United daily double SFO-SIN will cancel LAX-SIN

IndianicWorld · Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:28 pm

This sounds like a great move by UA. Strengthening its market proposition overall and giving it a stronger operating position. Sad for LAX though.

The 789 is a great aircraft but that really does stretch things a bit far on a route like LAX-SIN.

crazyplane1234 wrote:
AVENSAB727 wrote:
Any updates whether this could affect IAH-SYD, is it possible that UA would axe it to add in a 2nd daily SFO-SYD?

I think they'll be more likely to start BNE, rather than duplicating an existing Australian route.

This hasn’t really been the way things have played out for UA in the Australian market.

It has 3 routes into SYD and 1 into MEL, so it hasn’t really hasn’t been afraid of concentrating on a specific market when it wants to.

The interesting though though has been UA’s inability to commence MEL-SFO for some, which has now let QF launch the route in the next few months.

jayunited · Sat Jun 30, 2018 12:59 pm

jagraham wrote:
My question was aimed at this post; are they routinely leaving the freight behind on LAX-SIN, or are they leaving more than a couple of rows of passengers also? Noting that SFO-SIN is about 280 nm shorter, which shouldn't make the difference between all the cargo and no cargo and maybe 50 seats blocked

Yes we are routinely leaving behind freight on a year around basis and during the winter months we are either leaving passengers behind or blocking rows. SFO-SIN we do not have these problems the 789 can handle this route almost on a year around basis we do have to block rows and limit freight for 3-4 weeks during the winter when there are extremely strong headwinds over the Pacific. In fact there have been plenty of times during the winter months when facing strong headwinds SFO-SIN flight time has exceeded 18+ hours. Those winds decimate LAX-SIN and in some cases we were forced to block 50 or more seats on LAX-SIN. I give UA credit for trying LAX-SIN with the 789 but in our current configuration the route proved to be to much for the aircraft to handle efficiently and perhaps profitability

I'm hoping UA will try again we do have A359s on order perhaps UA will order a few A359ULR to cover routes like LAX-SIN.

jagraham · Sat Jun 30, 2018 8:09 pm

jayunited wrote:
jagraham wrote:
My question was aimed at this post; are they routinely leaving the freight behind on LAX-SIN, or are they leaving more than a couple of rows of passengers also? Noting that SFO-SIN is about 280 nm shorter, which shouldn't make the difference between all the cargo and no cargo and maybe 50 seats blocked

Yes we are routinely leaving behind freight on a year around basis and during the winter months we are either leaving passengers behind or blocking rows. SFO-SIN we do not have these problems the 789 can handle this route almost on a year around basis we do have to block rows and limit freight for 3-4 weeks during the winter when there are extremely strong headwinds over the Pacific. In fact there have been plenty of times during the winter months when facing strong headwinds SFO-SIN flight time has exceeded 18+ hours. Those winds decimate LAX-SIN and in some cases we were forced to block 50 or more seats on LAX-SIN. I give UA credit for trying LAX-SIN with the 789 but in our current configuration the route proved to be to much for the aircraft to handle efficiently and perhaps profitability

I'm hoping UA will try again we do have A359s on order perhaps UA will order a few A359ULR to cover routes like LAX-SIN.

Thanks much for the response jayunited! It is fascinating to me that there is so much difference between SFO and LAX. But the people on the ground know best!

As for A359s, they don't have much more fuel, so they won't do much better. An A359ULR gives up half its seating to do what it is advertised to do - not good if you are leaving pax and freight with a 250 seat 789. Now if Airbus had followed a.net's advice and made the A359ULR out of an A35J shrink, with MTOW above 310t, it would be a different story. As it is, if freight is important on this route, get a 77L now, or a 778 later.

gwrudolph · Sat Jun 30, 2018 9:26 pm

Freshside3 wrote:
Can't fathom the second SFO-SIN doing that well. It may have been better to assign the aircraft to another route.

