Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Also Applies For LAX - PVG  
User currently offlinecrosswinds21 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 699 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16296 times:

I didn't see this posted here yet. I don't have access to the official filings online but I found this article that states that UA (following AA's move) has also applied for LAX-PVG and is asking for expedited approval to begin service in May 2011.

http://www.thestreet.com/_yahoo/stor...cm_ven=YAHOO&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

91 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2897 posts, RR: 31
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16268 times:

Well, well, well. The new UA is committed to LAX after all!  


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11840 posts, RR: 62
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16249 times:

Wow.

Several comments:

United obviously felt sufficiently threatened by AA's move that it felt it needed to respond with its own fight. Looks like United wants to do everything it can to maintain its lead in the U.S.-China market.

United's schedule is not as good as AA's, but it also would offer more connections on the LAX end of the route than AA, even despite the later (1700) LAX arrival, because it has more flights within the west that leave in the evening.

This should be interesting to watch unfold. That market may be large, but I personally don't think it is nearly large enough to support three daily flights by three different airlines.


User currently offlinefxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7325 posts, RR: 85
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16193 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting commavia (Reply 2):
This should be interesting to watch unfold. That market may be large, but I personally don't think it is nearly large enough to support three daily flights by three different airlines.

Could rob pax from their SFO flight?   

Whose next, Delta dartboard?


User currently onlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1551 posts, RR: 12
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16021 times:

Anyone think this will come at the expense of the seasonal IAD-PEK flight? UA will now serve SFO, LAX, ORD, and EWR from PVG assuming this is approved and I don't see why it wouldn't be. Do we know yet if USA-China flights will be included in the UA/NH JV? It's not an Open skies market so I'm not sure.



Quoting commavia (Reply 2):
This should be interesting to watch unfold. That market may be large, but I personally don't think it is nearly large enough to support three daily flights by three different airlines.

Not only three different airlines, it's going to be three different alliances pretty soon. Maybe the same situation will occur on LAX-PEK which also has only one daily flight.



717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16021 times:

Interesting indeed. I wonder if this prompts AA to launch another route earlier than they planned from LAX to China (ie. LAX-PEK) to keep one step ahead of UA on the LAX to China market.

User currently offlineQANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1983 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 16020 times:

So with AA and now UA petitioning to fly LAX-PVG, what must China Eastern be thinking? They were sitting pretty as the only airline to fly the route, and now, there are three.


My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33195 posts, RR: 71
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15948 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 6):
So with AA and now UA petitioning to fly LAX-PVG, what must China Eastern be thinking?

Just to make note, AA isn't petitioning anymore. AA was approved and ticket sales should begin on Sunday pending Chinese government approval.

The market is big enough for three carriers, but it might be a fare bloodbath as AA and UA ready to establish themselves in it.



a.
User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1442 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15838 times:

LAX-PVG is like an infant. This is only the beginning. As China gains incredible momentum in all sorts of statistics of growth, logistical demands have to be met. There is room for more, down the road.

The interesting part of it for now: 2 US carriers and all three alliances are present when approved. Glaring missing piece: DL metal. What will DL do considering PVG is a developing partner hub but we have no ATI/JV in place? Will they leave LAX alone and target PVG from other markets or will they jump in and make LAX-PVG not only a bloodbath but a slaughterhouse...

If DL wants this and follows through, we may have a case of "ganging up" already...  

Who knows, LAX-PVG may become a mini version of JFK-LHR one day...



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlineLAXtoATL From United States of America, joined Oct 2009, 1616 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15737 times:

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 6):
So with AA and now UA petitioning to fly LAX-PVG, what must China Eastern be thinking?

As the incumbent plus the fact that they don't have a direct competitor on the PVG end, I would assume they would be the safest of the three. If UA is approved, AA & UA will be fighting each other for the LAX pax. Don't get me wrong, China Eastern doesn't like the additional competition but they appear to be in the best position of the three carriers.

Clearly UA is going directly after AA here with this move. While UA is prepared for a 3 airline battle on this route, that wasn't the case when AA decided to fly it. Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.


