Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
LAX To Asia On US Airlines  
User currently offlineUnited787 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2745 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8478 times:

Why are there so few flights to Asia from LAX on US Airlines? It is shocking that the second largest city in the US can't support more destinations in Asia. From what I have gathered, only NRT is serviced:

UA 1x daily 772
AA 1x daily 772
NW/DL 1x daily 744

Why is this? It would be like LHR being the only European destination served from JFK!

UA has tried HKG several times and I think they have given up again. Considering they have the largest presence in LAX, I would think they should be able to make something else work there. Or would they rather not compete with their SFO hub and just route through there, NRT and on partners.

I would think AA could make something work to HKG considering they are partners with CX...but considering that they won't even give ORD-HKG a shot...

I know that NW feeds most of their Asia traffic through NRT and they didn't have a hub in LAX. Now that DL is in control and has a much larger presence in LAX, could we see more destinations from them in the future?

I know the Asian airlines have a product that US airlines have difficulty competing with and that most of them fly to LAX, but is that the only reason?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirStairs From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8424 times:

I have read that it might have something to do with the fact that foreign airlines, especially CA and MU, have pushed down yields on flights like LAX-PEK and LAX-PVG. To my understanding, TPE flights are also fairly low-yield and Taiwan-originating pax are pretty loyal to EVA and China Airlines.

It also probably has something to do with the fact that there is not a true hub operation for any American carrier at LAX. On the other hand, LAX is well served from basically all Asian hubs by the airlines of those respective countries. A UA or AA service would have to rely more heavily on O&D than would, say a CX or TG flight from HKG or BKK.


User currently offlineChris7217 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2002, 169 posts, RR: 9
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8337 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT



Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
UA has tried HKG several times and I think they have given up again. Considering they have the largest presence in LAX, I would think they should be able to make something else work there. Or would they rather not compete with their SFO hub and just route through there, NRT and on partners.

United787,
I wonder too why UAL does not kept the route LAX-HKG after it was re-established back in 2007. CPA has still 2 daily flights to LAX so this route must be profitable. With no competitor CPA must be happy with it.
Also I don't understand why UAL does not serve any routes to the Philippines as well as to Indonesia from both LAX and HKG. UAL has 2 connecting flights from HKG to SGN and SIN so wouldn't it make sense to have more destinations via HKG like MNL and KUL as those airports doesn't have Star Alliance connections?


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26028 posts, RR: 50
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8251 times:

Even tough Los Angeles is Americas largest gateway to the Pacific, US carriers have historically struggled to support LA-Asia service. Over the years their have been attempts to operate to places such as Seoul, Hong Kong, Osaka, but seemingly Tokyo has been the only one that has been consistently supportable.

As other mention partially I suppose it has to do with LA being a very fragmented market where no US carrier operates a dominant true hub(such as SFO). Also Asian carriers have grown frequencies greatly over the years while generally also having lower cost structures then US carriers making many markets lower yielding. Also add in the fact, that the ethnic consolidators have been very much in bed with these foreign carriers for many decades, so it would be a bit hard to shift business away from carriers that have developed very loyal following by both the travel professionals and general public.

At the end of the day, however I dont see the lack of US carriers being a bad things. Frankly, I dont think they can add much to the market, as there already is incredible competition with ample quality choices, very diverse schedule options, and probably most importantly very competitive pricing.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineMalaysia From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 3371 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8251 times:



Quoting AirStairs (Reply 1):
EVA and China Airlines.

Only CI for me, cause CI fares are always cheaper  Smile

and oh cough cough CI flights are more open than BR too for nonrev



There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
User currently offlineEta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8223 times:

LAX, compared to SFO, is a low-yielding destination. Don't falsely assume CX is making money on LAX-HKG just because there are 2 daily flights (at one point there were 3).