While it makes sense to pull down LAX-SIN if the aircraft can't make it profitable, I too am skeptical that 2x SFO-SIN will work. Having 3 daily flights on a developing route sounds heavy to me.

btbx11 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:49 pm

janders wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:
Would love to see PDEW stats on SIN-USA.

You can always use the interactive the Brookings Institute tool

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/ ... n-america/

Quick look
NYC - 112,608
LA - 104,052
SF - 93,592
HOU - 36,974
CHI - 23,592
DC - 19,505
SEA - 16,449
BOS - 16,421

This tool isn't very useful for SFO when it splits SF and San Jose into two separate metros. I'll never understand why the US Census Bureau split the Bay Area in half while leaving plenty of similarly-sized MSAs intact.

jmc1975 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 10:50 pm

Since the eastbound arrival of the new flight into SFO is at 8:55pm, can anyone list the plethora of outbound red-eye connections this will feed?

SFOA380 · Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:19 pm

btbx11 wrote:
janders wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:
Would love to see PDEW stats on SIN-USA.

You can always use the interactive the Brookings Institute tool

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/ ... n-america/

Quick look
NYC - 112,608
LA - 104,052
SF - 93,592
HOU - 36,974
CHI - 23,592
DC - 19,505
SEA - 16,449
BOS - 16,421

This tool isn't very useful for SFO when it splits SF and San Jose into two separate metros. I'll never understand why the US Census Bureau split the Bay Area in half while leaving plenty of similarly-sized MSAs intact.

It’s also not useful because the info is way too old and pre-dates the incredible boom CA is going through right now. The Bay Area economy grew nearly 6% in 2016 alone and Int’l traffic into the Bay Area and LA has exploded.

janders · Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:59 pm

btbx11 wrote:
This tool isn't very useful for SFO when it splits SF and San Jose into two separate metros. I'll never understand why the US Census Bureau split the Bay Area in half while leaving plenty of similarly-sized MSAs intact.

Census also splits up LA basin, but having some numbers better than nothing!

JAAlbert · Sun Jul 01, 2018 12:22 am

Why would a morning SFO departure arriving in SIN in the evening be desirable from a passenger standpoint? I ask because UA's press release states the reason for the shift was consumer demand for a morning departure. Looking at sunflight.net, the 17.20 morning flight is flown almost entirely during daylight. The evening flight is 17hrs of night. I wonder which is easier on the body, if any.

reality · Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:08 am

Many people don't sleep well on an aircraft, even in business class, and prefer daytime flights so that most of the flight will be during their normal waking hours. Others fall asleep as soon as they sit down in a plane--day or night. Choice is always good.

jumbojet · Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:36 am

jayunited wrote:
[
Yes we are routinely leaving behind freight on a year around basis and during the winter months we are either leaving passengers behind or blocking rows. SFO-SIN we do not have these problems the 789 can handle this route almost on a year around basis we do have to block rows and limit freight for 3-4 weeks during the winter when there are extremely strong headwinds over the Pacific. In fact there have been plenty of times during the winter months when facing strong headwinds SFO-SIN flight time has exceeded 18+ hours. Those winds decimate LAX-SIN and in some cases we were forced to block 50 or more seats on LAX-SIN. I give UA credit for trying LAX-SIN with the 789 but in our current configuration the route proved to be to much for the aircraft to handle efficiently and perhaps profitability

I'm hoping UA will try again we do have A359s on order perhaps UA will order a few A359ULR to cover routes like LAX-SIN.

Fair question, not bashing UA here, but shouldn't they have known these facts? Why even start LAX-SIN if thats the case? With all they know about the B789 specs, weather conditions and wind patterns, you would think this route would have never been considered.

eamondzhang · Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:29 am

jumbojet wrote:
jayunited wrote:
[
Yes we are routinely leaving behind freight on a year around basis and during the winter months we are either leaving passengers behind or blocking rows. SFO-SIN we do not have these problems the 789 can handle this route almost on a year around basis we do have to block rows and limit freight for 3-4 weeks during the winter when there are extremely strong headwinds over the Pacific. In fact there have been plenty of times during the winter months when facing strong headwinds SFO-SIN flight time has exceeded 18+ hours. Those winds decimate LAX-SIN and in some cases we were forced to block 50 or more seats on LAX-SIN. I give UA credit for trying LAX-SIN with the 789 but in our current configuration the route proved to be to much for the aircraft to handle efficiently and perhaps profitability

I'm hoping UA will try again we do have A359s on order perhaps UA will order a few A359ULR to cover routes like LAX-SIN.

