How likely is it that UA will launch very ULH flights in the next 5/6 years? Example: EWR/JNB or EWR/SIN? As much as I would love to see that are there not more viable European destinations to add growth than some of the world’s longest routes!?

VC10er wrote:

How likely is it that UA will launch very ULH flights in the next 5/6 years? Example: EWR/JNB or EWR/SIN? As much as I would love to see that are there not more viable European destinations to add growth than some of the world’s longest routes!?

I think they'll probably add some more ULH from EWR at some point, but I don't think SIN or JNB will happen. I don't see how they could be profitable on either of those routes. SIN is just too far — SQ can swing it because they can command higher premium fares, but UA just can't. JNB isn't as much of a range issue (although it is a high and hot airport) as it is a profitability factor. SAA can barely stay afloat at JNB. I don't think UA could sell enough seats up front for a high enough price to make it worth their while.

atcsundevil wrote:

VC10er wrote:

How likely is it that UA will launch very ULH flights in the next 5/6 years? Example: EWR/JNB or EWR/SIN? As much as I would love to see that are there not more viable European destinations to add growth than some of the world’s longest routes!?

I think they'll probably add some more ULH from EWR at some point, but I don't think SIN or JNB will happen. I don't see how they could be profitable on either of those routes. SIN is just too far — SQ can swing it because they can command higher premium fares, but UA just can't. JNB isn't as much of a range issue (although it is a high and hot airport) as it is a profitability factor. SAA can barely stay afloat at JNB. I don't think UA could sell enough seats up front for a high enough price to make it worth their while.

UA doesn’t have the right airplane. If they convert any of their 359 orders to ULR, you can bank on EWRSIN and JNB.

What does Airbus do to the A350-900 to make it ULH? And if United asked for (pretend) 6 frames to be ULH, is it then really stupid to use it on a regular long haul if the ULH route doesn’t work out?

VC10er wrote:

What does Airbus do to the A350-900 to make it ULH? And if United asked for (pretend) 6 frames to be ULH, is it then really stupid to use it on a regular long haul if the ULH route doesn’t work out?

Pretty much the same thing that any other ULH aircraft does.. Add fuel. And yes, it would be a bit stupid, because you'd have a heavier airplane with less cargo capacity. That's essentially the same problem with the 77L.

atcsundevil wrote:

VC10er wrote:

What does Airbus do to the A350-900 to make it ULH? And if United asked for (pretend) 6 frames to be ULH, is it then really stupid to use it on a regular long haul if the ULH route doesn’t work out?

Pretty much the same thing that any other ULH aircraft does.. Add fuel. And yes, it would be a bit stupid, because you'd have a heavier airplane with less cargo capacity. That's essentially the same problem with the 77L.

Isn’t 350-900ULR the same as regular 280t A359 with less seats (and software changes to allow more fuel)? Why is it heavier than regular A359?

atcsundevil wrote:

[SQ can swing it because they can command higher premium fares, but UA just can't.

Do you have any evidence to prove that statement? I've seen multiple times here that UA commands a yield premium over SQ on their SIN flights.

moyangmm wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

VC10er wrote:

What does Airbus do to the A350-900 to make it ULH? And if United asked for (pretend) 6 frames to be ULH, is it then really stupid to use it on a regular long haul if the ULH route doesn’t work out?

Pretty much the same thing that any other ULH aircraft does.. Add fuel. And yes, it would be a bit stupid, because you'd have a heavier airplane with less cargo capacity. That's essentially the same problem with the 77L.

Isn’t 350-900ULR the same as regular 280t A359 with less seats (and software changes to allow more fuel)? Why is it heavier than regular A359?

The 280t 359 is "plumbed" for ULR operations, its a software change in the fuel management system to allow for ULR operations. As stated on the Airbus site, an operator can revert to the standard set up if desired. For UA or any other airline, the route planners would gauge demand and could dispatch a ULR flight accordingly. Whether this winds up being a UA 359 subfleet depends on their cabin layout. We'd need a math savvy person to spell out what UA would need to do in order for that same plane to go from LR to ULR operations...my assumption would be take out some Econ seats.

airzim wrote:

Do you have any evidence to prove that statement?

To be fair, I don't think anyone has evidence of that unless they have access to company data. It's more of an assumption made based on SQ's reputation as a premium carrier, combined with my own anecdotal experience while searching for premium fares.

airzim wrote:

I've seen multiple times here that UA commands a yield premium over SQ on their SIN flights.

Forgive me, but relying on users posting here is a little bit of a crapshoot, isn't it? Lol. I'm not saying it's any less of a crapshoot than what I said — it's all completely crap in the absence of hard data — but other than UA reporting strong load factors, I highly doubt that anyone here actually has the access necessary to make that claim. In light of that, all we can do is make inferences.

My claim is based more on common sense, at least as I see it. Not only does SQ still have an F product, but they have a widely known reputation for excellence. Don't get me wrong, I was a 1K for years, and I've flown in their premium cabins hundreds of times, but they're a little far off the SQ benchmark.

Another metric for comparison (still fairly anecdotal, but there's a lot of truth to it) is frequent flyer redemption availability in premium cabins. UA typically has quite a lot of availability, albeit significantly less than usual for SIN and Australia, for example. On the other hand, SQ is notoriously difficult to find redemption availability across the board. That would suggest that SQ is able to sell more of its premium seats, so while UA may have strong load factors, there's no way of knowing how many of those seats are actually paid.

codc10 wrote:

moyangmm wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

It's a weight restricted flight and cannot operate at full payload.

I didn’t see they block any seats on that route. I think a 77E can fly with full pax+bags?

Correct... the only route I am aware of that is currently blocking seats on a regular basis is the IAH-SYD roundtrip due to ETOPS restrictions, currently 240 but optimal routing is 330 minutes (approval process is underway).

Full pax+bags does not = MZFW. The longhaul 777 ops will take cargo up to max payload for the given sector, which changes day to day.

Agreed. I have flown EWR-NRT since CO launched it, the GE 777 has never had problems. But IAH-SYD is going out with a bunch of Y blocked everyday, for the time being anyway.

codc10 wrote:

moyangmm wrote:

FlightLevel360 wrote:

It's a weight restricted flight and cannot operate at full payload.

I didn’t see they block any seats on that route. I think a 77E can fly with full pax+bags?

Correct... the only route I am aware of that is currently blocking seats on a regular basis is the IAH-SYD roundtrip due to ETOPS restrictions, currently 240 but optimal routing is 330 minutes (approval process is underway).

Full pax+bags does not = MZFW. The longhaul 777 ops will take cargo up to max payload for the given sector, which changes day to day.

You are right, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that UA will buy 77L to fly EWR-HKG just for the extra cargo capacity...

77W
N2747U Just finished induction at SEA and ferried back to PAE today. This usually means there will be a “Employee ‘delivery’ flight” the next day to a hub (again usually ORD). The lucky employees get a nice lunch and a tour of the Boeing plant then UA takes ‘delivery’ of the aircraft and fly away home.
These are rather fun events for the employees and good morale boosters.

77W:
N2747U sked 2700/3May PAE-IAH at 9am.

753:
N77865 sked to enter RFD 2788/3May for slimlines
N77867 exited RFD 2789/2May with slimlines

calpsafltskeds wrote:

77W:
N2747U sked 2700/3May PAE-IAH at 9am

Ah, IAH this time.. meal on the flight perhaps.

What is a 77L vs a 77A or B? (Isn’t the B a 77ER?) I am assuming that the 77L is a 772 frame, not a variant of a 77W?
As for the A350 ULH, is the upcoming 778X going to be the Boeing range monster that will at least match the range of the A359ULH?
It would seem from reading here that should UA launch an UHL such as EWR/SIN etc, that it would be better to have a tiny sub fleet if A359ULH than buy a sub fleet of 778X?
It would seem easier to deal with the removal or reversal on an existing A359ULH and not have a very different type with the 77X, unless UA has it eyes on the 77X in the very long term.

I often wonder what United’s Ultra Long Term vision is, clearly the short term is to get to the right profitablity and gain a solid reputation as a premier airline by getting Polaris all done by 2020...but I often wonder if being biggest (in “most” measures: money, fleet, destinations and other) in the USA is almost always the public traded corporate goal. What does Oscar want his legacy to be beyond 2025? (Should he stay that long)
I personally would take great quality reputation over size, but that’s not a shareholder goal, only growth.
Ergo: would the 77X actually be in her future with a large A350 fleet, and probably 797.

