LAX -400 Rumors of Changes
08-15-2013, 09:23 AM
#21
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2012
Position: B756 Capt Junior Lineholder
Posts: 136
And of course the 777 LAX-SYD is going to flop as it can't haul the people and the mail on that segment. But before we figure that out we'll let Jeffy anger and alienate another batch of loyal business travelers.
Pssst hey Jeffy... Take look at the 777 AKL-LAX disaster, the one where they took the 400 off that route and replaced it with the 777.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blockoutblockin...
Would you please explain who "they" are? A non arrogant person like you surely wouldn't be placing blame on a whole group based on the words of a few would you?
Pssst hey Jeffy... Take look at the 777 AKL-LAX disaster, the one where they took the 400 off that route and replaced it with the 777.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blockoutblockin...
Would you please explain who "they" are? A non arrogant person like you surely wouldn't be placing blame on a whole group based on the words of a few would you?
I've never flown it, just curious...
I can remember when CAL started up EWR-HKG, a week later UAL did JFK-HKG with the 744 but it didn't work. word was the 744 had to carry so much fuel it restricted payload. There are probably several markets where swapping one 777 for another might work, and if the bean counters think so...it'll happen.
Would love to see the 747-8 on the property, a flagship for the biggest airline is only proper and if the 15% increase in efficiency is true then it would make buckets of $$$...apparently LH is very happy with their -8's
08-15-2013, 04:04 PM
#24
Not retiring avatar
Joined APC: Apr 2010
Position: 777 CAP
Posts: 771
From United Daily
First, we are moving some of our Boeing 747 flying back to ORD. Last year we decided to move all of this flying to SFO to improve the reliability of this fleet. Now that reliability has been restored, and we have a plan in place to better support the fleet, we can put the 747 on the routes that are better suited for the number of passengers the 747 carries. We will return the 747s to ORD and fly three routes: ORD-PVG (Shanghai), ORD-NRT and ORD-FRA (Frankfurt, Germany). We are matching those routes with 747s out of SFO to PVG, NRT and FRA; this route structure will continue to allow SFO maintenance to be the primary maintenance location and improve fleet profitability.
“We carefully selected these routes to generate the best performance from both a profitability and a reliability perspective,” said International Planning Managing Director Andrew Buchanan. “Our Tech Ops team did an outstanding job bringing this fleet back into an ongoing maintenance mode and are making the necessary investments to operate the aircraft reliably out of Chicago. We feel confident about moving some of them around the system carefully and selectively.”
We will also use 777s instead of 747s in the LAX-SYD (Sydney) and SFO-SYD markets and on the SFO-LHR (London-Heathrow) route. We’ll also replace a 777 with a 747 on the NRT-HNL (Honolulu) and SFO-NRT routes.
In addition to the 777 and 747 swaps, we’re also replacing a 747 with 787 service from SFO-KIX beginning April 8. “While SFO-KIX is a successful route for us, the load factor on the 777 is relatively low, so using the smaller, more efficient 787 there will improve results while allowing us to redeploy the 777 to routes with higher demand,” Andrew said.
Ummm.... just 'cause an airplane can make it all the way doesn't mean you should.
We take off at MTOW(875k) and full fuel all the time, there is fog and no more than a cat I in SYD. Who the hell is running this place?
“We carefully selected these routes to generate the best performance from both a profitability and a reliability perspective,” said International Planning Managing Director Andrew Buchanan. “Our Tech Ops team did an outstanding job bringing this fleet back into an ongoing maintenance mode and are making the necessary investments to operate the aircraft reliably out of Chicago. We feel confident about moving some of them around the system carefully and selectively.”
We will also use 777s instead of 747s in the LAX-SYD (Sydney) and SFO-SYD markets and on the SFO-LHR (London-Heathrow) route. We’ll also replace a 777 with a 747 on the NRT-HNL (Honolulu) and SFO-NRT routes.
In addition to the 777 and 747 swaps, we’re also replacing a 747 with 787 service from SFO-KIX beginning April 8. “While SFO-KIX is a successful route for us, the load factor on the 777 is relatively low, so using the smaller, more efficient 787 there will improve results while allowing us to redeploy the 777 to routes with higher demand,” Andrew said.
Ummm.... just 'cause an airplane can make it all the way doesn't mean you should.
We take off at MTOW(875k) and full fuel all the time, there is fog and no more than a cat I in SYD. Who the hell is running this place?
08-16-2013, 07:04 AM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
ETOPS fuel was the problem LAX AkL. We were landing with 35 to 40k FOB due to ETOPS requirements. That eats up a bunch of payload.
I guess the full sized version of 777 does better?
I guess the full sized version of 777 does better?
08-16-2013, 07:42 AM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2008
Position: B-777 left
Posts: 1,415
I think our b model vs c model is take off weight 648.0 vs 656.0 fuel capacity is the same and sorry I don't have perf numbers for the c yet such as nam per 1000 maybe a cal has them. Maybe this helps but give me the 747 on that lax akl run.
08-16-2013, 12:49 PM
#28
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: IAH 320 CA
Posts: 190
Yes, but they are planning on this LAX/SFO-SYD flying to be done by L-UAL aircraft.
It's listed as "777 - 3 class" in the list, hence L-UAL 777B's. They will have the same issue as the ORD-HKG flights.
It's listed as "777 - 3 class" in the list, hence L-UAL 777B's. They will have the same issue as the ORD-HKG flights.
08-16-2013, 01:58 PM
#29
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Position: Sleeping in the black swan’s nest.
Posts: 5,726
Stand by for the next PR disaster....They'll be leaving people and cargo on the dock. They really should know better after the AKL debacle.
08-16-2013, 09:27 PM
#30
Don't say Guppy
Joined APC: Dec 2010
Position: Guppy driver
Posts: 1,926
Airhoss;
You have been at UAL long enough. Have you ever seen UAL learn from past mistakes?
I would predict another low cost "airline within an airline" announcement soon. Or some other debacle we have seen 2 or 3 times in the last 15-20 years.
They appear to be incapable of learning from mistakes.
You have been at UAL long enough. Have you ever seen UAL learn from past mistakes?
I would predict another low cost "airline within an airline" announcement soon. Or some other debacle we have seen 2 or 3 times in the last 15-20 years.
They appear to be incapable of learning from mistakes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
