FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   United Airlines | MileagePlus (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus-681/)
-   -   What Route(s) do you wish UA Flew [Master thread 2016 onward]. (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/united-airlines-mileageplus/1863367-what-route-s-do-you-wish-ua-flew-master-thread-2016-onward.html)

PsiFighter37 Feb 18, 20 4:41 pm


Originally Posted by findark (Post 32087409)
Also another point of comparison - BUR has a longer runway than SNA. It's definitely an airport thing more than a runway thing.

BUR also doesn’t have regular jetways to board either...definitely agree it is easier for short hops, but I’m not sure even loading up a 73G or A319 wouldn’t cause some issues given the limited facilities.

Seph87 Feb 18, 20 5:26 pm


Originally Posted by PsiFighter37 (Post 32087592)
BUR also doesn’t have regular jetways to board either...definitely agree it is easier for short hops, but I’m not sure even loading up a 73G or A319 wouldn’t cause some issues given the limited facilities.

Southwest has dozens of flights each day from BUR on the 737 so I'm not sure why it would be an issue for UA to add a couple daily frequencies to IAH/ORD and maybe a single frequency to EWR.

My ideal BUR-EWR flight would depart BUR around 8:00am and arrive at EWR around 5:00pm and then have the return flight depart from EWR around 6:30pm and arrive to BUR around 9:30pm. That would allow for connections to the TATL bank on the way to EWR and allow for a full day of work in NYC before heading back to BUR. Right now if I want to fly into BUR from NYC I would have to cut my work day short, so I usually just end up flying into LAX and eating a 1 hour cab ride home.

dilanesp Feb 18, 20 6:36 pm


Originally Posted by Seph87 (Post 32087704)
Southwest has dozens of flights each day from BUR on the 737 so I'm not sure why it would be an issue for UA to add a couple daily frequencies to IAH/ORD and maybe a single frequency to EWR.

My ideal BUR-EWR flight would depart BUR around 8:00am and arrive at EWR around 5:00pm and then have the return flight depart from EWR around 6:30pm and arrive to BUR around 9:30pm. That would allow for connections to the TATL bank on the way to EWR and allow for a full day of work in NYC before heading back to BUR. Right now if I want to fly into BUR from NYC I would have to cut my work day short, so I usually just end up flying into LAX and eating a 1 hour cab ride home.

They can definitely load up standard size 737's. Indeed, they can board a bit faster if they want to because two stairs can be used.

​​​​​​

WineCountryUA Feb 19, 20 8:46 pm

As this thread is for route wish lists. So moved a long discussion about the type of service for SNA to https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...frequency.html

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

globetraveler Feb 19, 20 9:38 pm


Originally Posted by dilanesp (Post 32087898)
They can definitely load up standard size 737's. Indeed, they can board a bit faster if they want to because two stairs can be used.

​​​​​​

I second expanded BUR coverage. As a new LA resident, BUR is SO much more convenient than LAX in every way. Yes there aren’t as many ground services but this allows you to arrive late, and skip the stress of the LAX entrance and LAX-IT “experiences”.

I do enjoy the BUR-DEN routes on the 319/320, as well as BUR-SFO frequencies that are operated by the 175, 319/320’s (RJ200’s not so much). Between both DEN and SFO the connection opportunities are vast. If LAX departures require a connection then BUR is a no brainer.

BUR-IAH would be a very welcome addition as it would further expand connection coverage. BUR-EWR non PS would probably encourage most to just slug it to LAX for lie-flats (unless in Y in which case it wouldn’t matter).

Seph87 Feb 20, 20 10:05 am


Originally Posted by globetraveler (Post 32092143)
I second expanded BUR coverage. As a new LA resident, BUR is SO much more convenient than LAX in every way. Yes there aren’t as many ground services but this allows you to arrive late, and skip the stress of the LAX entrance and LAX-IT “experiences”.

I do enjoy the BUR-DEN routes on the 319/320, as well as BUR-SFO frequencies that are operated by the 175, 319/320’s (RJ200’s not so much). Between both DEN and SFO the connection opportunities are vast. If LAX departures require a connection then BUR is a no brainer.

BUR-IAH would be a very welcome addition as it would further expand connection coverage. BUR-EWR non PS would probably encourage most to just slug it to LAX for lie-flats (unless in Y in which case it wouldn’t matter).

As a mid-tier elite with a 7 hour minimum for paid J on my corporate travel account, PS means nothing to me. In E+ the meal is forgettable and I don't drink enough in flight to make free booze worth much. Though I will say it's much nicer to fly transcon on a 787 than a 737.

Based on that I would almost always take a hypothetical BUR-EWR over LAX-EWR despite the lesser service. I value the hour saved going to/from BUR over the slightly better E+ service from LAX. The only exception would be if I was flying to Europe on J and connecting through EWR, then it would be worth flying through LAX for the PS flights.

flyingrohit Feb 21, 20 3:20 am


Originally Posted by WineCountryUA (Post 32092024)
As this thread is for route wish lists. So moved a long discussion about the type of service for SNA to https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unit...frequency.html

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

WineCountryUA
UA coModerator

ahh great, and yet again, I cause another mass movement to another thread :(

LXFlyer Feb 24, 20 11:44 pm

EWR-SEZ (or really any-SEZ but EWR seems closest)

MSN-IAH (the only missing hub from MSN, not counting GUM)

jsloan Feb 25, 20 12:48 am


Originally Posted by LXFlyer (Post 32109884)
EWR-SEZ (or really any-SEZ but EWR seems closest)

Yes, EWR-SEZ is the shortest -- but, that's relative; it's a little longer than SFO-SIN via the great circle route. Unfortunately, that probably dooms it; I don't think the 787-8 has the legs to get there, and the 787-9 is probably too much capacity. But, hey, if they find themselves with extra -9 capacity...


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:42 am.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.