The No. 2 U.S. carrier also said it plans to reduce its mainline fleet to 455 aircraft by next March, 68 fewer than it flew in August 2004 and a reduction of 112, or nearly 20 percent, since 2002.
It said it would increase international capacity by 14 percent and cut mainline domestic capacity by 12 percent.
"Our strategy has been to continually align our fleet size and deployment with market conditions, which are brutally competitive," Glenn Tilton, UAL chairman and chief executive officer, said in a statement.
Tilton pointed out that the actions United is announcing are part of
United's ongoing strategy to:
-- Leverage Product Portfolio and Network: United's product portfolio and
worldwide route network give United the flexibility to put the right
product in the right market at the right price to meet customer demand
while generating a profit for the company.
-- Reduce Costs: United continues to reduce its costs to competitive
levels. The company is on track to achieve $5 billion in annual cost
improvements by 2005.
-- Deliver Operational Excellence: United continues to lead the industry
in operational excellence.
-- Focus on Customer Service and Investment: United maintains a sharp
focus on customers by investing in innovative products and services,
including expanding the availability of United EasyCheck-in and other
electronic and online ticketing and notification systems,
ChrisNH From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 4340 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (11 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11354 times:
So this is described as an outright cut rather than a shifting from mainline to regional jets? Here at Manchester, NH we have whistled by the graveyard by maintaining (for the most part) our mainline flights...even graduating to the 757 on some of our 4-5 dailies. But this cutback most certainly will set us back, along with many small-to-medium cities. I'd like to say that you can't put the genie back into the bottle, so when (if) UAL decides to dump Manchester or other cities of its size, some other carrier most certainly will step in. Almost as certainly, it will be an LCC. All conjecture at this point, and maybe Manchester and all the other 'Manchesters' will whistle by the graveyard again. But I don't see how UAL can hit these metrics without it affecting us.
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4131 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (11 years 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 11256 times:
I'm thinking most of these flights will be replaced by UAX? On the other hand, UA cut a lot of flights out of MIA and other stations, so some cuts could come from there. Didn't they also cut SNA-SFO? I know that ORD-IND is being replaced by UAX anyway. This is good for UA, cut unprofitable routes and simplify the fleet. Anything that will help int'l traffic is good IMO, as that's where the money is these days.
Dayflyer From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 3807 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (11 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10899 times:
IMO, this is a smart move. They need to consolidate fleet types to reduce costs. it would make perfect sense for them to axe the 737-500 and 767-200. They are worn out anyway and need replacement. When the time is right I'm sure they will go with more A-319/320 and then follow up with a 7e7 order down the road in a year or two.
I wish DL would look at what UAL is doing and consolidate fleet types to about 3 or 4.
DIA From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3273 posts, RR: 25
Reply 9, posted (11 years 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 10868 times:
If you translate the numbers correctly, the headline is just an attention getter by the media.
Truth be told:
"The airline says the changes will result in a 3 percent overall decrease in available passenger seat miles. Officials also say international operations will account for more than 40 percent of the airline's capacity and 50 percent of its revenue." - UNITED
"I'm thinking most of these flights will be replaced by UAX?"
Most of the cut UA mainline flights will be run by United Express carriers.
Ding! You are now free to keep supporting Frontier.
Ltbewr From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13623 posts, RR: 17
Reply 11, posted (11 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 10004 times:
This proposed shift of flights by UA is interesting and hopefully will save them. They cannot really compete vs. the LCC's like WN in many shorter haul domestic markets now served mainline. Shifting to more international flights, they will probably have more f/a's & pilots based outside the USA. This could lower labor costs as those based outside the USA are not part of the labor packages, pension plans, health care insurance needed to be provided USA based crews. By shifting some domestic shorter hauls to regional connected carriers gets them out of a high cost business and lets them concentrate where most majors make their money, long haul international business.
Frugalqxnwa From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 565 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (11 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9890 times:
Instead of gettign rid of the 762s and 735s, could they be getting rid of the 762s and 733s? I have recently seen an A319 on the DEN-BOI route (this summer flying BOI-OMA on NW, A319 was being prepared for flight while I was waiting for my flight). Besides, the A319 and 733 are basically the same size, while the 735 is smaller, so that would make more sense to me.
DCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4595 posts, RR: 32
Reply 13, posted (11 years 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9718 times:
ChrisNH: I wonder the same about Upstate New York. AA ended 50 years of mainline service to BUF/ROC/SYR/ALB a couple of years ago. (I know about the AA seasonal mainline BUF-DFW, but that's not year-round) At the time we A.net Upstaters wondered whether UA would do the same thing. We already see a mixture of UA and UA Express on ORD routes. It would be sad, but not terribly surprising, if UA downgraded us to all Express.
Which would only wave a red flag in WN's face to start BUF-MDW and ALB-MDW.
Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
StevenUhl777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (11 years 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 9211 times:
Why did they cut back their LHR ops and sell their slots if they plan to grow internationally?
Are you referring to EWR and BOS? If so, it's because UA was not a strong player in those two markets, and rather than continue to take heavy losses, they put those two stations slots up for silent bid, and BA was the winner.
I fully expect to see UA continue to operate flights to LHR from SFO/LAX/ORD/IAD/JFK.
AZjetgeek From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 235 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (11 years 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 9075 times:
The moves by UA seem to be headed on the right track, which is a sign that the airline is taking seriously pressure to emerge from bankruptcy in the VERY near future.
I would also suggest, however, that they close one of their two Calif hubs. Is it truly necessary to maintain hubs at SFO and LAX? UA operates international routes out of SFO as well as many of their UAX operations. I would think they could save even more money by closing their LAX hub, but still maintain a presence there.