United To Asia

[SVQLBA]

Cosmo - A little off topic but you had mentioned Pan Am. Was this also the reason that United had service from LHR to Dehli? Does United retain the right to fly to destinations other than the Americas from LHR?

Indeed the round-the-world (RTW) rights (of which LHR-Delhi wa a prt) came with the Pan Am acquisition

RTW was about to start-up in 01/02 but was a victim of 9/11. I understand it has been under close study again recently. However, with the ATSB ruling, the efforts of planning may have been focused in a different direction for now.

 

[Cosmo]

To follow up on SVQLBA's comments above, I believe that United acquired RTW rights from its purchase of Pan Am's LHR authority rather than its earlier purchase of Pan Am's transpacific routes, if for no other reason than United couldn't serve LHR-DEL (or LHR at all) until it acquired the U.S.-LHR rights.

As for United's actual RTW flights, they were indeed operating on 9/11. But they were scheduled to stop at the end of the following month (October 2001) when United was going to begin daily nonstop ORD-DEL flights with B747-400s. Unfortunately, due to United's cutbacks after 9/11, the pre-existing RTW flights stopped as planned but the new nonstop ORD-DEL service never materialized. However, since United seems to be in an expansive mood internationally, perhaps this route might be reconsidered for activation.

 

[WorldTraveler]

'...the new nonstop ORD-DEL service never materialized. However, since United seems to be in an expansive mood internationally, perhaps this route might be reconsidered for activation."

A startup 7500 mile route is costly, particularly to a country which UA does not presently serve; I would not think that kind of risk is good for UA right now. UA has the option to codeshare to India via several partners; AC just added YYZDEL service so the market is still absorbing that capacity. The US and India just signed an expanded bilateral so additional services are probably coming; CO has been rumored to be interested in India but right now India belongs to DL and NW among US carriers.

RTW flights may not ever return since the 777LR, 345, and 7E7 can all just about fly between most points in the world nonstop.

 

[ITRADE]

Speaking of India and potential headaches for United, its my understanding that Indian aviation regulations require that all tickets for travel from India be fully refundable and cancellable. So, IIRC, there have been situations with airlines where they overbook by 100 or 200 passengers to ensure that the plane will go out at least somewhat full. This would give absolute fits to United.

This story may be apocryphal, but then again it may be totally true.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[whlinder]

Speaking of India and potential headaches for United, its my understanding that Indian aviation regulations require that all tickets for travel from India be fully refundable and cancellable. So, IIRC, there have been situations with airlines where they overbook by 100 or 200 passengers to ensure that the plane will go out at least somewhat full. This would give absolute fits to United.

This story may be apocryphal, but then again it may be totally true.

Any thoughts on this?

ITRADE,

You mentioned "from" India... so this regulation that you heard would only apply to fares originating India, not to those that are to India?

FWIW, I've never heard of it and have never heard of any kind of issue that the Indian Government has in regards to regulating air fares and rules. Canada, Germany, U.S., Brazil, their governments are a pain in the ass in regards to that stuff, but I've never had an issue with India.

I'll check into it tomorrow at work, but I'm pretty sure its not true.

 

[JungleClone]

You have to keep in mind that a hub and spoke airline is better off leveraging their hubs with any new market additions, unless the economics prove you can make the route work by relying on strictly O & D traffic. For United, the only place on the East Coast that would make sense serving Asia would be IAD, because of the hub there. Sure, on the surface flying from JFK or BOS or PHL to Asia might look attractive because those are all large local areas. But United has little, if any, feed there to fill those flights up. And there just isn't enough O & D traffic to make it profitable. I know United has analyzed IAD-NRT off and on for a few years. I believe that if additional slots were had for NRT, it might happen. But you have to also look at to what degree do the rest of United's gateways to Asia suffer if additional lift is added from the East Coast. For instance, if UA added IAD-NRT, traffic to NRT from places like ORD, LAX, and SFO would suffer because the people who connect from IAD now would overfly those gateways, thus possibly causing them to go from the black to the red. It's a difficult game. But now more than ever, the majors are retrenching to their hubs, which is the last area they have left to truly leverage, and even that is a shrinking proposition. That's why you saw United stop MIA flying to South America, stop EWR-LHR, stop BOS-LHR. They're retrenching to their strengths because with our current cost level, and the current fare environment, adequate feed does not exist to fill those flights up to come anywhere near break-even.

 

[mweiss]

But now more than ever, the majors are retrenching to their hubs, which is the last area they have left to truly leverage, and even that is a shrinking proposition.