As for UAL operating shuttle flights ex HKG to MNL/KUL- the days of putting as many pins on the map are well and truely over. Repeat, over! These tag-on sectors are rarely profitable and require more expenditure than the revenue they produce. USA-MNL is saturated with PAL and connections via HA/CO and via Japan/Taiwan/HKG. USA-KUL not enough traffic to be sustainable- NW tried it briefly and MH has downgraded the flight to a 777. What traffic there is probably goes via SQ/SIN.


User currently offlineRwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3118 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8051 times:

As others have said:
- competition with lower-cost Asian carriers on every route of potential interest
- LAX offers lower yields than SFO, with much of the demand coming from VFR pax
- no US-carrier offers a full-fledged hub at LAX (although UA comes close)

And I'll say, that LAX is also in a terrible position for connections to Asia, for just about anyone outside of Southern California or Arizona. SFO and especially SEA are much better locations geography-wise.


User currently offlineORDnHKG From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 191 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7988 times:



Quoting Chris7217 (Reply 2):
I wonder too why UAL does not kept the route LAX-HKG after it was re-established back in 2007. CPA has still 2 daily flights to LAX so this route must be profitable.

But it wasn't profitable for UA. Even back in the days pre 9/11/2001 level in the late 90s, UA LAX-HKG has the lowest loads for all three routes out of HKG compare with SFO and ORD.

LAX was once a bigger hub with UA, now it is similiar to DEN maybe even smaller than that. O&D traffic is just not as good as SFO/ORD/IAD.


User currently offlineChris7217 From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2002, 169 posts, RR: 9
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 7901 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CUSTOMER SERVICE & SUPPORT



Quoting ORDnHKG (Reply 7):
But it wasn't profitable for UA. Even back in the days pre 9/11/2001 level in the late 90s, UA LAX-HKG has the lowest loads for all three routes out of HKG compare with SFO and ORD.

This is really surprising news as I thought the Chinese population in greater Los Angeles is pretty high.
If those flights for UAL were not profitable why is CPA then still operating even 2 daily flights from HKG? CPA cut from 3 to 2 daily flights so if the payload is so small why not cut from 2 to 1?


User currently offlineEta unknown From Comoros, joined Jun 2001, 2088 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7875 times:

It's a bit like the EK factor- we have all these new metal birds, gotta fly 'em somewhere or park 'em.

The Chinese population in LAX is pretty high- so is the Filippino population- and look at the MNL yields- eeek (no EK pun intended)!


User currently offlineAs739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6187 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 7705 times:



Quoting ORDnHKG (Reply 7):

Do you mean LAX is now near DEN in UA movement or O/D traffic? Because in movement there not even in the ballpark of DEN in movement.

On 1/16

DEN: 159 mainline/ 227 UAX/ Total 386
LAX: 70 mainline/ 116 UAX/ Total 186

200 more flights....

Other Hubs:
ORD: 190 mainline/ 364 UAX/ Total 555
SFO: 114 mainline/ 125 UAX/ Total 239
IAD: 81 mainline/ 192 UAX/ Total 273



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineJasonCRH From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 301 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 7538 times:

Yes, the Chinese population is high. BUT, that does not mean that they pay fares that are high enough to be profitable to United. That's the problem - there are not enough people paying the high yield fares for it to be worth anybody's time (US carriers, that is) to fly more flights LAX-Asia.
Yields are too low.

Quoting Chris7217 (Reply 8):
This is really surprising news as I thought the Chinese population in greater Los Angeles is pretty high.
If those flights for UAL were not profitable why is CPA then still operating even 2 daily flights from HKG? CPA cut from 3 to 2 daily flights so if the payload is so small why not cut from 2 to 1?



User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9708 posts, RR: 52
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5719 times:

In general Asia is a more challenging market than Europe since the yields tend to be lower and the flights are longer. Flights to Asia through hubs tend to work well because of the distance and the much lower frequency of flights.

Point to Point is really challenging in the market compared to Europe since flights do not cater around the work day as well as the shorter Transatlantic routes do. With longer routes, people are actually less motivated to purchase nonstop flights over connecting flights if there is a large fare difference. Flight times are based less on convenience and moreso to take advantage of connections.

