Quote:
Originally Posted by kbud
I haven't seen an announcement from UA, but everything I've read seems to point that their 77W fleet will not be based at ORD, but rather Newark or SFO. I hope that's wrong...
|
Well UA has 4 ultra long haul flights from ORD (Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, Hongkong) (there's also Saon Paolo, but it's only 11 hours on a 767) and half of those are on a 744. So, when UA finishes retiring its 744 fleet 30 months from now, that would be quite a downgauging if they didn't use the 77W here. Especially considering growing economic (and all other) ties to China.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbud
SFO expands to Asia, Newark to Europe, Houston to Latin America and ORD to the heartland via regionals ![Frown](images/smilies/frown.gif) UA's hometown airline?
|
I feel what you're saying. But:
1) The characterization you painted is not an entirely illogical stationing of intercontinental routes. Plus, importantly, ORD does retain direct connections to virtually all the key economic and political capitals of East Asia and Europe. The fact that, for example, SFO just got nonstops to Chengdu, Xian, Hangzhou, or Auckland is not (as of 2016) a particularly big cause for envy or dissatisfaction. The only SFO destination I'd truly care about is Singapore, and even then it's a tossup whether one would prefer a breather at one of the intermediate cities versus 17 uninterrupted hours breathing other people's sneezes and using increasingly dirty lavs. (Dubai and a couple other Europe nonstops would be nice for our city to have though.)
2) Are you saying UA wants more jumbo gates at ORD but just can't get them? I have not heard of capacity complaints like that from UA; it seems like it's normally anti- terminal expansion and just wants upgrades re amenities and smoother security checks. To what extent are T1/T2 gate capacity constraints shutting out the direct flights you're alluding to?