Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Future Of United In Los Angeles  
User currently offlineUALAX From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4455 times:

Over the last few months, we've seen many airlines AA, HP, F9, etc add flights from Los Angeles. One airline conspicuously absent is United, who in terms of mainline and express flights is the number one carrier at LAX. With their financial troubles, they have cut many flights out of the second largest city in the nation including routes where there seems to be enough O&D such as Hong Kong. My question is why has United had a hard time at LAX while other carriers seem to be adding routes and will they keep on shrinking?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineUa777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4394 times:

I would have to say that all UA flights be an SFO hub and start letting the LAX-DEN flights on TED, I know for a fact that you have to go through Las Vegas on TED flights. You would think that the only UA flights would be UA express and let the rest of the star alliance partners do the rest. Let UA have SFO like they do and leave LAX. I was really never a big fan of LAX as a pax but that's my personal opinion. I could have also gone SFO-FRA but they said that they had better flights out of LAX on LH so I took that. I still think that SFO is a much larger airport than LAX but let the stat's tell.


UA777222



"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4241 times:

Cut LAX...surely you jest! That would be like cutting off your right arm! LAX is critical to UA's network. The LAX market is way to large for UAL to overlook. Sure it's a mess to the eye as far as UAL is concerned...but the dollars that UAL bring in from LAX ops eclipse almost any station except ORD,IAD and I'm sure we rival or trump SFO. And domestically, LA's way too large of a population and way too much money to blow off and give to AA or anyone else. LAX is the NYC of the west coast...I don't see UAL jumping that ship anytime soon. Pre-9/11 UAL had nonstops to AA), New Zealand">AKL,SYD (2),MEL,HKG(2),SEL,KIX and AA), Japan">NRT(2) a day along with LHR FRA and CDG. SFO never had that many international non-stops. And if they survive...their growth will be here!

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineIrishpower From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 386 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4195 times:

BN747,What do you mean SFO never had that many non-stops w/UA???

Pre 9/11


NRT(3),HKG(2),FRA,CDG,LHR(3),SYD,KIX,SEL,PEK,PVO,TPE,MEX,YVR and YYZ--

SFO is UA's International headquarters on the west coast and the heart of their Pacific network!!!!




User currently offlineRamprat74 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1528 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4102 times:

I could have also gone SFO-FRA but they said that they had better flights out of LAX on LH so I took that.  Insane

I think your nose is growing again.


User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4053 times:

Irish, I didn't add in Mexico/Canada as you did. Also PVD..I think you meant Shanghai...I 'm not sure PuDong was open pre-911. Hongqaio may have been the airport at the time. I'm not sure but I think we had nonstops to PEK and and SEL may have been twice daily. SFO probably still had more..but LAX was not even a 'hub' and yet it had so many international ops. SFO is a base for them. LAX being a non-hub city and having so much traffic speaks volumes.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineAirVB From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3925 times:

At one point (pre-9/11) United had more mainline flights at LAX than SFO. I remember the days where we used to see daily nonstops to CDG, HKG, AKL, and such. But I guess United has been focusing on its SFO hub, where there is less competition. However, this doesn't mean the LAX hub isn't profitable-there is a reason UA decided to build it up as hub in the first place-the humungous O&D market that is Los Angeles.

User currently offlineTbear815 From United States of America, joined Jun 2003, 704 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3888 times:

Back in the dark ages, I flew SFO/LAX/HKG. The reason for the deviation was that there were no upgrade seats ex-SFO. It was a lot longer travel time and I had my mother in a wheelchair going between terminals, but the flight (UA 001) was great. The LAX based crew was terrific, the plane almost empty (does that tell you anything?), and a brand new 747-400 (in the old colors).

With SFO's new international terminal, the Bradley at LAX is "OK." With the connex from SFO Int'l to UA domestic, it's a snap. Maybe that's why the emphasis is on SFO. After taking a long international flight HKG/LAX, it truly is a pain to take a bus to the United domestic terminal. Maybe that's changed by now, but if all was cool, I'd much rather go out of SFO. I enjoy LAX - it's a fascinating place to watch people and aircraft, but out-of-the-way connection-wise. IMHO.


User currently offlineAirVB From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

United international flights usually arrive in Terminal 6-at one point I remember Lufthansa flights operated out of Terminal 6 as well, which is short walk away to most of UA's domestic flights in 7.

User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3804 times:

With SFO's new international terminal, the Bradley at LAX is "OK.

That's very nice of you Tbear815..because as much as I love LAX...and after seeing SFO's new Intl' Terminal...Bradley is sewer by comparison! The place is falling apart! I know there's a new $200 mil renovation job on the way. All I can say is it better be good! Because Intl' carriers are returning to LAX with a vengeance..and we gotta take up a couple notches!

SFO,JFK & ORD have new Intl' Terminals..LAX needs get with it! Bradley was great in 1984..but that was 20 years ago! We are the #1 -747 airport in the US and we certainly don't look like it!


As for Intl'/dom connex..it's all done internally at UAL T-6/7 now..there's no longer any need to involve Bradley.

AirVB, SFO has always been a UAL Fortress..but they also saw opportunities here and wisely snatched them up. But UAL has a grip on SFO..that I don't ever want to see down here in LA by any one carrier...I like our 'balance' of powers here at LAX between AA,UA,DL, NW and WN..with HP and F9 knocking at the door.

