Can anyone help me understand UA flies the 757 from EWR to LHR (UA16)?

I can understand flying the 757 to a secondary European city, but since LHR gate slots are among the most expensive and difficult to acquire in the world, why would an airline "waste" such a valuable gate slot on a narrow body?

I know US airlines often prefer frequency over aircraft size, but would't you want to make maximum use of such a valuable gate slot to one of the busiest airports in the world? Other than of course a specialized all-business configuration like Open Skies or BA's A318, surely LHR can sustain all-widebody TATL flights?

DL does the same on LHR-PHL I believe.

UA has multiple 757s to LHR. Yes frequency matters but why use large plane if you cant fill them consistently especially now over winter months.

Because Newark, NJ is a very small city

afcjets wrote:

Because Newark, NJ is a very small city

Newark is essentially New York.

Anyway they serve IAD with a 757 too.

alan3 wrote:

DL does the same on LHR-PHL I believe.

Delta is terminating this route next month, per the agreement with AA/BA to acquire the slot in the first place, and will likely be reallocated to a market where DL/VS have a stronger competitive position.

afcjets wrote:

Because Newark, NJ is a very small city

Yet only IAD has year-round 757 service, on the AM eastbound, earliest westbound flights (RON at LHR).

EWR gets some 757s in the winter to maintain frequency given the reduced traffic. In the summer, all flights to EWR (6 in S17, will be 5 in S18) are operated by 767-300/400.

It allows frequency on a route that values convenience for business passengers who pay full fare without having so many seats available that yields have to be diluted to fill the back of the plane.

Also LHR is not a big Star Alliance hub as it's not a hub for any Star Alliance airline. There are some airlines in Star Alliance that connect passengers at LHR, but its a lot less than at FRA.

It’s also a legacy of Continental, LHR sees less than they used to. United serve LHR with B757, B763, B764, B772 both UA and ex CO, B77W (summer 18), B788 and B789, and until recently, the B744. Fun times!

Why not? Airlines need to use the proper planes that can seat the right amount of passengers on certain routes. It would be a bad move if UA flew all 777's on EWR-LHR, because they would fly too many seats for the market and they would lose a bit of money. Using a 752 or 763 is not bad if it is the perfect size for a certain flight and offers the right amount of seats, no matter how busy the airport is or how hard slots are to come by.

I'll add: Good way to boost utilization of a 752 that would otherwise likely sit on the ground not doing much.

Runway28L wrote:

I'll add: Good way to boost utilization of a 752 that would otherwise likely sit on the ground not doing much.

Frequency is what the high-value customers want. Airlines are all about managing yield. If they can fill a 757 with high yielding O/D, there is no need to fill the plane with low yields.

OpenSkies isn't all business class. Never has been. For a short while it was Business and Premium Economy only but it went back to three cabins pretty quickly

A bit off topic, but can someone please list current routes UA deploys their 757? Given the versatility of this plane, why aren't they also used in the Caribbean/Latin America like AA and DL?

Zidane wrote:

A bit off topic, but can someone please list current routes UA deploys their 757? Given the versatility of this plane, why aren't they also used in the Caribbean/Latin America like AA and DL?

because it doesn't make them money

Zidane wrote:

A bit off topic, but can someone please list current routes UA deploys their 757? Given the versatility of this plane, why aren't they also used in the Caribbean/Latin America like AA and DL?

EWR-LIM
EWR-LIS
EWR-EDI
EWR-LHR
EWR-MAN
IAD-DUB
IAD-LHR

plus several domestic routes.

CONTACREW wrote:

Zidane wrote:

A bit off topic, but can someone please list current routes UA deploys their 757? Given the versatility of this plane, why aren't they also used in the Caribbean/Latin America like AA and DL?

EWR-LIM
EWR-LIS
EWR-EDI
EWR-LHR
EWR-MAN
IAD-DUB
IAD-LHR

plus several domestic routes.

Also hits IAH-BOG often

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Also LHR is not a big Star Alliance hub as it's not a hub for any Star Alliance airline. There are some airlines in Star Alliance that connect passengers at LHR, but its a lot less than at FRA.

You would actually be quite surprised by how many United customers connect through Heathrow to Star Alliance member carriers. Between Agean; Air India; Egypt Air; Lufthansa/German Wings/Eurowings; LOT; SAS; Swiss; TAP; and Turkish, United funnels a fair number of travelers through LHR. I was based at LHR for several years and was amazed by how many connecting customers United carried through LHR.

afcjets wrote:

Because Newark, NJ is a very small city

EWR-LHR carried just a little under a million people last year. Not bad for being such a small city!

