suffer through a 14 hour flight. If you're flying economy TPACs, it is a real issue for those of us on the East Coast. The flights from IAD, ORD and DEN all get into Narita about the same time, and are not lined up well for a lot of connections to ANA.

EWR764

Yep, this is clearly a move in 'retreat', and unquestionably a response to the not-even-close-to-implemented DL/KE JV!

Really though, I don't think the SFO-ICN downgauge and NRT-ICN termination have anything to do with each other. The former is brought about by the retirement of the 747, and scheduling (777/787 along with 744) over the last few years suggests the route isn't necessarily one that demands the full-time capacity of a 747 in the sense of SFO-HKG/NRT/PVG/PEK, etc. When the 747 fleet retires, UA apparently would rather deploy the 77W on higher-volume routes and bring capacity on SFO-ICN more in line with demand. With that said, we don't yet know the full extent of United's 77W operation, as the currently-scheduled flights (SFO-HKG/NRT, EWR-TLV) do not require 14 airframes.

As to the latter, the Guam operation is very low utilization, and with the cancellation of the 73G order, United needs to squeeze more capacity out of its existing domestic fleet to support projected growth. In conjunction with the cancellation of a low-utilization turn in NRT-ICN-NRT, it can bring three frames into the domestic network, which is driving stronger returns and allows for more efficient deployment of resources.

drewguy

The few times I took it in the last year the 737 was full - hard to tell, but seemed like most folks were connecting from/to UA (and I doubt it was to SFO - IAH, IAD (me), EWR).

That said, I'm sure UA knows exactly what the usage was and determined it wasn't enough. For SFO-based flyers, UA's Asia reorientation (SFO has gateway rather than NRT) is a plus. For folks on the east coast it's a negative, because connecting through SFO is inconvenient at best.

east_west

I'll add that DL is re-launching ATL-ICN service in June 2017 (previously they had this service from 2007-2009), augmenting KE's existing service. Given ICN's role for DL with the coming JV, I can see the logic for UA to service it with a single 789. But for east coast travelers, ATL or DTW are both much more attractive than going through SFO.

Kacee

Suspect that ICN just doesn't represent that much O/D traffic for UA. And there's already excess capacity from much of the US thanks to KE and OZ.

And much of what traffic there is, is likely tech-concentrated, thus the single flight from SFO.

EWR764

747 is probably too much lift for SFO-ICN, but it makes more sense than SFO-KIX or TPE. These days, in a fragmented and more competitive TPAC market, there are fewer places for an incumbent carrier like United to fly 350+ seat aircraft than there were in 1997 or so.

N227UA

Yeap, LCCs surely have been taking away the market share. That said, it's not surprising at all to see this going away. UA started GUM-ICN in 2014, but the flight didn't even last a year because of the surge in supply by LCCs.

I saw a printed UA flight schedules from/to ICN for 2002, and there used to be three 747 flights between ICN and NRT at that time. I first flew this route in 2003, and there were two 747 flights then. Over the years, the route had some fluctuations with a mix of 747 and 777, two 777, one 777, two 777 and so on. Eventually, UA deployed 737 on this route in March 2014 which was dismal for me as I did enjoy flying on this short route on 777 and it was very likely to get operational upgrades.

Probably, UA made some decent amount of profit in the past on this route. The route itself is very short, but the lowest ticket price was not lower than USD300 RT. The route was likely of worth despite of overnight idling at ICN. Since the emergence of LCCs, the market is saturated with cheap tickets which probably cost around USD150 RT. Also, the introduction of HND-GMP must have been a blow to UA's ICN-NRT as most business trip demand, which is more inclined to contribute more profit, would have been shifted to HND-GMP. The market is surely not favorable to UA anymore.

I suppose UA hardly makes any money from the local traffic on ICN-NRT these days. At the same time, I doubt if there is decent amount of business travelers paying a high fare on this route because it's not so nice to be stuck in 737 after transpacific. Even those business seats on 737 are uncomfortable.

After a series of downgauging, 737 lasts for about three and half years. UA flew this route for decades, and I'll miss UA on this route (especially 777, but not 737). Hoping to fly UA on this route before it leaves. By the way, travel schedules between the east coast and ICN will be awful in the future as others have said. It'd be nice if UA reverts UA892/UA893 schedules as UA893 used to leave SFO in the early afternoon and idle at ICN for night before leaving ICN as UA892 early afternoon.

belfordrocks

No way, they'd just re-base the crew in the lower 48

mh3265a

Bingo! Exactly the current plan as I understand it. But this is mostly going to impact the GUM-based pilots. The FAs will be reassigned to other routes from GUM, for the most part.

belfordrocks

From what I understand at least a number of GUM pilots were originally from the mainland, so moving back might not be the worst for them

cfischer

o.k., if we get all technical here ... I am happy to take NH TYO-SEL ... on their 788 3 times a day. GMP is closer to town anyway.

PsiFighter37

I think the point is that if you are flying East Coast-NRT, it is extremely inconvenient to make your way to HND to fly HND-GMP on NH metal.

Would be nice if UA would codeshare with OZ on this route, but it doesn't seem like the announcements from last month cover NRT-ICN.