Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WHY Did UA Bring Back LAX-HKG?  
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7507 posts, RR: 24
Posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 6305 times:

The most exciting news Ive heard reguarding my hometown airport in a while was whan UA decided to bring back LAX-HKG. I guess what im wondering is why. I dug through the threads reguarding the new service, but it really didnt answer any of my questions.

1) Is UA just trying to beat DL to it?
2) Is UA going to build up LAX's domestic connection bank to help serve the flight?
3) Is the flight mainly to serve the very large O&D market between LAX and HKG.

Anyways just wonder what everyone else thought.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6226 times:

I suspect its a little bit of 1 & 2 but its not surprise that as soon as DL mentioned they were interested it in, UA announced it.

User currently offlineUAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3356 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6219 times:

Sorry, I meant 1 & 3 not 2. I dont think you will see an increase on what they already have.

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6202 times:

UA obviously had demand for seats to HKG, evidenced by the extra sections they've been flying out of SFO and ORD. As CX has a lock on the only nonstops in the market at 3x per day, it only seems logical to transfer some of the capacity to LAX, as they already have a hub situated there, and can offer an extra gateway to HKG from the States.

It seems like an good routing to add to their network to me.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 4, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 6183 times:

UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11. When that happens, there may be an expansion of domestic flying out of DEN, SFO, LAX, and IAD. ORD is capacity constrained. Or perhaps UA will retire an equivalent number of seats from their rope-start 737 fleet.

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16822 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6105 times:

UAL has a strong base of customers to/from Hong Kong, obviously JFK-HKG was a reach given that it was only launched in response to CO's EWR-HKG. LAX, SFO and ORD seem locked up by UAL.


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSLCUT2777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 4028 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6059 times:

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
LAX, SFO and ORD seem locked up by UAL.

The latter two are owned by UA lock, stock and two smoking barrels, but LAX has no real dominant carrier. Which is why I sense DL looks at LAX as a place they can rebuild their old base off of the prior Western clientele with more of a JFK style type rebuild. what they had prior to the merger would in no way work today. My conclusion is they are hearing footsteps from DL, and AA may follow with a similar response. HKG has a large O&D to/from Southern California as well as LAX being North America's prime airport gateway above SFO and YVR.



DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!
User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8287 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6059 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
LAX, SFO and ORD seem locked up by UAL.

SFO and ORD, are locked up by UA but LAX too ? Lets see, Cathay has three 744 daily and UA will have one, advantage Cathay. SFO, UA faces a Cathay 744 daily and a Singapore 744( soon A380) daily, is very competitive will UA having the top market share of three close competitors. UA owns ORD, no competitio.


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 8, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6049 times:

Going back and reading the news article announcing this service, it appears that the HKG-SGN tag will be switched to the LAX flight. Since the Los Angeles area is home to the largest Vietnamese community in the U.S., it's a double-whammy—it gives CX competition for nonstop service for LAX-HKG, and eliminates the SFO stop for those traveling from LAX to Vietnam, while retaining one-stop connecting service for SFO originating passengers. Not a bad deal.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070503/aqth054.html?.v=8



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6007 times:

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 7):
Singapore 744( soon A380)

Source?????? It's going to be a while before you see that!


User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

I tend to agree with UAL777UK. I believe UA (and AA) will certainly attempt to pre-empt DL in the most lucrative LAX - Transpac markets. HKG was obvious, China will certainly gain attention. Depending on equipment, secondary Japanese markets like FUK and NGO will get a look. (Wildcard is KIX due to high costs/fees.)

DL has a leg up with potential Korean service due to its ties with KE - perhaps some traction for DL there.

As far as a domestic schedule build up for UA is concerned - I'd suggest not to look for one. I believe one of the problems UA encountered in having both LAX and SFO hubbed is that both relied on the same markets for traffic, and thus cannilbalized each other. For example, how many options did a UA pax have travelling ORD - SBA ???.

Also, UA invested a ton of money into LAX without seeing the requisite market share gains (ROI), whereas half of the current day SFO is UA/UAX.

Ultimately UA will have schedule adjustments at LAX - an addition here-or-there. But don't expect those heady days of 200+ mainlineUA departures daily (unless there's a major business failure by one of the other LAX market leaders.)

[Edited 2007-05-16 19:35:14]


With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineSkyyMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5989 times:

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Thread starter):
1) Is UA just trying to beat DL to it?
2) Is UA going to build up LAX's domestic connection bank to help serve the flight?
3) Is the flight mainly to serve the very large O&D market between LAX and HKG.

#1 - Most definitely.
#2 - Unless they add more trans-Pac service to go with the NRT flight, building a connecting bank for two flights doesn't sound feasible. UA seems pretty happy with SFO being their primary Pacific hub.
#3 - CX does it 3x daily now. There hasn't been a U.S. based carrier on the route in quite awhile. It could be to get some Star Alliance customers who would otherwise have to connect at Narita.


