A couple of weeks ago, United Airlines announced an incredible international expansion, whereby the airline added eight new destinations. What made this so cool is how far-flung some of the new destinations are, ranging from Kaohsiung, to Nuuk, to Ulaanbaatar.
There’s now a cool update, as United has put its new route to Greenland on sale (thanks to @xJonNYC for flagging this), so we also have a sense of what the schedule will look like. Let’s go over the details.
In this post:
United will fly from Newark to Nuuk as of June 2025
As of June 14, 2025, United Airlines plans to launch a seasonal, twice weekly flight between Newark (EWR) and Nuuk, Greenland (GOH). The 1,849-mile flight will operate with the following schedule:
UA80 Newark to Nuuk departing 11:30AM arriving 6:45PM
UA81 Nuuk to Newark departing 9:00AM arriving 10:30AM
The eastbound flight is blocked at 4hr15min and operates on Tuesdays and Saturdays, while the westbound flight is blocked at 5hr30min and operates Wednesdays and Sundays.
I appreciate how the eastbound flight is a daytime service, since that would be an uncomfortably short redeye. This is presumably also ideal in terms of crewing the flight, since the same crew can work the flight in both directions, rather than needing to have a layover of three to four nights. I also imagine that United is getting a good deal on parking at the airport.
United intends to use a Boeing 737 MAX 8 for the route, featuring 166 seats. Yes, this is the same plane you’ll find on many domestic United routes. It’s configured with 16 first class seats and 150 economy seats. Given that the seats in the forward cabin are just standard domestic first class recliners, the airline is selling the forward cabin as premium economy, rather than as business class or Polaris.
Since this flight was just put on sale, fares are outrageously high, as it seems United is still in the process of filing some of the lower fares. I’m sure those fares will go down substantially in the near future. Award flights also aren’t available yet, but that should change soon.
Greenland is seeing a huge boost in air travel next summer, given that the airport in Greenland’s capital city of Nuuk is being expanded significantly, meaning the airport can finally handle traffic from jets. So not only is Air Greenland shifting much of its operations from Kangerlussuaq to Nuuk, but we’re also seeing new service from United out of Newark, and new service from SAS out of Copenhagen.
Will United’s Greenland service succeed?
I’ve seen some people suggest that United Airlines has sort of lost the plot with its latest expansion, particularly with adding flights to Greenland. Those people seem to believe the route will last for one season. I have a different take.
For one, this isn’t a terribly costly trip for the airline. This service uses up a single 737 for two days per week. In the summer, long haul demand with wide body jets is through the roof, but domestic travel demand isn’t quite as robust. So there’s not some massive opportunity cost to United in operating this route, as it’s not like United is having to forgo a flight to Athens or Rome in order to be able to offer this.
Next, this route is just about the same length as a Chicago to San Francisco flight. While United might not have as high of a load factor on this service as it would on a hub-to-hub flight, I can bet the average fare will be considerably higher.
I also think this service reflects that United is in a completely different league than American and Delta when it comes to its international network. At some point expansion isn’t about the direct performance of a single route, but rather about the overall way it contributes to the carrier’s place in a market.
United has probably received more press for its new twice weekly flight to Greenland than just about any other US airline has received for another route. That’s for good reason, because it’s not something we’ve seen a US airline try before. You can’t overstate the power of that, and how it positions United as the global carrier of the country.
Last but not least, I think there’s one major overlooked reason for this service — United MileagePlus. Nowadays the “big three” US carriers are essentially in the credit card business, and they just have a very expensive fleet of aircraft they fly on the side. 😉
United CEO Scott Kirby was asked about the rationale for the Greenland service during the recent Q3 2024 earnings call, and he said the following:
We spend a lot of time debating how and where we’ll grow. And this announcement has clearly caught the attention of a lot of people, most importantly, our customers, and I think it’s a very exciting announcement. But the backdrop for the announcement is the fact that United Airlines simply has the best global gateways in the business. And those global gateways allow us to fly successfully to a broad range of destinations.
We heavily fly into our partner hubs, which is the traditional model in our business but we’re also able to do just as well financially outside of our partner hubs. And so we look across the globe, we look for new destinations, we look for hot destinations and destinations, most importantly, we can make money in.
We have a really good track record of this, very little of what we’ve added over the last few years we have canceled. And so as we look forward, we look for those new destinations. And at the end of the day, Greenland has got a lot of attention but it is only two 737s per week. So its impact on our system will be small. But its impact on United, our brand and our customer profile and sign-ups for MileagePlus will be great. And there is so much more possible on this front than even I thought it was possible five or six years ago.