Jamake1 wrote:

flyingclrs727 wrote:

Also LHR is not a big Star Alliance hub as it's not a hub for any Star Alliance airline. There are some airlines in Star Alliance that connect passengers at LHR, but its a lot less than at FRA.

You would actually be quite surprised by how many United customers connect through Heathrow to Star Alliance member carriers. Between Agean; Air India; Egypt Air; Lufthansa/German Wings/Eurowings; LOT; SAS; Swiss; TAP; and Turkish, United funnels a fair number of travelers through LHR. I was based at LHR for several years and was amazed by how many connecting customers United carried through LHR.

I've done it myself. I wouldn't recommend it. I hate the system they have where you don't even know which gate your connecting flight will use before arriving at LHR. Anyway, I wouldn't connect through LHR when traveling with my wife, because she has no UK visa. The 24 hour layover that would be required would mean having to stay overnight in a hotel, which requires entering the UK.

Why didn't they at least keep CLE-LHR? So everyone stops talking about when CLE will get trans-Atlantic?

UA has never had fewer 757s flying to LHR than now ... have you only just noticed?! Used to be essentially all the EWR-LHR capacity save one flight.

And why just ask this question for UA (or DL or just TATL to LHR)? Shouldn’t the question apply to any airline serving LHR since the slot are so expensive, wheather it’s intraEuropean or intercontinental? It’s just a matter of right sizing, same reason LH doesn’t fly A380s to LHR is the same Reason UA doesn’t fly 777s there on all routes.

I do not know why people get upset about flying to London on a 757. I flew from CVG to ANC, and MSP to FAI on 757's. Those were both very long flights, but were comfortable.

jerseyewr777 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

Because Newark, NJ is a very small city

EWR-LHR carried just a little under a million people last year. Not bad for being such a small city!

Yes, not bad considering it is the second busiest airport in the largest metropolitan area in the United States.

UA may not be able to match the capacity/frequency of AA/BA or DL/VS on NYC-LON, but they have always maintained a strong offering for local traffic.

Beechtobus wrote:

And why just ask this question for UA (or DL or just TATL to LHR)? Shouldn’t the question apply to any airline serving LHR since the slot are so expensive, wheather it’s intraEuropean or intercontinental? It’s just a matter of right sizing, same reason LH doesn’t fly A380s to LHR is the same Reason UA doesn’t fly 777s there on all routes.

Okay yes, all airlines fight for space at LHR, but I didnt really expect LH to fly a 380 for the 85 minute flight to LHR. I thought of long-haul differently, especially New York to London. New York has a metro population of 23 million, London 14 million. These are two of the largest metropolitan areas in the world and the flight is over 8 hours.

Given that BA has about 13 flights a day between LHR and New York area all on 777's or larger, I was surprised that 2 of United 5's daily flights (40%) was operated by a 757. I assumed those flights would always be full.

But now I know!

alan3 wrote:

I assumed those flights would always be full.

You’d be hard pressed to find any full transatlantic flights this time of year.

Flying 757 to Heathrow is such a US airline mentality way of doing things, though BA has flown 757 from Regional UK airports it would never from LHR. A 757 is great for Iceland or Belfast. BA some how manages to fly 787 to New York when they need a small 200 passenger airline. United has 787-8 too and I ask you which airline is better managed BA or UA ? I would WW as my CEO.

EWR is my home airport and I never saw the 757 do this route. The bBitish 787 comes and so does the open skies 757. I have never seen the UA 757 do this. The UA 767 does do this route.

LAXintl wrote:

UA has multiple 757s to LHR. Yes frequency matters but why use large plane if you cant fill them consistently especially now over winter months.

Well they are filled during the winter months. The 767 is still used from EWR to Europe

alan3 wrote:

Beechtobus wrote:

And why just ask this question for UA (or DL or just TATL to LHR)? Shouldn’t the question apply to any airline serving LHR since the slot are so expensive, wheather it’s intraEuropean or intercontinental? It’s just a matter of right sizing, same reason LH doesn’t fly A380s to LHR is the same Reason UA doesn’t fly 777s there on all routes.

Given that BA has about 13 flights a day between LHR and New York area all on 777's or larger, I was surprised that 2 of United 5's daily flights (40%) was operated by a 757. I assumed those flights would always be full.

But now I know!

BA is essentially a single-hub airline, and its model relies not only on strong London O&D, but also flowing significant traffic over LHR to the rest of the world. For UA, LHR is substantially an endpoint (with a smaller percentage of connections to *A partners than at EU hubs) with service from six, soon to be seven, mainland hubs. That leads to much greater fragmentation of traffic flows.