User currently offlineGemini573 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5966 times:

As repeated, I think this was an opportunity for UA to beat DL to the punch. It's similar to what UA did in the past with ORD-HKG. I think at one time, AA was interested in ORD-HKG, but when UA decided to increase the frequencies to HKG, it all but eliminated that idea for AA.

Now, for AA I think this is an opportunity for them to introduce ORD-HKG.

CX also has a lot of connecting customers heading to MNL and India as well. The CX flights are timed quite well for AA connections as well as LA connections from South America for the early afternnon flight to HKG.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3722 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Quoting Gemini573 (Reply 12):
Now, for AA I think this is an opportunity for them to introduce ORD-HKG.

I, too, am still very puzzled as why AA hasn't started ORD-HKG yet, especially with both AA's own ORD feed and the the feed CX could give them in HKG. UA has a monopoly on the route, and their planes are always full, so I think that there's plenty of room for more than one carrier.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 14, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Quoting Gemini573 (Reply 12):
Now, for AA I think this is an opportunity for them to introduce ORD-HKG.

Unfortunately AA cannot immediately add ORD-HKG due to that 15 hour restriction in the AA/APA contract. Witness UA's westbound ORD-HKG schedule - 15+ hours flying (a slightly) faster aircraft.

[Edited 2007-05-16 19:46:50]


With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7507 posts, RR: 24
Reply 15, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5939 times:

Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 11):
#2 - Unless they add more trans-Pac service to go with the NRT flight, building a connecting bank for two flights doesn't sound feasible. UA seems pretty happy with SFO being their primary Pacific hub.

Yeah thats kind of what I figured. I always thought that maybe a they might add a couple of more domestic flights. I think markets like the Texas Markets (AUS and IAH) that dont have service and Southern Florida could be pulled in to UA's netword for LAX, but Im really not holding my breath. I just would like to see a couple more destinations for UA domestically at LAX.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2692 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 5889 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11.

What is your source? I have not heard that. I know the order exists, but has it been announced that they are going to start taking delivery of these?


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2073 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5796 times:

The big reason is that the Hong Kong economy recovered. The 1997 currency crisis, 9/11 and SARS really took a bite out of Hong Kong and more businesses started bypassing Hong Kong and went straight to China. Within the last couple of years however they have bounced back, possibly connected to the rise of the mainland stock markets. Also UA has long desired SFO-CAN and it is clear that they will not get it anytime soon. I believe that NW also used to operate LAX-HKG but now UA only has to face CX. I do not have the numbers but LAX probably has the highest demand for HKG from the U.S.

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11. When that happens, there may be an expansion of domestic flying out of DEN, SFO, LAX, and IAD.

Maybe, but probably not. UA has talked about retiring some of their older 733s, which are nearly 21 years old. If business is really booming, they can delay the retirements. Also, I believe that they are only taking twenty something A319/320s not 42.


User currently offlineZvezda From Lithuania, joined Aug 2004, 10511 posts, RR: 64
Reply 18, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5756 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 16):
What is your source? I have not heard that. I know the order exists, but has it been announced that they are going to start taking delivery of these?

UA made the announcement when they exited Chapter 11. I don't recall when deliveries are set to start. Perhaps next year.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 19, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5657 times:

Quoting Aaway (Reply 14):

Unfortunately AA cannot immediately add ORD-HKG due to that 15 hour restriction in the AA/APA contract. Witness UA's westbound ORD-HKG schedule - 15+ hours flying (a slightly) faster aircraft.

ORD-DEL-DEL with strong headwinds will certainly exceed the 15+ hours.....

the majour obstacle is that HKG is semi-autonomous from mainland China and still has its own independent bilaterals...that being said, I'm sure it could be worked where both O8 as well as AA could start services.....

I expect CX to start ORD before AA however.....and leave AA to codeshare the flight....



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlineUA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1730 posts, RR: 3
Reply 20, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5578 times:

Quoting United787 (Reply 16):
What is your source? I have not heard that. I know the order exists, but has it been announced that they are going to start taking delivery of these?

I saw it in UA's fleet database (accessable on UA terminals only). I believe its around 26 319s, and the rest 320s. Interestingly, I think UA has held on to that last 777 option (N230UA), unless of course, the information is totally out of date (doubtful). An additional 777 would be essential to alleviating the widebody shortage.


User currently offlineAlexInWa From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 1146 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5524 times:

Wasn't the previous LAX-HKG route a victim of SARS and 9/11? If I remember correctly UA has never had an issue making all trans-pacific flights from LAX work out very well.

IMO LAX is a victim to a number of issues that UA has faced inculding but not limited to lack of A/C. Makes me wonder if UA is kicking themselves for letting those 744's go?

It seems as if UA is starting to turn the corner and getting back on the up and up. Re-building LAX would seem very natural and nessacary for continued growth and profit.

I'm waiting to see what type if any new A/C orders in the future to really stop holding my breath as to UA's revival.

As much as I would love to see the 773er in UA's fleet, I believe the 787 and the 748 would be needed much more. The -400's UA has will suit them well until they completely upgrade and transition to a 748 fleet. 787's would/could phase out the 763's with the 777's being re-ordered!!

Maybe I'm dreaming?



You mad Bro???
User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 22, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5428 times:

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 19):
ORD-DEL-DEL with strong headwinds will certainly exceed the 15+ hours.....

Which is why AA and APA have a side agreement (referred to as a 'side letter') for ORD - DEL as well as ORD - PVG. You think there's enough goodwill currently between AA and APA for an ORD - HKG side agreeement in light of the DFW - China debacle (nevermind the executive compensation issue) ???

ORD - HKG will happen, but not until AA has a signed, amended pilot's agreement for ULH flying.

[Edited 2007-05-16 23:28:17]


With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
User currently offlineORD2PHL From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 312 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 4):
UA will be taking delivery of 42 A319/A320s that were ordered before 9/11. When that happens, there may be an expansion of domestic flying out of DEN, SFO, LAX, and IAD. ORD is capacity constrained. Or perhaps UA will retire an equivalent number of seats from their rope-start 737 fleet.

Doubtful there has been no information regarding resumption of deliveries from this prior order. If you listen to the UAUA conference call you'll hear that they intend on continuing to operate their oldest 737's for at least the next 8-10 years. Management specifically indicated that they aren't interested in any more current generation narrowbody aircraft.

ORD2PHL


User currently offlineAaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1521 posts, RR: 14
Reply 24, posted (7 years 2 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 5262 times:

Quoting AlexInWa (Reply 21):
If I remember correctly UA has never had an issue making all trans-pacific flights from LAX work out very well.

UA LAX - KIX - LAX. Goods loads, bad yields, high cost airport (KIX). The F and C didn't draw as expected. Y was often filled with groups sold by the tour aggregators.

UA LAX - NRT - LAX (2nd frequency) lasted one summer (2005).

Quoting AlexInWa, reply=21:
IMO LAX is a victim to a number of issues that UA has faced inculding but not limited to lack of A/C. Makes me wonder if UA is kicking themselves for letting those 744's go?

Well, UA decided to focus growth at IAD. Good number of widebodies there that could be used at LAX. I'm sure the empirical info at UA's avail suggests a greater chance of financial success at IAD vs. LAX.

As for the 744, fuel hogs in todays fuel pricing environment.



With a choice between changing one's mind & proving there's no need to do so, most everyone gets busy on the proof.
25 UAL777UK : Dont forget that AA lost a big Motorola contract to UA not so long ago and with them based in Chicago, that was a major win for UA, as Motorola, apar
26 777law : Interesting you bring that up -- throughout this thread I've been wondering where UA is getting the A/C for it's ongoing international expansion. I w
27 Christao17 : Based on what has been reported to investors, I doubt that we're going to see a lot of growth in UA for a number of years to come. They've got to be
28 Gemini573 : UA operates a mix of 777 and 744s to HKG. I noticed on their November '07 schedule, HKG will be exclusively 744s out of LAX, ORD, and SFO. Where are t
29 FlyDreamliner : The 744 has about the lowest CASM of any longhaul aircraft flying right now. It's no fuel hog. Anyway, UA's 777s range is supposedly slightly shorter
30 Aaway : At the risk of hijacking this thread.... In the simplest terms, the 744's CASM advantage is realized only if the plane is full. Otherwise... (and, of
31 CX Flyboy : There are already rumours about this for 2008.
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...
Will UA Ever Bring Back LAX-IAH? posted Sun May 12 2002 20:54:57 by Triley1057
Why Did UA Cancel ORD-DEL? posted Tue May 1 2007 00:54:56 by FreequentFlier
Why Did NWA Cut Back MSP-PNS posted Sun Jul 31 2005 21:35:39 by CIDflyer
Why Did UA & LH Cancel Their 747 Orders? posted Sun May 29 2005 20:10:49 by TS
Why Did Eagle Stop Flying LAX-PSP posted Mon May 9 2005 23:32:42 by RampRat74
Why Is UA Not Defending LAX Against CO? posted Sat Nov 27 2004 23:21:58 by Pilotcoex
Did Cathy Pacific Have A LAX-HKG Before 747 400 posted Thu Mar 4 2004 06:21:22 by 747400sp
Will UA Bring Back 777s On DEN-EWR? posted Wed Jan 7 2004 08:05:37 by Shawn Patrick
Why Did UAL Suspend Service Between HKG And Bkk? posted Sat Jun 1 2002 05:36:52 by United Airline
Did UA Fly 777´s To Hkg? posted Tue Nov 13 2001 16:30:52 by TOMASKEMPNER