Yes it is. Such a business plan is only a temporary bandage. Any airline that uses that approach as a long-term strategy is doomed.

 

[SVQLBA]

To follow up on SVQLBA's comments above, I believe that United acquired RTW rights from its purchase of Pan Am's LHR authority rather than its earlier purchase of Pan Am's transpacific routes, if for no other reason than United couldn't serve LHR-DEL (or LHR at all) until it acquired the U.S.-LHR rights.

As for United's actual RTW flights, they were indeed operating on 9/11. But they were scheduled to stop at the end of the following month (October 2001) when United was going to begin daily nonstop ORD-DEL flights with B747-400s. Unfortunately, due to United's cutbacks after 9/11, the pre-existing RTW flights stopped as planned but the new nonstop ORD-DEL service never materialized. However, since United seems to be in an expansive mood internationally, perhaps this route might be reconsidered for activation.

Cosmo: Thanks for the corrections! Self marking, I had the gist right but half the details wrong!

Memory ain't what it used to be ...

 

[JFK777]

ONE problem with IAD- NRT is getting traffic rights at NRT. Given ANA's already existing service from IAD-NRT, UA may not want to compete with a fellow Star alliance airline. Traffic between IAD & NRT may not sustain two daily flights, ANA used to fly a 747, now they fly a 777. If there was enough traffic for a 747 they would fly it. UA is still a HUGE NRT operator.

 

[Cosmo]

ONE problem with IAD-NRT is getting traffic rights at NRT.

JFK777:

That's not true. United has broad U.S.-Japan authority, and can start IAD-NRT (or any other U.S.-Japan route, for that matter) whenever it so desires. The issue would be the availability (or lack thereof) of slots at NRT.

 

[ITRADE]

I think the simple answer is that there are plenty of flights to the midwest and west coast to NRT and that ANA has already got a flight out of IAD. Given these two, there probably has been a strategic decision not to add this service.

On a different issue raised here (but raised in the thread topic) is the issue of trans-pac flights on the southern hemisphere. There was an article in AvWeek about this. There are significant issues to deal with: 1) absolute range, 2) justified loads, 3) and availability of diversion airports.

Folks have contemplated SYD-GRU flights, but the distance is HUGE - 8700 miles. There are few, if any, available diversion points en route, and an ETOPs configuration is not possible. And, even if you decided to use a long-ranged 747-400 or A-340-500 on the route, you're going to have to carefully balance the range, fuel, cargo, and passenger needs.

Its a real tough routing.

OTOH, you can envision the desire to cross the ocean as opposed to having to circumnavigate the entire Pacific rim. The fastest possible routing on a Star itinerary is SYD-LAX and LAX-GRU for a total transit time of 28:20. OUCH!

Double connections can be done in 29:00.

If you were traveling to somewhere like SCL, it take a MINIMUM of 36 hours. DOUBLE OUCH.

 

[Ukridge]

Itrade - Interesting is it not looking at some of the routings down under? I used the link thet Ual06 provided to glance at SYD-EZE and was staggered at the distance. Picking up a globe, I was unable to see where a flight would land if trouble arose. With the exception of a possible divert to New Zealand, it would seem that on a nearly 9000 mile flight that the only option would be back to either Australia or South America - a whopping 8 or 9 hour task if at the midpoint. I am assuming of course that one cannot land at McMurdo at all times of the year - an assumption made that every so often I see on the news that your military has to pluck an ill scientist from the ice - all under the worst of conditions. Would a passanger aircraft be able to land there?
This of course raises the next question if this route (SYD-EZE or SYD-GRU) is the longest stretch on the planet without the possibility to divert - or perhaps better phrased - with the possibility of the longest divert i.e 8 or 9 hours?
I am not sure how many passangers fly between South America and Australia, but your scenario of 24-36 hours makes for a long day!
Cheers

 

[JetClipper]

because A340s drink quite a bit more fuel than 777s.

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm not attacking you; my request is driven purely by curiosity.

That being said, do you have any data supporting this?

 

[ITRADE]

I've done 29 hours in a day - BKK-NRT-LAX-IAD - and it was BAAAAD. And that was in C class.

BTW, Lan Chilean does fly SCL-EZE non/stop using an A-340-300. 11:20 over open ocean.

 

[mweiss]

BTW, Lan Chilean does fly SCL-EZE non/stop using an A-340-300. 11:20 over open ocean.

How on earth do they make that an 11-hour flight? SCL and EZE are 700 miles apart!