User currently offlinegoldenstate From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 583 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15711 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting peanuts (Reply 8):
What will DL do considering PVG is a developing partner hub but we have no ATI/JV in place? Will they leave LAX alone and target PVG from other markets or will they jump in and make LAX-PVG not only a bloodbath but a slaughterhouse...

If DL wants this and follows through, we may have a case of "ganging up" already...

Very much agree with your last point. And although it will no doubt elicit groans from some quarters around here, if DL were to wade into LAXPVG, the partner hub on the other end would go a very long way toward neutralizing DL's feed disadvantage relative to the other two on the LAX side, assuming they can establish a decent codeshare arrangement. I'd be surprised if DL network teams are not already analyzing this pretty closely.

In any case, DL should have some strategic moves to announce in the near future that will respond to some of the changes we've seen in the last few months.

Quoting peanuts (Reply 8):
Who knows, LAX-PVG may become a mini version of JFK-LHR one day...

Hard to envision this outcome not happening.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15697 times:

Quoting peanuts (Reply 8):
LAX-PVG is like an infant.

It's quick a shocker. The largest O&D-oriented airport in the US and the #1 international traffic airport in China (or #2, depends on how you count PEK and HKG), and there's a single monopoly flight between them.

That's more shocking considering the ULH route called NYC-HKG has 3 nonstops daily.... even an oddball like SEA-PEK has a flight (i mean how many boeing engineers are spying for beijing anyway?  )

Bravo to AA and new UA/CO. I'm sick of having to deal with mainland carriers (which clearly aren't offering service levels up to par with international peers)


User currently offlineEricR From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 1904 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15659 times:

Quoting peanuts (Reply 8):
The interesting part of it for now: 2 US carriers and all three alliances are present when approved. Glaring missing piece: DL metal. What will DL do considering PVG is a developing partner hub but we have no ATI/JV in place? Will they leave LAX alone and target PVG from other markets or will they jump in and make LAX-PVG not only a bloodbath but a slaughterhouse...

I think this leads to a larger strategic issue for DL. DL is attempting to build up SEA as their west coast TPAC gateway, but the question is how will LAX will fit in to this strategy. Do they even attempt LAX to China or do they opt for SEA - China due to the LAX competition and DL's smaller market share in LAX?

AA does not have the same issue because they use LAX exclusively as their west coast TPAC gateway. UA has already established SFO as their primary west coast TPAC gateway and LAX as a secondary gateway.

However, it will be interesting to see what DL does. I would be concerned for DL if they try to split their TPAC strategy between SEA and LAX too soon. Seems like it would distract them before either gateway has been fully established.


User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15634 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Hmmm ... that's a shot across the bow! Looks like those 21 USA-China might be in play after all.

Now if AA really wanted to play games they could just apply for LAX-PEK, MIA-PVG, DFW-PVG and lock UA out of the market ... LOL    . Then they could announce ORD-HKG next week too!

Of course that's not going to happen and they'll just roll over and cancel the route by the end of 2011.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33195 posts, RR: 71
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15576 times:

One of the reasons AA is flying this route is because it technically already carries a good amount of traffic on this route from a decade long codeshare with China Eastern, in which it carriers a good amount of LAX-PVG local

Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 13):
I'm not certain AA will want to remain on the route with UA on it.

Why? AA has always been stronger than UA at LAX in terms of premium passengers, with 35% marketshare of the premium passengers, as explained in its LAX-PVG application. UA is, obviously, stronger in Shanghai, but its not as if AA does not have a presence. It has been placing its codeshare on China Eastern's LAX-PVG flights for over a decade, and it very well knows how much traffic it carries in this market on the AA* code. In fact, the fact that AA carries a good amount of local traffic on LAX-PVG on its own code was a driving force in getting this route approved.

Also, UA applied for CUN-SAT/AUS/RDU, all flown by Delta. Very odd.

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 14):
they'll just roll over and cancel the route by the end of 2011.