This is a great explanation, and is logical enough. Similarly, when Southwest expanded to Hawaii several years back, the airline cited its Rapid Rewards program as one of the major justifications. The airline hoped that increased engagement in Rapid Rewards from being able to fly to Hawaii would in part help justify the service.
I don’t want to suggest with certainty that the Greenland service will return for a second season. I think there’s a good chance it will, but there’s no guarantee. The biggest wild card here is Greenland’s limited lodging capacity. Regardless, this seems to me like a brilliant, low-risk gamble, which generates a lot of publicity and helps position United as the most global airline in the United States, if nothing else.
Bottom line
United Airlines’ new flight to Greenland is on sale. The route will operate from Newark to Nuuk, twice weekly with Boeing 737 MAX 8s. This has to be one of the coolest routes we’ve ever seen a US airline operate, so I’m happy to see this becoming a reality.
What do you make of United’s Nuuk service?
Why would you go to Greenland when you can go to Atlanta or Detroit?
Or, fly DELTA to Copenhagen and SAS from there. Who needs nonstop when SkyMiles are on the table?
We know you two are just here to troll but Delta is taking over BOS-GRU 3X/week from Latam from the northern hemisphere winter.
Delta will generate more revenue from that route plus DAL's new summer 2025 seasonal additions plus SLC-ICN than United or American will generate for all their announced summer 2025 additions.
As I have said for years, Delta is in a position to grow in part because of sourcing its aircraft...
We know you two are just here to troll but Delta is taking over BOS-GRU 3X/week from Latam from the northern hemisphere winter.
Delta will generate more revenue from that route plus DAL's new summer 2025 seasonal additions plus SLC-ICN than United or American will generate for all their announced summer 2025 additions.
As I have said for years, Delta is in a position to grow in part because of sourcing its aircraft from Airbus and is growing where other airlines cannot.
thanks for trolling and providing the opportunity to provide actual information, as hard as it is for some to hear.
With out the tourist infrastructure, I can imagine what hotels and rental cars are going to cost. The flight will be the cheap part.
Costs for next summer have already skyrocketed from what they were a month ago before all the announcements.
Some domestic flights are already sold out, at least in the lower end fares
Rental cars is not an issue in Greenland. The entire country only have about 90 miles of roads, and only 40 miles is paved
What rental cars? lol
As UA has also started service to Morocco. AA had planned to a few years back but axed it even before it started. Thank you Mr. Znotins.
Conan Can GO Now!! We need a round2, Greenland episode!!!
I'm now seeing lower class fares filed and bookable, but still no awards, when my understanding was that UA typically has last seat award availability (admittedly at sometimes absurd prices), and I don't recall there being this sort of delay when other routes launched - in fact, I recall it frequently being the opposite, where saver award space was loaded on a route that you would not expect to ever see it).
Has anyone...
I'm now seeing lower class fares filed and bookable, but still no awards, when my understanding was that UA typically has last seat award availability (admittedly at sometimes absurd prices), and I don't recall there being this sort of delay when other routes launched - in fact, I recall it frequently being the opposite, where saver award space was loaded on a route that you would not expect to ever see it).
Has anyone seen this delay in awards being bookable and any idea what the reason is?
I'm now seeing lower class fares filed and bookable, but still no awards, when my understanding was that UA typically has last seat award availability (admittedly at sometimes absurd prices), and I don't recall there being this sort of delay when other routes launched - in fact, I recall it frequently being the opposite, where saver award space was loaded on a route that you would not expect to ever see it).
Has anyone...
I'm now seeing lower class fares filed and bookable, but still no awards, when my understanding was that UA typically has last seat award availability (admittedly at sometimes absurd prices), and I don't recall there being this sort of delay when other routes launched - in fact, I recall it frequently being the opposite, where saver award space was loaded on a route that you would not expect to ever see it).
Has anyone seen this delay in awards being bookable and any idea what the reason is?
I am pretty stoked about this. Have been eyeing Greenland for years and always deterred by the hurdles (connections and cost) to get there. I am not sure how long this route will last, but I plan to take advantage of it in 2025. Fares have already come down closer to $1K RT. I am just waiting for award availability to be loaded.
I wonder how/if cargo is of note here. A direct flight from NYC to the largest population center in Greenland (albeit very small), might carry some reasonably high yield cargo.
It won’t. Cargo is a rounding error.
Why do they make the plane and crew stay overnight in a place that probably isn't the best for supporting crew services etc? The journey is only 4 hours, you would think that they could do an immediate turn and get the plane back to EWR and be better utilized?
