Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3411470/

Topic: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2007-05-16 18:03:34 and read 6449 times.

The most exciting news Ive heard reguarding my hometown airport in a while was whan UA decided to bring back LAX-HKG. I guess what im wondering is why. I dug through the threads reguarding the new service, but it really didnt answer any of my questions.

1) Is UA just trying to beat DL to it?
2) Is UA going to build up LAX's domestic connection bank to help serve the flight?
3) Is the flight mainly to serve the very large O&D market between LAX and HKG.

Anyways just wonder what everyone else thought.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2007-05-16 18:47:19 and read 6370 times.

I suspect its a little bit of 1 & 2 but its not surprise that as soon as DL mentioned they were interested it in, UA announced it.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2007-05-16 18:48:16 and read 6363 times.

Sorry, I meant 1 & 3 not 2. I dont think you will see an increase on what they already have.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2007-05-16 18:52:35 and read 6346 times.

UA obviously had demand for seats to HKG, evidenced by the extra sections they've been flying out of SFO and ORD. As CX has a lock on the only nonstops in the market at 3x per day, it only seems logical to transfer some of the capacity to LAX, as they already have a hub situated there, and can offer an extra gateway to HKG from the States.

It seems like an good routing to add to their network to me.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2007-05-16 18:56:49 and read 6327 times.

UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11. When that happens, there may be an expansion of domestic flying out of DEN, SFO, LAX, and IAD. ORD is capacity constrained. Or perhaps UA will retire an equivalent number of seats from their rope-start 737 fleet.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: STT757
Posted 2007-05-16 19:14:15 and read 6249 times.

UAL has a strong base of customers to/from Hong Kong, obviously JFK-HKG was a reach given that it was only launched in response to CO's EWR-HKG. LAX, SFO and ORD seem locked up by UAL.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: SLCUT2777
Posted 2007-05-16 19:21:09 and read 6203 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
LAX, SFO and ORD seem locked up by UAL.

The latter two are owned by UA lock, stock and two smoking barrels, but LAX has no real dominant carrier. Which is why I sense DL looks at LAX as a place they can rebuild their old base off of the prior Western clientele with more of a JFK style type rebuild. what they had prior to the merger would in no way work today. My conclusion is they are hearing footsteps from DL, and AA may follow with a similar response. HKG has a large O&D to/from Southern California as well as LAX being North America's prime airport gateway above SFO and YVR.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Jfk777
Posted 2007-05-16 19:21:23 and read 6203 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
LAX, SFO and ORD seem locked up by UAL.

SFO and ORD, are locked up by UA but LAX too ? Lets see, Cathay has three 744 daily and UA will have one, advantage Cathay. SFO, UA faces a Cathay 744 daily and a Singapore 744( soon A380) daily, is very competitive will UA having the top market share of three close competitors. UA owns ORD, no competitio.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: AeroWesty
Posted 2007-05-16 19:22:58 and read 6193 times.

Going back and reading the news article announcing this service, it appears that the HKG-SGN tag will be switched to the LAX flight. Since the Los Angeles area is home to the largest Vietnamese community in the U.S., it's a double-whammy—it gives CX competition for nonstop service for LAX-HKG, and eliminates the SFO stop for those traveling from LAX to Vietnam, while retaining one-stop connecting service for SFO originating passengers. Not a bad deal.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070503/aqth054.html?.v=8

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: PhilSquares
Posted 2007-05-16 19:29:05 and read 6151 times.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 7):
Singapore 744( soon A380)

Source?????? It's going to be a while before you see that!

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Aaway
Posted 2007-05-16 19:32:28 and read 6133 times.

I tend to agree with UAL777UK. I believe UA (and AA) will certainly attempt to pre-empt DL in the most lucrative LAX - Transpac markets. HKG was obvious, China will certainly gain attention. Depending on equipment, secondary Japanese markets like FUK and NGO will get a look. (Wildcard is KIX due to high costs/fees.)

DL has a leg up with potential Korean service due to its ties with KE - perhaps some traction for DL there.

As far as a domestic schedule build up for UA is concerned - I'd suggest not to look for one. I believe one of the problems UA encountered in having both LAX and SFO hubbed is that both relied on the same markets for traffic, and thus cannilbalized each other. For example, how many options did a UA pax have travelling ORD - SBA ???.

