Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3188878/

Topic: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2007-01-08 19:50:03 and read 7023 times.

Hello All,
I have 2 questions:

1) Why did UA discontinue LAX-HKG?

2) Is there any chance they or any other domestic airline will come back into LAX-HKG?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: BigGSFO
Posted 2007-01-08 20:00:45 and read 6981 times.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):
2) Is there any chance they or any other domestic airline will come back into LAX-HKG?

UA apparently favors the continued build-up of SFO as their primary transpacific gateway. I do not see them adding LAX-HKG back anytime soon.

By domestic airline, I assume you mean U.S. based airline, in which I would answer "probably not." Of the possible contenders, 1) NW seems committed to channel most US-Asian traffic via NRT; 2) AA serves LAX-HKG via code-share on oneworld parter CX - up to 3 times a day. Unikely they will add their own metal; 3) the much ballyhooed and fantasized DL transpacific expansion from LAX. Who knows?; 4) CO - LAX does not appear to be part of their transpacific strategy at this time.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2007-01-08 23:00:33 and read 6725 times.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):

1) Why did UA discontinue LAX-HKG?

The 1997 Asian currency meltdown and to a lesser extent, the return of HK to mainland China. The '97 Asian panic killed demand to Hong Kong. Even more pressure was placed on it when Chek Lap Kok opened which has rather high fees. Lastly, the role of Hong Kong shifted since more deals were made directly with mainland China rather than being brokered through Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has bounced back, but UA headed to Ch. 11. LAX shrank as a UA station (or alleged hub). A weakened feed and strong competition from Asian carriers led UA to use its resources elsewhere.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: Jfk777
Posted 2007-01-09 00:28:29 and read 6529 times.

I 've always thought it sad for UA to abandon LAX to HKG, Cathay has proved its a big market with 3 744 daily. UA may find it more efficient to connect passengers through ORD, given the high percentage east of the Mississippi. Since UA does fly LAX to Australia and Tokyo, HKG would make the best third destination from LAX for Asia-Pacific service. SFO is much more competitive with SQ, Cathay and UA each flying a daily 744.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UnitedNRT
Posted 2007-01-09 01:54:15 and read 6363 times.

The route was deemed a marginal success and the costs saved were found to be more beneficial than operating the flight itself. The flight wasn't a failure though. San Francisco was/is still the focus in terms of Asian haul which puts Los Angeles Intl at the disadvantage.

As far as the flight coming back, frames are needed first and then we can talk about it as it is a major piece missing from United Asia.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2007-01-09 01:57:48 and read 6345 times.

Quoting UnitedNRT (Reply 4):
The route was deemed a marginal success and the costs saved were found to be more beneficial than operating the flight itself. The flight wasn't a failure though. San Francisco was/is still the focus in terms of Asian haul which puts Los Angeles Intl at the disadvantage.

For UA thats very true. They tend to favor SFO. My guess is that its because there is not as much competition as LAX from Asian Carriers on the whole. However with HKG, there is more competition at SFO.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UnitedNRT
Posted 2007-01-09 02:11:43 and read 6282 times.

Yes at San Francisco there is more competition, yet United can handle it due to the focus it places on the hub. Los Angeles was always thought of as the "second" gateway to Asia for United, which O'Hare acts as now.

I will say that Los Angeles has United's eyes on it in terms of seeing how the markets react to service increases/decreases and a Los Angeles to Hong Kong isn't out of the books in any sense other than the lack of B747-422 frames and the opportunity costs related with moving operations from established stations namely ORD and SFO.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: B2443
Posted 2007-01-09 02:14:56 and read 6259 times.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):
I 've always thought it sad for UA to abandon LAX to HKG, Cathay has proved its a big market with 3 744 daily.

The sad part is UA found it uncomptitive on LAX-HKG, eg, sub-par service compared to CX/SQ for o/d, not enough feed to sustain a 744 daily.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UnitedNRT
Posted 2007-01-09 02:24:09 and read 6214 times.

