Missing Flights to Sao Paulo Nov 23/24
 

Can anyone tell me why there are no UA flights scheduled or available for look-up to Sao Paulo on Nov 23, 2011? Normally ORD-GRU (UA 843) and IAD-GRU (UA 861) fly every day. UA 861 is also missing for Nov 24. I follow these flights regularly and today cannot find them on the schedule. They are not showing cancelled, in fact not showing at all.

In one search at ual.com I found a "null" flight of UA 121 from JFK to GRU showing a 767 for Nov 24. (Normally UA 861 is a 777.) I could assume this is an empty positioning flight, but I am not familiar with this type of "null" flight. When I went to look on the UA web site, I can't seem to bring this one back up again.

When I call "Ted" (aka Simon) and ask for the flight status of 861 for Nov 24, he wants to transfer me to an agent. Normally for a non-existent flight number I would expect him to apologize and ask me for the number again.

Anyone have an idea or first-hand knowledge of this?

It is not unusually for airlines to reduce service on major holidays -- 24 November is USA Thanksgiving holiday

By the same token there is no 860 on the 24th or 25th, since that aircraft turns around the next day. A lot of Brazilians take those flights and Thanksgiving isn't a holiday in Brazil, however WineCountryUA may be correct as they could be using the aircraft for addition capacity within the US.

See similar discussion at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...ing-ua900.html and http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/unite...-co-blues.html.

Thanks for these helpful pointers. Lots of insight here of what we can probably expect in he future.

This isn't a new thing, or something to expect more of due to a change in philosophy or merger, but something that has been standard across most airlines for decades.

Matching supply with demand, increasing capacity (when able) during peak periods, reducing supply during off peak seasons, and large schedule adjustments during short exceptional periods like the biggest domestic demand days with incredibly weak intl demand days is nothing new, nor something to expect to increase or decrease in frequency going forward as a result in anything other than holiday demand variance from seasonal demand.

Thanks for elaborating. I agree with you and understand your point.

I was too brief in my previous statement and too narrow in my perspective. I am still not used to the temporary one or two day changes that can (and will continue to occur) as a result of the additional capacity added due to the merger, especially on this particular route (IAD-GRU). I am completely in agreement that any business--including airlines--should operate as efficiently as possible.

Another possibly interesting point about this run has nothing to do with pax loads and seat supply / demand. My understanding from everyone I speak to in UA is that this route can run with seats completely empty and still turn a profit because of the large cargo loads. That's one of the factors that lead to the gauge change from 767 to 777 about two years ago.

A cargo run may be the reason for this "null" flight scheduled on a 767 from JFK-GRU. No one has yet to say what a null flight is.

In the future I will have to keep in mind that there are more alternatives than the ones I've become accustomed to over the past 10 years.

UA 860/861 are largely flying with a majority of Brasilero passengers these days, even in F and C. It's real odd they would pull the flight for a few days, since it's business as usual this week in Rio and Sao Paulo. Very nice weather for late spring, too.

My flight down last week was completely full, even in F, and I would guestimate it was 70+% brasilero.

I do not think this is merger related at all. Even without the merger the airlines have oft cut runs like this on holidays.

Sure, for the people who are there. But fewer folks will be moving between the USA and Brazil due to the holiday at one end of that route.

Last week's flights have nothing to do with potential loads this week. ;)

/agree. GRU is a buisness city. The typical US businessman/woman does not travel for Thanksgiving, except for leisure. Sure, there are some, but UA, as a US flagged carrier has a large % of it's passengers that would identify themselves as US based business flyers. A large drop in demand of the sector of travelers that typicaly make up the bulk of the aircraft would make flying on these days a "loss leader".

I don't have any real knowledge of freight profitability, but I really doubt that a non-freighter aircraft (a plane configured with over 50% of it's space used for passengers, not freight) would ever be profitable without passenger sales. Heck, UA used to have a DC10 freighter unit. No passengers, just freight, and a network in place to support it, and UA couldn't make that work. Also a 767 isn't really the aircraft used by most companies for freight as the cargo pits are not near as big as on the other widebody planes out there. While it theoreticaly could be possible that on a one-timer "charter" for a desparate client, it could make money as a stand alone freighter in the current configuration, I doubt that flying a 767 without passengers to Brasil would ever be more profitable than allowing passenger sales to add to the revenue unless they converted the plane to hold more cargo.

Your doubt is correct. Freight sales, contrary to many false rumors I have heard from various airline personnel and others, account for only a small fraction of revenue.

Take a look at this long and boring financial statement of United Continental Holding, Inc. The statement has been adjusted to combine both Continental and United. Notice that the freight revenue (cargo) is small compared to the revenue from passengers seat sales.

http://ir.united.com/External.File?t...uSb5aTT0CLaQ==

could any of this be related to the Puyehue-Cordón Caulle volcanic complex erupting in Chile, which is causing a lot of air traffic disruptions into both Uruguay & Argentina (buenos aires).... the map of ash does show some predictions towards the GRU & GIG areas.

Doubtful. These flights are / were missing (not operating) for only these two days. They were not scheduled and then cancelled.

Not only did the airline save money by not flying these RT flights, by canceling all (and only) the UA operated flights, the respective UA ground staff in GRU and GIG didn't have to be paid either.

As of earlier this year, there was only one actual United employee in Brasil, and he's in Rio. Everyone else is a contractor, and they work a variety of airlines throughout the day.

From my understanding EZE has been effected by Puyehue. However, there were Labor Union slowdowns and strikes earlier in the month in EZE that was blamed on the Ash ( but that did not seem to be the case ) I havent heard of any reports personally about the Ash and Brazil.