Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Operating Like Virgin  
User currently offlineWdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 3
Posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5660 times:

Ok, so I definantly feel like I am missing out. Everyone else is starting UAL post, so now I finally feel its my turn to start one.


So United is making money on their long hauls but losing on their domestics. What would happen if they just took a Virgin standpoint and only flew long haul. That could mean Transcon/Atlantic/Pacific. I mean, couldn't they just let US (or soon to be US/HP) take the domestic routes? Why not just keep their big flights such as the ones from IAD-ORD-DEN-SFO-JFK-LAX and give the rest away? Have flights from San Fran, LA, ORD, IAD, JFK, Boston, all to their international spots. That way, they could upgrade their lounges to standards of the Asian carriers.(see that... i am incorporating other UAL topics into mine  Wink ).

Basically what I am saying is. Would/Could UAL be better off flying only long haul international flights and maybe the Cali - NY and/or Cali Boston routes and no longer fly domestic?

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11974 posts, RR: 62
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5654 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Thread starter):
So United is making money on their long hauls but losing on their domestics. What would happen if they just took a Virgin standpoint and only flew long haul. That could mean Transcon/Atlantic/Pacific. I mean, couldn't they just let US (or soon to be US/HP) take the domestic routes?

This was already tried once. The airline was Pan Am. We saw how that turned out.

Seriously, though, UA's international routes would collapse it they were not able to offer online connections to internal domestic US points. Pan Am was falling behind in the 1970s because they had no domestic feed at a time when airline interlining was extremely common. Today, in an age when the vast majority of travelers never change airlines when connecting, not offering same-airline service to major business and leisure markets like STL, DFW, PHX, DTW, MSP, EWR, RDU, ATL, SAN, SLC, etc. would be disastrous.


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9210 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5624 times:

Panam operated mainly international flights but it failed.

The problem is: UA's international network relies heavily on its domestic network.


User currently offlineWdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 5592 times:

But Pan Am failed after it got domestic routes. They screwed with the schedules of the domestic flights to much having them based on when the INTL flights arrived and departed.
That is why I am thinking about why not have US and HP and Ted ferry the people in, and UAL ferry the people out of the country. I mean virgin flies only Long Haul, they make money and have a sense of humor.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11974 posts, RR: 62
Reply 4, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5519 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Reply 3):
But Pan Am failed after it got domestic routes. They screwed with the schedules of the domestic flights to much having them based on when the INTL flights arrived and departed.

Pan Am failed because they were so desperately starved for the domestic routes that by the time they got them, through a convoluted acquisition of National Airlines that brought in a non-standard fleet, operations and corporate culture, they were doomed. I feel quite confident in saying that if PA had domestic feed from its inception, it would still exist today.


User currently offlineAa777jr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 5495 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Thread starter):
Ok, so I definantly feel like I am missing out. Everyone else is starting UAL post, so now I finally feel its my turn to start one.

Do a search, there was a post on here a few months ago making comparisons to UA being run like a PA or TW (early). Alot of good points were made why this wouldn't work for UA.

Regards.


User currently offlineFA4UA From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 812 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5374 times:

Market research shows consumers want one airline that can take them everywhere so that they can earn and redeem miles as well as have recognition as a premium passenger.

We are still too large of a presence in North America just to cut domestic capacity. In the next couple of years it's been said that UA's revenue will be 50% drawn from domestic services alone. Way too much to be severed.

I totally see your logic however and I've often thought of that. There are still markets in the US that do make us a little money. Additionally our domestic route network offers feed of not only passengers but cargo which is quite lucrative.

FA4UA



The debate continues... Starwood or Hyatt... which is better
User currently offlineLTBEWR From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 13200 posts, RR: 15
Reply 7, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 5331 times:

How about UA transferring shorter (2 hours or less) domestic USA flights from mainline to their United Express or code share partners, especially for connecting flight to their major hubs and destinations?
UA would keep mainline the longer flights like between major US domestic hubs/destinations (HON, LAX, SFO, ORD, DEN, SEA, IAD/DCA, BOS, JFK/EWR/LGA and others), especially where have significant International service. Maybe the partners could have some smaller a/c's transferred to them (smaller 737's mainly), UA could take advantage of lower labor costs (especially of pilot's compensation) and related ops costs.
UA would keep the widebodies and larger narrowbodies (757's, A-320's, 737's) for the longer domestic flights kept mainline
I also realize that many people may be furoughed or transferred in such a proposal, but by 'rightsizing' in such a way, it may save UA.


