What Route(s) do you wish UA Flew?
 

IAH-CDG

LAX-TLV

According to RoutesOnline, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is encouraging B6 and UA to start Bay Area to Buffalo. For UA, that would be SFO-BUF...would be very surprised if that one comes about. I am sure the ask is more centered around constituent requests in upstate NY, but some of the discussion (as it being a cheaper way to get to Toronto) simply isn't appealing IMO - having done the drive from Buffalo to Toronto, it's not a terribly interesting drive, and there are plenty of opportunities to hit traffic as you come around the western edge of Lake Ontario.

On an unrelated note, I'd love it if UA could find a way to start EWR-PPT on a seasonal 3x weekly basis - not sure what the loads out of SFO are, but a direct flight from EWR shows up around 6300 miles, which would be well within the range of a Dreamliner.

SLC-IAD

EWR-PEK

SFO-PPT was started to defend the hub and drive the French Bee PPT route under, not because it's profitable.

But I would imagine the fact they made it year-round, instead of keeping the original seasonal scheduling, means there is some success? (I would think)

ORD to XIY

Not just the French Bee (BF) PPT route, but their ORY-SFO flight. I suspect UA was none too happy that BF was going toe-to-toe with UA's CDG-SFO service.

I originally thought that the SFO-PPT would be a neat option until I realized that I would have to rely on UAX to get up to SFO, which these days is not an easy feat. So, I'm sticking to TN and AF.

A few reasonable connect-the-dots longhaul adds I'd like to see for UA:

EWR-GIG/TPE/ICN/WAW*/BUD*
ORD-TLV
IAD-MXP/ATH*
IAH-ZRH/CDG/OGG
SFO-GRU/FCO*

* seasonal

EK is a huge reason why RTW is dead... there is so much capacity/competition over the EU-South/Southeast Asia traffic flow that the 'connector' segment (e.g., LHR-DEL/HKG) would hemorrhage so much cash as to render the rest of the operation grossly unprofitable.

The closest UA can do now is EWR-DEL-SFO-EWR, which, while polar and not a true circumnavigation, is still pretty cool.

Not all UA metal, but something like ewr-iah-hnl-maj-kwa-ksa-pni-tkk-gum-hkg Then del/tlv-ewr is a bit closer to circumnavigation or half at least.


As for routes, I wish there were more current UA EWR-Europe and SFO-asia options available from ORD

SFO-BOM on a 77W. If this ever started, I would gladly become a weekly regular on this flight out of my own pocket.

For YOW-ORD, that article says "50 seaters" but is that ERJ-145 or CRJ-550? (or CRJ-220...)

That flight is coming back just a month after I needed it :p

Anything else outside of North America on UA. They just announced they are upgrading LHR, NRT, and FRA to a 789.

How about DEN-AMS

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

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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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...

....?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

No, great companies don't chase after things like this. Do you know how many MSFT people travel between SEA and BLR each day?

A what? Ah, now I know who writes the ETDs I see in FLIFO every time a flight diverts.

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. You don't think a non-stop directly to souther India trumps those options?

English please.

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.

No one flying for business is double-connecting in SFO to get from SEA to BLR. There are tons of one-stop options on all three alliances (CX, LH, EK, BA, DL to KLAF).

Correct.

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.

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.

Largest number of GS/1K have SFO as their home airport? It’s one of UA’s smallest hubs.

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...)

Load factors aren't enough to tell how well a route is doing; you need yield information, which isn't published. However, I suspect you're right; with the right aircraft, UA could probably make SFO-BOM work. I'm just not sure they have that aircraft right now.

There's an awful lot of money in the Bay Area. It wouldn't surprise me if this were actually true.