UA to Launch LAX-SIN!
#62
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: DAY
Programs: UA 1K 1MM; Marriott LT Titanium; Amex MR; Chase UR; Hertz PC; Global Entry
Posts: 10,136
Same here. Last time I went to BKK, I flew EWR-HKG (overnight) HKG-BKK
I had the flexibility and it was far cheaper to stay a night in a hotel in HKG and book a separate ticket to BKK.
I much prefer to maximize my time in J. UA's options were mainly EWR-NRT then NRT-BKK (in Y on *A)
I had the flexibility and it was far cheaper to stay a night in a hotel in HKG and book a separate ticket to BKK.
I much prefer to maximize my time in J. UA's options were mainly EWR-NRT then NRT-BKK (in Y on *A)
^^^^^^
#63
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Same here. Last time I went to BKK, I flew EWR-HKG (overnight) HKG-BKK
I had the flexibility and it was far cheaper to stay a night in a hotel in HKG and book a separate ticket to BKK.
I much prefer to maximize my time in J. UA's options were mainly EWR-NRT then NRT-BKK (in Y on *A)
I had the flexibility and it was far cheaper to stay a night in a hotel in HKG and book a separate ticket to BKK.
I much prefer to maximize my time in J. UA's options were mainly EWR-NRT then NRT-BKK (in Y on *A)
Honestly, 2018-20 I don't think I'll make 1K again and be more of a *A free agent but still trying to get it on 016 ticket. With 2 trips each year to Thailand I'll probably fly NH from California since I can book that through UA.
#64
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,158
I don't expect LAX-SIN to be any different. 2 fewer C seats on the 789 vs 777.
#65
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: UA, Starwood, Priority Club, Hertz, Starbucks Gold Card
Posts: 3,951
#66
Join Date: Apr 2011
Programs: WN, AA, UA, DL
Posts: 1,313
Wow! Didn't see this one coming. I was expecting LAX-HKG before this. Sad to see the last 5th freedom in SIN-HKG go, but one look at the seat maps tells you why it will now.
The actual increase in flight time will be about 3 hours, almost all added to the shorter leg. The 787 does a have another inch of pitch too, along with the standard 787 cabin benefits.
Or if one considers NH though NRT, the flight time is the same.
I've heard the opposite - that SQ has more issues with weight restrictions. But that's just rumor. What's fact is that SQ has a low density for their A359, so essentially they are already seat blocking significantly. UA easily wins on the cost side if both planes are allowed to capacity.
UAL1 commonly flies close to MNL, so I don't see why that wouldn't be a diversion point. SFO-SIN is usually much farther south than SFO-HKG.
Even though it's slightly longer, LAX-SIN might be the roughly the same or slightly easier on a performance basis due to winds or runways. SFO-SIN commonly goes well south of great circle and adds distance--sometimes pushing 9,000 miles. LAX starts closer to that common route. And it doesn't hurt that LAX has another football field of longest runway to work with either. If anybody knows the limits of the 789, it's UA.
Now, a west coast connection and the 787 E+ seats + an extra 5 hours travel time!
I also preferred arriving SIN late in the evening-head straight to hotel and sleep after the long trip. Now only option is to arrive in morning and push through the first day--makes dealing with jet lag much harder IMHO.
I also preferred arriving SIN late in the evening-head straight to hotel and sleep after the long trip. Now only option is to arrive in morning and push through the first day--makes dealing with jet lag much harder IMHO.
Or if one considers NH though NRT, the flight time is the same.
The planes are infact run side by side on SFO-SIN, both going against the wind. United's (789) flight is weight limited, with blocked off seats, and likely no cargo, for part of the year. Perhaps I have missed it, but I see no signs that SQ (359) has had to block off seats.
That said, no one is going to run out of fuel (and MNL would not be a diversion point, the routing is similar to that of the LAX/SFO-HKG flights, just a little to the west) given the extra 300-350 sm needed for the flight, United will likely either (a) add a tech stop, or (b) will block of even more seats.
Even though it's slightly longer, LAX-SIN might be the roughly the same or slightly easier on a performance basis due to winds or runways. SFO-SIN commonly goes well south of great circle and adds distance--sometimes pushing 9,000 miles. LAX starts closer to that common route. And it doesn't hurt that LAX has another football field of longest runway to work with either. If anybody knows the limits of the 789, it's UA.
#67
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: LAX
Programs: UA:1k; MR: PLT; Hilton: Gold
Posts: 1,324
You certainly can choose SQ, and would agree wit you on comfort. But UA will 'penalize' you when it comes to earnings. Since SQ isn't a codeshare partner, good luck getting it on 016 stock. Then H, W, L earn only 50% RDM and E, M earn 75%. PQM wise Suites/First/Business all earn only 100% (vs 200% on UA and related JVs).
The problem for SQ is that SQ needs the JV much more than UA does (as UA wants the route for O/D routing, as SIN isn't a logical connection point for many destinations, and therefore doesn't need SQ's codeshares for it's PAX). SQ, on the other hand, very much needs UA feed (as shown with their IAH flights). Guessing this leads to UA wanting very favorable terms that SQ would never agree to.
#68
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,158
We still made it to SFO an hour early because of the tailwinds.
#69
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Raddison Platinum, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 5,257
Yep so no more GPU's going to SIN.
#70
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 402
It is true that SQ needs UA way more than UA ever needs SQ. SQ really brings nothing to the table that can't be served by UA metal directly, or through codeshare with JV partner NH.
