fly18725

Airbus claims a single customer for the A330-800 and the customer disputes whether they actually have a firm order. I think there are significant questions whether the A330-800 is every built.

bt_yyz

Any chance for some fare competition with SQ 1-stop TPAC routes ex-LAX or ex-SFO? I'm looking to book TPAC to SIN for Christmas in the next 1-2 days when I JUST saw the UA37 on the OTA.

At first glance this is more TPAC capacity, but on further reading it is less SIN capacity when HKG-SIN is dropped. Also, TPAC fares on UA have been higher than SQ when searching ex-YYZ, which makes SQ an easy choice.

spin88

As fly correctly notes, not sure there will ever be an A338, but in any event, these ULR flights are not the place one would want to use a last gen plane. Going from memory the B789/A359 are both about 3-4% more efficient than the best last gen planes (the 77W/A339neo).

On a 4-5K mi flight, where the plane is not a max weight, the opperating costs are not that much higher for fuel. But on ULR flights, assuming Airbus were to launch and it really had a 7500nm range, the damb thing is a flying gas can. Since you have to carry the extra fuel to be able to carry the extra fuel to fuel the higher burn rate, the fuel cost difference is much greater.

schley

Wow this is a valuable SWU upgrade here! Chances will be very tough IMO.

DA201

The A338 has a lower range and less seats, so it would still need to block seats. It is also significantly less fuel efficient than the Dreamliner and the A350, especially at that range. There is a reason it has one doubtful order while the 789 alone has over 600 order.

Honestly, a 788 with a ton of blocked seats might have the same efficiency as the A338 on this route.

airzim

I find this thread baffling. The UA bashing is so prolific that there pages of debate about the "superiority" of the A350 of SQ over the 789 of UA.

In the end who the cares? If UA can operate the 789 profitably between these sectors, why do you care about which equipment is flown?

United is not stupid when it comes to operating aircraft. You might disagree with their seat choices, livery, and FA uniforms; but Flight Ops is not an area where their reputation is in doubt.

But then again, why even bother. It's wasted effort.

PaulInTheSky

The good thing about the change like cancellation of HKG-SIN and the start of LAX-SIN would allow evening departures of any of the following routes, HKG-SFO, HKG-EWR, or HKG-ORD, which is not a terrible idea, considering AA is basically doing this with AA125 and AA192, and AA193 and AA126. I'd personally benefit from afternoon/evening departures as I don't like to get to HKG in early/mid-morning.

jeedk

I love how the debate degenerated into one about 789 vs 359 when UA will have a monopoly on this route for a while, including the first mover advantage and broader network of connections behind LAX.

i can guarantee that even if UA has all-aisle access flat bed in coach in some alternate reality, someone will be spinning this negatively against SQ.

milypan

B788 would work better except it doesn't have a high enough MTOW. Hence the range is actually less than a B789.

Remember that the B789 is a larger, heavier aircraft than the A338. Typically the B789's extra seating capacity vs an A338 (or B788) more than offsets its higher block fuel burn and yields lower fuel burn per ASM. But in this case you are blocking seats, so the extra capacity becomes irrelevant. The B789 is just carrying extra weight and wetted area for no purpose.

The question is whether the 245t A338 has sufficient margins to cash in on its lower weight and smaller wetted area. It's very close - IME the A338 would be unambiguously better at a 246t MTOW.

Basically, the B789 has 254t MTOW - 129t OEW = 125t to work with. It fills its tanks with the max capacity of 101t fuel, which we assume is sufficient to avoid a technical stop, and has 24t remaining to haul 218 pax (34 seats blocked).

The 245t A338 has ~4% lower block fuel burn and so recovers 4t of fuel. It has an estimated OEW of 125t. It can thus carry 23t of passengers (125 + 97 + 23 = 245). Hence the conclusion that a 246t A338 would beat the B789 in operating costs on this mission (and of course destroy it on capital costs).

Anyway, it's all academic since this is a niche mission, and if you want to buy an aircraft to fly it you're looking at the A359 ULR or possibly the B778. Either of those would be far superior to the B789 or the fictional 246t A338 in CASM.

5khours

If you're flying NA <> SE Asia from any place other than YVR or SEA, the A350 ULR is the only aircraft that won't be weight restricted. I'm sure SQ will fire back at UA in markets like EWR and ORD. Both VN and TG (and maybe GA) will start non-stop NA routes within 12 months. I don't see how this ends well for UA.....much higher labor costs, less economical aircraft, mediocre service (on a good day).

ckx2

Holy crap - this could actually get me backt to UA!

wolf72

UA, as you may or may not have discovered, has a less than stellar reputation both at home and overseas.

cfischer

not surprising. SFO-SIN is doing well (at least flights are full when I take them and another option to SIN is always good news . Too bad BOS-LAX is so crappy ... so I will still mostly fly BOS-SFO-SIN, but now it might get easier to find decent fares with more capacity.

pbartp

Thanks for the suggestion. Under "normal" circumstances, I would do this. Let's just say I got a really really good airfare and I don't want a nosey UA rep having to reissue the ticket

It's the risk I took when I bought this ticket.

jeedk

The bulk of the {discussion} is entirely on the merits of 789 vs 359, which was totally irrelevant because UA will monopolize the route for quite some time before SQ comes in. SMH