Yet another aviation thread.

Won’t you be required to collect your bags in SFO prior to clearing immigration anyway? They won’t go all the way through to LAS before you see them. Just don’t bother rechecking them for the later flight and instead check them for and take the earlier flight.

AFAIK there are only three/four airlines that fly nonstop from Paris to SFO
Air France, United, XL Airways, French Blue ( begins May 11, 2018)

I can only imagine that XL Airways would leave you with a 7 hour delay flying from SFO to LAS
15:45 San Francisco International (SFO) 11:30 +1 day Charles De Gaulle (CDG) Travel time 10h45m, XL Airways France (SE13)
11:00 Charles De Gaulle (CDG) 13:35 San Francisco International (SFO) Travel time 11h35m, XL Airways France (SE12)

Presumably XL Airways has a partner of some sort for domestic connections.

Quote: Pacomartin

I'm still trying to figure out how you could have such a bad connection. A seven hour layover and a 90 minute flight is 8.5 hours.
According to google maps it is an 8.5 hour drive from SFO to LAS.

It is on United for what it's worth. Despite having been to Europe five times, China five, Australia two, South America one, Central American & Caribbean five, and countless trips within the US, Canada and Mexico, this will be my first flight paid for with airline miles. The ironic thing is the miles were earned with a credit card.

It cost only 30,000 miles to get on a 9:00 AM flight out of Paris. Any later flight would have cost me 70,000 I think. The difference in total time traveling on the SF layover was only about two hours. I speculate they were having a hard time filling that 9:00 AM flight from Paris to SF so discounted it. I guess United just doesn't have many flights between SF and LV.

In retrospect, I probably should have just ended the journey in SF and caught a Southwest flight to Vegas. Oh well. If I'm not too jet-lagged, maybe I'll take the train into downtown SF for a few hours.

Quote: Wizard

It is on United for what it's worth.
It cost only 30,000 miles to get on a 9:00 AM flight out of Paris. Any later flight would have cost me 70,000 I think.

United schedule
9:10am to 11:30am (11h 20m) Paris to San Francisco Roissy-Charles de Gaulle (CDG) to San Francisco Intl. (SFO) United 984

So the problem is not with the CDG-SFO (11:20) primary flight, it is with the final SFO-LAS segment.
They seem to have put you on the THIRD flight which is 7:04 after your arrival

San Francisco to Las Vegas San Francisco Intl. (SFO) to McCarran Intl. (LAS)
(1) 12:50pm to 2:29pm (69 min)
(2) 4:30pm to 6:08pm (69 min)
(3) 6:24pm to 8:03pm (69 min)

So there is a possibility of you flying at a reasonable layover time without changing airlines and risking a security kerfuffle. Maybe they will put you on a list if there is a cancellation. Normally 80 minutes is plenty of time to do a transfer. You should be able to get on the 12:50

San Francisco (SFO)
60 minutes Minimum check-in times for nonstop international flights with or without checked baggage (minutes before departure time)
45 minutes Minimum check-in times for flights within the U.S. with checked baggage (minutes before departure time)
30 minutes Minimum check-in times for flights within the U.S. with carry-on baggage only (minutes before departure time)

Personally I wouldn't risk flagging DHS by scheduling a Southwest or Frontier flight. If you get pulled into security it could cost you way more than 7 hours. I was pulled into security in Sicily, and it took forever to get free. I would try to get a change in your return flight before you leave, or just wait until you land in SFO, put United on speed dial and try to get moved to one of the two earlier flights.

Quote: Wizard

The difference in total time traveling on the SF layover was only about two hours.

The difference compared to what? A Chicago or Newark layover? Or a hypothetical nonstop to Las Vegas.

The latest tantrum among the aviation blogs is that Lufthansa's new livery is an abomination :)

I am curious how the Wizard deals with his long layover time. Is he going to try and solve it when he lands in San Francisco or do something before he flies?

On other news, that order for new A380s Emirates announced a while back, has been placed and the papers signed.

It tells you all you need to know about how precarious the A380 program is, that such a thing is news.

There's been some analysis about why Delta wants the 797. They make sense, they're reasonable, a few are very optimistic, and I still have to exert an effort not to laugh.

The total development cost for the A350 was estimated at US$15 billion by Reuters.
Boeing decided to minimize development costs on the B777x by leaving an all aluminum fuselage. They are switching to an aluminum-lithium alloy that will help weight a little. However, analysts think that the 777-9 is going to have an Operating empty weight of over 400,000 lb, which is considerably heavier than the A350-1000. The extra weight may impede future sales.

Operating empty weight
128,840 lb 757-200
141,860 lb 757-300
198,440 lb 767-300ER
264,500 lb 787-8
284,000 lb 787-9
370,000 lb 777-300ER
485,300 lb 747-8
....
342,000 lb A350-1000
610,000 lb A380

So far the B777-9 has 273 orders while the A350-1000 has 169 orders. The current B777 models have received a total of 1,962 orders. As long as fuel prices remain low, the airlines are not as motivated to retire older models.

Quote: Nareed

There's been some analysis about why Delta wants the 797. They make sense, they're reasonable, a few are very optimistic, and I still have to exert an effort not to laugh.

One of the issues with the B797 is that it will have to get it's Operating empty weight (OEW) to closer to a single aisle jet, especially if prices of fuel go up. OEW is a very sensitive number, and is not normally released until the planes begin delivering.

But that will certainly require a partly composite fuselage. Boeing will not be able to take the short cut that they got away with on the B777x.


Operating empty weight (OEW)
87,100 lb A318
89,900 lb A319
93,900 lb A320
107,000 lb A321

80,200 lb 737-600
83,000 lb 737-700
91,300 lb 737-800
98,495 lb 737-900ER
99,360 lb 737 MAX 8

Quote: Pacomartin

Boeing decided to minimize development costs on the B777x by leaving an all aluminum fuselage. They are switching to an aluminum-lithium alloy that will help weight a little. However, analysts think that the 777-9 is going to have an Operating empty weight of over 400,000 lb, which is considerably heavier than the A350-1000. The extra weight may impede future sales.

That's related to Nareed's "don't fix it" principle. When you go wrong with cooking a dish, it's usually best to leave it as is or discard it, because fixes won't work as well. Not always, but most times. Likewise, a modification on an old design won't usually be better enough to warrant obtaining it, when a new design is on the market.

Sure, the mod is cheaper than a new design, but also limited. Sometimes it's not worth the extra money.

Quote:

One of the issues with the B797 is that it will have to get it's Operating empty weight (OEW) to closer to a single aisle jet, especially if prices of fuel go up. OEW is a very sensitive number, and is not normally released until the planes begin delivering.

But that will certainly require a partly composite fuselage. Boeing will not be able to take the short cut that they got away with on the B777x.

i don't think Boeing's customers will even look at the specs if there is no composite fuselage. I know I wouldn't.