Lhr001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2221 times:
On a recent trip I noticed that the passenger facilities at United Airlines San Francisco termanil were in very bad shape. There were boarding gates with little or no seating areas. There were chairs that fabric had become warn and were falling apart. And most of all the attitude of the Gate and Ticket Agents seemed to be anything but rude!
Isn’t United Airlines going to rebuild its San Francisco presence, or is San Francisco going to go by the way side. It would seem as if the San Francisco operations base would be a cash cow to United Airlines. However, would the duplication of several Los Angeles routes make the cities compete for the traffic?
What is the future goal for United Airlines at San Francisco?
What role does San Francisco currently play in the United Airlines network?
JpetekYXMD80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 4311 posts, RR: 28 Reply 1, posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2188 times:
I pass through SFO every year, and UA T3 last year. The united concourse actually is the best domestic terminal by far, blowing terminal 1 out of the water. It is a descent hub overall. It is united's main pacific gateway with service to tokyo, osaka, sydney, seoul, beijing, hong kong, shanghai ( i know these have been bounced around lately, and i have not kept up with their route network since summer).
Also "And most of all the attitude of the Gate and Ticket Agents seemed to be anything but rude!"
what are you trying to say here, because you just gave them a compliment..
Lhr001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2129 times:
The United Airlines operation at LAX is very nice. This actually is a matter of opinion. Myself, I am a fan of United Airlines and I wish them the very best! It just has seemed that lately the facilities at SFO, has been in a state of dis-repair!
ConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 5, posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2041 times:
UA is more committed to SFO as a hub than LAX... they also have a higher presence and greater market influence there.
As far as it being a cash cow... well, it's ahead of Denver as United's most profitable hub. And that's with fog, and nonstop competition on nearly every longhaul route (barring the Kangaroo hops, et al)
DeltaSFO From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2488 posts, RR: 23 Reply 6, posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1993 times:
San Francisco is United's largest international gateway. I wouldn't say it's falling by the wayside. Note that after 9/11, it was LAX that saw drastic cuts in international flying, not SFO.
UAL has made a number of improvements to the domestic facilities (remodeled Red Carpet Club, EasyInfo at the gates, etc), but the reality is that things like the worn out carpets and low quality of food are more a result of airport management than United directly.
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
Lhr001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1889 times:
Would it be possible for United Airlines to move their route authority from discontinued services LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL to San Francisco?
It would make much more sense. If Qantas and Air New Zealand are continuing their services to Los Angeles it would make more sense for SFO to gain the United Airlines South Pacific routes versus Los Angeles!
WesternDC1010 From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 326 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (10 years 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1766 times:
>>Have you seen LAX UA terminal 7 & 8, it hasnt been remodeling in more than 20 years.<<
When was the last time you passed through United's Terminal 7 and 8 at LAX? There was an extensive re-image done back in the the late 1990's that definitely brightened up the space there. And during the re-image, Terminal 8 (then used for primarily United Shuttle flights, now United Express Jet Service) was widened and opened up a great deal than the sliver of space it used to be!
As739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5929 posts, RR: 22 Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 1600 times:
LHR001-between this post and your CLE/CO post, you seem to expect a hell of alot from airports. Are you in LHR? Have you been through there lately? Personally I find UA operation here in San Francisco very nice. Terminal look in good shape considering the airlines have no money right now. You been over here to T1 were I work here at SFO. Its crap, but still better then some airports I have been to. Not every airport can look like Hong Kong or the new NW terminal at DTW. You sound just a little picky to me (no offence ). You just happen to talk about 2 airports that I have travelled from all my life. They are both nice, have good hub carriers and neither airline is going anywhere from there city's just cause the terminal starts to get dirty. That happens when lots of people are travelling though there, and thats what they are there for!
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
Flyboyaz From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1538 times:
I've never flown UA to SFO but have on a few other airlines. The only bad thing about it is the higher prices. When PSA was a huge presence there, the prices where much lower. Would be nice for a low fare airline to come in and really keep the prices down. Even HP fares are quite a bit higher than in OAK.
Lhr001 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (10 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1499 times:
A few things...
Having grown up in San Francisco ... there have been many changes made to the airport of the past years. It was very sad to see the old International building be reduced to ear nothing.
It was so very nice how at one time you would be able to view ongoing art exhibits, passengers as they cleared through customs, and after the remodel was done.. The marble and such was so very nice.
The new International Termanil at SFO, brings to mind Hong Kong and Charles de Gaulle. It is a very nice facility.
In reference to United Airlines facilities at SFO... Yes, they do need a lot of work. Do you recall the days in which most of UAL gates at SFO had enclosed waiting areas and you had to show your ticket before you were allowed into the seating area for a specific gate?
At one time there was a great deal of dining facilities, shopping, and things to do as you waited for your next flight. Now you must simply sit down and watch as tons of other aircraft pass and you have near nothing to do!
People this day in age more than ever are chosing to connect through airports that offer the most amenities. Face it.. this day in age people are forced with ongoing delays and furthermore they are anticipating not arriving on time in most cases. It is sad but it is a very definite sig of the times. To many flights and to little space.
Airports now are offereing so many amenities.. Domestically in the U.S. you have airports that are offering Health Spas, Gyms, Shopping Malls, Sit-Down Restaurants, and Viewing Areas! So... to answer the question that you have before stated... Yes, people do expect amenities and facilities at airports!
LHR is a wondrous airport. They offer shopping via Harrods, such fine epicurean delights, top class facilities, and most of all space to move about and spend time as you await your next and ongoing departure.
SFO has a great international facility. However, United Airlines Termanil and its facilites are lacking so very much.
ORD... It is such a very nice experience. There is room, facilities, and most of all.... Updated and spacious seating areas!
LAX and United Airlines as well has very nice facilities, most of all for those of us jetting down to Sydney!
IAD, is true to UAL.... Not much to offer... They haul you in and then they haul you out! Nothing to write home about!
DEN.. is very nice and to be honest the United Airlines Termanil is on a par with ORD. The DEN facilities are outstanding and for being a nearly all domestic operation at DEN... UAL should be commended for such a wonderfully maintained termanil!
Clipper7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1429 times:
I returned last week from SFO on UA and the gates were bright, clean and modern. In addition the checkin area was also spotless - don't know which area you left from but it obviously wasn't the same one as me! And while we're at it, when are we going to cease judging an entire organisation by the occasional miserable employee. All organisations have good and bad people - just depends where you happen to be on a given time and day.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16545 posts, RR: 52 Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1384 times:
Airtravel is down alot since the late 1990s, airports are saddled with debt. SFO just built that new IAB terminal, they started that project when air travel was booming. Now with less revenues the payments on the bond debt for that new building is a strain on the airport, as it is for many airports across the Country which began modernizationa and expansion projects during the boom 1990s only to have passenger numbers and revenue drop like a rock.
Look at Pittsburgh, the Allegeny Airport folks built US Airways a modern terminal with the best shopping experience compared to any US Airport. Now US Aiways either wants their rent and landing fees slashed or they are leaving, sticking the tax payers of Western Pennsylvania with the bill.
At JFK airport in NY the Port Authority allowed a private consortium of Lehman Brothers(?) and Schipohl to build a new mega terminal to replace the former IAB, it opened in May of 2001, the investors are taking a bath. The terminal features a large mall that was supposed to house several upscale stores, the problem is that only about 50-60% of the commercial space is occupied. And the stores that are there like DKNY are losing money, the terminal is not receiving the business they projected.
Another project at JFK the new AA terminal has been scaled back and construction slowed because of AA's cash crunch, when the project began in 1999 is was envisioned as a 55 gate mega terminal with a completion date of 2006. Now it's being scaled back to only 39 gates with a completion date between 2007-2008, with parts to open by '06.
Airport authorities and State/ City agencies should be vary wary of spending money on projects without doing better analysis of the potential risks to investors/ taxpayers, many projects in the US during the late 1990s depended on "optimistic" revenue projections which showed a steep increase in passengers flying each year.
With UAL in bankruptcy and SFO airport folks receiving less revenue from fewer air travelers they should be "cautious" with any modernisation or expansion projects at their airport, because in the end it's the tax payers who have to shoulder the burden and debt.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16545 posts, RR: 52 Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 1321 times:
"All time have been met with less than positive appearance and upkeep"
You should e-mail UAL and SFO customer service/relations, bring it to their attention.
Or better yet send an e-mail to a local San Francisco newspaper which covers UAL and SFO, perhaps they have a beat reporter who's field is to cover SFO/UAL.
There used to be a great reporter named Al Frank who did extensive stories about Newark Airport and CO in the Newark Star Ledger, I would e-mail him and he would e-mail back. He would cover every aspect in his articles from the guys who fueled the planes at the airport (and how their wives complained about their smell when they got home) to CO corporate news. He had the scoop on the EWR-HKG flight before it was "Officially" announced, he also had some great Gordon Bethune interviews.