Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA Drops Second LHR-LAX For Summer '07  
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9528 times:

UA have announced that they are not going to bring back the 2nd LAX - LHR this year during summer. Last year I flew on it a few times and whilst it was only a 767, it alwayes seemed very busy particularly up front so i am surprised with this decision. My main question is what are they doing with this slot. Are they just going to leave it dormant or add a flight to another hub. I would guess the 955 to SFO will go to a 747 for summer as usuaul but I wonder if they might add extra frequency on this route as its always a good performer. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

76 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBicoastal From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9514 times:

Proof that UA is short of long-haul aircraft and is having to make tough decisions on prioritizing their use.

User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 2, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 9516 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Thread starter):
My main question is what are they doing with this slot.

Probably sell it on for cash to someone as they have done with a fair few of their slots over the last couple of years.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineVSFLYER747400 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9416 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Thread starter):
I would guess the 955 to SFO will go to a 747 for summer as usuaul but I wonder if they might add extra frequency on this route as its always a good performer.

You guess correct, UA955 will be a 744 and will be backed up by the UA931 which will be a 777.



Being on: (in no order) VS BA AA EK CX MH DL EI BD KL HV NW RC LH AF DA TG QF US FR LX AC SK AZ PG SQ UA PA
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 9270 times:

Quoting Cornish (Reply 2):
Probably sell it on for cash to someone as they have done with a fair few of their slots over the last couple of years.

They sold the Newark slot, not sure they have sold any more, just leased them in the last couple of years.

Quoting Bicoastal (Reply 1):
Proof that UA is short of long-haul aircraft and is having to make tough decisions on prioritizing their use.

With the massive debt payment they have just made, I just wish now they would go ahead and order/lease some new metal so they could avoid this situation.


User currently offlineCornish From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 8187 posts, RR: 54
Reply 5, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9228 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 4):
They sold the Newark slot, not sure they have sold any more, just leased them in the last couple of years.

As part of a major study i worked on last year, we identified that United was one of the largest shedder of slots over the last few years at LHR.



Just when I thought I could see light at the end of the tunnel, it was some B*****d with a torch bringing me more work
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25532 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9217 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 4):
With the massive debt payment they have just made, I just wish now they would go ahead and order/lease some new metal so they could avoid this situation.

Who is to say the debt payment was not to relieve the company of some restrictive covenants as to its ability to manage its other cash and debt?



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7642 posts, RR: 25
Reply 7, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9156 times:

This really doesnt surprise me at all. LAX seems to be UA's stepchild. The other hubs are shown much more preference over LAX. Who knows why? Probabaly competition. At least I highly doubt UA would ever cancel the year round nonstop to LHR (UA 934/935).


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineAlgoz From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 130 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9129 times:

Quoting UAL777UK (Thread starter):
Last year I flew on it a few times and whilst it was only a 767, it alwayes seemed very busy particularly up front so i am surprised with this decision.

United realises it cannot compete, with its present product, in many markets ex LHR, with such strong competition as VS and BA. The business class product in particular is inferior. The 2nd LAX flight used 767, not ideal for 11.5hr flight. The F and C class product on the 767 is in itself inferior to the 777, which in turn is inferior to VS and BA. Yield on LAX route is very poor. UA wanted instead to put 747 on 935 LHR/LAX but any spare 747 is now slated for IAD/Beijing.........767 from LHR/LAX will be used IAD/FCO new route from October....


User currently offlineGemini573 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9083 times:

UA could codeshare with NZ on this route. This route is quite competitive with AA, BA, VS, NZ.

Interesting how UA is trimming flights at LHR and NRT.


User currently offlineFL370 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8977 times:

all i need to say, UA NEEDS TO BUY SOME MORE PLANES!! say 773ER, 748, and maybe a couple of 787's



fl370


User currently offlineSunriseValley From Canada, joined Jul 2004, 5016 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 8832 times:

Quoting Gemini573 (Reply 9):
UA could codeshare with NZ on this route.