77L is the -200ER, 77W is the -300ER; whilst 77A is the standard -200 and 77B is the standard -300 if I'm not wrong.

moyangmm wrote:

codc10 wrote:

moyangmm wrote:

I didn’t see they block any seats on that route. I think a 77E can fly with full pax+bags?

Correct... the only route I am aware of that is currently blocking seats on a regular basis is the IAH-SYD roundtrip due to ETOPS restrictions, currently 240 but optimal routing is 330 minutes (approval process is underway).

Full pax+bags does not = MZFW. The longhaul 777 ops will take cargo up to max payload for the given sector, which changes day to day.

You are right, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me that UA will buy 77L to fly EWR-HKG just for the extra cargo capacity...

Correct. 77L is not happening at UA.

airzim wrote:

atcsundevil wrote:

[SQ can swing it because they can command higher premium fares, but UA just can't.

Do you have any evidence to prove that statement? I've seen multiple times here that UA commands a yield premium over SQ on their SIN flights.

I will say this is just my opinion, but I think that anyone that says UA has a premium over SQ would be on the non-stop vs 1-stop comparison. As today they do not compete head to head.

FatCat wrote:

77L is the -200ER, 77W is the -300ER; whilst 77A is the standard -200 and 77B is the standard -300 if I'm not wrong.

Almost. The 77L is referring to the -LR (Longer Range) variant.

77A - 777-200
77E - 777-200ER
77L - 777-200LR
77W - 777-300ER

ordbosewr wrote:

I will say this is just my opinion, but I think that anyone that says UA has a premium over SQ would be on the non-stop vs 1-stop comparison. As today they do not compete head to head.

They do, actually. SQ is nonstop from SFO on the A359, and have been for some time. They'll also be nonstop from LAX and NYC (not sure which airport, but presumably JFK) early next year.

atcsundevil wrote:

FatCat wrote:

77L is the -200ER, 77W is the -300ER; whilst 77A is the standard -200 and 77B is the standard -300 if I'm not wrong.

Almost. The 77L is referring to the -LR (Longer Range) variant.

77A - 777-200
77E - 777-200ER
77L - 777-200LR
77W - 777-300ER

Thanks, I thought under denomination "77L" were both -200LR and -200ERs.

atcsundevil wrote:

ordbosewr wrote:

I will say this is just my opinion, but I think that anyone that says UA has a premium over SQ would be on the non-stop vs 1-stop comparison. As today they do not compete head to head.

They do, actually. SQ is nonstop from SFO on the A359, and have been for some time. They'll also be nonstop from LAX and NYC (not sure which airport, but presumably JFK) early next year.

Thank you for the correction.SQ started that flight in Oct 17, so they do compete head to head.
So the question is for that one head to head comparison does SQ have a fare premium on UA?

They will not compete head to head on NYC-SIN as UA does not fly that non-stop. That was my point. you can't compare the fare premium (perceived or otherwise) in markets when one airline is non-stop and the other 1-stop. Unless someone else corrects me, I think it has been statistically proven that non-stops will have a fare premium over layovers, that is the way the airlines 'convince' passengers to connect (by charging a lower fare).

777s are a kind of mix and match situation with wings, fuel tanks, fuselage length, gear and engines.

772L (and 772F) have more in common with the 77W. I've commented in the past that is resembles the 747-SP and have gotten ripped on these threads. But maybe with the 772L's poor sales some could reconsider.
The 772L has 77W wings, fuel tanks, engines and undoubtedly gear.
The 772L has the length of the 772ER (seating area and cargo positions).

With the shorter fuselage than the 77W, it has a 8,555nm range, with 1,200-1,500nm more range than the 77W or 772ER.
If the engines are the same on the 772L and the 77W, which UA now has, it might not be a huge leap to pick up a few of these aircraft for some ULH routes, but if these are new routes they could be served by 789 and 359 aircraft.

FYI:
772A is a 77ER with smaller or derated engines, less fuel capacity and probably a smaller landing gear.

773(non ER) is more like a 772ER stretch- same wings/engines/fuel tanks/gear.

iahcsr wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

77W:
N2747U sked 2700/3May PAE-IAH at 9am

Ah, IAH this time.. meal on the flight perhaps.

