EWR764

I agree... my response was only in the context of United's greater drawdown of own-metal flying beyond NRT.

Axing NRT-ICN appears to be motivated almost entirely by a desire to increase domestic capacity with airplanes already in the fleet, which can be accomplished by optimizing the low-utilization Guam operation.

Ryu2

Wow -- does this mean UA has no more fifth freedom routes from NRT?

Hartmann

I wouldn't be surprised if EWR-ICN appears on a 788 or maybe a 789. They could possibly even time it up with the SFO-ICN service so that the 789s swap cities in ICN.

Sykes

KE starts a second SFO-ICN frequency on a 747-8i this month. While it's only a moderate net increase in seats if you factor in the SQ 77W that moved to LAX, my guess is that it's at least a factor in their decision to downgauge.

DawgmanOH

On a commiserate, related note : I still really miss the NRT-SIN route. Upgrades to SIN from US are much harder now that there are fewer options. I feel for the ICN frequent pax who lose one more way to upgrade.

Explorer789

A 738 has to be used for short haul regional route due to range limitations. So, I'm thinking they either move it to another inter-Asia route, use it for HNL connection between US/Asia, or bring it back stateside to another domestic route.

UA_Flyer

Although I am a sentimentalist, I fully agree with UA's decision to focus on direct non-stop flights to Asian destination. It definitely makes for more economic sense.

I started flying UA from Miami to Asia destinations in the early 90s. Those early morning flights out of MiA to SFO/LAX to NRT, and then onto SHA, SIN, HKG, etc.

I remember waiting in NRT in mid to late afternoons watching the departure boards and was absolutely amazed that the UA intra Asia schedule at the time:

1x PEK
1x SHA (later to PVG)
1x HKG
1x TPE
1x BKK
2x SEL
1x SIN
1x MNL (short period of time)
3x HNL

Those flights were operated using the mix of 741/742/744 with one exception of DC-10-30 on one of the three HNL flights. All but two US-NRT flights were operated out of SEA/SFO/LAX. They were from EWR and JFK. EWR was pulled due to lack of demand. I remember the excitement flying the new 744 when UA introduced ORD-NRT after the mid 90s.

I also remembered TPE was used as a mini-hub with schedule flights to SEL, NRT, MNL and BKK in the early part of 90s.

Perhaps I am biased, as I am still flying out of South Florida and also based out of D.C., I'd like to see more transpacific flights out of East Coast and ORD. Call me crazy, but I just don't understand why people rave about NH. I am loyal to SQ and love flying BR and TG, but will decline to fly NH out of NRT regardless of PQM bonus.

24left

I'll assume some of you have already seen this column from Cranky Flier on April 3, about the changes on Asia routings and partnerships but he US3. I can't speculate if UA's decision is part of the big picture. Nonetheless, an interesting read.

Despite the headline, United is mentioned in the column.

Also looks like some major changes for NRT.

http://crankyflier.com/2017/04/03/th...uture-in-asia/

milepig

I sort of disagree. How many tag on routes within Europe does UA have? Zero. They rely on partners. Same thing happening here.

PsiFighter37

Too bad UA didn't get EWR-HND in the last go-around...certainly would be a nice addition to the route network.

Interesting to hear rumors about Cathay joining *A...imagine that would make a number of folks here happy.

warrenw

This. This move makes it nearly impossible to connect from the east coast, unless United changes the departure times for it's TPAC flights. Going from IAD it's practically impossible to make it to SFO by 9AM to catch a TPAC.

The most sensible move would be to open up another route from IAD or EWR to ICN.

Personally I love connecting in NRT and sometimes choose it even if it's more expensive because:
1. Sushi next to gate 33.
2. Much better flight arrival times to the East Coast- you get in early afternoon for EWR, ORD, etc. instead of late at night if you were to transit through SFO.
3. Up until now usually better planes. You can take the 787 to LAX or DEN, 777 other places, although you're still stuck on a 747 going to SFO (for now)
4. Extra PQS.
5. Sushi next to gate 33.

The other thing is capacity to ICN. Dropping to a 787 reduces capacity and drops the number of premium seats significantly. EVERY time I fly I have to compete against Samsung execs who get GS through corporate sponsorship and my GPU becomes useless. The only way I've been able to upgrade in the past few months is by simply buying business.

Anyway now I only have one option to fly to ICN and it's through SFO. If you think about it, before now I had 4 options to ICN - SFO, LAX, and DEN via NRT and SFO direct. That's 204 available premium seats (Two 747's and two 787-9's). Now, unless OZ or NH offer to take up the NRT-ICN slack there are only 48 seats available. Greeeeeeat.

radiowell

Just to be sure, OZ takes up NRT-ICN flying for UA/*A for now, but as you know, no JV with UA. AND, my last experience with mixed OZ/UA/US single PNR ticket was not a fun experience, at all.

Kacee

SFO-ICN is now I believe the second earliest SFO TPAC departure (15 minutes after HND). A little strange that these two UA flights unique to SFO (ICN and HND) are basically not connectable from the east coast, whereas the duplicated destinations (HKG, NRT, PVG, PEK) are.

PaulInTheSky

Sorry I take it back. Overlooked this morning as if it was SFO-ICN! :/

So it would be a different POV then. Another cut of the fifth-freedom flight, forcing all the starting point from SFO for non-stops is inconvenient for most passengers from the East, but that aligns the business strategy of UA. However, for Asian locations, I love going through NRT. Nicer people, sushi, Udons....

But consider the plus side, even if one chooses to go through NRT, the only loss is the LT miles, and not by a lot. the NRT-SIN/BKK IMO is much bigger deal than NRT-ICN.

catocony

I doubt if IAD-ICN is in the works. We have a large Korean population here, plus all of the military traffic, but Korean Air has had profitability issues on their IAD-ICN flights for years. I doubt if UA wants to compete there. If they had better codeshares with Asiana, then routing through Chicago would be ok. Better then going through SFO.