I believe UA flies the 757 to LHR when the demand is lower, but usually, they fly a 767. I think its seasonal with the 2 planes.

jfk777 wrote:

Flying 757 to Heathrow is such a US airline mentality way of doing things, though BA has flown 757 from Regional UK airports it would never from LHR. A 757 is great for Iceland or Belfast. BA some how manages to fly 787 to New York when they need a small 200 passenger airline. United has 787-8 too and I ask you which airline is better managed BA or UA ? I would WW as my CEO.

Well the explanation is that UA doesn't have any 787s at EWR. We've previously seen IAH/IAD/SFO/LAX-LHR on a 787 so you can't say that UA don't like using the 787 for LHR routes. BA has a larger market share from NYC to LHR so can fill larger gauge aircraft on the route.

alan3 wrote:

Okay yes, all airlines fight for space at LHR, but I didnt really expect LH to fly a 380 for the 85 minute flight to LHR. I thought of long-haul differently, especially New York to London. New York has a metro population of 23 million, London 14 million. These are two of the largest metropolitan areas in the world and the flight is over 8 hours.

Given that BA has about 13 flights a day between LHR and New York area all on 777's or larger, I was surprised that 2 of United 5's daily flights (40%) was operated by a 757. I assumed those flights would always be full.
But now I know!

It seem as if your entire argument centers around the type of equipment being used and you are assuming flights are full but if you just do a search online (dummy booking) just to view seat maps what you will notice is every airline flying between New York and LHR basically have sold out their premium cabins there are some flights today (05, February 2018) on all the major carriers with some premium seats available but for the most part first and business class on airlines like AA, BA, DL, UA, and VS are full up front but at the same time almost every flight on all the major carrier have a ton of empty seats in coach. Business travel between New York and LHR is strong year around, there is no slow season however there isn't a lot of demand for leisure travel during winter months. What UA does is in order to maintain a consistent year around frequency they will downguage some flights, and lets not forget for years both CO and then UA operated four 757s on EWR-LHR and one 772ER. Fast forward to today and only one flight is utilizing a 757 all the rest are 763/4s and the main reason UA maintains 763/4's during the winter months is because demand for premium seats remains strong. UA has no partner at LHR; AA has BA, DL has VS UA is on it own. Utilizing 772ER/Ws from hubs like EWR and ORD may make sense to people on site like this one but at the same time those larger aircraft could delude UA's yields on these routes especially in coach. Even IAD just a few years ago was 763 in the morning and two 777s were used in the evening. Today UA utilities a 752/772ER/788, even though there has been a slight reduction in premium seats that was necessary because UA had to much capacity in coach on our IAD-LHR route. Each individual airline has to use the right aircraft for the route and for UA that aircraft includes 752s.

JRL3289 wrote:

UA may not be able to match the capacity/frequency of AA/BA or DL/VS on NYC-LON, but they have always maintained a strong offering for local traffic.

Could it be that UA is just lacking the widebody frames needed to cover all their routes that might justify a larger plane?

The 757s are generally used on the daytime flights to LHR. There's certainly demand for these flights, just not enough to justify a wide-body.

jeffrey1970 wrote:

I do not know why people get upset about flying to London on a 757. I flew from CVG to ANC, and MSP to FAI on 757's. Those were both very long flights, but were comfortable.

I'm not sure of the timing of the flights you were on, but one issue is that many people want to get up and walk around/use the bathroom on overnight flights, especially when you start to get to morning. That's a lot more challenging on a single-aisle plane. And it's also not a huge issue as to the UA 757 LHR flights. As far as I know, the only UA LHR route that's year-round 757 is the morning IAD-LHR and return, which is a daytime flight both directions.

Much ado about little. I think the only year round 757 to LHR on UA is the daylight eastbound flight from IAD.
I would like to add that I was recently in LHR very early in the a.m. and saw that UA 757 leave to return to IAD.
For US departures that leaves very, very, early around 7 a.m.
I would not be surprised if that IAD flight is permanently a 757 because the flight times are unusual and not for everyone.
Flying daylight to Europe sounds fun, but it's a narrowbody so not everyone agrees.

jetblastdubai wrote:

JRL3289 wrote:

UA may not be able to match the capacity/frequency of AA/BA or DL/VS on NYC-LON, but they have always maintained a strong offering for local traffic.

Could it be that UA is just lacking the widebody frames needed to cover all their routes that might justify a larger plane?

Not really. United's widebody utilization in the winter (when more 757s fly to LHR) is pretty low. If demand called for it, UA could very easily schedule all 767/777/787 on the LHR frequencies. Widebody utilization ticks upward in the northern summer, when UA only has 1 757 rotation (IAD-LHR-IAD) in the schedule out of 17 daily flights in either direction.

As it stands now, in mid-February, which is about the lowest of the low season, I'm only seeing 1x 757 on EWR-LHR during the week, with mostly 764s on the other frequencies, which would be a reasonable capacity increase over past winters. This seems to be much ado about nothing.