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
I know the Asian airlines have a product that US airlines have difficulty competing with and that most of them fly to LAX, but is that the only reason?

It is not really based on hard product. While some Asian airlines offer a better product not all have a better marketable product. Airlines like Eva, Korean, Asiana, China, China Southern, Hainan, have a product that is not necessarily better than the US airlines. UA for example completes well with its new modern interiors and receives higher yields than any of them on routes from the US to Asia. NW competes better with these airlines as it has more economy seats and can earn a profit with lower yielding passenger. AA also has a fleet biased more towards higher yielding passengers as it has a high number of premium seats.

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
UA has tried HKG several times and I think they have given up again. Considering they have the largest presence in LAX, I would think they should be able to make something else work there. Or would they rather not compete with their SFO hub and just route through there, NRT and on partners.

HKG has less than half the traffic from the US than NRT does. Business wise, it is not as connected to the US. Japan has major connections to the US ever since WWII and China is growing with PVG and PEK. However while being a good yield market, there isn't as much demand from HKG. The expat community is also smaller than mainland China including PEK.

Quoting Chris7217 (Reply 2):
Also I don't understand why UAL does not serve any routes to the Philippines as well as to Indonesia from both LAX and HKG.

UA is positioned as a high yield carrier based on business traffic. Phillippines and Indonesia are much lower yielding markets. it is not based on business traffic but moreso on people travelling on leisure or working for lower yielding companies. UA has a huge presence in NRT, LHR, FRA, etc where there are far more business travelers.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineAznCSA4QF744ER From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4831 times:



Quoting Chris7217 (Reply 2):
I wonder too why UAL does not kept the route LAX-HKG after it was re-established back in 2007. CPA has still 2 daily flights to LAX so this route must be profitable. With no competitor CPA must be happy with it.
Also I don't understand why UAL does not serve any routes to the Philippines as well as to Indonesia from both LAX and HKG. UAL has 2 connecting flights from HKG to SGN and SIN so wouldn't it make sense to have more destinations via HKG like MNL and KUL as those airports doesn't have Star Alliance connections?



Quoting Chris7217 (Reply 2):
I wonder too why UAL does not kept the route LAX-HKG after it was re-established back in 2007. CPA has still 2 daily flights to LAX so this route must be profitable. With no competitor CPA must be happy with it.

The main reason why UA chop the LAXHKG route in 2008 was due to the high rise in fuel. Other than that it was running pretty good. Load wise it was full but then again full flight doesn't necessary mean its making money. The other reason to chopping the route was the fact that some of UA B774s are "gas burner" which means taking more fuel and less pax or less cargo. Had UA had a better performing a/c it would still be around today.

Quoting ORDnHKG (Reply 7):
But it wasn't profitable for UA. Even back in the days pre 9/11/2001 level in the late 90s, UA LAX-HKG has the lowest loads for all three routes out of HKG compare with SFO and ORD.

Post 9/11 UA867 LAXHKGSGN was full, well on days where it can go with a full load. If UA stayed a bit longer on the route, than they would have picked up more passengers. The flight didn't last very long for people to notice.

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 12):
It is not really based on hard product. While some Asian airlines offer a better product not all have a better marketable product.

I believe EVA and China Airlines has never made money on the LAXTPE market. The traffic they carry is extremely low yield. They make up for it by cargo flight.


User currently offlineCoolfish1103 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 404 posts, RR: 1
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4799 times:



Quoting AznCSA4QF744ER (Reply 13):
I believe EVA and China Airlines has never made money on the LAXTPE market. The traffic they carry is extremely low yield. They make up for it by cargo flight.

I have no idea what you are talking about...

Los Angeles is China Airlines and EVA Air's golden route. It is really difficult to get award tickets and upgrade redemption on LAX-TPE v.v. As much as they carry VIP customers in Economy, there are also enough O/D to TPE. China Airlines still carry enough First Class passengers where you rarely see them sell A class tickets on this route. Also, if it's really no profit for EVA Air, they do not have to operate 3 daily 77W... just do 1.