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlinePER744 From Australia, joined Mar 2003, 405 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 3784 times:

BN747: Even 'sewer' is overly generous for TBIT. I'll go out of my way to avoid it (ie, only flying to SYD out of LAX just to get T4)

User currently offlineOrd From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3638 times:

"At one point (pre-9/11) United had more mainline flights at LAX than SFO."

This is not true. SFO has always had more mainline operations. Prior to 9/11 UA had about 260 departures a day at SFO versus about 180 at LAX.


User currently offlineAirVB From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 268 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3567 times:

According to The Big Six, published in 2000, I found this information:

(Correct to March 2000)
Daily Departures at Major Airports

Jet Express Shuttle Total

Chicago O'Hare (Hub) 414 130 0 544
Denver (Hub) 247 195 31 473
San Francisco (Hub) 93 99 132 324
Los Angeles (Hub) 98 179 105 382
Washington/Dulles (Hub) 109 245 0 354



User currently offlineOrd From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1381 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 3499 times:

Jet Express Shuttle Total

Chicago O'Hare (Hub) 414 130 0 544
Denver (Hub) 247 195 31 473
San Francisco (Hub) 93 99 132 324
Los Angeles (Hub) 98 179 105 382
Washington/Dulles (Hub) 109 245 0 354

I should have clarified my statement. By more "mainline" flights I meant non-express flights, meaning mainline and shuttle. By the account of the chart above that puts SFO at 225 and LAX at 203, so SFO does indeed have more.

Sorry for any confusion.


User currently offlineSlider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6793 posts, RR: 34
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3456 times:

United international flights usually arrive in Terminal 6-at one point I remember Lufthansa flights operated out of Terminal 6 as well, which is short walk away to most of UA's domestic flights in 7.

True enough- although I don't know what kind of capacity that they have there VS the TBIT.

The whole layout of Terminals 6, 7 and 8 is screwy though...the 3 checkpoints all feed into a common area beyond in which connecting pax can move among the terminals without having to be rescreened, but getting through security is a REAL nightmare...they have consistently long lines, and I know last week Term 6 had about an hour and a half wait. Absolutely horrific!



User currently offlineBN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5613 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3396 times:

...SFO at 225 and LAX at 203, so SFO does indeed have more.

Well it would be tragic indeed if a mainline city had more mainline ops than the carriers's 2nd largest hub...wouldn't it? But that makes my point about how important LAX is to the aggregate of UAL. A zillion other places would be dropped before LAX, probably even DEN!

BN747



"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25054 posts, RR: 46
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3395 times:

I recently ran across a report regarding UAs Los Angeles hub profile.

Here are some facts and comparisons. The report compared 12 month periods in 1999 and 2003. (report only covers mainline flying, not UA Express)

Avg Daily flights 1999 161
Avg Daily flights 2003 105
Annual departures 2003 vs 1999 -34.9%
Enplaned passengers 2003 vs 1999 -30.6%
Load factor 2003 vs 1999 +1.1%
LAX Market share 1999 25.2%
LAX Market share 2003 19.7%
Average fare 1999 $159.32
Average fare 2003 $178.96


Top 10 markets and load factors in 2003
1.ORD 75.0%
2.SFO 69.7%
3.DEN 64.3%
4.IAD 67.5%
5.HNL 82.4%
6.JFK 61.7%
7.LAS 73.9%
8.SEA 77.9%
9.OGG 83.3%
10.PDX 73.9%

O&D versus Transfer Traffic 1999 - 59% O&D
O&D versus Transfer Traffic 2003 - 72% O&D

Overall yes, UAs operations at LAX has been reduced significantly since 1999, however the shift seems to have been mostly in a reduction in transfer traffic, which most likely was shifted to SFO considering its much higher concentration of UA Asia flights.

UA has been able to both imporve its load factor and average fare during this period on its Los Angeles flights. The fare increase especialy is remarkable as overall other airlines at LAX saw a -2.4% decrease during the 1999-2003 period, while UA managed a 12.3% increase.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineUALAX From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 145 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Laxintl: Thanks for those statistics, very interesting. Glad to see they have improved their load factor and average fare. Hopefully if they recover, they can relaunch some of the routes that have been cut. I wonder how they will fare will be with so much more competition on the transcontinental routes....


UALAX


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Future Of United PS Service posted Sun Sep 17 2006 17:21:11 by B742
Future Of B6 In AUS posted Wed Apr 5 2006 06:17:29 by Azul320
Future Of Aviation In Africa? posted Thu Feb 2 2006 14:30:14 by 757ops
Future Of United B747-400 At Victorville posted Wed Jun 29 2005 18:29:30 by PHX Flyer
Future Of BRU In Jet Airways' Network posted Tue Jun 7 2005 15:18:42 by BrightCedars
Frontier CRJ In Los Angeles posted Wed Jul 14 2004 15:56:25 by Stirling
Future Of DEN In 2004 posted Thu Jan 1 2004 02:01:18 by Venezuela747
The Future Of Aviation In Iraq posted Sat Dec 6 2003 05:25:33 by Flyinguy1
Future Of United/American/Delta/Continental/USair/ posted Sun Dec 1 2002 15:49:33 by Deltadude8
Future Of Internationals In US Airline posted Thu Sep 20 2001 21:21:06 by PolAir