Does this tie in with NZ bringing the -400 back on the LAX-LHR route for the 3 June to 26 Oct period?


User currently offlineAlbird87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 8724 times:

hmmm it seems that UA have been for the past couple of years have got a smaller aircraft into LHR and also seem to be selling there slots (like there JFK routes to DL)
I remember the days when UA only had 744s into LHR with 777s. Now it seems that its a lot more 777s and 767s now.
Any reason why there losing business into an airport when there one of two American airlines that can fly into LHR????


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8584 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 12):
hmmm it seems that UA have been for the past couple of years have got a smaller aircraft into LHR and also seem to be selling there slots (like there JFK routes to DL)
I remember the days when UA only had 744s into LHR with 777s. Now it seems that its a lot more 777s and 767s now.
Any reason why there losing business into an airport when there one of two American airlines that can fly into LHR????

While I'm happy to see UA777's into LHR.. bigthumbsup 


MyAviation.net photo:
Click here for bigger photo!
Photo © Jacobin777



its sad to see UA cutting flights to LHR from various locations.. Sad

Quoting Algoz (Reply 8):
United realises it cannot compete, with its present product, in many markets ex LHR, with such strong competition as VS and BA. The business class product in particular is inferior. The 2nd LAX flight used 767, not ideal for 11.5hr flight. The F and C class product on the 767 is in itself inferior to the 777, which in turn is inferior to VS and BA. Yield on LAX route is very poor. UA wanted instead to put 747 on 935 LHR/LAX but any spare 747 is now slated for IAD/Beijing.........767 from LHR/LAX will be used IAD/FCO new route from October....

Dont forget, UA also competes with a daily AA flight as well as a 2x/daily flight during the summers..those planes are jammed packed!



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8555 times:

Quoting Algoz (Reply 8):
United realises it cannot compete, with its present product, in many markets ex LHR, with such strong competition as VS and BA. The business class product in particular is inferior. The 2nd LAX flight used 767, not ideal for 11.5hr flight. The F and C class product on the 767 is in itself inferior to the 777, which in turn is inferior to VS and BA. Yield on LAX route is very poor. UA wanted instead to put 747 on 935 LHR/LAX but any spare 747 is now slated for IAD/Beijing.........767 from LHR/LAX will be used IAD/FCO new route from October....

Unfortunately I think your correct, I wonder with the new upgrades that will start being installed in F & J beginning in the last quarter of 2007, will see UA become more competitive and see the flight or evevn flights come back in 2008........assuming they have the metal of course!!


User currently offlineJammin From India, joined Nov 2006, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8533 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 12):
Any reason why there losing business into an airport when there one of two American airlines that can fly into LHR????

I dont think it's so much that they're not making profit (or that yields are low) on that route and more to do with what Bicoastal mentioned above - that they probably need their long haul planes on other routes that they feel are more profitable (like Asia, maybe).

One might think that getting out of the LAX-LHR market is not good for market share, but route planners have probably been told to shuffle around flights to generate the most profit. I know, it's sad that they're out of the JFK-LHR market as well... what to do...



Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery. None but ourselves can free our mind.
User currently offlineAerofan From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 1517 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8501 times:

just goes to show that flying to LHR is not the panacea that some people seem to think that it is!

User currently offlineCommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11711 posts, RR: 62
Reply 17, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8496 times:

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 16):
just goes to show that flying to LHR is not the panacea that some people seem to think that it is!

Well, not for United anyway. AA, by contrast, will continue to operate its double-daily 777 service LAX-LHR this summer, along with 14 other flights between the U.S. and Heathrow and another three daily flights from the U.S. to Gatwick.


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8464 times:

Quoting Commavia (Reply 17):
Well, not for United anyway. AA, by contrast, will continue to operate its double-daily 777 service LAX-LHR this summer, along with 14 other flights between the U.S. and Heathrow and another three daily flights from the U.S. to Gatwick.