Quoting B2443 (Reply 7):
sub-par service compared to CX/SQ for o/d, not enough feed to sustain a 744 daily.

Service wasn't the deciding factor on the route, nor was the feed involved as the LAX hub at the time boasted 300+ daily departures to 40+ connecting destinations.

The cost savings with just sending pax to the same destinations via the primary Asian gateway, SFO, were deemed better. The route performed with some success, yet better things came from axing the stage altogether.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: FL370
Posted 2007-01-09 04:12:49 and read 6066 times.

IIRC, UA discontinued LAX-HKG after 9/11. i think CX has that route to themselves, Correct me if im wong.


almost all the flights from the west coast to Asia on UA is out of SFO. SFO is the ticket to Asia.


fl370

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: Continental123
Posted 2007-01-09 04:17:30 and read 6051 times.

As weird as it seems, I can see in the horizon CO flying 767-400ER on that route to cooperate with CO Micronesia.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: United Airline
Posted 2007-01-09 04:20:24 and read 6033 times.

Wonder if UA will ever resume LAX-HKG

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: OzarkD9S
Posted 2007-01-09 04:22:09 and read 6026 times.

Quoting Continental123 (Reply 10):


As weird as it seems, I can see in the horizon CO flying 767-400ER on that route to cooperate with CO Micronesia.

LAX-HKG-change planes-GUM? Hardly a great routing....

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: Continental123
Posted 2007-01-09 04:26:13 and read 6003 times.

Quoting OzarkD9S (Reply 12):
LAX-HKG-change planes-GUM?

I'm thinking a direct flight with maybe a layover at HNL if not a nonstop. If this flight # continued on to Guam then this would be a smart and profitable for CO.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: Notdownnlocked
Posted 2007-01-09 04:28:44 and read 5995 times.

Pehaps some day DL can return to this route with their so called planned build up of the LAX focus city. Who knows?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: OzarkD9S
Posted 2007-01-09 04:30:18 and read 5978 times.

Quoting Continental123 (Reply 13):


I'm thinking a direct flight with maybe a layover at HNL if not a nonstop. If this flight # continued on to Guam then this would be a smart and profitable for CO.

CO already operates LAX-HNL-GUM...a stop in HKG for any of these segments is backtracking. Now....LAX-GUM-HKG, maybe...but no one's gonna take that when LAX-HKG or LAX-NRT/ICN-HKG is a more direct routing.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: BoeingFever777
Posted 2007-01-09 04:37:41 and read 5958 times.

Quoting FL370 (Reply 9):
i think CX has that route to themselves, Correct me if im wong.

No, you are correct. CX has (3) daily n/s flights from LAX-HKG.

CX 881 @ 745 on 744
CX 885 @ 1125 on 744
CX 883 @ 2220 on 744

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2007-01-09 09:47:42 and read 5712 times.

Quoting FL370 (Reply 9):
SFO is the ticket to Asia.

Only on UA. LAX outnumbers SFO both in number of flights and carriers to Asia. The trouble is that CX is the only carrier from LAX-HKG. I personally wouldnt mind seeing CX go down to 2 times daily and having a UA, DL, or AA come in there. AA wont do it because of codeshare with CX. DL would do it, but they have other problems right now. UA could do it, it would be the next logical step for them from LAX. As pointed out, the flight wasnt nececarily a failure, the airframes were just used else where. LAX is key for UA internationally. LAX is their primary gateway to Australia, at least thats something.

Most will say that people wont mind a quick stop in SFO from LAX, but we cant swallow our pride and concede anything to NorCal  Silly

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2007-01-09 09:53:41 and read 5700 times.

IMHO in years to come wheb UA get more frames the route will come back. I flew it at various times on UA and I cannot ever remember the flight going out other than very full.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2007-01-09 10:10:24 and read 5678 times.

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 18):
IMHO in years to come wheb UA get more frames the route will come back. I flew it at various times on UA and I cannot ever remember the flight going out other than very full.