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11974 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5276 times:

Quoting LTBEWR (Reply 7):
How about UA transferring shorter (2 hours or less) domestic USA flights from mainline to their United Express or code share partners, especially for connecting flight to their major hubs and destinations?

You will probably find many UA FFs and laid off UA FAs and rampers, along with newly hired Mesa and Chataqua FAs and pilots, who would argue that UA has already done (or is in the process of doing) that.


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 9, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 5233 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Reply 3):
But Pan Am failed after it got domestic routes. They screwed with the schedules of the domestic flights to much having them based on when the INTL flights arrived and departed.
That is why I am thinking about why not have US and HP and Ted ferry the people in, and UAL ferry the people out of the country. I mean virgin flies only Long Haul, they make money and have a sense of humor.

Virgin Atlantic flies long-haul out of the greater London area, where most of the UK population lives, and Manchester, the next largest O&D market where they seem to focus either on the leisure market to sunny destinations or feeding passengers to SQ at Singapore. They don't fly Manchester-London to provide a way for the people of Manchester to fly to the greater number of destinations that they offer from LHR and LGW. They don't have to worry about bringing people to their international flights, because they have a huge O&D market to serve. Others (including other modes of transportation) can take care of the dirty work of bringing passengers to LHR and LGW.

That said there is an advantage for combining domestic ops and trying to rationalize route networks. It also be a pity if UA collapsed due to its domestic operations and lost its rights at LHR and NRT, which may not be transferable to anyone else.

[Edited 2005-05-15 02:16:10]


ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineFlyLondon From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 377 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 5139 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 9):
the greater London area, where most of the UK population lives

Oh really. Do they?


User currently offlineAtmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 37
Reply 11, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4903 times:

Quoting FlyLondon (Reply 10):
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 9):
the greater London area, where most of the UK population lives

Oh really. Do they?

By greater London I didn't mean Greater London, I meant within a reasonable distance to London. Looking at the population data and a map of the UK, it seems over 20 million people live within 60 miles of Greater London, and within 100 miles of London there are 29 million people, which is a tad shy of half of the population of the UK, and well over half the population of England. I've driven greater distances to get to airports here in the US, even when I have a local airport to catch a connecting flight from.



ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
User currently offlineUAcsOKC From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 107 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 4514 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Reply 3):
That is why I am thinking about why not have US and HP and Ted ferry the people in,

Hmm, there may be more truth in that than you realize. Why do you think Ted and UAX are expanding?(and getting rid of 50 seat RJ's)



I love the rumble of a 727 takeoff in the morning!
User currently offlineBman351 From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 33 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 3431 times:

It seems to me that Air Canada is taking the 'all international' route road. They have been focusing more on international routes, than domestic.

Some interesting events that Air Canada has done in the past few months:

1. Announcement of the renewal of their international fleet.
2. More and more international flights (more to Latin America, etc.)
3. New RJ's for Jazz

I think what ACs plan is to let Jazz do all of it's domestics with the bigger RJ's they're getting. Which actually makes sense since they are so cheap to run with lower load factors, and they can increase frequency where they need to.

Now, I'm not talking about a total demense of AC in the domestic area, but on routes that have lower load factors this makes sense. Air Canada has already announced that they are stopping service to Saskatchewan with Jazz taking over now offering direct service to Vancouver with two flights a day and direct service to Toronto four times a day. Jazz is offerening Business Class service now on all their new RJ's with PTV's and leather seats.

This is just my two cents, I have no idea if this is what their plan is, but it makes sense, and it seems to be working for them.


User currently offlineUAMAYBACH1239 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 221 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2534 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Thread starter):
couldn't they just let US (or soon to be US/HP) take the domestic routes? Why not just keep their big flights such as the ones from IAD-ORD-DEN-SFO-JFK-LAX and give the rest away? Have flights from San Fran, LA, ORD, IAD,

I think if you wait another year, UA, US, and HP, will answer your question.