Because the CRJ-700 can't fly that far

There is a difference between 757 and 767. A 767 is far more comfortable, may be even more than 777. If UA flies 767 then it should be considered positive, a good smaller plane, but twin aisle. Now 757 is definitely no better than 739 with a few more seats.

Beechtobus wrote:

And why just ask this question for UA (or DL or just TATL to LHR)? Shouldn’t the question apply to any airline serving LHR since the slot are so expensive, wheather it’s intraEuropean or intercontinental? It’s just a matter of right sizing, same reason LH doesn’t fly A380s to LHR is the same Reason UA doesn’t fly 777s there on all routes.

No because UA like DL or AA or BA have plenty of larger capacity available for valuable slots and capacity is at a premium at LHR. Frequency is obviously a player. However so is passenger experience. I never choose a narrow body transatlantic.

With competitors moving off the market out of EWR-LHR maybe UAL will upgrade to wide body equipment.

jayunited wrote:

UA has no partner at LHR; AA has BA, DL has VS UA is on it own.

While this is technically correct, VS really acts as a marketing organisation in the UK for Delta flights where relatively few travellers have even heard of Delta. There are only 6 VS flights a day in total between destinations that aren't in the USA and LHR, so feed won't be significant.
Traditionally United/Continental used its 757s on non-stop flights from UK, Ireland, and near Mainland Europe smaller airports to East Coast USA so it didn't need feed at LHR to the same extent. Star Alliance shorthaul feed was supplied at LHR by BD up to 2012, but given the amount of red ink on BD's books, this certainly wasn't a success for BD!

N776AU wrote:

Because the CRJ-700 can't fly that far

Well done, and bonus points for truthiness.

afcjets wrote:

Because Newark, NJ is a very small city

No it's not a "very small city".

Airflyer11 wrote:

Well they are filled during the winter months.

Hardly.

It’s not unusual to see loads in the 30s this time of year especially to a destination like LHR where you have multiple frequencies.

hohd wrote:

Now 757 is definitely no better than 739 with a few more seats.

In standard economy, maybe, but the 757 has a much better product up front, which is a big difference when you're talking about an LHR route.

hohd wrote:

There is a difference between 757 and 767. A 767 is far more comfortable, may be even more than 777. If UA flies 767 then it should be considered positive, a good smaller plane, but twin aisle. Now 757 is definitely no better than 739 with a few more seats.

Wow...a brave soul daring to bash the holy grail of 757. Don't you know that it's the best plane ever and Boeing need to restart production?

As for the original question - it's 1 single frequency during low season. I seriously don't see what prompt all the fuss about that.

jfk777 wrote:

Flying 757 to Heathrow is such a US airline mentality way of doing things, though BA has flown 757 from Regional UK airports it would never from LHR. A 757 is great for Iceland or Belfast. BA some how manages to fly 787 to New York when they need a small 200 passenger airline. United has 787-8 too and I ask you which airline is better managed BA or UA ? I would WW as my CEO.

That "US Airline mentality" is generating better than ever returns for shareholders so some would say BA should get their act together.

Add in that you could ask why AA does so poorly to Germany or France...*A and SkyTeam strong holds. DL does ok to Germany because of the PanAm routes they bought and the customer base that came with it. They do OK to LHR because they spent a lot of money buying part of VS. Each carrier has its strengths.

alan3 wrote:

Can anyone help me understand UA flies the 757 from EWR to LHR (UA16)?

Because they don't have any A321LR's yet

For the old United Business seat the 757 is a pleasant enough ride given the smaller cabin. Although I’m a 767 lover too.
I am going to take a wild guess here, but I think that when the 787-10 arrives (with real Polaris seats) and the EWR Polaris Lounge is open that UA will become a more desirable (and competitive) airline to fly to London for premium passengers, increasing the number of business folk buying J will then be happy to fly United vs the dated, crawl over seats of today.
Frankly with the old seat there isn’t much of a difference between a 757 and 767.

codc10 wrote:

As it stands now, in mid-February, which is about the lowest of the low season, I'm only seeing 1x 757 on EWR-LHR during the week, with mostly 764s on the other frequencies, which would be a reasonable capacity increase over past winters. This seems to be much ado about nothing.

zakuivcustom wrote:

hohd wrote:

As for the original question - it's 1 single frequency during low season. I seriously don't see what prompt all the fuss about that.

I guess on the weekend they are using the 752 on two flights, UA16 and UA110.

It's not a fuss, really, just a discussion since a 757 from New York to London seems to be a specifically UA thing but I guess the 23 fewer J seats on a 752 vs the 764 works out for them fine when compared with lower Y yields and capacity.