Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1955 posts, RR: 3 Posted (13 years 9 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1319 times:
Did anyone else notice that UA stopped service to LIM? It's seems that except in Australia, and Asia, London Heathrow and Buenos Aires, and maybe Brazil, UA's international network is very lackluster. Their commercials claim they fly to more places than anyone else in the world. Can they really make this statement?? In most of Europe and Latin America UA is not that strong.
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (13 years 9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 995 times:
United's not really an airline that adds destinations (that's left up to the Star partners), but rather to add new ways to get to those destinations (ie: SFO-PEK, SFO-PVG nonstop). It's kinda sad, really. It would be very nice to see UA operate to the 20-some destinations in Europe that CO does, and open up another Pacific hub, close to the action, where 757/767's could be used for flights (such as GUM).
Now that I'm depressed about UA's route system, I'll go and have some food...
VirginA340 From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 15 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (13 years 9 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 978 times:
United isn't strong internationaly as the Pan AM (god bless it's soul) was. Pan Am would be all over the world. Everywhere you go you would see the famous globe logo with Pan Am written on it's world famous 747's. That era is now long gone but will not be forgotten. The airlines today should thank both Pan Am an TWA for getting their prized international routes. It just saddens me that United no longer flies to India anymore as of March last year.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1955 posts, RR: 3 Reply 4, posted (13 years 9 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 961 times:
CO plans on adding adding more destinations to Europe over the next couple years. I doubt highly that UA will follow their lead in Europe. I doubt UA will also add a hub in GUM. CO already has a stronghold there. That would be like UA adding a hub in IAH. I just said earlier that it seems as if with the exception of the southern cone of South America, UA has given up on Latin America and given it to AA and CO (and DL to a lesser extent). I mean no Lima, Quito, Bogota, Panama City, Managua, or Santa Cruz or La Paz in Bolivia. In Europe no UA to Rome, Dublin, Tel Aviv, Glasgow, Madrid, Lisbon and so on.
Tullamarine From Australia, joined Aug 1999, 1267 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (13 years 9 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 918 times:
Welcome to the new world of alliances.
These days airlines are loath to add new routes except where the financials are outstanding. They prefer to use codeshares or interlining to alliance partners. UA will argue, for better or worse, that their alliance with Varig gives them huge coverage of South America, just as they could argue that TG and SQ give them huge coverage through Asia.
If airlines were run by plane spotters it would be much different, but airlines are run by accountants.
DIA77 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 703 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (13 years 9 months 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 926 times:
I agree with Tullamarine. UA is not going to start flying to Pago Pago or Rabat like the Pan Am of the 1960's. UA focuses on the routes that are going to make it money. There is no glamor in losing money on exotic routes. We all wish HP was still flying their 747's to Nagoya but everything comes down to $$$.
UA744Flagship From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (13 years 9 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 906 times:
You must look at UA's route structure from a financial perspective; after all, it is a PUBLIC company whose priority one is profit and not so much glamour. To this extent, I have seen and heard articles many times that have praised UA for the variety of its route structure. Stock analysts love UA's route system and feels it is the best "all-around" -- just look at its UA hubs (prior to the dubbing of LAX). SFO, DEN, ORD, and IAD are stretagically located at the same latitude and are distanced pretty closely to each other. This advantageous route structure allows UA to offer the most comprehensive connections for most people in the country.. to anywhere.
ORD From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 1372 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (13 years 9 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 889 times:
Although United does not serve as many cities in Europe as other U.S. carriers do, United is a close second to Delta to Europe in terms of revenue passenger miles (which is how airline size is typically measured). Larger than American and larger than Continental.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1955 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (13 years 9 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 863 times:
UA does have a good route structure, definitely not perfect though. If I wanted to fly from New York to Guatemala City, I'd have to go to LAX first (and the LAX-Guatemala City flight used to be an over night flight, don't know now though). Not real convenient. It would be easier on any other carrier. Also about the part where financial consideration is god, there are other considerations as well. I can't imagine how UA would make money on LAX-DFW, LAX-IAH and LAX-ATL flights. Compared to the competition on those routes, UA is a microscopic player. Usually airlines like to big big players in the markets they serve. And even with serving fewer cities in Europe, I doubt they'll hold onto that second place position in Europe that long. Once they go to LHR and FRA from all it's' hubs, what will they do then? For example I've heard CO will add as many as 10 more European cities over the next few years. It just seems as if UA is contented letting their partners do a lot of international flying (except to Asia). If I wanted to go to Aruba, Rome, Cancun, Bogota, Panama City, Quito, Lima, Tel Aviv, Dublin, Glasgow, Moscow, Istanbul, Lisbon or Cairo; UA and its' partners would not be the most convenient way of going.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1955 posts, RR: 3 Reply 13, posted (13 years 9 months 10 hours ago) and read 818 times:
One post above says that CO and COexp will soon go to more cities than UA. The post directly above says it's indisputable that UA goes to more places in the world than any other carrier. Who's right???? UA is strong in the Pacific and in Europe (in terms of RPMs). But aren't they third in Latin America?