Fair question, not bashing UA here, but shouldn't they have known these facts? Why even start LAX-SIN if thats the case? With all they know about the B789 specs, weather conditions and wind patterns, you would think this route would have never been considered.

I would say they thought the revenue generated could compensate these losses, which turned out not to be true and thus they decided to move on.

Michael

jayunited · Sun Jul 01, 2018 1:12 pm

jumbojet wrote:
Fair question, not bashing UA here, but shouldn't they have known these facts? Why even start LAX-SIN if thats the case? With all they know about the B789 specs, weather conditions and wind patterns, you would think this route would have never been considered.

I can't answer this question with absolute certainty because I don't have access to all of the information required to make a definitive answer but I'm guessing based on what I do know UA SFO-SIN route is probably profitable fora at 10 perhaps 11 month of the year we are probably loosing money on this route when we have to block a row or 2 and limit the freight. UA knew going into this that LAX-SIN would stretch this aircraft especially in our current configuration I'm guessing (and I stress guessing) UA probably thought during the spring and summer months they could probably make up some of the losses incurred during the winter months I don't think they were counting on weight restrictions to continue during the spring and summer and now when you couple that with the rise in jet fuel prices this route is probably loosing money on a year round basis which is why they are moving it to SFO.

I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights. I'm hoping the failure of this route presents Airbus with an opening to pitch the A359ULR and perhaps UA will take a clue from SQ and order a small number of those aircraft and arrange them with perhaps 50-75 less seats than a standard A359. Instead of 45 A359s perhaps UA could order 35 A359s and 10 A359ULR.

Irehdna · Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:26 pm

Any chance that SQ will move SIN-SFO to SIN-SJC? Santa Clara County has a prosperous economy, and with Singapore being one of the largest tech hubs in Asia, there could certainly be potential to link SIN with San Jose. 3 nonstops SIN-SFO and 0 on SIN-SJC does not make a lot of sense, considering where much of the Bay Area economy takes place. SJC may not be as "premium" as SFO, but SQ nontheless choose EWR over JFK, which was a very smart decision IMO.

SFOtoORD · Sun Jul 01, 2018 3:32 pm

Irehdna wrote:
Any chance that SQ will move SIN-SFO to SIN-SJC? Santa Clara County has a prosperous economy, and with Singapore being one of the largest tech hubs in Asia, there could certainly be potential to link SIN with San Jose. 3 nonstops SIN-SFO and 0 on SIN-SJC does not make a lot of sense, considering where much of the Bay Area economy takes place. SJC may not be as "premium" as SFO, but SQ nontheless choose EWR over JFK, which was a very smart decision IMO.

I doubt it. Today only 2 US cities have non-stop SIN service (soon to be 3) and I doubt SJC will be the 3rd or 4th. I have doubts the Bay Area can handle 3 flights.

RDUDDJI · Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:11 pm

btbx11 wrote:

This tool isn't very useful for SFO when it splits SF and San Jose into two separate metros. I'll never understand why the US Census Bureau split the Bay Area in half while leaving plenty of similarly-sized MSAs intact.

I'm with you there. They also split Raleigh and Durham MSA, the main cities of which are ~17mi apart. This is one of the reasons that MSA data isn't useful compared to CSA data. Most MSAs are part of a greater CSA (which is more relevant when we talk about potential airport pax). For my example, it may have been after the brookings data was compiled. Because the Brookings data is 7 years old now, I'd say it's hardly relevant with all the economic/aviation growth since 2011. I wish they would update it at least yearly.