User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2897 posts, RR: 31
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4759 times:



Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Why are there so few flights to Asia from LAX on US Airlines?

US airlines have focused on creating gateways to Asia from their major hubs, which offer extensive connectivity throughout their entire networks. SFO and ORD are UA's Asian gateways, EWR is CO's Asian gateway, ORD is AA's Asian gateway, and DTW and SEA are the primary Asian gateways for DL. LAX is not a major hub for any U.S. airline - UA is the only US carrier that calls it a hub, and even then it is the airline's fifth largest operation, vastly overshadowed by nearby SFO, and connected only to three intercontinental cities (LHR, SYD, and NRT) that have tremendous O&D.

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
It is shocking that the second largest city in the US can't support more destinations in Asia.

Not really. If you ever visit LA, you will see that the city's Asian neighborhoods (Little Tokyo, Koreatown, Chinatown, etc.) are not bastions of wealth by any means. As for the rest of the city, it's not like your everyday Americans are flocking to Shanghai or Seoul for vacations like they do to Sydney or London.

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
UA 1x daily 772
AA 1x daily 772
NW/DL 1x daily 744

Tokyo seems to be the one place where most Angelenos (and Americans, for that matter) do like to go on vacation. The ties between Japan and the U.S. also remain extremely strong relative to other Asian nations...

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Why is this? It would be like LHR being the only European destination served from JFK!



Good analogy. The difference here is that Europe has many prominent cities for business and tourism - London, Paris, Amsterdam, Madrid, Rome, Athens, Moscow - these are practically household names in America. Then of course you have Tuscany, St. Moritz, Cannes, Monte Carlo, and countless other romantic European places that come to mind. Tokyo reverberates with most Americans, but even the likes of Seoul and Beijing often do not...

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
UA has tried HKG several times and I think they have given up again.

LAX-HKG has always relied on tag flights to work - it was originally part of the round the world service (LAX-HKG-DEL-LHR-IAD-LAX) and then most recently LAX-HKG-SGN. Despite UA's strong presence at HKG I don't think this flight has EVER stood on its own - once RTW went, it did too...

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Considering they have the largest presence in LAX, I would think they should be able to make something else work there.

UA has also tried AKL, CDG, GUA, SAL, FRA, and I believe even SEL/ICN (not sure which) and OSA/KIX (not sure which), but only the trifecta of LHR, NRT, and SYD have stayed in the long term. Even then, NRT has onward connectivity options, and SYD continues on to MEL...

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Or would they rather not compete with their SFO hub and just route through there, NRT and on partners.

Pax are not willing to pay a premium for n/s LAX-Asia flights - most will gladly connect in SFO. Besides, SFO is more geographically convenient for other U.S.-Asia connections (and the schedules are optimized to make them feasible, unlike LAX).

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
I would think AA could make something work to HKG considering they are partners with CX...but considering that they won't even give ORD-HKG a shot...

If UA can't make LAX-HKG work (when does offer ORD, SFO, SGN, and SIN from there), AA doesn't stand a chance!

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
I know that NW feeds most of their Asia traffic through NRT and they didn't have a hub in LAX.

NW didn't really serve any cities beyond NRT from the U.S....

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Now that DL is in control and has a much larger presence in LAX, could we see more destinations from them in the future?

This may be a possibility, but DL seems to be focused on SEA for now...

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
I know the Asian airlines have a product that US airlines have difficulty competing with and that most of them fly to LAX, but is that the only reason?

Most of the East Asian carriers are no better (or actually worse) than UA. Only the Southeast Asian airlines and Middle Eastern airlines are leaps and bounds ahead..



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineCHRISBA777ER From UK - England, joined Mar 2001, 5964 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 4709 times:

Perhaps because if you want to go to SIN, then you fly SQ. If you want to go to HKG you go CX. If you want to go to BKK you go with SQ or TG. If you want to go to AKL you go with QF or NZ, and if you want to go to ICN you go with OZ or KE.

