LAX -400 Rumors of Changes
 

Heard some rumors coming out of LAX, SYD and DENTK about -400 flying.

1. The company looked at EWR for a -400 base but found the current airport facilities couldn't handle the -400 very well, so that idea was canned. The ORD-HKG flying is a disaster with the 777-200 (too many weight restrictions) so to try to save face they are looking for a base to do "W" flying of the -400 to ORD and then a HKG turn.

2. Pilots, FAs, PAs and MECHs coming out of SYD are saying the 777s of CAL will start the LAC-SYD turn in the spring. Added onto that is the rumor LAX -400 will pick up the ORD-HKG flying instead.

3. Important to note nothing will happen until the ISL is complete and to see if the current sUAL pilots can flying the sCAL 777 to SYD in the spring. Any freezes or fences will effect these rumors.

Too bad this MGT won't just admit their ORD -400 move was a mistake and just put the base back there. I guess saving face is more important.

That's LAX-SYD, not LAC-SYD.

I'd be surprised if they replaced LAX-SYD flight with a 777-200 since the -400 practically flies year round with a full load and lots of profitable cargo.

I am not positive but think you will see the 400 back at ord, even though they will not admit any mistake, I think we all know that.

If management won't pay for the means needed for upkeep of the whale in ORD, why bring it back? FWIW, trying to non rev ORD-NRT is now impossible. Good thing ANA is starting second daily nonstop. :rolleyes:

How about an order for 10 747-8's? I bet we could arrange early delivery dates from Boeing to fly ORD-HKG, SFO-SYD, and LAX-SYD.

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.)

Yeah and I can't believe all the airlines in the world are dumping the -400, it's such an awesome money maker...why would they do that?

^ And some of those same airliners are purchasing 747-8's and A380's.
There will always be a certain market for a 4 engine Ultra Long Haul aircraft.
I was hoping that we (the New United) would order a dozen of the new -8's once this merger got moving. Hell, it's the biggest Boeing that there is, we are close to Boeing and what better than to have their Biggest being flown by our (US of A) biggest Airline.
Of course, we are no longer the biggest, and we don't have vision looking forward~

Maybe with new management will come a team that evaluates aircraft and routes and is able to see where a plane like the 747 (400 or -8) makes sense.
Till then, business as usual. Cancelled flights, pax and/or cargo left behind, dissatisfied passengers when compared to our competitors.

Motch

PS> To make money, you have to invest money. Either invest it in updating the aircraft we have, or buy new aircraft~

Kilder,

Refer to post #7.

Why don't you ask Staller/CarolDangerous? He/She is a genius and we could all learn from him/her.

Is that a no confidence vote for Jeff?

Jeff is one of the equities CAL brought to the merger. I wonder why they didn't bring that up during the ISL hearings?

How much of a negative adjustment gets to be made for forcing him on us?

Lets bring back Tilton!!! Bet he was a great guy!!! Hey lets have TSCD run the company . He at least says your welcome....

That rumor is bunk, according to the instructors a SC's at TK.

Other rumors from DENTK
 

A 777 base in HNL. A 777 or possibly other A/C type TDY base NRT, for tag flying due to new FAR rest requirements. 747-8 are being considered. 777/787 to become common fleet with a 5 day transition course, time frame dependent on outcome ISL.

I don't think it matters who is at the helm. They don't like or respect anyone. So angry, so arrogant, so asinine.

How about some 777-300ER. CX does fine with them from
ORD to HKG. They will probably do a double daily in the future. Pick up the slack.

This shows your ignorance or arrogance. Did I have a choice to merge and even pick my CEO? Did you? You really need to stop with all the hate mongering you do. Your starting to make Staller or Carlos look like they know what they are talking about.

The 777-300ER is great for people, but to carry people AND cargo...747-800 is a much better option. Of course...there is NO money in cargo.

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?

Now, Tilton was a supreme leader.

Anyone know the payload/range differences between the LCAL 777 versus the LUAL ones?
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

We need visionaries back in the business. It all started down hill when the lawyers took over:-(

A true statement...

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?:mad:

I don't know what CALs 777 have but UAL was the launch customer and we got Pratt motors. I believe most 777's out there have higher gross weight/range than ours.

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 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.

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.

Rut Row....

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.

Good now the new "they" can make the same mistakes as the old "they". And a whole batch of new ones like 757-200's trans Atlantic and the little 777 LAX SYD. It really isn't rocket science.

-400 to Syd
 

Many of those doing the planning for the -400 at ORD don't have the foggiest notion of what's happening. For One? The Hangar and Ramp area at ORD are about to become a NEW Runway!! so the facilities to maintain the -400 will be impaired severely and ORD might become not much more than a Very large terminal operation as the new facilities have not yet started going up on the south side of ORD. Much of the expertise AND MOST OF THE resources to maintain the -400 are on the west coast and aren't coming back east anytime soon.
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.

Yes once again CAL management has to clean up a UAL mess.

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. ;(

Weird.

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.)

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.