LAXintl · Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:30 pm

As far as LAX seat-blocks, I saw 40'ish regularly during winter months, but it did go as high as 70 on some days.

Another thing to keep in mind, oil prices were far lower only 12-months ago when this route was announced compared to today. Crude has seen a rapid rise from $46 in June 2017 when the route was announced to $79 on Friday. What might have worked on $50 oil, might no longer on $80 oil.

LAXintl · Sun Jul 01, 2018 4:37 pm

jayunited wrote:
I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights. I'm hoping the failure of this route presents Airbus with an opening to pitch the A359ULR and perhaps UA will take a clue from SQ and order a small number of those aircraft and arrange them with perhaps 50-75 less seats than a standard A359. Instead of 45 A359s perhaps UA could order 35 A359s and 10 A359ULR.

I think you are conflating two things.

The 789 can certainly make LAX-SIN nonstop with no issues and even room for cargo if it were configured with merely 162 seats as SQ plans on the A350ULR.

Its not the plane, its the configuration and capacity being carried that becomes the issue. UA has 100 more seats on its 789s.

A lightly configured 789 could do what the ULR does and without the need to deactivate forward cargo hold as the 350ULR will.

slcdeltarumd11 · Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:11 pm

With united moving the flight I would say chances for lax-sin to return are close to zero.

ap305 · Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:13 pm

LAXintl wrote:
jayunited wrote:
I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights. I'm hoping the failure of this route presents Airbus with an opening to pitch the A359ULR and perhaps UA will take a clue from SQ and order a small number of those aircraft and arrange them with perhaps 50-75 less seats than a standard A359. Instead of 45 A359s perhaps UA could order 35 A359s and 10 A359ULR.

I think you are conflating two things.

The 789 can certainly make LAX-SIN nonstop with no issues and even room for cargo if it were configured with merely 162 seats as SQ plans on the A350ULR.

Its not the plane, its the configuration and capacity being carried that becomes the issue. UA has 100 more seats on its 789s.

A lightly configured 789 could do what the ULR does and without the need to deactivate forward cargo hold as the 350ULR will.

Wrong... As has been pointed out repeatedly the 789 is not in the same league as the a359 in terms of payload range. The 789 burns less fuel but carries less over longer ranges. The SQ 162 pax ulr layout is substantially heavier than standard ones due to the number of business class seats. The nose heavy configuration is why Airbus has to keep the cargo loading equipment out of the ULR in order to maintain Cog.

janders · Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:38 pm

LAXIntl point is actually spot on.

A 162 seat 787-9 could do the flight easily with cargo capacity to spare. One does not need such a niche airplane as A350ULR.

UA 787-9 with 252 seats obviously takes the payload hit and hence the seat block which brings its typical capacity down to ~200-210 range during winter months when Pacific jetstream is the strongest.

tealnz · Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:46 pm

The more interesting question would be what a standard 280t 359 could carry on this route with a regular configuration like SQ (253 pax) or CX (280).

ap305 · Sun Jul 01, 2018 5:50 pm

janders wrote:
LAXIntl point is actually spot on.

A 162 seat 787-9 could do the flight easily with cargo capacity to spare. One does not need such a niche airplane as A350ULR.

UA 787-9 with 252 seats obviously takes the payload hit and hence the seat block which brings its typical capacity down to ~200-210 range during winter months when Pacific jetstream is the strongest.

He is far from spot on as far as the 787 having better capabilities to the a359. The SQ ULR has an extremely heavy configuration when compared to either the UA 789 or SQ's own standard 253 seat a359.

tpaewr · Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:02 pm

Irehdna wrote:
Any chance that SQ will move SIN-SFO to SIN-SJC? Santa Clara County has a prosperous economy, and with Singapore being one of the largest tech hubs in Asia, there could certainly be potential to link SIN with San Jose. 3 nonstops SIN-SFO and 0 on SIN-SJC does not make a lot of sense, considering where much of the Bay Area economy takes place. SJC may not be as "premium" as SFO, but SQ nontheless choose EWR over JFK, which was a very smart decision IMO.

I can say that the odds are better that we see a wet leased L15 flying SEA-NRT-SIN. That would be the only P2P long haul intl route in the whole system, lacking any feed it would be a disaster. I am sure it would be very popular with the NRSA crowd however!

727200 · Sun Jul 01, 2018 7:08 pm

I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights.

Hmmm, I have always said UA is not going to take delivery of the A-350's, and here we are several years after the initial order and still there is question at the home office if the plane will be delivered. If UA wanted the plane they would have done so by now, but instead they have twice 'kicked it down the road.' That screams loudly its an unwanted airplane. If the engine contract is all that is holding the order together, there will be a way to exit it; might cost a few bucks, but better to cancel a plane that is both unwanted and unneeded. Besides, they have taken delivery of the 777-300 and rumors are they will order more.

gwrudolph · Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:20 pm

727200 wrote:
I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights.

This is one route that they can't make work with the 789 but might be able to with the A350. All of their other ULH routes do just fine with the 789, and there aren't that many other ULH routes out there for UA to chase that would be beyond the range of the 789. Why would they build their fleet strategy around a few moonshots. That was never the intended purpose for the A350 order at United anyway.

If you are SQ or QF, ULH is a much larger part of your fleet strategy because of the geographic location of your main base of operations.

gwrudolph · Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:20 pm

727200 wrote:
I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights.

This is one route that they can't make work with the 789 but might be able to with the A350. All of their other ULH routes do just fine with the 789, and there aren't that many other ULH routes out there for UA to chase that would be beyond the range of the 789. Why would they build their fleet strategy around a few moonshots. That was never the intended purpose for the A350 order at United anyway.

If you are SQ or QF, ULH is a much larger part of your fleet strategy because of the geographic location of your main base of operations.

jumbojet · Sun Jul 01, 2018 9:35 pm

jayunited wrote:
[
I can't answer this question with absolute certainty because I don't have access to all of the information required to make a definitive answer but I'm guessing based on what I do know UA SFO-SIN route is probably profitable fora at 10 perhaps 11 month of the year we are probably loosing money on this route when we have to block a row or 2 and limit the freight. UA knew going into this that LAX-SIN would stretch this aircraft especially in our current configuration I'm guessing (and I stress guessing) UA probably thought during the spring and summer months they could probably make up some of the losses incurred during the winter months I don't think they were counting on weight restrictions to continue during the spring and summer and now when you couple that with the rise in jet fuel prices this route is probably loosing money on a year round basis which is why they are moving it to SFO.

I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights. I'm hoping the failure of this route presents Airbus with an opening to pitch the A359ULR and perhaps UA will take a clue from SQ and order a small number of those aircraft and arrange them with perhaps 50-75 less seats than a standard A359. Instead of 45 A359s perhaps UA could order 35 A359s and 10 A359ULR.

Thanks for the reply. It still seems that UA management probably knew that a successful LAX-SIN was a long shot to begin with but gave it a shot anyway. Hopefully double daily works for them but I am skeptical about how successful 3 total daily non stops from SFO will work.

jayunited · Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:37 am

LAXintl wrote:
jayunited wrote:
I think this cancelation present Airbus with an opportunity, there are still lingering questions and doubt even at Willis Tower as to whether UA will actually take delivery of the A359s we have on order. So far the attitude has been the 789 can handle our ULR flights I think the 778 is to much aircraft for UA's needs on our ULR flights. I'm hoping the failure of this route presents Airbus with an opening to pitch the A359ULR and perhaps UA will take a clue from SQ and order a small number of those aircraft and arrange them with perhaps 50-75 less seats than a standard A359. Instead of 45 A359s perhaps UA could order 35 A359s and 10 A359ULR.

I think you are conflating two things.

The 789 can certainly make LAX-SIN nonstop with no issues and even room for cargo if it were configured with merely 162 seats as SQ plans on the A350ULR.

Its not the plane, its the configuration and capacity being carried that becomes the issue. UA has 100 more seats on its 789s.

A lightly configured 789 could do what the ULR does and without the need to deactivate forward cargo hold as the 350ULR will.

I've made that point clear in several post by say the 789 is being stretched to its limit on this route in our current configuration I never implied or meant to imply the 789 can't do the route. But so far I've haven't heard even so much as a rumor of UA reconfiguring any 789's with 162 or so seats. My point about the A359 is based on what I've heard hear at Willis Tower where people are questioning if UA does in fact need the A359 or A359ULR or if we will even take delivery of any of the A359s we have on order. I was simply stating in my opinion Airbus has an opportunity here to pitch the A359ULR to UA.

Newbiepilot · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:03 am

jmc1975 wrote:
Since the eastbound arrival of the new flight into SFO is at 8:55pm, can anyone list the plethora of outbound red-eye connections this will feed?

SFO also has a 1030pm bank of departures for west coast markets in addition to the red eye flights to the east coast. The Hawaii flights feed this bank normally.

janders · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:09 am

jayunited wrote:

I've made that point clear in several post by say the 789 is being stretched to its limit on this route in our current configuration I never implied or meant to imply the 789 can't do the route. But so far I've haven't heard even so much as a rumor of UA reconfiguring any 789's with 162 or so seats. My point about the A359 is based on what I've heard hear at Willis Tower where people are questioning if UA does in fact need the A359 or A359ULR or if we will even take delivery of any of the A359s we have on order. I was simply stating in my opinion Airbus has an opportunity here to pitch the A359ULR to UA.

I am not sure the A350ULR gives United anything it cant have with the 787.

If UA is willing to have a low density cabin for such extra long routes, it can simply create a 787 subfleet. No need to go out and buy the unique A350ULR frame with its operational restrictions such as deactivated forward belly.

UPlog · Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:45 am

While I fly cargo, not passengers, but the concept its very much the same. Only put a half payload on and your plane can fly much much farther.

I really don't see someone like UA with a large 787 fleet and can use the economics of scale (crews, maintenance, etc) to ever acquire a A350-ULR version. As stated by Janders, UA can always either A) create less dense 787 config, or B) use existing one with seat hold.
After all we have witnessed the UA 789 can make LAX-SIN every day year round already with atleast 200'ish passengers, more than SQ will have in its A350-ULR.

Anyhow on the larger topic of the A350-ULR, I see it at as one-song wonder. Its been offered now for 3-years, and earned exactly 7 orders from a single client. The concept is worse than the 747SP, as its mission has been largely been made irrelevant before it even enters service by other models.

Oh and yes, lets not ignore the current price of fuel that certainly plays a role in impacting the economics of any LAX-SIN venture.

Okcflyer · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:06 am

ULR was created to do SIN-NYC which is materially longer than LAX-SIN. I don’t think a 789 with 160 seats would be able to do that route. Let’s keep apples to apples here.

Sounds like SFO-SIN is hot. Good for UA for being first mover.

jagraham · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:46 am

btbx11 wrote:
janders wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:
Would love to see PDEW stats on SIN-USA.

You can always use the interactive the Brookings Institute tool

https://www.brookings.edu/interactives/ ... n-america/

Quick look
NYC - 112,608
LA - 104,052
SF - 93,592
HOU - 36,974
CHI - 23,592
DC - 19,505
SEA - 16,449
BOS - 16,421

This tool isn't very useful for SFO when it splits SF and San Jose into two separate metros. I'll never understand why the US Census Bureau split the Bay Area in half while leaving plenty of similarly-sized MSAs intact.

