United Airlines to replace B747-400's with B777-200's to Australia from 1/4/14 - Page 4

Joe Frampton · #31 25th February 2014, 02:53 AM

Funny, in this thread and so many others, people rave on about how bad LAX is. Living over here, we are travelling through LAX all the time, and everything has been great. Flew into TBIT on VA a few weeks back, and we were out on the pavement in about 20 mins. I think LAX takes a bad rap for no reason. Yes, they've had their fair share of problems, the terminals are basic at best in terms of shops/restaurants, and god forbid if your flight arrives early, your gate will probably still be occupied, but LAX does actually work. And I would honestly say in terms of customs processing they are no worse than SYD in a peak period. And the airport is constantly under improvement. LAX is ok, it does the job, but if you can fly around it, then go for it.

Jayden Laing · #32 25th February 2014, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James S.

I specifically look for more exotic aircraft (Such as the Tu-204 recently which was great) or the classic aircraft. Don't give two hoots about new 787 or A330 service variations. But maybe that appeals to some. With the future loss of the A340-600's of Virgin and Etihad, United's 747's, Qantas having already retired their 767RR's and 734's, Aerolineas Argentinas ceasing services, Korean perhaps not sending their 747-400 after this summer, and Thai perhaps switching to 77W's soon from 744s, to me, that signals a change to more boring aircraft. Sorry, but that's just what I enjoy seeing as a spotter.

Times are changing James! Out with 4 engines & in with 2 engines.... It's the way the airline world is heading now especially when it all comes back to fuel savings & profit!

James S. · #33 25th February 2014, 04:42 PM

Thanks Jayden, I'm well aware of that. My point still stands that it's getting more boring with a lack of aircraft variety, and all the new aircraft sound like Prius'. They don't have character like they used to....

Daniel M · #34 25th February 2014, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Frampton

Funny, in this thread and so many others, people rave on about how bad LAX is. Living over here, we are travelling through LAX all the time, and everything has been great. Flew into TBIT on VA a few weeks back, and we were out on the pavement in about 20 mins. I think LAX takes a bad rap for no reason. Yes, they've had their fair share of problems, the terminals are basic at best in terms of shops/restaurants, and god forbid if your flight arrives early, your gate will probably still be occupied, but LAX does actually work. And I would honestly say in terms of customs processing they are no worse than SYD in a peak period. And the airport is constantly under improvement. LAX is ok, it does the job, but if you can fly around it, then go for it.

Agreed. Although dated and like you mentioned, simple, it serves its purpose very well. Arriving landside is hassle free, and driving in to pick up people, I spend less time dealing with traffic etc around the terminal roads than I do at most major Australian airports. Everything flows very well. Check in and security is also very basically laid out but works well. I never have a hassle when travelling through LAX and actually enjoy it most times.

I think in general US people are more accustomed to airline travel as a whole, which helps to speed up things like TSA checks. Everyone in the states knows what to do, they have all their documents out ready to go and there are rarely any hold ups. You get to somewhere like Melbourne or Sydney, people haven't got a clue what they've done with their boarding passes, deodarant cans with no lids through security scanners, "please remove everything from you pockets" results in people still going through metal detectors 4 times as they remove 1 more thing every time etc etc. Flying in Australia makes my brain melt.

Nigel C · #35 30th March 2014, 07:27 PM

Does anyone know when United started flying B747's (of any variant) into Sydney?

Jason H · #36 30th March 2014, 08:07 PM

Looks like UA839 for 29/03 is a 772 due in Monday morning, as is UA863, and has been a 772 for the last 2 days. I'm guessing today's UA870 was the last UA744. Started a few days early it seems?

Grahame Hutchison · #37 30th March 2014, 08:22 PM

Nigel, from what I can find, United began services to Sydney during the first quarter of 1986, with various models of the B747.

The United Airlines UA811 B747 cargo door failure was on Friday, February 24, 1989 (9 fatalities, 38 injured).

Nigel C · #38 31st March 2014, 04:08 AM

Thanks Grahame, much appreciated.

Grahame Hutchison · #39 31st March 2014, 07:36 AM

From the second year of United B747 operations into Sydney - look how small the United logo was.

United B747-122 N4719U (19880) in December 1987 - N4713U was the aircraft involved in the cargo door failure.

Michael Cleary · #40 8th April 2014, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grahame Hutchison

Nigel, from what I can find, United began services to Sydney during the first quarter of 1986, with various models of the B747.

The United Airlines UA811 B747 cargo door failure was on Friday, February 24, 1989 (9 fatalities, 38 injured).

Including the 747-SP, which they inherited from Pan-Am along with the Pacific Routes. From memory, the earliest flights were operated by Pan-Am liveried Aircraft too.

But until now, all have been 747 variants.