UA2700 is chalk full of happy people on their way here... it my Monday so maybe I’ll go meet them on arrival

If UA was going to order the 77L, they might as well order the 778, unless they have some urgent need to fly a route that is longer than they are currently serving with the 789's or 77W's. I don't think there's enough of a market for 2 airlines to fly from NYC-SIN, since SQ couldn't make it work on their own in the past. East coast to Australia/New Zealand could be possible, but I doubt it, particularly with IAH and ORD getting connections that will be highly convenient for most of the east coast, leaving a possible EWR to Oceania route dependent on purely O&D.

If UA does want to explore new longer routes, I think they could invest in ULH A359 subfleet, but the 77L would be yet another addition to a fleet for which UA is already discussing their replacement plans.

Is it the craziest idea ever? No. But, is there a list of routes that UA desperately wishes they could fly, and is out of the reach of their current fleet? Also, no.

I suspect this is a United 100 flight. That's such a cool program.

iahcsr wrote:

A320
Any info on the two ex-CZ N4901U & N1902U? They’ve been at LCQ for six and four months now. Waiting on STCs perhaps?

N4901U is in heavy maintenance. Currently, they are installing the landing gears. It is scheduled to have a test flight on May 22.

N4902U is in storage. They won't start heavy maintenance on it till 901 is complete.

1st revenue flight for N2747U is flt 880/04 IAH-LHR

iahcsr wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

77W:
N2747U sked 2700/3May PAE-IAH at 9am

Ah, IAH this time.. meal on the flight perhaps.

UA2700 is chalk full of happy people on their way here.

First revenue UA880 IAHLHR 4May

KVH68 wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

A320
Any info on the two ex-CZ N4901U & N1902U? They’ve been at LCQ for six and four months now. Waiting on STCs perhaps?

N4901U is in heavy maintenance. Currently, they are installing the landing gears. It is scheduled to have a test flight on May 22.

N4902U is in storage. They won't start heavy maintenance on it till 901 is complete.

Thanks for the info. Obviously not in a hurry to put them in service. They clearly sat waiting for the 319s to fly the nest first.

GBO Fleet
0712
0723
0726
0727
0293
0294
0295
0297
0299

CALTECH wrote:

GBO Fleet
0712
0723
0726
0727
0293
0294
0295
0297
0299

What is GBO?

Nose Gear # / Type / MFG S/N / N Number/ Fuselage #/ Year Mfg/ Variance #/ Fleet Code/ Former Operator

0971 787-9 60147 N29971 0642 18 ZB188 79 CO
0972 787-9 .40939 N24972 0649 18 ZB189 79 CO
0973 787-9 .40941 N24973 0661 18 ZB190 79 CO
0974 787-9 .40942 N24974 0663 18 ZB191 79 CO
TBD 787-10 40929 TBD .....0548 19 ZC036 10 CO
TBD 787-10 40936 TBD .....0731.18 ZC037 10 CO
TBD 787-10 40930 TBD .....0763 18 ZC038 10 CO
TBD 787-10 40935 TBD .....0782 18 ZC039 .10 CO
TBD 787-10 60139 TBD .... 0795 19 ZC040 10 CO
TBD 787-10 40937.TBD......0800 19 ZC041 10 CO
TBD 787-10 60140 TBD......0814 19 ZC042 10 CO
TBD 787-10 60138 TBD......0822 19 ZC043 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 19 ZC044 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 20 ZC045 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 21 ZC046 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 22 ZC047 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...40938...0828 19 ZC055 10 CO

SFOtoORD wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

GBO Fleet
0712
0723
0726
0727
0293
0294
0295
0297
0299

What is GBO?

Guam Based Operation

CALTECH wrote:

Nose Gear # / Type / MFG S/N / N Number/ Fuselage #/ Year Mfg/ Variance #/ Fleet Code/ Former Operator

TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 20 ZC045 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 21 ZC046 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 22 ZC047 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...40938...0828 19 ZC055 10 CO

Obviously something odd about ZC055

iahcsr wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Nose Gear # / Type / MFG S/N / N Number/ Fuselage #/ Year Mfg/ Variance #/ Fleet Code/ Former Operator

TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 20 ZC045 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 21 ZC046 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 22 ZC047 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...40938...0828 19 ZC055 10 CO

Obviously something odd about ZC055

Is that the Boeing test a/c?

fun2fly wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

CALTECH wrote:

Nose Gear # / Type / MFG S/N / N Number/ Fuselage #/ Year Mfg/ Variance #/ Fleet Code/ Former Operator

TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 20 ZC045 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 21 ZC046 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...TBD.......TBD 22 ZC047 10 CO
TBD 787-10 TBD ...40938...0828 19 ZC055 10 CO

Obviously something odd about ZC055

Is that the Boeing test a/c?