Census people haven't taken a trip on 101 / 237 / I880 around SF Bay. Philosophically, what should keep MSAs split is open land. For example, LA and San Diego haven't joined yet because Camp Pendleton is in the middle. But once that open land disappears for the most part, the CSA should change to merge the MSAs. Think DC area where the US29 / I95 / BW Pkwy has become urbanized throughout, despite the presence of Fort Meade. So the Census defined the DC CSA as including the Baltimore MSA - a large factor in why the DC CSA covers over 9 million people.

questions · Mon Jul 02, 2018 6:47 am

DeSpringbokke wrote:
As Ed wanted LAX as the Pacific gateway instead of SEA, any future Pacific flights will likely be all out of LAX.

That’s interesting. Could LAX T2/3 handle all of DL’s SEA-TPAC routes if DL decided to draw down SEA? If not, what would the role of LAX-TPAC be vs SEA-TPAC? How would it be much different than:

- LAX => Australia, China, Japan, ICN
- SEA => China, Japan, ICN

tealnz · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:09 pm

Talk of the A350ULR is a red herring. The real point is that at the far edge of the payload/range chart a standard 280t 359 has carries a lot more payload than a 789 - and more than a 77W at the same ranges. If you want an aircraft that can do ULH routes with 250 pax the 359 is always going to be more capable than a 789.

Richard28 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:33 pm

UPlog wrote:
The concept is worse than the 747SP, as its mission has been largely been made irrelevant before it even enters service by other models.

what?

The 747SP was a shortened 747 with a larger tail.

The A359ULR is a small variation on the standard A359, which can pretty much be turned back into a standard A359 by its operator, so they are not left with oddball in the fleet, should their needs (or fuel price) change.

You can't do that to a 747SP / change it into a 747-100!

A359ULR is lower sales, but is a lower risk / lower cost / better concept!

Lootess · Mon Jul 02, 2018 1:46 pm

questions wrote:
DeSpringbokke wrote:
As Ed wanted LAX as the Pacific gateway instead of SEA, any future Pacific flights will likely be all out of LAX.

That’s interesting. Could LAX T2/3 handle all of DL’s SEA-TPAC routes if DL decided to draw down SEA? If not, what would the role of LAX-TPAC be vs SEA-TPAC? How would it be much different than:

- LAX => Australia, China, Japan, ICN
- SEA => China, Japan, ICN

There is no drawdown of SEA, they just aren't adding remotely anything new until the new Int'l arrivals facility is done.

Delta at LAX also uses TBIT for many departures, there are shuttles connecting T2-T3-TBIT until the connector is added.

RJMAZ · Mon Jul 02, 2018 2:21 pm

This is nothing more than UA realising the 787 can not fly LAX-SIN. It was a good test for the aircraft but it was optimistic to assume it could make a profit.

People need to realise that payload range curves drop off a cliff at a certin point. As Jayunited pointed out the blocked seats in winter is significant. That extra 300nm makes a very big difference. Both SFO and LAX routes the aircraft will take off fully fueled, the only way to allow the aircraft to fly further is to significantly reduce payload.

The normal 278T A350-900 would do the LAX-SIN route easily with full passenger loads in the middle of winter. It wouldnt even need the ULR model. The A350-900 payload range cliff starts to drop off about 300-400nm after the 787-9.

Singapore will start SIN-LAX later this year with the A350. I expect UA will also start flying the route again when they get their A350's.

I would expect UA to use the A350's on all routes over 7000nm. The A350 allows for nearly 50% more payload when compared to the 787-9 with a penalty of less than 10% extra fuel burn on routes above 7000nm.

winginit · Mon Jul 02, 2018 10:53 pm

jayunited wrote:
What is surprising is how much demand has grown at SFO that starting later this year SFO will be able to support 3 daily nonstops to SIN 2x daily UA and 1x daily SQ. I guess there is a growing number of passengers who see the value in a nonstop over stopping at NRT, HKG, ICN, or any other Northern Pacific hub.

Ha. Let's be clear - 3 daily nonstops aren't yet being supported. This second daily UA nonstop could be a colossal failure. Time will tell.

papatango · Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:17 pm

Delta needs to pick up the 5 ex Ethiad B777LR's and start LAX - SIN AND JFK- BOM!