Also, UA invested a ton of money into LAX without seeing the requisite market share gains (ROI), whereas half of the current day SFO is UA/UAX.

Ultimately UA will have schedule adjustments at LAX - an addition here-or-there. But don't expect those heady days of 200+ mainlineUA departures daily (unless there's a major business failure by one of the other LAX market leaders.)

[Edited 2007-05-16 19:35:14]

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: SkyyMaster
Posted 2007-05-16 19:33:56 and read 6133 times.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):
1) Is UA just trying to beat DL to it?
2) Is UA going to build up LAX's domestic connection bank to help serve the flight?
3) Is the flight mainly to serve the very large O&D market between LAX and HKG.

#1 - Most definitely.
#2 - Unless they add more trans-Pac service to go with the NRT flight, building a connecting bank for two flights doesn't sound feasible. UA seems pretty happy with SFO being their primary Pacific hub.
#3 - CX does it 3x daily now. There hasn't been a U.S. based carrier on the route in quite awhile. It could be to get some Star Alliance customers who would otherwise have to connect at Narita.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Gemini573
Posted 2007-05-16 19:36:57 and read 6110 times.

As repeated, I think this was an opportunity for UA to beat DL to the punch. It's similar to what UA did in the past with ORD-HKG. I think at one time, AA was interested in ORD-HKG, but when UA decided to increase the frequencies to HKG, it all but eliminated that idea for AA.

Now, for AA I think this is an opportunity for them to introduce ORD-HKG.

CX also has a lot of connecting customers heading to MNL and India as well. The CX flights are timed quite well for AA connections as well as LA connections from South America for the early afternnon flight to HKG.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: FWAERJ
Posted 2007-05-16 19:42:59 and read 6083 times.

Quoting Gemini573 (Reply 12):
Now, for AA I think this is an opportunity for them to introduce ORD-HKG.

I, too, am still very puzzled as why AA hasn't started ORD-HKG yet, especially with both AA's own ORD feed and the the feed CX could give them in HKG. UA has a monopoly on the route, and their planes are always full, so I think that there's plenty of room for more than one carrier.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Aaway
Posted 2007-05-16 19:43:52 and read 6083 times.

Quoting Gemini573 (Reply 12):
Now, for AA I think this is an opportunity for them to introduce ORD-HKG.

Unfortunately AA cannot immediately add ORD-HKG due to that 15 hour restriction in the AA/APA contract. Witness UA's westbound ORD-HKG schedule - 15+ hours flying (a slightly) faster aircraft.

[Edited 2007-05-16 19:46:50]

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: LAXdude1023
Posted 2007-05-16 19:43:55 and read 6083 times.

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 11):
#2 - Unless they add more trans-Pac service to go with the NRT flight, building a connecting bank for two flights doesn't sound feasible. UA seems pretty happy with SFO being their primary Pacific hub.

Yeah thats kind of what I figured. I always thought that maybe a they might add a couple of more domestic flights. I think markets like the Texas Markets (AUS and IAH) that dont have service and Southern Florida could be pulled in to UA's netword for LAX, but Im really not holding my breath. I just would like to see a couple more destinations for UA domestically at LAX.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: United787
Posted 2007-05-16 19:53:56 and read 6033 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11.

What is your source? I have not heard that. I know the order exists, but has it been announced that they are going to start taking delivery of these?

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: AADC10
Posted 2007-05-16 20:19:45 and read 5940 times.

The big reason is that the Hong Kong economy recovered. The 1997 currency crisis, 9/11 and SARS really took a bite out of Hong Kong and more businesses started bypassing Hong Kong and went straight to China. Within the last couple of years however they have bounced back, possibly connected to the rise of the mainland stock markets. Also UA has long desired SFO-CAN and it is clear that they will not get it anytime soon. I believe that NW also used to operate LAX-HKG but now UA only has to face CX. I do not have the numbers but LAX probably has the highest demand for HKG from the U.S.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11. When that happens, there may be an expansion of domestic flying out of DEN, SFO, LAX, and IAD.