Most people know how poor the product you get on most US carriers is, compared to the above majors. Given that the US airline choice will likely be about the same price, and in most cases you can get miles flying with the Asian carrier, its a no-brainer. *

Until the US carriers' image has improved from the penny-pinching, cost-cutting, grasping, outdated, threadbare and uncomfortable legacy they have right now (and thats unfair in some cases, I'll admit) the US airlines are always going to struggle trans-Pac because of how much better the Asian majors are, and more importantly are PERCEIVED to be, by most.

















* - Unless its DL, in which case you dont even consider OZ or SQ or CX because they are nowhere near as good....  Wink If DL dont fly there, then you probably shouldnt go.



What do you mean you dont have any bourbon? Do you know how far it is to Houston? What kind of airline is this???
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9191 posts, RR: 15
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4571 times:



Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 12):
HKG has less than half the traffic from the US than NRT does. Business wise, it is not as connected to the US. Japan has major connections to the US ever since WWII and China is growing with PVG and PEK. However while being a good yield market, there isn't as much demand from HKG. The expat community is also smaller than mainland China including PEK.

Hong Kong is actually the world's 3rd largest business/financial centre if I remember correctly. It is the richest among all Chinese cities with lots of super rich/business expats etc and lots of people travel between the US and Hong Kong. Hong Kong is heavily connected with USA too. Besides HKG is a bigger hub than NRT I think. I don't see why HKG-LAX should fail. HKG is probably more international than PEK and has more intnernational expats


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9191 posts, RR: 15
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4567 times:

Any chance for UA to resume HKG-LAX or AKL-LAX?

User currently offlineJfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8457 posts, RR: 7
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4521 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Coolfish1103 (Reply 14):
Los Angeles is China Airlines and EVA Air's golden route. It is really difficult to get award tickets and upgrade redemption on LAX-TPE v.v. As much as they carry VIP customers in Economy, there are also enough O/D to TPE. China Airlines still carry enough First Class passengers where you rarely see them sell A class tickets on this route. Also, if it's really no profit for EVA Air, they do not have to operate 3 daily 77W... just do 1.

LAX is the Pacific's JFK as far Australasian airlines are concerned, its the first city they fly to in teh USA. SFO is a close second, many but not all fly to both.

Quoting United787 (Thread starter):
Why are there so few flights to Asia from LAX on US Airlines? It is shocking that the second largest city in the US can't support more destinations in Asia. From what I have gathered, only NRT is serviced:

UA 1x daily 772
AA 1x daily 772
NW/DL 1x daily 744

Why is this? It would be like LHR being the only European destination served from JFK!

From many non-hub gateways LHR was the only European city served by a US airline. AA from Boston, RDU & LAX. UA flew JFK to LHR as well as Seattle at one point to LHR. LAX is like LHR for Pacific airlines.


User currently offlineDfambro From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 343 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 4513 times:



Quoting United Airline (Reply 17):
Hong Kong is heavily connected with USA too

But is more connected to other Commonwealth countries. HK and southern China was once the dominant source of Chinese immigrants to the US (and Cantonese was what you heard on streets of Chinatowns in the US) but that's no longer true today. US-HK links are strong, but UK-HK links are stronger.


User currently offlinePolarExpress From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 24 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4447 times:



Quoting SurfandSnow (Reply 15):
Not really. If you ever visit LA, you will see that the city's Asian neighborhoods (Little Tokyo, Koreatown, Chinatown, etc.) are not bastions of wealth by any means. As for the rest of the city, it's not like your everyday Americans are flocking to Shanghai or Seoul for vacations like they do to Sydney or London.

Well, Chinatown isn't a "bastion of wealth", but have you ever been to the suburbs of LA that have either a large minority or an outright majority of Asians? Arcadia, Temple City, the entire San Gabriel area come to mind. In any case, the people there are probably loyal to CX and KE.

What I think hurts LA the most is that there aren't enough multinational companies based in the LA basin that are willing to shell out the money to pay for J class fares for their employees to fly to Asia. Lacking a hub that can aggregate the traffic really hurts the ability of US carriers to fly profitably to Asia.