This is why it confuses me. I flew it when I was younger twice and both times it was very full. Another thing that confuses me is that I would think that UA specifically would want the route to come back because they offer connections from HKG as well as NRT.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2007-01-09 10:23:53 and read 5657 times.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 19):
I would think that UA specifically would want the route to come back because they offer connections from HKG as well as NRT.

From HKG, UA only fly onward to BKK, SGN, and SIN. *A partner SQ fly nonstop LAX-SIN and *A partner TG fly nonstop LAX-BKK. Given how many Vietnamese are living in California, I would think that if UA were to resume LAX-HKG that flight number would become the one that tags to SGN.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: AirCanada014
Posted 2007-01-09 12:30:43 and read 5582 times.

Like I said in previous post if and when AC gets their rights to fly LAX-SYD via YYZ then its possible AC would take advantage of using the 5th freedom route and fly LAX-HKG and have UA codeshare on the flight.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: SparkingWave
Posted 2007-01-09 13:16:24 and read 5538 times.

I think it would be in UA's best interest to reestablish nonstop service between LAX and HKG because it would become a new onestop service for the Vietnamese-American community in L.A.(Little Saigon) to fly to Ho Chi Minh City (via HKG on UA). Of course, even better would be nonstop LAX to SGN, but I digress.

SparkingWave ~~~

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: SeeTheWorld
Posted 2007-01-09 14:02:01 and read 5484 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 20):
From HKG, UA only fly onward to BKK, SGN, and SIN.

UA discontinued HKG-BKK years ago, pre-9/11. Since UA is short on 744s, then with a China award, won't help LAX-HKG.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: TinkerBelle
Posted 2007-01-09 15:23:53 and read 5033 times.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 17):
Most will say that people wont mind a quick stop in SFO from LAX, but we cant swallow our pride and concede anything to NorCal

Right back at ya. Not too many norcal people wanna take the hop to the zoo they call LAX for a connection unless they have to.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: 28l28l
Posted 2007-01-09 15:51:18 and read 4884 times.

What was the date range that UA operated LAX-HKG?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: Exaauadl
Posted 2007-01-09 16:02:02 and read 4917 times.

The yields were very very poor during the Asian economic crisis. LAX-HKG wasnt the only Asian market discontinued by UA in the period 1998-2000.


LAX, contrary to popular belief, isnt as lucrative as SFO.

There are more foreign flags in LAX
SFO is the financial center fo the west coast, not LAX
High tech is in the SFO bay area
UA has a better concentration of mileage plus members in SFO than LAX

Quoting AirCanada014 (Reply 21):
Like I said in previous post if and when AC gets their rights to fly LAX-SYD via YYZ then its possible AC would take advantage of using the 5th freedom route and fly LAX-HKG and have UA codeshare on the flight.

Why would AC ever fly LAX-HKG??? The great circle route take you right back over YVR.


Other poor performing markets from LAX were LAX-KIX and of course Manila was dropped as a UA city back inthe late 1990s

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2007-01-10 00:35:58 and read 3432 times.

Quoting UnitedNRT (Reply 4):
The route was deemed a marginal success and the costs saved were found to be more beneficial than operating the flight itself.

The major issue is that United no longer has more than 50 744s and saw the writing on the wall. Adding to that, their 772ERs don't have the requisite range to fly the route reliably.

Quoting UnitedNRT (Reply 4):
San Francisco was/is still the focus in terms of Asian haul which puts Los Angeles Intl at the disadvantage.

For United, yes. For the rest of the world, no.

Quoting UnitedNRT (Reply 6):
Yes at San Francisco there is more competition

Wrong, there is more competition at LAX, which is where UA gets their fuzzy logic from.

Quoting FL370 (Reply 9):
i think CX has that route to themselves, Correct me if im wong.

You are correct.

Quoting Continental123 (Reply 10):
As weird as it seems, I can see in the horizon CO flying 767-400ER on that route to cooperate with CO Micronesia.

Except of course that the aircraft would fall into the water

Quoting 28l28l (Reply 25):
What was the date range that UA operated LAX-HKG?