No, that one is first -10 listed (reply 883) fus#0548, ZC036

I’m certain this has been discussed but not sure I ever read what would be the end game: after UA has Polaris on all wide body aircraft, the 78J’s are all in service, the 3 ex Hawaiian 767s in service (perhaps with some A350s having arrived)...will the 752’s still be flying TATL with the old seat? Or is that can being kicked down the road until there is a Boeing MoM decision, which in turn could spur an A321 acquisition?

I just cannot imagine that UA would still sell 752 old J seats on TATL when every other aircraft has true Polaris. Although they are often a convenient size to secondary cities.

I could see all the 752’s with old diamond J seats doing only domestic routes until the wings start falling off. I personally prefer them over any 737 or A329/20 in F.

And no word on what a Polaris hard product would be on a narrow body?

Yes, it will be nice when the widebody fleet is all converted to Polaris and PE.

As for the the 752, I believe it will remain with diamond seats w/o PE and serve Domestic plus these shorter TATL markets:
Iceland, Ireland, UK (except LHR) and Portugal.
Some of these have heavy seasonal Y demand and have less competition than mainland European destinations:
EWR-DUB/EDI/LIS/KEF/SNN/GLA/MAN/OPO
IAD-DUB/EDI/LIS
This would mean the 752 would have to be removed from all LHR flights, EWR-ARN and maybe EWR/IAD-LIS. This would upgrade all mainland Europe to Polaris, except Porto (assume seasonal leisure destination)

I'm pretty sure Polaris can be retrofitted onto the 752, but could lose 2 to 4 seats BF seats. To assure that all Transcon flights offer the same service would require a substantial investment on 56 752s, unless a sub fleet was created. Subfleets affect utilization and undoubtedly would have Transcon routes with a split of Polaris/Diamond seating.

764:
N76055 exited MCO 2771/4May

Even if it were to just those few, if a TATL flight cost the same as Polaris and one gets a 752 with Diamond hard product in 2020, then I think United would be making a huge mistake- I know I’d be very unhappy in 2020 to get the old seat at new prices!
Is two and a half years enough time to find a suitable 752 replacement for TATL routes where a 763 would be too big?

VC10er wrote:

Even if it were to just those few, if a TATL flight cost the same as Polaris and one gets a 752 with Diamond hard product in 2020, then I think United would be making a huge mistake- I know I’d be very unhappy in 2020 to get the old seat at new prices!
Is two and a half years enough time to find a suitable 752 replacement for TATL routes where a 763 would be too big?

Not sure what the mistake is, flights are priced based on market demand and competition and not by the type of seat (unless you're DL with their A350 'suites'). The 752 will likely be used on niche routes like EWR-MAN/OPO/SNN etc. These routes have little competition to begin with, and UA doesn't need to do much to compete in terms of product. If you wanted to fly a better seat, then you can fly a widebody and connect through a EU hub.

calpsafltskeds wrote:

Yes, it will be nice when the widebody fleet is all converted to Polaris and PE.

As for the the 752, I believe it will remain with diamond seats w/o PE and serve Domestic plus these shorter TATL markets:
Iceland, Ireland, UK (except LHR) and Portugal.
Some of these have heavy seasonal Y demand and have less competition than mainland European destinations:
EWR-DUB/EDI/LIS/KEF/SNN/GLA/MAN/OPO
IAD-DUB/EDI/LIS
This would mean the 752 would have to be removed from all LHR flights, EWR-ARN and maybe EWR/IAD-LIS. This would upgrade all mainland Europe to Polaris, except Porto (assume seasonal leisure destination)

I'm pretty sure Polaris can be retrofitted onto the 752, but could lose 2 to 4 seats BF seats. To assure that all Transcon flights offer the same service would require a substantial investment on 56 752s, unless a sub fleet was created. Subfleets affect utilization and undoubtedly would have Transcon routes with a split of Polaris/Diamond seating.

