![]() |
Originally Posted by Flyguppy
(Post 1464149)
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. 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. |
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. |
In 2011 I was on a four hour sit and was sifting around the company website and hit the webpage that lists the top Officers of United Airlines. Out of 27 only 7 were former United. So I'm unsure who the "they" is you refer to but it's not former United management. Not that they were any good, or old Continental was bad.
|
Originally Posted by Birddog
(Post 1464421)
In 2011 I was on a four hour sit and was sifting around the company website and hit the webpage that lists the top Officers of United Airlines. Out of 27 only 7 were former United. So I'm unsure who the "they" is you refer to but it's not former United management. Not that they were any good, or old Continental was bad.
|
-400 to Syd
Originally Posted by cadetdrivr
(Post 1463044)
What?!?!? You are seriously suggesting flying nonstop with full pax and full cargo at the same time and with a smaller per-seat fuel burn?
That's crazy talk to the folks inside Willis Tower. (You know, the ones that took the 400 out of ORD and thought a 757 was a fine aircraft for CDG-IAD.) I can't speak to the Pilot base as I don't know but there's a LOT of consternation at Willis because some would like to retire the -400 and some would like to keep it, as of NOW? The A350-1000 will be 4 years out with no real guarantee that it will meet the present mission OF the -400. And there are NO alternatives immediately to be had on the marketplace.. to be short? We're in a Pickle!! what are the Alternatives?? the 747-8i, the A380-800 or the 777-300ER/LR of which NONE can be had in the short term. So I guess we fly the 777's we already have?? or we mix the 777 and 747 missions. :cool: |
Yes the old CAL management in charge of the New United Airlines knows exactly how to run International Operations??? Will the house of cards fail before we get real airline people in place to fix it and succeed?
I don't care if you're UAL or CAL start saving a little for hard times ahead. |
Originally Posted by Carolsdanger
(Post 1464560)
Yes the old CAL management in charge of the New United Airlines knows exactly how to run International Operations??? Will the house of cards fail before we get real airline people in place to fix it and succeed?
I don't care if you're UAL or CAL start saving a little for hard times ahead. |
Well I started this thread with no real knowledge of the closing of LAX and essentially moving it to ORD, but it seemed logical.
The truth is UAL -400 are nearing the end of their useful life and UAL mgmt gambled on not needing a replacement airplane for another 4+ years. So here they are moving metal around to fill the holes. Oh and for some reason no one seems to remember sCAL mgmt had planned on using the 787 from IAH - AKL, but lo and behold Boeing over promised and under delivered with the more capable next gen version of the 787 years away. What a pickle UAL has grown into. I'm sure people are happier flying "guppies" to DSM and OMA anyway. ;( |
Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin
(Post 1464589)
Yes once again CAL management has to clean up a UAL mess.
For example, the 747-400 didn't have the extreme "reliability" problem in ORD until after the new post-merger management team found an ingenious way to save $$$ by not duplicating the stocked spare parts in ORD with the ones in SFO. Just imagine the savings! ;) (The problem was any pre-depatrure MX delay in ORD could cause the FAs to go illegal without sufficient international FA RSVs to cover an entire crew---which is itself yet another example of the imaginary savings providing by tight staffing.) |
Originally Posted by Blockoutblockin
(Post 1464589)
Yes once again CAL management has to clean up a UAL mess.
UAL international operations was a well oiled machine. But hey, the new United managements wisdom is to put the "smallest equipment" that can complete the operation with JUST ONE fuel stop. Meantime we send our PREMIUM INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS running to Delta and American. Remember the 757 fiasco with flights over the North Atlantic? We sent premium passengers to other carriers to avoid the fuel stop to make connections. Guess who those guys book travel on now - not United. You can defend them all you want but START SAVING. It can't last very long until it breaks. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:49 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands