Originally Posted by spartacusmcfly
(Post 32068026)
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.
|
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
(Post 32068050)
So what? UA wasn't going to fly SEA-BLR anyway so let someone else do it.
|
Originally Posted by spartacusmcfly
(Post 32068101)
Can't reach BLR from SFO, so UA could have done it with a 30 minute fuel stop in SEA. And in the process, you lock up another Apple-like corporate account that has 6,500 people in Southern India. Great companies cannibalize themselves, befrore the competition does it. AA from SEA with a powerful Alaska feeder will be formidable on that route.
|
Originally Posted by spartacusmcfly
(Post 32068101)
Can't reach BLR from SFO, so UA could have done it with a 30 minute fuel stop in SEA.
|
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
(Post 32068056)
If those MSFT employees weren't already UA fliers (they probably weren't out of SEA), then this isn't going to have an impact on UA. If they are UA fliers, I don't think one route is going to sway them.
Originally Posted by findark
(Post 32068129)
A what? Ah, now I know who writes the ETDs I see in FLIFO every time a flight diverts.
|
Originally Posted by spartacusmcfly
(Post 32068151)
English please.
Originally Posted by spartacusmcfly
(Post 32068026)
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.
|
Originally Posted by findark
(Post 32068165)
Whenever a flight diverts, it gets a new estimated departure time (ETD) in United's flight information console (FLIFO). They are usually unrealistically short; things like 15 to 20 minutes wheels-to-wheels for a fuel stop, and inevitably get pushed back as reality incurs. The idea that a fuel stop in SEA would only take 30 minutes (are we still picking up these MSFT employees??) is unrealistic in the extreme.
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that UA wanted to try this. By the time the SFO-SEA flight is added in, your duty periods are so long that you likely need a separate crew at SEA. You're also going to end up selling SFO-SEA tickets, so you're going to have to let people off. (Otherwise, you're flying a half-full 787). Because SEA-BLR is international, you have positive bag-matching, so now you have to segregate the bags and be ready to pull any for somebody who deplaned even though they weren't supposed to. On the way back, you have to give everybody the chance to go through customs at SEA -- no way CBP is going to allow you to drop off some passengers but not others. Realistically, you're probably looking at a 90-minute stop on the outbound and a two-hour stop on the return. UA can't fly every single route. |
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 32065976)
The A359 might be able to do it in a low-density configuration. The 777-200LR probably could also.
lol with the new Alaska OneWorld nonsense, I guess I can add OneWorld ruby to my bio next summer
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 32065976)
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.
|
Originally Posted by flyingrohit
(Post 32068212)
77L can easily do it but UA doesn’t have any in line for orders does it? A359 could probably do it yeah. But as you suggest, probably a premium heavy config like SQ’s ULR would do the trick.
lol with the new Alaska OneWorld nonsense, I guess I can add OneWorld ruby to my bio next summer But with SFO arguably having the largest GS/1K presence among more UA elites (I think?) you don’t think there’s enough of them that would rather take this route rather than connecting through EWR. I mean looking at the loads on SFO-DEL, it seems to be doing pretty well honestly. |
Originally Posted by flyingrohit
(Post 32068212)
77L can easily do it but UA doesn’t have any in line for orders does it? A359 could probably do it yeah. But as you suggest, probably a premium heavy config like SQ’s ULR would do the trick.
Originally Posted by flyingrohit
(Post 32068212)
But with SFO arguably having the largest GS/1K presence among more UA elites (I think?) you don’t think there’s enough of them that would rather take this route rather than connecting through EWR. I mean looking at the loads on SFO-DEL, it seems to be doing pretty well honestly.
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
(Post 32068226)
Largest number of GS/1K have SFO as their home airport? It’s one of UA’s smallest hubs.
|
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
(Post 32068226)
Largest number of GS/1K have SFO as their home airport? It’s one of UA’s smallest hubs.
|
Originally Posted by jsloan
(Post 32068274)
Correct; UA doesn't have the 77L. UA does have an A359 order in place, although I'm on record as saying that I don't believe they'll ever take delivery. If they do, I suppose they might go with a config similar to SQ. (I wouldn't have said that until they rolled out the high-J 763 configuration, showing that they're serious about trying a sparse configuration somewhere...)
Originally Posted by JimInOhio
(Post 32068226)
Largest number of GS/1K have SFO as their home airport? It’s one of UA’s smallest hubs.
|
Originally Posted by spartacusmcfly
(Post 32068135)
How were those MSFT employees getting to India? It was either UA or Air India via SFO. Or some inefficient connection via Europe or Asia.
|
Originally Posted by findark
(Post 32068165)
Whenever a flight diverts, it gets a new estimated departure time (ETD) in United's flight information console (FLIFO). They are usually unrealistically short; things like 15 to 20 minutes wheels-to-wheels for a fuel stop, and inevitably get pushed back as reality incurs. The idea that a fuel stop in SEA would only take 30 minutes (are we still picking up these MSFT employees??) is unrealistic in the extreme...
Routes like EWR-CPT & SFO-PPT are cute (and I'm sure profitable) but at the core, UA caters to business customers, including tech where they probably have #1 market share. They are letting others encroach into their hard-fought high-ground and I don't think that's smart. |
Originally Posted by HNLbasedFlyer
(Post 32068374)
Flying UA via SFO to BLR isn't the best routing (on top of potential delays at SFO). But I could see them going LH SEA-FRA-BLR, JAL SEA-NRT-BLR, or EK SEA-DXB-BLR, BA SEA-LHR-BLR, and on and on......
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 9:14 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.