That's 9hr 45min of flight time round trip. Add in the turn time and one 737 crew likely cannot fly the full trip in one duty period. As long as they depart X hours later (whatever is in their contract for rest requirements) then the same crew can fly the return flight the following morning.
thanks! That is interesting to know.
What's the maximum distance/time that a flight can be in practical terms and have it be an immediate turn for the crew? What example route does that, and does that make it a very efficient use of the plane?
Also - connections. An 11:30am departure allows Chicago and Houston, along with much of the central time zone, pax to connect on to the flight. Any earlier, they lose a lot of connections. If it turned within an hour, a 9:15pm arrival at EWR is just too late for any connections out, keeping in mind pax will need extra connection time to clear immigration.
What on earth are you talking about when you say that "domestic travel is not as robust" in the summer? You're very very wrong making that assertion. I've worked in network planning and can tell you that it's exactly the opposite. It's THE most robust demand time of the year, every decision is taken with EXCRUCIATING detail as every detail matters. United must believe strongly in this decision because there is a sizeable opportunity cost...
What on earth are you talking about when you say that "domestic travel is not as robust" in the summer? You're very very wrong making that assertion. I've worked in network planning and can tell you that it's exactly the opposite. It's THE most robust demand time of the year, every decision is taken with EXCRUCIATING detail as every detail matters. United must believe strongly in this decision because there is a sizeable opportunity cost in operating this flight, even if it's only two days a week. Sorry, that's a VERY uninformed statement.
thank you.
UA talked for years about how much they were going to grow their domestic network with all of their new MAX aircraft and now UA is going to receive less than four dozen new narrowbodies this year - far lower than the more than 100 they expected less than a year ago. about half of their new narrowbodies for 2024 will be from Airbus.
When you take a narrowbody aircraft for international use,...
thank you.
UA talked for years about how much they were going to grow their domestic network with all of their new MAX aircraft and now UA is going to receive less than four dozen new narrowbodies this year - far lower than the more than 100 they expected less than a year ago. about half of their new narrowbodies for 2024 will be from Airbus.
When you take a narrowbody aircraft for international use, it is coming at the cost of the domestic market even though, in this case, they are only going to get 8 hours of utilization out of it.
UA's international expansion announcement was all narrowbody aircraft and almost entirely seasonal which means those narrowbody aircraft will leave the network for the peak summer and then be back in the fleet in the fall.
The notion that UA is making the best decision from a revenue and domestic growth standpoint certainly seems hard to believe.
@Jason
I think what Ben is saying is that it is not as robust as international long haul travel.
What Ben wrote: ‘In the summer, long haul demand with wide body jets is through the roof, but domestic travel demand isn’t quite as robust.’
And as somebody who has worked in network planning at United, I can tell you that Ben's assertion is wrong, as I mentioned above.
Isn't international flying more seasonal than domestic, no? @Jason
What does that have to do with it? Europe is seasonally strong in the summer, deep South America and Caribbean are seasonally strong in the winter for North American carriers. They in general balance out. Domestic is at its absolute most profitable in the summer, and every decision about aircraft allocation is taken very seriously. There's still an opportunity cost, and in the summer, when demand is high everywhere, it's even more exaggerated. Again, I've...
What does that have to do with it? Europe is seasonally strong in the summer, deep South America and Caribbean are seasonally strong in the winter for North American carriers. They in general balance out. Domestic is at its absolute most profitable in the summer, and every decision about aircraft allocation is taken very seriously. There's still an opportunity cost, and in the summer, when demand is high everywhere, it's even more exaggerated. Again, I've made these decisions before and had to do these tradeoffs. Allocating this much airplane time must mean they have no better options/ that they expect the fares to be very high on this route. TBD. But to assume there's no opportunity cost is not accurate.
jason is absolutely right and it doesn't take his experience in any airline network function for others to know.
The DOT publishes profitability by global region and the domestic system is the most profitable in the summer.
Despite flying more ASMs than AA or DL, UA generates less total profits which says their international system does not generate more profits than domestic.
the bigger issue is that UA has talked for years about...
jason is absolutely right and it doesn't take his experience in any airline network function for others to know.
The DOT publishes profitability by global region and the domestic system is the most profitable in the summer.
Despite flying more ASMs than AA or DL, UA generates less total profits which says their international system does not generate more profits than domestic.
the bigger issue is that UA has talked for years about acquiring hundreds of new narrowbodies so they can grow their domestic system, Boeing is not delivering anywhere close to what UA is supposed to receive, and UA is using aircraft that could fly on the domestic system to operate seasonal international flights only to have to return those aircraft to the domestic system in the fall of 2025.