User currently offlineFxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7325 posts, RR: 85
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4428 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

We could see increased traffic from LAX-Asia if JL flushes OneWorld and especially when JL loses 15+ international routes after filing for bankruptcy protection.

User currently offlineUnited airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9191 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4244 times:

Plenty of Hong Kong people residing in places like Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York etc. Also in Canadian cities like Vancouver, Toronto etc. And many of them are very rich and they reside in top areas.

Quoting Dfambro (Reply 20):
US-HK links are strong, but UK-HK links are stronger.

Maybe. Hong Kong was a UK colony


User currently offlineAquariusHKG From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2010, 94 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 4209 times:



Quoting Chris7217 (Reply 8):
This is really surprising news as I thought the Chinese population in greater Los Angeles is pretty high.
If those flights for UAL were not profitable why is CPA then still operating even 2 daily flights from HKG? CPA cut from 3 to 2 daily flights so if the payload is so small why not cut from 2 to 1?

Even though the Chinese Population is large in LA, it's predominately from Taiwan, at least historically it is, with HK immigrants concentrated in SFO, YVR and YYZ

That's one of the reason why BR and CI consider LAX their golden route

CPA's 2 daily flight carries traffic to other US cities via AA, e.g. Texas, Miami and also carries a lot of passenger to other points in Asia beyond HKG

The last time I fly LAX-HKG (that was in 2006) the flight was predominately Vietnamese, while most of the YVR-HKG traffic (I fly that route at least yearly for the last 15 years) are Cantonese speaking, with most of the O&D

For UA, I think they rather concentrate their connection traffic thru SFO rather than sending them via LAX


25 RayChuang : I think SFO is a better hub for flights to Asia because of the HUIGE population of Asians living in northern California (me among them! ). That's why
26 LAXintl : You realize the only one that SFO is a hub for is United. Also SoCal is a even larger market then your "huge" Bay Area market. LAX not only has more
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...
International Flights On US Airlines From BOS posted Sun Nov 2 2008 18:24:07 by Soxfan
Reduction Of Flights To Venezuela For US Airlines posted Mon Oct 27 2008 22:09:03 by Mariodgf
Lehman Brothers Ups Target On 9 US Airlines posted Thu Aug 28 2008 09:07:48 by United1
Love To Fly LCC/US Airlines? Watch This! posted Sat May 3 2008 02:57:28 by FlySSC
Cheaper For Europeans To Buy On US-Websites? posted Wed Jan 30 2008 07:40:33 by LHStarAlliance
BNA To PHL On US Airways posted Wed May 16 2007 18:04:06 by EA772LR
Requirements For Operating Routes To Asia From US? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 20:43:38 by FlyDeltaJets87
Requirements For Operating Routes To Asia From US? posted Thu Mar 29 2007 20:42:21 by FlyDeltaJets87
Who To Contact At US Airlines Re 1992 Flight posted Mon Nov 20 2006 23:16:13 by Thvgjp
To Check Or Not To Check On US Airways To FCO posted Thu Aug 17 2006 00:27:57 by N174UA
BDL To ROC On US. How Has This One Survived? posted Thu Apr 29 2010 20:36:24 by sectflyer
Retirement Of Piston Equipment On US Airlines posted Thu Apr 1 2010 22:05:15 by maxpower1954
International Flights On US Airlines From BOS posted Sun Nov 2 2008 18:24:07 by Soxfan
Reduction Of Flights To Venezuela For US Airlines posted Mon Oct 27 2008 22:09:03 by Mariodgf
Lehman Brothers Ups Target On 9 US Airlines posted Thu Aug 28 2008 09:07:48 by United1
Love To Fly LCC/US Airlines? Watch This! posted Sat May 3 2008 02:57:28 by FlySSC
Cheaper For Europeans To Buy On US-Websites? posted Wed Jan 30 2008 07:40:33 by LHStarAlliance
BNA To PHL On US Airways posted Wed May 16 2007 18:04:06 by EA772LR