Maybe, but probably not. UA has talked about retiring some of their older 733s, which are nearly 21 years old. If business is really booming, they can delay the retirements. Also, I believe that they are only taking twenty something A319/320s not 42.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Zvezda
Posted 2007-05-16 20:30:34 and read 5900 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 16):
What is your source? I have not heard that. I know the order exists, but has it been announced that they are going to start taking delivery of these?

UA made the announcement when they exited Chapter 11. I don't recall when deliveries are set to start. Perhaps next year.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Jacobin777
Posted 2007-05-16 21:39:53 and read 5801 times.

Quoting Aaway (Reply 14):

Unfortunately AA cannot immediately add ORD-HKG due to that 15 hour restriction in the AA/APA contract. Witness UA's westbound ORD-HKG schedule - 15+ hours flying (a slightly) faster aircraft.

ORD-DEL-DEL with strong headwinds will certainly exceed the 15+ hours.....

the majour obstacle is that HKG is semi-autonomous from mainland China and still has its own independent bilaterals...that being said, I'm sure it could be worked where both O8 as well as AA could start services.....

I expect CX to start ORD before AA however.....and leave AA to codeshare the flight....

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: UA772IAD
Posted 2007-05-16 22:04:56 and read 5722 times.

Quoting United787 (Reply 16):
What is your source? I have not heard that. I know the order exists, but has it been announced that they are going to start taking delivery of these?

I saw it in UA's fleet database (accessable on UA terminals only). I believe its around 26 319s, and the rest 320s. Interestingly, I think UA has held on to that last 777 option (N230UA), unless of course, the information is totally out of date (doubtful). An additional 777 would be essential to alleviating the widebody shortage.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: AlexInWa
Posted 2007-05-16 22:36:31 and read 5668 times.

Wasn't the previous LAX-HKG route a victim of SARS and 9/11? If I remember correctly UA has never had an issue making all trans-pacific flights from LAX work out very well.

IMO LAX is a victim to a number of issues that UA has faced inculding but not limited to lack of A/C. Makes me wonder if UA is kicking themselves for letting those 744's go?

It seems as if UA is starting to turn the corner and getting back on the up and up. Re-building LAX would seem very natural and nessacary for continued growth and profit.

I'm waiting to see what type if any new A/C orders in the future to really stop holding my breath as to UA's revival.

As much as I would love to see the 773er in UA's fleet, I believe the 787 and the 748 would be needed much more. The -400's UA has will suit them well until they completely upgrade and transition to a 748 fleet. 787's would/could phase out the 763's with the 777's being re-ordered!!

Maybe I'm dreaming?

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Aaway
Posted 2007-05-16 23:19:05 and read 5572 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
ORD-DEL-DEL with strong headwinds will certainly exceed the 15+ hours.....

Which is why AA and APA have a side agreement (referred to as a 'side letter') for ORD - DEL as well as ORD - PVG. You think there's enough goodwill currently between AA and APA for an ORD - HKG side agreeement in light of the DFW - China debacle (nevermind the executive compensation issue) ???

ORD - HKG will happen, but not until AA has a signed, amended pilot's agreement for ULH flying.

[Edited 2007-05-16 23:28:17]

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: ORD2PHL
Posted 2007-05-16 23:32:33 and read 5526 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11. When that happens, there may be an expansion of domestic flying out of DEN, SFO, LAX, and IAD. ORD is capacity constrained. Or perhaps UA will retire an equivalent number of seats from their rope-start 737 fleet.

Doubtful there has been no information regarding resumption of deliveries from this prior order. If you listen to the UAUA conference call you'll hear that they intend on continuing to operate their oldest 737's for at least the next 8-10 years. Management specifically indicated that they aren't interested in any more current generation narrowbody aircraft.

ORD2PHL

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Aaway
Posted 2007-05-17 00:40:58 and read 5406 times.

Quoting AlexInWa (Reply 21):
If I remember correctly UA has never had an issue making all trans-pacific flights from LAX work out very well.

UA LAX - KIX - LAX. Goods loads, bad yields, high cost airport (KIX). The F and C didn't draw as expected. Y was often filled with groups sold by the tour aggregators.

UA LAX - NRT - LAX (2nd frequency) lasted one summer (2005).

Quoting AlexInWa, reply=21:
IMO LAX is a victim to a number of issues that UA has faced inculding but not limited to lack of A/C. Makes me wonder if UA is kicking themselves for letting those 744's go?

Well, UA decided to focus growth at IAD. Good number of widebodies there that could be used at LAX. I'm sure the empirical info at UA's avail suggests a greater chance of financial success at IAD vs. LAX.

As for the 744, fuel hogs in todays fuel pricing environment.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: UAL777UK
Posted 2007-05-17 09:32:13 and read 5057 times.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 13):
I, too, am still very puzzled as why AA hasn't started ORD-HKG yet, especially with both AA's own ORD feed and the the feed CX could give them in HKG. UA has a monopoly on the route, and their planes are always full, so I think that there's plenty of room for more than one carrier.

Dont forget that AA lost a big Motorola contract to UA not so long ago and with them based in Chicago, that was a major win for UA, as Motorola, apart from flying to Shanghai and London amongst others, have ops in yep you guessed it Hong Kong. The loss of that business could have influenced a decision to start the HKG route for AA, although IMHO, they will start it at some time.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: 777law
Posted 2007-05-17 10:57:54 and read 4890 times.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 20):
Interestingly, I think UA has held on to that last 777 option (N230UA), unless of course, the information is totally out of date (doubtful). An additional 777 would be essential to alleviating the widebody shortage.

Interesting you bring that up -- throughout this thread I've been wondering where UA is getting the A/C for it's ongoing international expansion. I was just reading an article saying that UA had no plans to place new orders in the near future.

I guess the question then is whether UA is close to tapping-out it's long-haul fleet? Is this becoming a problem for UA? Even better, can UA take on many more trans-Pacific / Atlantic routes without new long-haul aircraft?

Cheers. . .

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Christao17
Posted 2007-05-17 13:02:56 and read 4555 times.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11. When that happens, there may be an expansion of domestic flying out of DEN, SFO, LAX, and IAD.



Quoting AlexInWa (Reply 21):
I'm waiting to see what type if any new A/C orders in the future to really stop holding my breath as to UA's revival.

Based on what has been reported to investors, I doubt that we're going to see a lot of growth in UA for a number of years to come. They've got to be able to consistently operate their business profitably before they take on a lot of debt for new planes. The days of unrestrained growth have come to an end.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Gemini573
Posted 2007-05-17 16:38:29 and read 3713 times.

UA operates a mix of 777 and 744s to HKG. I noticed on their November '07 schedule, HKG will be exclusively 744s out of LAX, ORD, and SFO. Where are they getting the 744s from?

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: FlyDreamliner
Posted 2007-05-17 18:00:04 and read 3347 times.

Quoting Aaway (Reply 24):

As for the 744, fuel hogs in todays fuel pricing environment.

The 744 has about the lowest CASM of any longhaul aircraft flying right now. It's no fuel hog.

Anyway, UA's 777s range is supposedly slightly shorter than that of their 744s, if not equivalent... it certainly is not longer.

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: Aaway
Posted 2007-05-18 01:12:50 and read 3076 times.

Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 29):
The 744 has about the lowest CASM of any longhaul aircraft flying right now. It's no fuel hog.

Anyway, UA's 777s range is supposedly slightly shorter than that of their 744s, if not equivalent... it certainly is not longer.

At the risk of hijacking this thread....

In the simplest terms, the 744's CASM advantage is realized only if the plane is full. Otherwise... (and, of course, it's harder to fill a 400 seat 744 vs. 280 seat 772)

However, it's too simplified to suggest the issue is a 2 vs. 4 engine argument. The 777 has aerodynamic advantages over the 744. The either of the 777 poweplant variants represent efficiency improvements over those used on the 744 due to technological advances.

Example comparative mission profiles of fuel flow:

Fuel planning data (x1000 lbs);
777 landing weight 400 lbs
744 landing weight 500 lbs

...............777......744
4000 nm....118....174
3000 nm......87....127

Topic: RE: WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?
Username: CX Flyboy
Posted 2007-05-18 05:26:53 and read 2936 times.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
I expect CX to start ORD before AA however

There are already rumours about this for 2008.


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/