764:
N76055 exited MCO 2771/4May

. . . and United has previously stated that they'd like to get the 752s off of the Atlantic routes and put them more on the domestic premium routes. They've made a lot of those changes already, but how they'll continue down that path without alot of additional 763s or an MOM type is another question. My guess is, (kinda along the lines of your thinking), we'll see only the shortest-thinest remain with a 752 and the rest upgraded to the 763, with some 787 flying covering some of the longer missions done with the 763 today. Guessing that was the intent behind the additional 3 763s from HA as well.

I was thinking that sometime in or at the end of 2020 United would want a very consistent product across the entire fleet (especially international over water) after many years of inconsistency.
Sure, if the only non-stop is a 752 with the old seats, they might be able to get away with it. But that’s not going to help them realize their goals.
I can’t imagine (but what do I know?) they would ever invest $$$ in a 752 by installing a Polaris seat, even if they could fit. Can their 752’s still be flying TATL for another 5+ years or wouldn’t they simply be too old with too many cycles on them?
Yet there is no simple answer right now as to what ac they would acquire- the MoM wouldn’t be available yet, and everyone here thinks they will NEVER get the A321?

VC10er wrote:

I was thinking that sometime in or at the end of 2020 United would want a very consistent product across the entire fleet (especially international over water) after many years of inconsistency.
Sure, if the only non-stop is a 752 with the old seats, they might be able to get away with it. But that’s not going to help them realize their goals.
I can’t imagine (but what do I know?) they would ever invest $$$ in a 752 by installing a Polaris seat, even if they could fit. Can their 752’s still be flying TATL for another 5+ years or wouldn’t they simply be too old with too many cycles on them?
Yet there is no simple answer right now as to what ac they would acquire- the MoM wouldn’t be available yet, and everyone here thinks they will NEVER get the A321?

Polaris is not going into the 757s.

iahcsr wrote:

iahcsr wrote:

calpsafltskeds wrote:

77W:
N2747U sked 2700/3May PAE-IAH at 9am

Ah, IAH this time.. meal on the flight perhaps.

UA2700 is chalk full of happy people on their way here.

Turns out this was a group of UA international employees from central/South America. Came in the day before, Boeing tour, dinner, ‘delivery’ flight to IAH.
Not surprised if similar event is planned for next (and most likely truly last this time) 77W delivery later this year.

notconcerned wrote:

VC10er wrote:

Even if it were to just those few, if a TATL flight cost the same as Polaris and one gets a 752 with Diamond hard product in 2020, then I think United would be making a huge mistake- I know I’d be very unhappy in 2020 to get the old seat at new prices!
Is two and a half years enough time to find a suitable 752 replacement for TATL routes where a 763 would be too big?

Not sure what the mistake is, flights are priced based on market demand and competition and not by the type of seat (unless you're DL with their A350 'suites'). The 752 will likely be used on niche routes like EWR-MAN/OPO/SNN etc. These routes have little competition to begin with, and UA doesn't need to do much to compete in terms of product. If you wanted to fly a better seat, then you can fly a widebody and connect through a EU hub.

There was discussion a while back that EWR-MAN might see a larger aircraft (possibly seasonal). I don't know if that's progressed at all, but from the outside nothing has...

So is the new 767 configuration set to replace the PS 757s?

That would be a lot of premium capacity for EWR-SFO/LAX but I think the configuration wouldn't be dense enough for any transatlantic purposes either.

SumChristianus wrote:

So is the new 767 configuration set to replace the PS 757s?

That would be a lot of premium capacity for EWR-SFO/LAX but I think the configuration wouldn't be dense enough for any transatlantic purposes either.

The high-J 767s are planned for international routes, with crew rest accommodation. If they appear on premium transcon routes it will be in addition to intercontinental service.

SumChristianus wrote:

So is the new 767 configuration set to replace the PS 757s?

That would be a lot of premium capacity for EWR-SFO/LAX but I think the configuration wouldn't be dense enough for any transatlantic purposes either.

PS 757s are not being retired anytime soon.

The 752 permit routes that just are not going to work otherwise. Frankly, I would vastly rather take an "older" seat nonstop to ARN/OPO/LIS/SNN/EDI etc. Than have to conx in FRA.


That was what made old United some limited. Nothing Just 3 cabin widebodies forced them from everything but the biggest hubs.


If UA walks away from what CO built DL (and soon B6) will only be Too Happy to fill in the gap. There is life beyond double connections in FRA