AAL0616 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 264 posts, RR: 4 Posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 3392 times:
If this subject has been updated previously, forgive me, but I see that United has now loaded schedules in their system that do indeed confirm the January discussion about their further downsizing at MIA.
On April 24, new E-170 service replaces A-320 service IAD-MIA with two flights at 12:32 p.m. and 5:10 p.m. The return MIA-IAD flights are 9:00 a.m. and 1:40 p.m. That same day, new E-170 service replaces A-320 service ORD-MIA with two flights at 9:00 a.m. and 1:04 p.m. The return MIA-ORD flights are at 6:30 a.m. and 3:44 p.m.
The two DEN-MIA flights remain A-320s.
Whatever they name them or who flies them, there are six frequencies, four now downsized but at least to E-170s and not smaller RJs.
May the former United Miami mini-base and Latin HQ, let alone ancestors Pan Am and National, rest in peace.
70 years ago Pan Am started service south with original foreign air mail certificates that United holds dormant, such as FAM #1, Miami-Key West-La Habana.
So, in the end, why exactly did United purchase the Pan Am-National Miami hub, if it never meant to operate it, which it never fully did, and now has most completely abandoned? Perhaps Delta was wise to only take the Atlantic Division and Kennedy, however, both the Pacific and Latin American Divisions of Pan Am were the consistently profitable parts of the company for decades, and both ended up with United. It may be that American was so established or committed to Miami following the purchase of the Eastern-Braniff-Panagra Americas business that United was doomed from the start. Probably, it was a combination of (a.) American's head start, (b.) the metrics of whether two fully operational hubs could work side by side in Miami like they do at Chicago, and (c.) United's own financial predicaments and subsequent bankruptcy necessities.
We could see them having difficulties early on by replacing Pan Am's 727s around the Caribbean and Central American stations with far fewer 737 flights, such as two a day to San Juan or Mexico City, and one to San Jose, and withdrawing completely from most other stations. They did keep a 757 on Caracas for a while, actually expanded to Lima, kept 767s into SCL, GIG and, of course, transitioned EZE and GRU to 777s from the older 747-200s and SPs before downsizing back to 767s. However, you could see that the scale and commitment necessary to compete effectively was never there. That said, it seems that MIA would be better off with the competition and one wonders if possibly the market could have supported a competitive setup. Now we will never know. At least until my retirement in the next decade, we can expect to see AAL flying by itself as the US carrier from MIA south to anywhere and everywhere.
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21245 posts, RR: 19 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3124 times:
Quoting AAL0616 (Thread starter): However, you could see that the scale and commitment necessary to compete effectively was never there.
UA failed because it lacked the other half of the hub: the northbound part. MIA's O&D to points south is almost universally top-notch, but especially with AA entrenched in the market, UA would have needed to sell a lot of connections to build a hub long-term. With 5 hubs already, I don't think they could have done it. The question then becomes whether UA should have grown MIA at the expense of DEN or LAX (IMHO the two most vulnerable hubs). Unfortunately, it's hard to argue that.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
AAL0616 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 264 posts, RR: 4 Reply 4, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3084 times:
Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 2): The question then becomes whether UA should have grown MIA at the expense of DEN or LAX (IMHO the two most vulnerable hubs).
Precisely, and well put. Also, in the end, the requirements of the court and creditors probably made it a mute point. Overall, while can be depressing or puzzling for an aviation enthusiast to see UAL withdraw entirely from MIA, or for that matter JFK-LHR, JFK-NRT and NRT-HKG, all former "crown jewel" Pan Am routes, their streamlining of the Pacific and London authorities around SFO, ORD and IAD are plain common sense. I think that even if none of the other pressures had happened, it is quite logical that UAL would have had to decide where to draw resources from to profitably and efficiently operate a small hub at MIA, which would fly more to the north than simply ORD, IAD and DEN, or the bare minimum additional feeders to SFO, LAX, DCA, LGA, EWR, MCO and ATL which they had settled into until 2004.
Now, with Star Alliance further vanishing at MIA and points south with the demise or VRG, and the new terminal J being refocused for opening this summer, hopefully, with others moving into it, it appears that it will be some time or work for UAL to justify MIA as even a connecting point to partners such as TAI, CAY or BWA. By the way, the migration of folks out of F to allow AAL to get out of A for the A shutdown is another complete ongoing saga right now.
It does seem reasonable, however, that MIA can and should continue to support larger than E-170 airframes from ORD and IAD, and that SFO and LAX service should really also exist.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7348 posts, RR: 7 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3026 times:
To say United failed buying Pan Am's Latin Division and LHR is perhaps silly. IF you look at it from Miami only then you are right, no more Miami to LHR & EZE and GRU. GRU, EZE and LHR are still served by UA today from IAD and ORD. EZE and GRU nonstop from ORD and IAD service makes more sense for UA strengths. LAX, SFO & IAD to LHR are UA routes still operated but were purchased from PA. ORD to LHR would have never happened if UA hadn't purchased the PA LHR system , LGW -ORD perhaps would be the route. There are still lots of PA routes operated by UA especially on the west coast across the Pacific.
AAL0616 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 264 posts, RR: 4 Reply 7, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2931 times:
Yes, you are really right.
No, my comment is not that UAL has failed at all.
In fact, everything they have done makes common sense, as I said. They most certainly took the Pacific franchise, ran with it, and have greatly improved upon their initial investment with great success and expansion. LHR remains a crown jewel with NRT and just because JFK has been eliminated does not mean that both the Pacific and LHR have not proven to be gold mines and tremendous assets. I wonder what percentage of total UAL revenues both now make up. probably a considerable amount.
AAL0616 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 264 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 2753 times:
Yes, I can imagine that your non-rev requests out of FLL are robust and wait until everyone using MIA now shows up because they can't roll the dice on the E-170s. Many days, one can see and greet our uniformed UAL crew friends riding on AAL flights in and out of MIA, and walking around Concourses A, C, D and E.
There certainly were MIA based UAL pilots and flight attendants before the 1991 PAA route acquisition, more following it, and therefore a few folks that need to commute to IAD if trhey want to continue living in South Florida. It is ironic to think about friends who started with NAL, were merged into PAA, then only to become either UAL or DAL employees. Or the case of SFO, when not enough PAA pilots took the deal to go to UAL in 1986, and UAL had some irritating crew scheduling hiccups when first operating the Pacific Division. I still have a t-shirt that says "Pan Am, The Airline That Made United." A bit exaggerated but cute.
I remember clearly thinking in 1980 about either AAL or UAL and thinking that UAL at least had the possibility of the MIA domicile someday. Obviously, PAA was not a possibility post-NAL and with their long furlough recall list that stretched back years. Even DAL seemed then a better prospect since they, too had a domicile at MIA. Ironic how AAL, not then a South Florida possibility turned out to be the future employer of choice or at least lots of domicile slots for anyone wanting to live in South Florida.
We never could have predicted all that has happened since 1980 and who knows what the future will bring!
So, in the end, why exactly did United purchase the Pan Am-National Miami hub, if it never meant to operate it,
You do realize that the acquisition of the MIA assets took place 15 years ago. If they bought it and immediately shut it down, then you might have a case for saying that UA never intended to operate it. PA threw in the towel when it became clear that DL was not going subsidize PA losses at MIA. The price UA paid reflected that it was going to be an uphill battle to compete with AA. UA fought the battle for 15 years. I'd say they gave it a good run.
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7348 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2361 times:
UA gave it a hell of a run for 15 years since they essentially were only going to EZE, GRU and SCL, they had little interest in the Caribean or Central America from Miami. Moving the gateways for Latin America to ORD & IAD was far better for UA customers eliminating a stop in Miami. Seeing the two UA 767 at EZE in 2005 was a reminder for me since I hadn't seen any in Miami since 2004. UA's policy is flying to international destinations from its hubs of SFO, LAX, ORD & IAD.
Incitatus From Brazil, joined Feb 2005, 3777 posts, RR: 14 Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1472 times:
Quoting AAL0616 (Thread starter): So, in the end, why exactly did United purchase the Pan Am-National Miami hub, if it never meant to operate it, which it never fully did, and now has most completely abandoned?
This statement makes no sense. Obviously United as a company meant to operate it. Over the years different managers responsible for the operation made decisions that led to successive downsizings. At some point a small operation was left, and the advantages of funneling traffic over large hubs seemed greater than the benefit of serving local traffic. So United took the final step of completely ceasing Latin America service out of Miami.
AAL0616 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 264 posts, RR: 4 Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1401 times:
I do realize what? I was there. What an insult.
Although the financial situation for Delta and Pan Am that came from the ongoing overall Pan Am condition and Delta conditions led to the collapse in December 1991, remember this, all of you teen, 20 and 30 somethings, which is, by the way a FACT --- from 1927 to 1991, Pan American (World) Airways never lost money flying from Miami to Latin America. Check it out. LAD and Pacific always made a profit. Atlantic and, with National, domestic always lost.
While I will agree with all of you United is logical not being in Miami, what a waste and loss .. you all don't really get it. Logic agrees with you, sentiment does not. Decades of hard work, thousands of peoples' efforts, routes, airfields, technical developments, everything gone. Just to kill a "stop in Miami."
Well, children, the "stop in Miami" lives quite well with silverbirds. Bob Crandell got the point, and I guess now AAL is the descendent of PAA. Miami will always be the natural and logical intra-American hub.
United is the loser. Hate to say it that way, but you provocted me, the son and grandson of very accomlished PAA personnel, thank you, and in your haste to attack or "one up", you actually ignored my postiive remarks about how UAL and its creditors were doing the logical thing to move on without MIA.
Eliminating a "stop?" Get real. Try eliminating a lot of jobs, altering a lot of lives and walking away from a legacy. All irrelevent since deregulation, right? Alfred B. Kahn and Jimmy Carter forever. If it aint broke, blow it up.
Yes, IAD and ORD work so much better for Latin America than MIA.
I was trying to be diplomatic and gracious given my family, who are now descended by UAL on their hard worked routes. I guess you younger folks are more into gotcha and one upsmanship. Well, at least Hans Mirka (PAAs Europe VP who came over to AAL) kept the PAA flight numbers on the AAL LHR flights rather than the TWA ones.
Good luck to UAL!
Meanwhile, AAL works fine, thank you.
American 901 heavy, contact Miami departure on 120.5. Good Night,
Just a sarcastic remark given subsequent events. Forgive me.
I do not doubt that Steve Wolf and his crew intended quite well to operate MIA when the grabbed it after not working out the big deal they were working out with DAL in the summer of 1991 and walked away from. Do you all remember that? Yes. DAL and UAL were negotiating a breakup of PAA into JFK and MIA pieces but UAL walked away, and, then, UAL was able to grab MIA when PAA went TU on 12/4/91 without DAL funding.
It is now totally clear that bloggers may have different viewpoints about all this than PAA/NAL retirees, former PAA, current UAL, DAL, or even AAL personnel.