![]() |
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 1964139)
United is also committed to:
Shuttle by United Worldwide Cargo Ted/Cal Lite Business Jets In-House Maintenance Facilities ....the list goes on. When I saw the video with Jeff talking about how important Guam routes were to the network, I knew it was just a matter of time. With Japan in a 20 year recession and China falling on it's butt, what's the future? Are we really making a ton on EAS and DoD repositioning from Okinawa? bottled up in The Senate Arms Service Committee anyways. As for the Island flying, nobody else has the capabilities or resources to do it. There is plenty of money to be made doing the flying to HNL, Japan, HKG, and MNL that Guam currently has. This entire article was generated from 2 displacements, breath people. |
Originally Posted by intrepidcv11
(Post 1964183)
Very little of Guam traffic is related to Okinawa repositoning which is
bottled up in The Senate Arms Service Committee anyways. As for the Island flying, nobody else has the capabilities or resources to do it. There is plenty of money to be made doing the flying to HNL, Japan, HKG, and MNL that Guam currently has. This entire article was generated from 2 displacements, breath people. That is where the island flights will end up. Subbed out to Asia Pacific. Everything else can, and will be done by low cost carriers. I hope it doesn't happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. |
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 1964254)
Cut EAS subsidy ( https://www.transportation.gov/sites...ommunities.pdf ) and how sustainable is Guam, really? If there's so much money on the Jap can routes, why did UA dump 3 Japanese city pairs and ICN?
As for Japan, again the weaker yen killed travel from secondary Japanese cities. Throw in a JV with ANA and it doesn't make much sense to run 150 people/week from Hiroshima to Guam on a nonstop. KIX, NGO, and NRT will do just fine 2X/day. As for ICN, Korean low cost carriers (including one owned by Korean Air) made a red eye to Guam a loser before we ever started.
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 1964254)
2 published displacements, yes. But, the max on the min/max for the base has gone from the mid 90s to 65-ish in a year. If it wasn't it for the recent megabids, displacements would tell a much more accurate story of staffing Guam flying.
|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1964264)
Guam used to fly dedicated cargo aircraft. Now, because the 737 can't carry enough, Asia Pacific is subcontracted to fly 727 cargo birds for the cargo we can't carry. They are expanding now, including buying 757's, which they already have 2 I think. The 757's are combi's. A 757 combi is the perfect jet for the island flights, including the Hopper.
That is where the island flights will end up. Subbed out to Asia Pacific. Everything else can, and will be done by low cost carriers. I hope it doesn't happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. |
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 1964385)
On my 6th CEO and 5th base closure, I'm the last guy to put any faith in UA management. I'd love to fly GUM and I truely hope it grows, but never under estimate UAs ability to screw it up.
|
Originally Posted by Probe
(Post 1964264)
Guam used to fly dedicated cargo aircraft. Now, because the 737 can't carry enough, Asia Pacific is subcontracted to fly 727 cargo birds for the cargo we can't carry. They are expanding now, including buying 757's, which they already have 2 I think. The 757's are combi's. A 757 combi is the perfect jet for the island flights, including the Hopper.
That is where the island flights will end up. Subbed out to Asia Pacific. Everything else can, and will be done by low cost carriers. I hope it doesn't happen, but I wouldn't bet on it. I don't recall any dedicated cargo only flights, except perhaps out of Manilla for DHL. There have been combis, going back as far as DC-6 days. We did have a 757 base there for a short time, and if we had more of them, it seems like a good place for them now. The 757 is the only airplane that will do all the missions they have out of GUM without restrictions. We opened and closed Seoul a couple times because it was too far for a 727 to carry the load it needed., even with the big engines |
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 1966916)
Make that my 7th CEO............ :roll eyes:
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. |
Originally Posted by Thor
(Post 1966980)
What else would a sitting member of the UCH board say? Time will indeed tell.
|
Originally Posted by gettinbumped
(Post 1967032)
Well the machinists union just came out and said the same..... that he has a good track record working with the IAM at CSX. We will see.
As for the F/As, from talking to them it seems as though they can't even come close to agreeing with each other, let alone the Company. |
Originally Posted by CousinEddie
(Post 1967121)
Any truth to our IAM Mechs insisting on having a defined benefit pension (ya know, the old traditional type like the one we lost forever) being reinstated as part of their negotiations? If they are drawing a line in the sand on that demand, I can see why the negotiations are going nowhere fast.
As for the F/As, from talking to them it seems as though they can't even come close to agreeing with each other, let alone the Company. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:10 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands