Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UA Returns Mainline 737s To EUG-SFO  
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5843 posts, RR: 28
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 5368 times:

There is a news report that United is replacing the CRJs and CR7s on EUG-SFO with 4 daily 737s starting March 30.

I checked schedules and I don't see the 737s listed yet but according to this article flights will depart Eugene at 6:15 am, 10:35 am, 3:22 pm and 7:34 pm.

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms...iewStory.cls?cid=49507&sid=1&fid=1


"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
46 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineILOVEA340 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 2100 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5303 times:

That is great news, though I would have prefered the A319 or A320's...
I've been told it will be the old shuttle configured 737-500's.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 5276 times:



Quoting ILOVEA340 (Reply 1):
I've been told it will be the old shuttle configured 737-500's.

UA's 737s mostly rotate as needed, sort of like how WN uses their 737s, so you may get one thing one day and another the next.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 5146 times:

Good news for EUG and travellers out of SFO, but I'm a bit puzzled why UA is making this route all mainline when PDX and SEA to LAX are starting to see downgrades to CR7s.

User currently offlineStapleton From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 281 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4996 times:

It is pretty clear what United is doing. They are taking markets where they have a multitude of CRJ/CR7 flights and reducing the frequency with larger and more efficient aircraft. In EUG where they have 7 daily flights to SFO, they exchanged those 7 flights and 382 daily seats with 4 flights and 408 daily seats. They did the same thing in FSD, and are doing it seasonally in MSO and BZN. This is one of the better decisions that United has made. Frequency is important to the business traveler but when you are at 4 or more flights in a market, it is important to weigh the marketing advantage to the operating cost in additional frequencies over more efficient aircraft. At $100 oil, operating costs often outweigh the marketing advantage unless the competition is doing something to skew the equation. We are beginning to see the reverse of what happened 8-10 years ago with the 50 regional jets. Back then, often one airline had 3 mainline flights in markets like these and over time reduced the aircraft size and added frequency to entice the business traveler to their airline. The problem was that everyone was doing it so nobody had the advantage in the end. Now, we are seeing, because of the cost of oil, operating cost is more important than "high" frequency at these small to medium markets. United is among the first to move this direction. More will do the same but most will do it with larger RJs rather than mainline. There is a thread of Delta purchasing used MD90s for much the same purpose. The 50 seat RJs are out because frequency no longer commands a high enough premium to offset the higher operating costs.

User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4958 times:



Quoting Stapleton (Reply 4):

That makes a lot of sense, good post.


User currently offlineStapleton From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 281 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4922 times:



Quoting RwSEA (Reply 5):
That makes a lot of sense, good post.

Thanks! That's what I love about this website. I learn so much about what is going on here that it is nice once in awhile to have thoughts that others might find intriquing.


User currently offlineAAsuper83 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4912 times:



Quoting Stapleton (Reply 4):
It is pretty clear what United is doing. They are taking markets where they have a multitude of CRJ/CR7 flights and reducing the frequency with larger and more efficient aircraft. In EUG where they have 7 daily flights to SFO, they exchanged those 7 flights and 382 daily seats with 4 flights and 408 daily seats. They did the same thing in FSD, and are doing it seasonally in MSO and BZN. This is one of the better decisions that United has made. Frequency is important to the business traveler but when you are at 4 or more flights in a market, it is important to weigh the marketing advantage to the operating cost in additional frequencies over more efficient aircraft. At $100 oil, operating costs often outweigh the marketing advantage unless the competition is doing something to skew the equation. We are beginning to see the reverse of what happened 8-10 years ago with the 50 regional jets. Back then, often one airline had 3 mainline flights in markets like these and over time reduced the aircraft size and added frequency to entice the business traveler to their airline. The problem was that everyone was doing it so nobody had the advantage in the end. Now, we are seeing, because of the cost of oil, operating cost is more important than "high" frequency at these small to medium markets. United is among the first to move this direction. More will do the same but most will do it with larger RJs rather than mainline. There is a thread of Delta purchasing used MD90s for much the same purpose. The 50 seat RJs are out because frequency no longer commands a high enough premium to offset the higher operating costs.

Do you feel we could see DL moving in the direction UA is, by offering larger planes with less frequency? Especially in markets like you have mentioned?


User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1879 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4900 times:

Im curious if you United will choose to re-open the EUG station. With four flights, I believe that justifies UA ground to be present as opposed to Skywest who currently works the station on the UA side.

User currently offlineStapleton From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 281 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4879 times:



Quoting AAsuper83 (Reply 7):
Do you feel we could see DL moving in the direction UA is, by offering larger planes with less frequency? Especially in markets like you have mentioned?

I think there is a chance. There are several markets out of SLC where there are 5 - 7 RJs a day. There is one difference though in that some of those smaller cities (like those in Montana) are bi-directional to both east and west coast and the larger aircraft and fewer frequencies would make connecting time one direction or the other longer. For United, FSD to DEN is obviously only feeding flights in one direction, mostly the same for BZN - DEN and MSO - DEN although not to the same degree. MSO - SLC on DL really connects to flights going both east and west very easily so if DL maintains a directional bank, they would lose some time connectivity. If they redesigned the SLC hub to omni-directional like NW does in MEM, then the larger aircraft would make a lot of sense. Just my thoughts.


User currently offlineStapleton From United States of America, joined Nov 2006, 281 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4876 times:



Quoting Flyboy80 (Reply 8):
Im curious if you United will choose to re-open the EUG station. With four flights, I believe that justifies UA ground to be present as opposed to Skywest who currently works the station on the UA side.

From what I understand, if it is permanent, it has to be UA staff (like in FSD). In BZN and MSO, it is SkyWest since it is seasonal.


User currently offlineNWAESC From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 3391 posts, RR: 9
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4826 times:

Good news!

Would be even better if/when mainline employees got a chance to come back!

Wonder if they'll ever look at doing the same with MFR again?

I can remember both cities' load fatcors being through the roof.



"Nothing ever happens here, " I said. "I just wait."
User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4807 times:



Quoting AAsuper83 (Reply 7):
Do you feel we could see DL moving in the direction UA is, by offering larger planes with less frequency? Especially in markets like you have mentioned?

I think DL needs to do it even more desperately than UA. Keeping with the Pacific Northwest for a moment, consider PSC-SLC and GEG-SLC. Both have 6-7x daily flights, GEG even with a mix of mainline and express. Wouldn't it make more sense to have 3x mainly daily during the heaviest banks, and then 1-2x CRJ during off-peak? With fuel prices as they are, and the CRJ as unprofitable as it is, it makes a lot of sense. You start doing that all over the network, and there's lots of savings to be had. It's pretty amazing that cities like SFO, SJC, SEA, PDX, etc. all see at least some RJ service to SLC. Further, routes to midsize cities like CMH, CLE, BNA, MEM, etc. need more mainline too.

With DL's acquisition of used M90s and the arrival of 73Gs, this presents them with a good opportunity. The 73Gs will go to Latin America, but that can free up a few 738s for domestic service. I've seen lots of noise on a.net about DL using these M90s to free up 738s for longer routes, but honestly, DL is just about tapped out on said "longer routes". They're cancelling transcons and cutting back on some of their recent Latin American expansion. It seems like a good time to increase the amount of mainline flying - particularly to midsize cities and cities with high RJ frequencies.


User currently offlinePacificWest From United States of America, joined May 2007, 77 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4739 times:



Quoting NWAESC (Reply 11):
Wonder if they'll ever look at doing the same with MFR again?

The Rogue Valley would love to see mainline service, I still hear people say they wish big jets still flew into MFR. But United replaced them with CRJ's, and now 4/6 SFO flights are EMB120's... now people try to avoid UAL because of the turbobprops. Especially since you are guaranteed a CRJ on US and DL flights.


User currently offlineFlashmeister From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2903 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4641 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting AAsuper83 (Reply 7):
Do you feel we could see DL moving in the direction UA is, by offering larger planes with less frequency? Especially in markets like you have mentioned?

DL has actually done somewhat the opposite lately. In the past couple of years, DL has increased service to rural communities in the Pacific Northwest. In 2007, DL started service to SLE (and is their only air service), added flights to RDM and MFR, and started a new LAX-EUG route, just to name a few.

United's strategy seems a bit more sound, even if it does reduce schedule flexibility. Get more people moving farther for less fuel. That means more profit.


User currently offlineJetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3345 posts, RR: 35
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4599 times:



Quoting Flashmeister (Reply 14):

United's strategy seems a bit more sound, even if it does reduce schedule flexibility. Get more people moving farther for less fuel. That means more profit.

Keep in mind that what UA is adding in EUG is coming from some other mainline market. There is no net mainline growth at UA, so you can't really infer that this is some sort of a strategy change. The market where this 737 time is coming from is probably seeing some nice CRJ's in it's place.


User currently offlineFlyboy80 From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 1879 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4532 times:

it is important to remember that EUG was mainline for 20 plus years I believe?

User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4519 times:



Quoting Stapleton (Reply 4):
They are taking markets where they have a multitude of CRJ/CR7 flights and reducing the frequency with larger and more efficient aircraft.

Yup, which is exactly what the other network carriers should be doing. Small markets just want access, they don't need a crap pile of RJs they've been dealt the last decade.


User currently offlineJetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3345 posts, RR: 35
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4486 times:



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 17):

Yup, which is exactly what the other network carriers should be doing. Small markets just want access, they don't need a crap pile of RJs they've been dealt the last decade.

But that is NOT what UA is doing. As I said...

Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 15):

Keep in mind that what UA is adding in EUG is coming from some other mainline market. There is no net mainline growth at UA, so you can't really infer that this is some sort of a strategy change. The market where this 737 time is coming from is probably seeing some nice CRJ's in it's place.



User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4462 times:



Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 18):
As I said...

I stopped listening when you said in the other thread that sewing up a market by eliminating any possibility of more competition would be a good thing.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4445 times:



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 17):
Yup, which is exactly what the other network carriers should be doing. Small markets just want access, they don't need a crap pile of RJs they've been dealt the last decade.

Absolutely. RJ's have never been efficient and are even more inefficient now.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3345 posts, RR: 35
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4437 times:



Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 19):

I stopped listening when you said in the other thread that sewing up a market by eliminating any possibility of more competition would be a good thing.

Your problem is you've never listen in the first place.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 4427 times:



Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 21):
Your problem is you've never listen in the first place.

My ear goes a bit deaf when I hear people start to discuss anti-competitive operating environments. It only took one post to see your slant on the subject matter. Been going downhill ever since.


User currently offlineMilesrich From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2009 posts, RR: 6
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4382 times:

50 seat RJ's never made sense. With $28/bbl oil, it was still cheaper to operate an MD-80 than three CRJ-200's. The airlines, in order to break the unions, switched to RJ's with $25K/yr co-pilots. It was ridiculous then and it is now.
Another benefit is there will be more airspace available, and less congestion.


User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26718 posts, RR: 75
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4378 times:



Quoting Milesrich (Reply 23):
Another benefit is there will be more airspace available, and less congestion.

Not to mention, lower fares.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
25 Jetlanta : Except that mainline employees, especially pilots, used to cost a LOT more. And business customers want three RJ's a day, not one MD-80. RJ's made pl
26 N1120A : That doesn't matter. The economies still work out in favor of the mainline aircraft. Marketing is the reason RJ's sold, not making any sort of sense.
27 Boeing7E7 : They used to have 3 737's. What gives? And don't give me any bull about they couldn't fill up the planes. I lived in one of those small cities before
28 Jetlanta : They do now. They didn't three years ago. If you say so. Unbelievable. Just Unbelievable.
29 Jetlanta : Yeah, and EUG used to not have service to SLC, LAS, LAX and PHX. Easy to forget that part, huh?
30 N1120A : Its true. 1 flight a day short-medium haul markets are poor economic decision. They absolutely did. Three years ago, the CASM of a 737 was still lowe
31 Post contains links Boeing7E7 : Quoting Jetlanta (Reply 29): Yeah, and EUG used to not have service to SLC, LAS, LAX and PHX. Easy to forget that part, huh? If the service is forgett
32 Jetlanta : You both are highlighting your own ignorance. You think economics is 100% cost-related. The fact is, it is about costs AND revenues. Lower capacity a
33 Boeing7E7 : Oye... It grew rapidly because they had so many on hand they didn't know what else to do with them. They were buying into consumer hype, just like th
34 Jetlanta : Excellent argument. Congratulations. They had so many on hand because they ordered them...because the business case made sense. Again, at that time t
35 DC8FanJet : As it becomes contractually possible, UA is moving away from CRJ-200's. Mesa recently "traded" 2 CRJ-700's for 7 CRJ-200's per their quarterly report.
36 FlyPNS1 : True, though many of the large RJ orders were placed long before 9/11. If that's the case, be prepared to lose service to many hubs. You'll end up wi
37 N1120A : Sure, but RJ's don't fundamentally generate higher RASM. The only way the feed that is through reduction in supply of tickets, which can be done with
38 FlyPNS1 : Not totally true. The RJ's allow for higher frequencies which can generate a revenue premium. If you fly 3 738's and I fly 9 CRJ200's on the same rou
39 N1120A : That isn't always the case. As long as you don't leave glaring holes in your schedule, therefore missing hub banks or business hours on O&D flights,
40 Jetlanta : When they were even more profitable. Never. Never. Never. Completely and utterly wrong.
41 Post contains images UnitedTristar : I couldn't agree with you more! The 50 seat RJ's are ok but I love mainline aircraft at small airports I love seeing big UA back in EUG, beautiful co
42 AirlineBrat : If UA continues to replace 7+ RJ's with 3-4 mainline aircraft on their flights to SFO, perhaps the ATC Ground Hold Program will not be so bad when the
43 OH-LGA : Apparently, SkyWest will remain as ground handlers in EUG, as Apollo shows the mainline flights are only loaded through the summer, and revert to 7 UA
44 Milesrich : The only problem with the above argument was that most mainline flights replaced by 50 seat RJ's were not in markets with one flight a day service. I
45 Goldenshield : This, unfortunately, is a true argument. It's just more flights for UA to prioritize over everything else. (I.E., UA will minimize the flow delay on
46 Caspian27 : I think more mainline is better...but I'm sure going to miss the EUG overnights during the summer!
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...
UA Returns To LIT posted Fri May 18 2007 02:54:38 by FreequentFlier
UA Mainline Back To JAX posted Mon Feb 12 2007 20:05:18 by UAORD2000
UA Mainline Return To MIA When? posted Wed Aug 30 2006 21:05:45 by MIAUA777
Report: UA To Apply SFO-CAN posted Fri Mar 3 2006 06:58:18 by BigGSFO
UA (Skywest) To Start SFO-PSP In Feb. posted Wed Dec 14 2005 04:12:21 by Iowaman
SFO UA Online Connections Int'l To Dom. posted Sat Oct 22 2005 00:53:08 by PA110
UA Out Of ONT To SFO Is Back! posted Fri Sep 9 2005 02:26:12 by Socal
UA To Start SFO-TUS posted Mon Aug 29 2005 19:04:48 by MAH4546
UA To Suspend SFO-ICN For This Fall/winter posted Thu Jul 28 2005 10:09:43 by HeeseokKoo
UA To Start SFO-COS, LAX-RNO, MYR-ORD, MYR-IAD posted Mon Dec 27 2004 21:13:19 by Iowaman