From the time they took over Pacific service from Pan Am to shortly after 9/11 when they discontinued the RTW route.

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 26):
Why would AC ever fly LAX-HKG???

Because they can.

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 26):
UA has a better concentration of mileage plus members in SFO than LAX

Perhaps by percentage, but not by raw number.

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 26):
LAX, contrary to popular belief, isnt as lucrative as SFO.

You are kidding, right?

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 26):
There are more foreign flags in LAX

And? That just proves the point

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 26):
SFO is the financial center fo the west coast, not LAX

Um, Los Angeles is the economic engine for the west coast, not San Francisco

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 26):
High tech is in the SFO bay area

And we all know what has happened to SJC-Asia service. Tech doesn't mean as much as you think

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UnitedNRT
Posted 2007-01-10 00:39:19 and read 3423 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 27):
Wrong, there is more competition at LAX, which is where UA gets their fuzzy logic from.

Well, I guess we're all full of fuzzy logic here then.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2007-01-10 00:48:06 and read 3397 times.

Quoting Exaauadl (Reply 26):
LAX, contrary to popular belief, isnt as lucrative as SFO.

There are more foreign flags in LAX
SFO is the financial center fo the west coast, not LAX
High tech is in the SFO bay area
UA has a better concentration of mileage plus members in SFO than LAX

Ummmm No. LAX is more lucrative then SFO, but as you point out LAX has almost double the competition.

For what its worth, LAX is the driving force of the West Coast not SFO. Its like saying Boston is the major player in the North East when we all know its NYC. I do conceede that SFO has the high tech industry which LA doesnt, but LA is much larger then SF and the bay area in most ways. I do love the bay area, but its not as large as LA and the only two reasons UA has their Asia hub there instead of here is:

1) About half the competition
2) Better location geographically.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2007-01-10 00:54:14 and read 3379 times.

Quoting UnitedNRT (Reply 28):
Well, I guess we're all full of fuzzy logic here then.

Hey, Cathay does very well financially, United hasn't been. Still, the fuzzy logic I am talking about is that United has given up most of the LAX-Asia market because of the greater competition in favor of a station they dominate at SFO. Meanwhile, they lose out on millions in revenue from a much larger population and a stronger facility generally.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UnitedNRT
Posted 2007-01-10 01:13:20 and read 3353 times.

N1120A, I know what you mean and it's a shame that the company decided to favor San Francisco over Los Angeles than running dual major gateways at once. All we can do here is merely suggest to EXO on what routes and upgrades we need/want.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: VC10DC10
Posted 2007-01-10 04:20:14 and read 3212 times.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 3):
SFO is much more competitive with SQ, Cathay and UA each flying a daily 744.

Does Singapore Airlines have Fifth Freedom privileges between HKG and SFO?

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UnitedNRT
Posted 2007-01-10 04:34:13 and read 3183 times.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 32):

Yes they do.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: N1120A
Posted 2007-01-10 08:27:28 and read 3032 times.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 32):
Does Singapore Airlines have Fifth Freedom privileges between HKG and SFO?

Last I checked, the US and Singapore have full open skies for 5th freedom flights.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2007-01-10 09:34:06 and read 2982 times.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 30):
Hey, Cathay does very well financially, United hasn't been. Still, the fuzzy logic I am talking about is that United has given up most of the LAX-Asia market because of the greater competition in favor of a station they dominate at SFO. Meanwhile, they lose out on millions in revenue from a much larger population and a stronger facility generally.

All the more reason IMHO that when UA get the frames, they should re-enter the market, especially when they offer the new international seats etc.

Topic: RE: Why Did UA Discontinue LAX-HKG?
Username: Jetdeltamsy
Posted 2007-01-10 09:40:19 and read 2976 times.

They either gave the aircraft back to its owner or they were losing money on the route..or both.

The bottom line is if they were able to operate it profitably, it would still be operating.

I'm not an insider but United needs every profitable, high-yield market it can get. This one did meet the company's financial needs.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/