It makes the STAR Alliance worth that much more.
 Cool



a/c flown 737-222/322/522 757/747-1-2-4, 767-2-3, 777-2-3, A319-20, DC10-10-30, L1011-3-5, 727-222adv, MD85-90 flyourfri
User currently offlineWdleiser From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 962 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2317 times:

I still think that with the star alliance, US Air should operate all the domestics, and be able to shuttle everyone into the UAL intl flights. Have 2 different companies, but passengers would hardly ever have to know besides the name difference. US and UA could use the same terminals and baggage, share everything. What if so to say, US Air dropped all of its current routes, and then took over most of UAL's domestic routes? That would be like US going out of business almost, yet they wouldnt actually be though.

Only problem would be .... someone will be losing a job.


User currently offlineSonOfACaptain From United States of America, joined May 2004, 1747 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1830 times:

Quoting UAMAYBACH1239 (Reply 14):
I think if you wait another year, UA, US, and HP, will answer your question.

It makes the STAR Alliance worth that much more.

My thoughts exactly. This is why I think UA isn't making a big deal of the proposed HP/UA merger. I also think there is a chance, though small, that UA will merge with HP/US in a few years.

-SOAC



Non Illegitimi Carborundum
User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1589 times:

The AC rumour in HP/US deal is that HP/US would be focusing on domestic flights and AC would assist financially in the deal in order to have their codeshares applied to all AC flights in and out of YVR and YYZ to the USA, Asia, and Europe. I find it strange that a rumour hit the press like that one while no rumours in the press that I have heard of dealt with UA being involved in the HP/US talks. This rumour makes a lot of sense because the benefits to AC in working out a deal with HP/US which doesn't have a strong international network are far greater than a possible UA to HP/US deal where UA already has a strong domestic operation or a possible AC to UA deal where both have competing international routes. The synergies in a US (strong east presence), HP (strong west presence) and AC (strong international presence) deal are far greater than any UA deal with anyone because UA already has everything in terms of presence and routes. All UA needs is money or some of its competitors to get lost.

User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1527 times:

Quoting Wdleiser (Thread starter):
What would happen if they just took a Virgin standpoint and only flew long haul. That could mean Transcon/Atlantic/Pacific

You are comparing United Airlines to Virgin Atlantic?

Quoting Commavia (Reply 1):
UA's international routes would collapse it they were not able to offer online connections to internal domestic US points

Not True!

JFK-LHR, JFK-NRT. Have little or no domestic feed at all!
SEA-NRT. Performs well O/D alone!
SFO-LHR, SFO-CDG, SFO-HKG. Performs well O/D alone!
LAX-LHR, LAX-MEX, LAX-SYD, LAX-LHR. Performs well O/D alone!
HNL-NRT, HNL-KIX. Have NO domestic feed at all!

Quoting United Airline (Reply 2):
Panam operated mainly international flights but it failed

Correction. Pan Am, failed when it bit off more than it could chew with the purchase of National Airlines.

Quoting FA4UA (Reply 6):
Way too much to be severed

Severed??? Ha Ha

Seriously, United Airlines has been loosing buckets of money in many markets, where United Airlines previously has performed well. United Airlines, can do nothing, but re-duce, re-organize, and re-form!

Quoting FA4UA (Reply 6):
There are still markets in the US that do make us a little money

Key Word: Little



Regards - Kahala777

[Edited 2005-05-16 00:53:13]

User currently offlineFriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4120 posts, RR: 5
Reply 19, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1506 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 18):
HNL-NRT, HNL-KIX. Have NO domestic feed at all!

You're kidding, right?

UA1 ORD-HNL 772
UA43 DEN-HNL 763
UA59 SFO-HNL 763
UA61 SFO-HNL 763
UA63 SFO-HNL 763
UA65 SFO-HNL 752
UA53 LAX-HNL 763
UA55 LAX-HNL 752
UA57 LAX-HNL 763
UA935 LAX-HNL 763

In case you forgot, Hawaii is part of the United States.  Wink

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 18):
Correction. Pan Am, failed when it bit off more than it could chew with the purchase of National Airlines.

Correction: Pan Am failed when they bought National because they needed domestic feed.

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 18):
JFK-LHR, JFK-NRT. Have little or no domestic feed at all!
SFO-HKG. Preforms very well O/D alone!
LAX-LHR, LAX-LHR. Performd well O/D alone!
HNL-NRT, HNL-KIX. Have NO domestic feed at all!