Yep, UA will only have 10 with a 747 thrown into that mix so still a decent lift to LHR but I wish it was more!


User currently offlineMutu From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2006, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 8070 times:

Quoting Aerofan (Reply 16):
just goes to show that flying to LHR is not the panacea that some people seem to think that it is!

That is such a good point. A lot of people seem to think Bermuda II limits competition and pushes up fares. Whereas from a consumers perspective there is more than enough choice and price competition fierce particularly at low season. PLus of course there are numerous other London airports which in the main have many advantages over LHR in the new world of increased security (and queues). And increasingly people living in the UK regions prefer to connect to AMS or CDG rather than LHR.

But UA's decision does raise a simple question; Surely if one US or UK carrier does not want to use slots on Bermuda II routes, they should be handed over to an alternative US or UK carrier rather than being able to be sold. It is the abandonment of slots that aggrevates the whole debate about BII. VS and BA are being handed market share not by the restrictions of the agreement but by UA commercial policy.


User currently offlineGemini573 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7935 times:

Quoting SunriseValley (Reply 11):
Does this tie in with NZ bringing the -400 back on the LAX-LHR route for the 3 June to 26 Oct period?

It's probably just for the peak season, as the current 744 by NZ is used on the HKG-LHR run. Why anyone from NZ would want to transit at LAX to go to LHR seems strange to me, now that they have the option to do it in HKG. It's a much nicer airport and they don't treat every passenger like a potiential terrorist.


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 21, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7923 times:

Quoting Mutu (Reply 19):
But UA's decision does raise a simple question; Surely if one US or UK carrier does not want to use slots on Bermuda II routes, they should be handed over to an alternative US or UK carrier rather than being able to be sold. It is the abandonment of slots that aggrevates the whole debate about BII. VS and BA are being handed market share not by the restrictions of the agreement but by UA commercial policy.

A valid point but UA are not selling all the slots, most are leased as seems to be common practice at LHR. UA IMHO opinion is leasing them so that they can use them when the time is right, i.e when open skies are here.......well at LHR!!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7866 times:

Quoting Albird87 (Reply 12):
and also seem to be selling there slots (like there JFK routes to DL)

.......what JFK routes did UA sell to DL?


User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7836 times:

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 22):
what JFK routes did UA sell to DL?

They sold the JFK-LON authority...its important to remember that it was not the slot at LHR sold.


User currently offlineKiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8572 posts, RR: 13
Reply 24, posted (7 years 7 months 4 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 7837 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ConcordeBoy (Reply 22):
.......what JFK routes did UA sell to DL?

they sold their JFK - LON route , but while UA could operate it to LHR DL can , of course , under Bermuda II only operate the route into LGW



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
25 FXramper : A little birdie told me AA might try a 3rd flight from LAX this summer. Loads were 94%+ last season for #136 and #134.
26 LAXdude1023 : Out of curiosity does anyone know what kind of loads UA have for 934/935 (LAX-LHR)?
27 Post contains images Gilesdavies : If BMI could have the opportunity, I am sure they would be happy to fly their metal on the LHR-LAX route in a code share agreement with United, under
28 UAL777UK : Its only one flight a day of course but the loads are very high, pretty much consistantly!
29 LAXdude1023 : Thats good to hear. I like the idea of UA at least maintaining the international flights it has from LAX (NRT, SYD, LHR especially). I cant imagine t
30 WA707atMSP : Where would AA get the aircraft from, given their oft-discussed widebody shortage?
31 Gemini573 : Well, you never know in this business. Who would of thought they'd sell JFK-LHR? Who would of thought AA would give up a slot at NRT, by discontinuin
32 Laxintl : While full 2006 DOT data is not yet available, 2005 numbers show annual load factor for the route was 83%, while 2006 is shapping up to be about the
33 BOAC911 : UA does not have a strong partner at LHR to offer onward connections to Mainland Europe and farther. BMI is present at LHR but not as big as British A
34 LAXdude1023 : I have to admit I didnt see UA stopping NRT-HKG, but the others you mention I saw coming. UA is weak in NYC and was relying on O&D for the flight to
35 Ikramerica : I believe that because UA is protected by a treaty, they should be REQUIRED to maintain their presence at LHR or forfeit their right to fly there to
36 Gemini573 : As far as NRT, once an airlines gives up the slot, can they use the slot for a different routing? For example, AA SJC-NRT. Obviously, that has been d
37 FlyDreamliner : IF there is a US carrier that is not in a shortage of widebodies, it's AA. They are flying their widebodies domestically all over the place, they are
38 Tgocean : Any thoughts on why UA abandoned LAX-HKG? CX does 3x each day with 744s. There's clearly a market there.
39 Daron4000 : UA can do what they want with their LHR routes because they paid for them from Pan Am, they weren't given to them as your post suggests. If, for exam
40 UnitedNRT : United has 224 weekly slots at Narita and does not have to give them up.
41 LAXdude1023 : I dont think they could compete. CX has better service and AA feed. It would be my DREAM to have UA serve LAX-HKG again. Thats the only route they ar
42 Planetime : Who do they sell it to mostly?
43 UnitedNRT : Seem to be mostly leased to Air Canada and Lufthansa.
44 Cba : Let CO and DL fly EWR-LHR and JFK-LHR respectively, and you'll see them fill those planes and make money. CO fills 2 dailies to LGW, and could do tha
45 Luvflng : What are you talking about? C class product in 777 and 747 is exactly the same as 767. The only difference is the F class that offers suites in 747 a
46 TinkerBelle : I thought they're using a 777 (non ER) for the IAD-FCO route!
47 Xpfg : Tinker .... The new FCO route is a 777.... not sure where the plane came from...
48 IPFreely : As I recall, UA used to fly to LHR from BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, ORD, SEA, SFO, and LAX a few years ago. I believe the BOS, EWR, and SEA routes are all go
49 UA772IAD : To free up a 744 for the new IAD-PEK service beginning this spring. FCO will get a 777, though I could see UA downgrading to a 763 in the winter. 777
50 UAL777UK : ]# Not exactly, LAX-HKG was ditched years ago, well before IAD-PEK was on the horizon!
51 Sydscott : Actually I'd like to see them try a SFO-BNE-MEL routing. That would open a new route to BNE in competition with QF's service to LAX, link them up wit
52 Post contains images Jacobin777 : What makes you so sure they can? Neither CO nor DL have strong alliances at LHR either....
53 Algoz : Business class product is different - seat width is narrower in 767. Not by much, but it's there. Also, the cabin is narrower and not divided like th
54 BA1985 : Does anyone know who bought UA's slots ex heathrow?
55 Cba : Neither have strong alliances, and they fill those planes pretty well right now to LGW. Both have hubs at EWR and JFK respectively, and thus can prov
56 Post contains images Jacobin777 : Doesn't really mean anything....LHR isn't the "be-all-end-all" of airports.....CO/DL flights are basically O&D flights.....if a pax from London needs
57 ZRH : I am not sure if you can leave a slot dormant at such a busy airport. If think you have either to use it or give it away. There was always a rumour t
58 Cornish : I'd have to check up on the slot movement lists to see what went where exactly, but I'm almost certain that Jet Airways bought slots of UA to increas
59 TinkerBelle : Wait, I've heard before the only US carriers that can fly to LHR are AA and UA. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think I've seen US metal at LHR.
60 UAL777UK : You certainly can leave it dormant, the question is for how long.maybe its a year but somebody will no doubt clarify. I thouoght those slots were lea
61 Post contains images TinkerBelle : My bad, come to think of it, it was FRA.
62 L1011Lover : Who knows, might have been a charter or a diversion. Definitely no scheduled USAirways flights into LHR!
63 Cornish : More relevantly there is no point leaving it dormant at such a constrained airport when you can easily lease it out. Even the likes of BA and Virgin
64 Cba : It's not connections through LHR/LGW, it's connections at EWR. CO has an entire domestic hub/spoke system in EWR, thus they rely not solely on o&d to
65 WA707atMSP : As I've said in other postings, CO and DL (or, for that matter, US, NW, or any other US carrier with the $$$) could have purchased the LHR routes / s
66 Jacobin777 : It doesn't necessarily mean there is a lot of connecting traffic......it could be there is a "strong O&D CO pax base" in the NYC region...... DL's B7
67 United777atGU : Exactly. I doubt a 777 is going to fill up to FCO on off-season when there's no huge star player there... Funny you mention that because I always won
68 ORDflier : Interesting that American's vaunted position in LHR requires it now to offer "Complimentary" upgrades to First Class for those customers traveling on
69 LAXdude1023 : It makes sense to me. UA has very little service (comparatively) in the NYC area and no international service. They relied on O&D to fill the plane.
70 UA772IAD : Sorry, I misread it. I thought he was referring to the NRT-HKG that will be cut this spring.
71 UA772IAD : It has to do with European and Worlwide connections offered by LH. MUC does not offer as many options, and I believe that LH operates lower cost flig
72 Post contains images Jacobin777 : ...its lowest travel season during this period..try that from April 1st to September 1st....
73 United777atGU : Yea, thanks for the comments. So, I wish we could dominate the LAX market. It's such a fake hub. I'd rather have more of the pie. (I'm greedy...yum-y
74 LAXdude1023 : Believe me I would love to see UA get more from LAX. I dont think they want anymore though.
75 UAL777UK : Sadly, I think your right, LAX is very secondary to SFO.
76 LAXdude1023 : They dont have to deal with much competition at SFO. LAX is a haven for foreign flag carriers. SFO has a quite a few, but not nearly as many as LAX.
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...
40 MIN Enough At LAX For AA-UA. posted Fri Dec 8 2006 05:44:05 by Boston92
AZ Brings Back Second JFK-FCO For The Summer. posted Sun Dec 3 2006 20:13:07 by Nycfly75
UA P.S. Drops A JFK-LAX And Adds A JFK-SFO posted Fri Jul 28 2006 06:12:15 by Swank300
US Air Drops New York Bermuda For The Summer posted Sun Mar 5 2006 00:00:14 by Columbia107
Has LAX Overtaken LHR/JFK For Int'l Passengers? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 14:15:14 by Juventus
Cancelled LHR-JFK 957 Restart It For Summer? posted Fri Sep 2 2005 23:26:06 by Unitedgirlie
Info On BA6565 LHR-HBE For 07/10/04 posted Wed Oct 6 2004 19:30:20 by Horus
AA Second Trip LAX-LHR...slots From Where? posted Tue Feb 17 2004 18:27:19 by MaverickM11
UA Drops Plans For US Acquistion posted Mon Jul 2 2001 04:48:26 by Nralife
Your Choice Of Aircraft For LHR-LAX posted Fri Jun 1 2001 06:23:00 by Jm-airbus320
BA Delays Second Daily A380 LHR-LAX By A Month posted Tue Nov 12 2013 06:46:52 by g500
AF Drops LHR-LAX, Starts LHR-JFK posted Wed Oct 8 2008 08:40:51 by Pilot21
Looking For Reg. Of A UA B777 On LHR IAD 26/12/95 posted Wed Aug 13 2008 18:27:17 by SWISSER
UA Drops ORD-GEG/SJC, DEN-CLT, LAX-AUS/OAK,SFO-ATL posted Fri Jul 18 2008 08:57:08 by LAXintl