Has UA ditched yet another strategy of heavy domestic growth because they realize their growth rate could not generate the financial returns they expected - and which some of us knew would be the case?
UA generates billions of dollars less in domestic revenue than AA or DL and flies fewer domestic ASMs than AA, DL or WN.
Domestic has long been more profitable than international and that will be the case again.
Is UA more interested in making sexy route announcements with a benefit they can't quantify - but tout on their earnings calls?
It is very likely both are the case and it also explains why UA consistently underperforms DL in bottom line profits and total revenue on a year round basis.
UA is far more interested in fluff and splash than delivering what will make a difference in the long run which is sustainable, year round profit and revenue advantages which will ensure their employees are the highest paid in the industry and their customers have access to the best global route system which most certainly includes the domestic system.
Over $5k for a 4 hour flight in economy? Yes, UA is in a completely different league.
Chill. Only full Y fares on sale for now.
The decision to sell the premium cabin as Premium Economy is interesting given that there are flights of similar lengths on similar aircraft that get marketed as "Business Class."
Flights to PDL on 7M8 has been selling PremPlus up front
It would be nice with a codeshare with Air Greenland, so us pleebs down i South Greenland, could use this service for outbound travel to the US
Likewise i imagine a lot of inbound pax would benefit of same ticket travel onwards to other places in Greenland, given how bad the weather can be on the Greenland West coast during summer (ie, Low clouds, Fog and High winds)
This is not going to end well. Was recently on an scientific expedition trip to Greenland and the locals are already a little peeved at how many people are visiting now before this type of service. Greenland isn't like other places. The locals like their peace and quiet. Don't anticipate this ending well.
I fully agree with you on this point. In addition with recently announced seasonal service from SAS, this is going to up the number of tourists to Greenland. The last time I visited Greenland, I was surprised already by the number of visitors including a group of ERASMUS student taking over the whole village. I hope that the Greenland government/authority will think twice and have some good plans in controlling the tourism number.
Control it? They are actively encouraging this!! Lol
Agreed. Nothing worse than Americans coming to a place in droves. Hopefully Americans won't venture past Nuuk due to the expense and lack of chain hotels and fast food restaurants.
One other factor that will likely impact UA’s decision to keep the flight beyond 1 year is if Greenland is helping subsidize it. I fully expect the flights to Greenland and Mongolia are partially funded by the respective governments since both countries are anxious to grow tourism. Just look at the investment Greenland made in the new airport. Now that they have built it planes need to land there. SAS from Copenhagen may be non...
One other factor that will likely impact UA’s decision to keep the flight beyond 1 year is if Greenland is helping subsidize it. I fully expect the flights to Greenland and Mongolia are partially funded by the respective governments since both countries are anxious to grow tourism. Just look at the investment Greenland made in the new airport. Now that they have built it planes need to land there. SAS from Copenhagen may be non subsidized due to Danish control of Greenland and both passenger+cargo traffic but I fully expect UA is getting something from the government to provide non-stop US access.
BTW been to Iceland 4 times and plan to book my trip to Nuuk for July
This. And don't forget that Air Seven will add 2 weekly 737 routes from Aalborg as well next summer. I really hope that the local government has a plan ready to re-distribute all those visitors, as I'm pretty sure that a village with not even 20.000 citizens, like Nuuk, can't handle so many visitors at once, and certainly not for a whole season. Heck, with the seat capacity available, one could evacuate all of Nuuk by air in about 5 weeks time next summer.
Interesting views! Hear that but same thing happened in Japan post covid. Ultimately, my view is what's best for the economy prevails in the face of these "peace and quiet" concerns. One could argue Japan's population wasn't as resoundingly opposed to tourism, having already been a hotspot for a while vs Greenland where 57k or so people may unanimously oppose this influx. But on the other hand Japan is less dependent on tourism vs Greenland...
Interesting views! Hear that but same thing happened in Japan post covid. Ultimately, my view is what's best for the economy prevails in the face of these "peace and quiet" concerns. One could argue Japan's population wasn't as resoundingly opposed to tourism, having already been a hotspot for a while vs Greenland where 57k or so people may unanimously oppose this influx. But on the other hand Japan is less dependent on tourism vs Greenland because of being way more industrialized.
Not the same. Japan has roads and people can spread out.
Nuuk does not.
There is nothing to do in Nuuk for more than a day. It's other parts of Greenland that are interesting, but that requires a costly flight or a boat, neither method has any real capacity.
It's not a peace and quiet concern. It's a concern that a town does not have facilities to host hundreds of visitors.
Cool route but not as cool as making partner at Paul, Weiss.