PsiFighter37

I don’t think the 77W can make this flight without economically restrictive weight limits.

PsiFighter37

Not just announced - the DEN upgauges have been there for a few weeks.

If there was another international route out of Denver, I think it goes to somewhere else (CDG would be my guess).

flyingrohit

You may be right but a BOM-EWR flight I was on last year, the flight time clocked in at 16 hours 58 minutes due to the worst possible headwinds. After the flight I asked the cap how much longer could the flight have been before we'd have to stop somewhere to fuel up. He said we could've gone for another 1.5 hours or so. With UA's/AI's SFO-DEL averaging around 15.5-16.5 hours, this would be just an hour addon to that at the 77W's average cruise altitude and speed. Now that mere extra hour could mean all the difference and cross over the limit for a 77W....but that's a limit I don't have off the top of my head memorized.

Maybe when UA gets their A350s I don't mind that either but I just love flying in a 77W, so I'm a bit biased. Any of UA's planes that can operate that will do for me. Just no 787. Hate having pure darkness out of my control for 16 hours.

bcard519

I know they will never do It because of the Alliance with AC, but YOW to IAH or DEN. I hate going via YYZ. It’s nicer clearing customs in YOW.

PsiFighter37

SFO-BOM on GCM is over 8400 miles with a route going right over the Himalayas. Simply
put, a 77W can’t do it, and even a 789 would be severely restricted (if it could do it at all).

jsloan

UA does not have antitrust immunity with AC on trans-border flights. It would be illegal for UA to decide not to start YOW-IAH or YOW-DEN because of anything AC said / wanted.

flyingrohit

I guess I won't be getting my SFO-BOM flight. This flight would sell out on the daily if it operated, but airplanes are indeed the restricting factor. LAX-BOM is the dream but that's too much to ask for.

jsloan

The A359 might be able to do it in a low-density configuration. The 777-200LR probably could also.

The problem isn't selling the tickets: it's selling them profitably. There is a ton of competition on routes to India, and while there's no denying that SFO-BOM would be very popular for customers commuting between those two cities, there's still an extra stop for a lot of passengers -- and if you're stopping anyway, you may as well connect in AUH, DXB, or DOH, particularly if it saves a lot of money.

Heffeh41

In the past it has been ERJ-145 x3 daily.

PsiFighter37

AA starting SEA-BLR...interesting route. Unfortunately I don’t think UA can make SFO-BLR, and probably not enough demand to makE EWR-BLR work on top of their DEL and BOM routes.

spartacusmcfly

Shame on UA. How long has this thread been suggesting BLR... SEA to BLR combined with Alaska joining One World makes that an interesting option. UA could have easily done SFO-BLR, with a fuel stop in SEA, while also picking up some MSFT employees in J. Not sure who is MSFT's preferred int'l partner, but if AA wasn't on that list, they certainly will be added, for at least the BLR route. Poor execution by UA defending their west coast APAC routes...

jsloan

....?

So, AA announces one route, which may never operate, based upon feed from partners, and it's "Shame on UA" for not "defending their routes?" This has zero to do with UA; the "fuel stop" idea is completely antithetical to UA's approach over the past several years.

This is a shot at DL, who's been trying to build a SEA hub, not UA.

AA has shown no ability whatsoever to make money in the Indian market. SEA-BLR might work -- or, it might go the way of UA's LAX-SIN route; too many blocked seats to be profitable. But it's not going to affect UA at all.

N104UA

Norwegian currently flies DEN-CDG (seasonally), I don't think the market would support two daily non-stops.

With AMS, I did read it is the top international destination out of DEN without non-stop service, there is a lot of tech and finance in AMS that could support business travel, where CDG would be more leisure.

spartacusmcfly

It's niave to think it'll have no impact on United. MSFT alone has 6,500 employees in southern India. Lots of SEA folks connect via SFO to get to India. Also, I don't think you have to block any seats to BLR from SEA. A full 789 should clear the Himalayas.

JimInOhio

So what? UA wasn't going to fly SEA-BLR anyway so let someone else do it.