FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   United Airlines | MileagePlus (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus-681/)
-   -   what is the shortest in-flight time you've experienced on UA SFO-LAX or LAX-SFO? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1836703-what-shortest-flight-time-youve-experienced-ua-sfo-lax-lax-sfo.html)

ShutteLag Apr 14, 2017 10:27 am

what is the shortest in-flight time you've experienced on UA SFO-LAX or LAX-SFO?
 
what is the shortest actual in-flight time you've experienced on UA SFO-LAX or LAX-SFO? (from the moment the wheels are off the runway until they touchdown again)

AirbusFan2B Apr 14, 2017 10:45 am

MKE-ORD is typically 19m but can be a short as 15m even though blocked for 50m. It's 67 miles.

HoyaSFOIAD Apr 14, 2017 10:57 am

Think OP was talking about SFO-LAX. 49 minutes wheels up wheels down has been my personal record. Last flight of the night.

ShutteLag Apr 14, 2017 11:01 am


Originally Posted by AirbusFan2B (Post 28178680)
MKE-ORD is typically 19m but can be a short as 15m even though blocked for 50m. It's 67 miles.

MKE-ORD? I thought LAX-SFO and SFO-LAX were nonstop flights withing California?

sinoflyer Apr 14, 2017 11:40 am

I've never heard an instance where the pilot didn't say over the intercom that flight time would be 57 minutes. But I've never used the stopwatch to determine their veracity, either.

runner450 Apr 14, 2017 12:28 pm

this is a fun one - data from 2017
2,691 departures for non directional LAXSFO

  • fasted OFF to ON time: 45 minutes
  • SFOLAX 18Feb UA2575
  • N73445 737-900ER
  • 6300lb fuel burn,
  • takeoff runway
  • 01L flaps 25

and here's a good one from 2016

  • fasted OFF to ON time: 43 minutes
  • SFOLAX 18Feb UA2245
  • N122UA 747-400
  • 16,500lb fuel burn,
  • takeoff runway
  • 01L flaps 10

JK-SFO Apr 14, 2017 12:43 pm

In 2010 - LAX to SFO, 48 minutes on the A320!

LDNConsultant Apr 14, 2017 12:44 pm

It was 2008 SFO - LAX 42 minutes wheel to wheel time

thejaredhuang Apr 14, 2017 1:27 pm


Originally Posted by runner450 (Post 28179224)
this is a fun one - data from 2017
2,691 departures for non directional LAXSFO

  • fasted OFF to ON time: 45 minutes
  • SFOLAX 18Feb UA2575
  • N73445 737-900ER
  • 6300lb fuel burn,
  • takeoff runway
  • 01L flaps 25

and here's a good one from 2016

  • fasted OFF to ON time: 43 minutes
  • SFOLAX 18Feb UA2245
  • N122UA 747-400
  • 16,500lb fuel burn,
  • takeoff runway
  • 01L flaps 10

Cool, was that from publicly available data?

I wonder if they were able to do a water service on the 744 flight.

runner450 Apr 14, 2017 1:33 pm


Originally Posted by thejaredhuang (Post 28179430)
Cool, was that from publicly available data?

negative! Company data

i don't think the 74 was a pax section.

TheVJOng Apr 14, 2017 1:56 pm


Originally Posted by AirbusFan2B (Post 28178680)
MKE-ORD is typically 19m but can be a short as 15m even though blocked for 50m. It's 67 miles.

Shortest flight I've experienced personally. This was back when they still asked you to turn off all electronics during take off and landing. I think I barely got through an entire song on my OG iPod before the announcement that all electronics must be turned off came on.

Spindifferent Apr 14, 2017 2:28 pm

AUS-DFW: 28 minutes with a tailwind.

N104UA Apr 14, 2017 2:51 pm

53 minutes on a 752 in 2012

EWR764 Apr 14, 2017 3:08 pm


Originally Posted by runner450 (Post 28179224)
this is a fun one - data from 2017
2,691 departures for non directional LAXSFO

  • fasted OFF to ON time: 45 minutes
  • SFOLAX 18Feb UA2575
  • N73445 737-900ER
  • 6300lb fuel burn,
  • takeoff runway
  • 01L flaps 25

and here's a good one from 2016

  • fasted OFF to ON time: 43 minutes
  • SFOLAX 18Feb UA2245
  • N122UA 747-400
  • 16,500lb fuel burn,
  • takeoff runway
  • 01L flaps 10

That's pretty cool. The 747 would need to have about 470 seats to match the fuel burn on a per-seat basis of the 739 on that sector... actually a bit less than I would have guessed!

ShutteLag Apr 14, 2017 3:30 pm


Originally Posted by EWR764 (Post 28179795)
That's pretty cool. The 747 would need to have about 470 seats to match the fuel burn on a per-seat basis of the 739 on that sector... actually a bit less than I would have guessed!

??? Who cares about fuel burn per seat? The 747-400s should continue to fly for another 10 years! :)


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:42 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.