Just don't see it. Its not going to be easy for either UA or AA, but they'll both be able to make it in the long-run. The strategic importance of this route for AA is huge. LAX-NRT lost money for years, but AA never pulled the plug - it needed a Tokyo run from LAX.

It is vital to distinguish between a route of strategic significance like LAX-PVG from a route like, say, the all-to-often-cited ORD-DME (and its cited all too often because it joins ORD-EZE as the only example of AA entering and quickly exiting a new long-haul city pair in the past 3 years).



a.
User currently offlinepeanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1442 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15559 times:

Quoting goldenstate (Reply 10):
the partner hub on the other end would go a very long way toward neutralizing DL's feed disadvantage relative to the other two on the LAX side

This may be the key for DL to actually jump on it.
UA and DL would like to maintain their Asian lead and would want to stop any potential AA/JL momentum dead in its tracks.
DL may very well not do a thing though and just let their Chinese partner deal with it.

I guess we find out now how truly important LAX is to DL 



Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
User currently offlinecrAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 802 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 15461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):
Just don't see it. Its not going to be easy for either UA or AA, but they'll both be able to make it in the long-run. The strategic importance of this route for AA is huge. LAX-NRT lost money for years, but AA never pulled the plug - it needed a Tokyo run from LAX.

Good ... I hope they do decide to stick it out and add a few other stragically important routes (domestic and international) from LAX.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8457 posts, RR: 7
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15379 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting EricR (Reply 12):
AA does not have the same issue because they use LAX exclusively as their west coast TPAC gateway. UA has already established SFO as their primary west coast TPAC gateway and LAX as a secondary gateway.

Why does UA want to spoil AA's party ? UA has worse luck then Fidel Castro with its LAX to non-Japan Asia, they twice have started and withdrawn LAX to Hong Kong. The surprise is no US airline has flown from Los Angeles to China until now. AA wil do a great job.


User currently offlinecrosswinds21 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 699 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15306 times:

Quoting crAAzy (Reply 16):
Good ... I hope they do decide to stick it out and add a few other stragically important routes (domestic and international) from LAX.

I also wonder if having UA add this route is going to put pressure on AA to add some additional feeder flights into LAX (such as PHX, SMF, etc. as has been discussed here before) to stay competitive. Yes, I know that LAX-PVG has a good amount of O&D but if UA's feeder network is bigger than that of AA, then UA has a leg up here.


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33195 posts, RR: 71
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15259 times:

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 18):
Quoting crAAzy (Reply 16):
Good ... I hope they do decide to stick it out and add a few other stragically important routes (domestic and international) from LAX.

I also wonder if having UA add this route is going to put pressure on AA to add some additional feeder flights into LAX (such as PHX, SMF, etc. as has been discussed here before) to stay competitive.

More feeder flights are definitley coming, with or without UA on this route.



a.
User currently offlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6517 posts, RR: 9
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15212 times:

Quoting EricR (Reply 5):
Interesting indeed. I wonder if this prompts AA to launch another route earlier than they planned from LAX to China (ie. LAX-PEK) to keep one step ahead of UA on the LAX to China market.



I would hope that AA management has more sense than to start another route just to keep one step ahead of UA. It is a decision involving millions of dollars, which is kind of expensive just to have bragging rights. If it was a monopoly type game, then yes, in the real business world, then no.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7760 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15217 times:

There goes the yields on this route. One carrier isnt enough, but three is too much.


Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlinegoldenstate From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 583 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15076 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17):
Why does UA want to spoil AA's party ? UA has worse luck then Fidel Castro with its LAX to non-Japan Asia, they twice have started and withdrawn LAX to Hong Kong. The surprise is no US airline has flown from Los Angeles to China until now. AA wil do a great job.

Your analogy is actually very apt, but not for the reason you think. Fidel Castro has managed to stay in power for 51 years now. I'd say his luck is pretty good.

So what if UA pulled out of LAXHKG before. They will have the competitive advantage with favorable operating costs to AA, relatively equal feed opportunities and market share in LAX, alliance synergies with CA on the PVG side, and a strong franchise with far greater brand equity in China.