#71
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CHS
Programs: UA GS, Bonvoy Amabassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,589
I went in Jan - I know off peak - but only 2 of us in FC and J was I think 9 people according to the FA. Now, my travel over there is very fluid, so i can go when R class is avail pretty much all the time, so that certainly wasn't peak times.
#72
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Anywhere but home
Programs: UA 1K/MM, DL SM/MM, AA Gold, HH Dia, PC Plat, ALL Gold, MR Gold
Posts: 4,547
For *A options, yes, but now connections from HKG to/from BKK are readily available on CX and HX for reasonable prices. You can't get PQM/PQD/PQS on those, but at least it's all on one UA ticket in case of IRROPS.
#73
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,402
Maybe round robin with SFO-HKG or crazy stuff, same for the EWR-HKG.
They won't all have to essentially be tied to the HKG-SIN flight time, so I could see some adjustment in schedules for flight times based on coats etc.
EWR-HKG leaves at 3pm arrive 7pm. If they backed that up a few hours and made it dep 10am and arrive 2pm, then the return could easily be dep 5pm arr 6pm in EWR or whatever
I am talking out of my butt, but the SFO-HKg and EWR-HKG flights were artificially made to arrive to allow for connecting passengers to get on UA-895 HKG-SIN, that limitation will go away and allow for much more flexible schedules.
They won't all have to essentially be tied to the HKG-SIN flight time, so I could see some adjustment in schedules for flight times based on coats etc.
EWR-HKG leaves at 3pm arrive 7pm. If they backed that up a few hours and made it dep 10am and arrive 2pm, then the return could easily be dep 5pm arr 6pm in EWR or whatever
I am talking out of my butt, but the SFO-HKg and EWR-HKG flights were artificially made to arrive to allow for connecting passengers to get on UA-895 HKG-SIN, that limitation will go away and allow for much more flexible schedules.
It's nearly impossible to do the flights late in the evening - a 10pm SFO departure would arrive around 3am, same for departures from EWR/ORD, and it's not clear it would be more attractive to arrive at 5am (with midnight departure) with an early morning departure out of HKG to make the connections. But maybe it would avoid the charges for staying on the ground.
#74
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,158
How many time is HKG-SIN full though?
I went in Jan - I know off peak - but only 2 of us in FC and J was I think 9 people according to the FA. Now, my travel over there is very fluid, so i can go when R class is avail pretty much all the time, so that certainly wasn't peak times.
I went in Jan - I know off peak - but only 2 of us in FC and J was I think 9 people according to the FA. Now, my travel over there is very fluid, so i can go when R class is avail pretty much all the time, so that certainly wasn't peak times.
A single data point to be sure but at least from a flyer perspective EWR/ORD-HKG-SIN is still a pretty nice way to get to Singapore. Timed connection in HKG and relatively easy upgrade.
I can understand UA perspective that maybe loads are not as regularly full as they would like.
I would like to see HKG-SIN continue just for the additional flexibility it offers for routing and IRROPS. With elimination of SIN-NRT and now SIN-HKG it really limits the choices if things go sideways.
Last edited by mrswirl; Jun 1, 2017 at 1:27 pm
#75
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Actually the 275 tonne A350-900 has slightly shorter range than the 787-9, coming in at 7,590 nm as opposed to the 787-9's 7,635 nm range. While the A350-900 has a roughly ten per cent higher capacity as compared to the 787-9, SQ's A350-900 configuration seats only one more passenger as compared to UA's 787-9. This will change when the 280 tonne A350-900 debuts in 2020. Unlike the ULR 280 tonne version, this does not have extra fuel tanks and will have a range of 8,100 nm. With SQ's low density on their A350-900s, the standard 280 tonne version could do LAX-SIN without blocking seats and could probably carry some cargo in the summer.
LAX-SIN and QF's upcoming PER-LHR will really stretch the limits of the 787-9. QF's configuration will seat 236 whereas UA seats 252. However UA's 787-9 seats more upfront than either QF's 787-9 configuration or SQ's A350-900 configuration. Granted its an outmoded 2-2-2 product and lack of a W product, UA should have no trouble selling upfront. It may become problematic in the future when SQ restarts LAX-SIN but its a good sign UA was able to hold its own on SFO-SIN when competing directly with SQ. Obviously, that probably won't be sustainable in the long run if the 787-9s are the last UA aircraft to receive the Polaris hard product. Sooner versus later UA will launch a W product and I imagine it would be installed on the 787-9 at the same time as the Polaris hard product.
LAX-SIN and QF's upcoming PER-LHR will really stretch the limits of the 787-9. QF's configuration will seat 236 whereas UA seats 252. However UA's 787-9 seats more upfront than either QF's 787-9 configuration or SQ's A350-900 configuration. Granted its an outmoded 2-2-2 product and lack of a W product, UA should have no trouble selling upfront. It may become problematic in the future when SQ restarts LAX-SIN but its a good sign UA was able to hold its own on SFO-SIN when competing directly with SQ. Obviously, that probably won't be sustainable in the long run if the 787-9s are the last UA aircraft to receive the Polaris hard product. Sooner versus later UA will launch a W product and I imagine it would be installed on the 787-9 at the same time as the Polaris hard product.
Re the range, curious your source? Best I can find tracking the changes ( https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/ai...-range-8100nm/ ) Suggests that in a 315 configruation, the pre-2020 models (which will have slight improvements) will have a range of 7750nm (which I assume as does the article is the 275T version which I believe is what SQ has). That is slightly greater range for a similar seating capacity to what Boeing is using for the 787-9 ranges.
But as you noted, SQ has a much less dense configuration on this plane = more range.