MIflyer12 · Mon Jul 02, 2018 11:49 pm

jmc1975 wrote:
Since the eastbound arrival of the new flight into SFO is at 8:55pm, can anyone list the plethora of outbound red-eye connections this will feed?

Flightstats.com, advanced search. UA, SFO, 1800-2400 block. Too many to post, frankly.

RJMAZ · Tue Jul 03, 2018 2:03 am

papatango wrote:
Delta needs to pick up the 5 ex Ethiad B777LR's and start LAX - SIN AND JFK- BOM!

The 777LR should have been doing those routes for the last 10 years. I'm really surprised that none of the US3 operated the route with the 777LR.

But with the A350 just around the corner they would be better off keeping 789's with blocked seats.

The 777LR could definitely carry more payload but it would burn more fuel.

strfyr51 · Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:29 am

blooc350 wrote:
MARSHAL1 wrote:
Smart move by United. They launched LAX-SIN in hopes it would keep AA out of the market. Now AA tipped their hands and said that they don't want to start such a route. So now UA can have a 2nd daily SFO-SIN in hopes of knocking SQ off of the route. They probably hope that SQ will just fly LAX-SIN and leave the SFO-SIN to UA. Brilliant move by United.

Its a naive and a foolish to think SQ will let UA dominate the SFO-SIN market.....its SQ we're talking about.

What Exactly can SQ do about it? It's no secret that UA and SQ aren't the best of Friends even though they both belong to the Star Alliance.
IF UA was losing money on that non-stop?? Then they wouldn't be flying the route. .

Freshside3 · Thu Jul 05, 2018 6:16 pm

jmc1975 wrote:
Since the eastbound arrival of the new flight into SFO is at 8:55pm, can anyone list the plethora of outbound red-eye connections this will feed?

MRY, IND, CUN, ACV, EWR(3 trips), RDM, PIT, SBP, ORD(4 trips), CLE, MFR, FAT, IAD(2 trips), MEX, MCO, BOS, BNA, DFW, PHL, IAH(2 trips), PTY....from what I can see....

flyfresno · Thu Jul 05, 2018 8:04 pm

Freshside3 wrote:
jmc1975 wrote:
Since the eastbound arrival of the new flight into SFO is at 8:55pm, can anyone list the plethora of outbound red-eye connections this will feed?

MRY, IND, CUN, ACV, EWR(3 trips), RDM, PIT, SBP, ORD(4 trips), CLE, MFR, FAT, IAD(2 trips), MEX, MCO, BOS, BNA, DFW, PHL, IAH(2 trips), PTY....from what I can see....

Doesn't SMF have a late inbound from SFO too?

TWA772LR · Fri Jul 06, 2018 6:10 am

On a broader scale, what's stopping UA from partnering up with SQ? Why are they bitter towards each other?

Polot · Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:26 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
On a broader scale, what's stopping UA from partnering up with SQ? Why are they bitter towards each other?

UA has (imho rightfully) believed that a UA/SQ partnership would just favor SQ far more than it would UA.

UPlog · Wed Jul 11, 2018 6:28 pm

Now with SQ having announced its own 10x weekly LAX nonstop, and increase of SFO nonstop service to 10X weekly as well, I think we know why UA decided to drop LAX and double up at SFO to protect its hub.

Unfortunately, I give SQ the far better chance on the routes with their product and beyond connectivity opportunity. I hope to certainly fly those flights in the future.

airzona11 · Wed Jul 11, 2018 7:26 pm

UPlog wrote:
Now with SQ having announced its own 10x weekly LAX nonstop, and increase of SFO nonstop service to 10X weekly as well, I think we know why UA decided to drop LAX and double up at SFO to protect its hub.

Unfortunately, I give SQ the far better chance on the routes with their product and beyond connectivity opportunity. I hope to certainly fly those flights in the future.

UA is not a marginal player, has a big hub in SFO, and connections from the rest of its network. SQ might do better, maybe, but ‘far’ better is a stretch. Plus, what connections are they going after on the SIN end? ULH are targeted at the O/D.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net