UA to Launch LAX-SIN!

Old Jun 1, 2017, 11:55 am
  #61  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Programs: UA
Posts: 312
Originally Posted by DetroitFlyer
And why would UA postpone this after just announcing?
2 reasons I can think of. First, they don't get the expected delivery of a/c. Second, they don't get government approval.
pbartp is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:00 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by eng3
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)
There are even options to continue onto BKK directly from HKG most of the time. I think the ORD flight gets in a bit earlier and can connect to the evening TG flight.

Originally Posted by FlytheTail
I've got an idea: use it to fly HKG-BKK, of course!
Originally Posted by eng3
^^^^^^^
^^^^^^
goodeats21 is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:19 pm
  #63  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MRY - CNX - TXL
Programs: UA 1K / *G / Marriott PE / Expedia Gold+ / Hertz PC
Posts: 7,058
Originally Posted by eng3
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 did it the other way CNX-BKK-HKG (overnight at Sky City Marriott) and then HKG-SFO.

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.
JVPhoto is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:20 pm
  #64  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted by eng3
I haven't actually monitored SFO-SIN for a while. Is it still pretty much always R=0?
R space is almost impossible for anything to/from SFO other than mid-week and if it ever does open up it will only be within a few days of departure.

I don't expect LAX-SIN to be any different. 2 fewer C seats on the 789 vs 777.
mrswirl is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:21 pm
  #65  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Programs: UA, Starwood, Priority Club, Hertz, Starbucks Gold Card
Posts: 3,951
Originally Posted by pbartp
... Second, they don't get government approval.
U.S. and Singapore have Open Skies, so no need for government approval.

Congrats UA and especially to UA employees here in LAX!
sinoflyer is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:21 pm
  #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.

Originally Posted by pbartp
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.
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.

Originally Posted by spin88
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.
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.


Originally Posted by spin88
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.
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.
minnyfly is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:28 pm
  #67  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: LAX
Programs: UA:1k; MR: PLT; Hilton: Gold
Posts: 1,324
Originally Posted by Gig103
Will it be worth making a change, as they are in the same *A? I'd choose a stop with SQ over nonstop in UA, for the comfort factors.
While SQ and UA both are in the *A, the relationship is tenuous at best. SQ decided to codeshare with VX instead of UA for domestic US flights. IIRC, this was because SQ customers would be disappointed with UA's product.

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.
jmanirish is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:31 pm
  #68  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted by minnyfly
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.
Couple of days ago coming the other direction on UA2 we basically went right over MNL and up to Japan before turning right.

We still made it to SFO an hour early because of the tailwinds.
mrswirl is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:32 pm
  #69  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: PHL
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, Marriott Gold, IHG Platinum, Raddison Platinum, Avis Presidents Club
Posts: 5,257
Originally Posted by goodeats21
There are even options to continue onto BKK directly from HKG most of the time. I think the ORD flight gets in a bit earlier and can connect to the evening TG flight.
Originally Posted by JVPhoto
I did it the other way CNX-BKK-HKG (overnight at Sky City Marriott) and then HKG-SFO.
Last time I did this, I recall the *A options HKG-BKK were extremely expensive compared to separate PNRs. I was concerned about delays and mis-connecting so booked an overnight at a airport hotel. I think even with the hotel stay it was still hundreds cheaper.

Originally Posted by mrswirl
R space is almost impossible for anything to/from SFO other than mid-week and if it ever does open up it will only be within a few days of departure.

I don't expect LAX-SIN to be any different. 2 fewer C seats on the 789 vs 777.
Yep so no more GPU's going to SIN.
eng3 is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:50 pm
  #70  
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 402
Originally Posted by jmanirish
While SQ and UA both are in the *A, the relationship is tenuous at best. SQ decided to codeshare with VX instead of UA for domestic US flights. IIRC, this was because SQ customers would be disappointed with UA's product.
If this is true (which it's not), please explain why SQ passengers would tolerate US Airways code share flights, when they charged for water in coach?

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.
airzim is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 12:58 pm
  #71  
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: CHS
Programs: UA GS, Bonvoy Amabassador, Hertz PC
Posts: 2,589
Originally Posted by mrswirl
R space is almost impossible for anything to/from SFO other than mid-week and if it ever does open up it will only be within a few days of departure.

I don't expect LAX-SIN to be any different. 2 fewer C seats on the 789 vs 777.
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.
Hipplewm is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 1:00 pm
  #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
Originally Posted by eng3
Last time I did this, I recall the *A options HKG-BKK were extremely expensive compared to separate PNRs. I was concerned about delays and mis-connecting so booked an overnight at a airport hotel. I think even with the hotel stay it was still hundreds cheaper.
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.
FlytheTail is online now  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 1:15 pm
  #73  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: UA 1K 1MM, AA, DL
Posts: 7,402
Originally Posted by Hipplewm
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.
Problem there is connections into EWR. A 10am flight ex-EWR could make that pretty difficult. Same on the return - 6pm arrival makes most connections impossible. The same is likely to hold true for ORD - it leaves ORD to allow for connections, arriving in the evening.

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.
drewguy is online now  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 1:19 pm
  #74  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Colorado
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,158
Originally Posted by Hipplewm
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 was on 895 HKG-SIN last Monday and F was full, C was 34/40 and Y was probably 90% full.

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
mrswirl is offline  
Old Jun 1, 2017, 1:27 pm
  #75  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Originally Posted by Longboater
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.
I agree re the hard product, but not just in J, Y is just not workable on the UA 789 at 3-3-3 for ULR flights. Lack of PE (and the narrower Y seats) will keep me off these flights where I can't buy J.

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.
spin88 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

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.