Do you have any idea how many int'l routes UA has? Many of them would collapse without any feed.

It's obvious you hate UA, and I don't really care. But don't try to write off these exaggerated or specific examples as "truth" when they are no more truthful than what some UA supporters say.


User currently offlineEnviroTO From Canada, joined Aug 2004, 829 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1490 times:

Feeding Hawaii to Japan flights from the continental US is definitely the long route to Japan.

User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1489 times:

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 19):
In case you forgot, Hawaii is part of the United States

Both Tokyo, and the Osaka flight leave before the first United Airlines flight arrives from the mainland!  yes 

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 19):
Many of them would collapse without any feed

Like what one?

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 19):
Pan Am failed when they bought National because they needed domestic feed

Correction: Pan Am needed additional Trans-Con feed. National Airlines, offered Pan Am a wealth of routes to and from South Florida. Pan Am, at the time needed to grab National Airlines, as it was their number one enemy on the Florida market! You seem to have also forgotten the fact that most of National Airlines network, outside of the Florida routes were dismantled soon after the purchase! If you recall Houston!

Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 19):
Hawaii is part of the United States

You should check your United Airlines schedules before you post. You did not seem to research United Airlines schedules when you mentioned that UA has feed in HNL for NRT/KIX from ORD/DEN/SFO/LAX!


Regards - Kahala777


User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1509 times:

Quoting EnviroTO (Reply 20):
Feeding Hawaii to Japan flights from the continental US is definitely the long route to Japan

United Airlines flight from Honolulu to Sydney, and Osaka originally commenced in San Francisco. Now there is NO connecting traffic available on United Airlines for passengers to arrive in Honolulu in time to connect to service to Tokyo and Osaka!


Regards - Kahala777


User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11974 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1467 times:

Quoting Kahala777 (Reply 22):
United Airlines flight from Honolulu to Sydney, and Osaka originally commenced in San Francisco. Now there is NO connecting traffic available on United Airlines for passengers to arrive in Honolulu in time to connect to service to Tokyo and Osaka!

There's a reason: who the hell would want to fly on it?

Why would anybody want to fly from SFO to HNL to connect to NRT or KIX when they can enjoy daily, nonstop service (twice) to NRT and to KIX with big, spacious 747s and 777s?

HNL-NRT/KIX is flown because it is a high-volume, high-density, relatively high-yielding (for vacation markets) route for thousands of Japanese people each day. It satisfies UA corporate customers and FFs in Japan, and picks up some relatively high-yielding O&D between Japan and the #1 tourist destination for Japanese people.

Why would any airline ever time mainland flights to connect with Hawaii-Japan flights?


User currently offlineKahala777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (9 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1453 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 23):
Why would any airline ever time mainland flights to connect with Hawaii-Japan flights?

Was that a back up for Friendly Skies, and their misinformation?

The only airlines that currently, and actively connecting traffic through Honolulu are Continental Airlines/Micronesia, Aloha Airlines, and Hawaiian Airlines.


Regards - Kahala777


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...
United Airlines Joins Virgin Blue posted Wed Jun 5 2002 02:31:44 by Wirraway
Falcon Air Operating As Virgin Express? posted Sun Dec 16 2001 16:56:52 by MAH4546
Bars On Large A/C, (like Virgin) posted Fri Oct 26 2001 01:26:10 by Mirrodie
Virgin, United Airlines In Heathrow Deal posted Tue Nov 8 2005 03:56:46 by FA4UA
EX United DC-10 Operating As FedEx posted Thu Nov 25 2004 11:57:13 by Flyer737sw
Virgin Urinals To Be Shaped Like Female Mouthes posted Thu Mar 18 2004 20:38:17 by ConcordeBoy
Virgin Blue & United Codeshare Begins Today posted Sun Oct 27 2002 03:23:57 by VirginFlyer
Virgin Blue-United Deal: A Mistake For Dj? posted Mon Oct 21 2002 15:31:28 by Capt.Picard
Virgin Operating To Athens? posted Tue Jun 18 2002 01:31:19 by Rai
Virgin And United posted Wed Jun 5 2002 05:25:02 by Flyingbronco05