MAH4546 will tell you that AA's story is their corporate business and high revenue traffic, and I agree that historically this has been the case, but I think their continuing ability to drive a revenue premium in contested U.S. markets is very much in question because they must now compete with two airlines that offer broad, comprehensive networks across both oceans and throughout the Americas. Q2 earnings may have been a hint; Q3 earnings will tell us a lot.

This story may not be over either. As has been said already, DL will be in the game in Los Angeles in one form or another. Perhaps not the size of UA and AA, but they will have a presence.


User currently offlineaaway From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1550 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15079 times:

Reminiscent of the late 90s AA/UA 'ego trip' over west coast - PAR service. AA initiates LAX - ORY/CDG, UA responds with its own LAX-CDG, AA retaliates by lauching SJC-CDG (to compete with UA SFO-CDG).

LAX-PVG is a growing market, but may be a bit nascent at this point to support three nonstop services.

Will be watching with Orville Redenbacher.

Quoting fxramper (Reply 3):
Could rob pax from their SFO flight

I think there'll be some level of cannibalization...somewhere...some way  .

Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 6):
So with AA and now UA petitioning to fly LAX-PVG, what must China Eastern be thinking? They were sitting pretty as the only airline to fly the route, and now, there are three.
Quoting LAXtoATL (Reply 9):
As the incumbent plus the fact that they don't have a direct competitor on the PVG end, I would assume they would be the safest of the three. If UA is approved, AA & UA will be fighting each other for the LAX pax. Don't get me wrong, China Eastern doesn't like the additional competition but they appear to be in the best position of the three carriers.

Clearly UA is going directly after AA here with this move. While UA is prepared for a 3 airline battle on this route, that wasn't the case when AA decided to fly it. Should be interesting to see how this one plays out.
MU has had plans to add additional PVG-LAX service. For various reasons, those plans hadn't come to fruition. Immediate term, perhaps MU scotches those plans. Longer term...face it, MU has tacit support of the Chinese government. A Chinese-based carrier prescence on this route, be it MU or another carrier, won't be going anywhere.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):
UA is, obviously, stronger in Shanghai, but its not as if AA does not have a presence. It has been placing its codeshare on China Eastern's LAX-PVG flights for over a decade, and it very well knows how much traffic it carries in this market on the AA* code. In fact, the fact that AA carries a good amount of local traffic on LAX-PVG on its own code was a driving force in getting this route approved

There is indeed data sharing with relation to the AA-MU codeshare.

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 15):
Also, UA applied for CUN-SAT/AUS/RDU, all flown by Delta. Very odd.

Off topic...RDU is surprising, AUS and SAT not considering CO's historical strength in those markets.

[Edited 2010-10-12 13:47:01]


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 offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2897 posts, RR: 31
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 15052 times:

Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 14):
Also, UA applied for CUN-SAT/AUS/RDU, all flown by Delta. Very odd.

They did?



Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
25 Post contains links DAL767400ER : Don't know about any DOT filings, but it is part of their PR about increased Mexico service: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/United...tal-prnews-962272
26 United1 : Doubtful IAD-PEK has the advantage of having feed on both ends (Air China in PEK and United in IAD.) I think these flights are aimed at different mar
27 LAXintl : I suppose one thing to note is that in 2009, there were 479,000 local O&D passengers between LA and China. Certainly not a small market, and one t
28 aaway : PEK is not as big, nor as business driven as PVG. While I'd love to see CX entice CA into Oneworld, the more realistic (and probable) outcome would h
29 STT757 : Exciting times for the City of Angels, glad to see UA committed to LAX and not consolidating at SFO as many have speculated. I think the two hub Coast
30 jfk777 : goldenstate, Just because Fidel has been in power for 51 years doesn't mean he hasn't ruined Cuba, Living in Florida( not Miami) I've heard enough ab
31 Post contains images enilria : Trainwreck in the making that makes TPA-SJU seem like a day at the beach. You know the airlines sniff a little daylight and they go right back to thi
32 MAH4546 : Please, not even close. TPA-SJU is a local market of around 220 daily passengers with no feed on either end for either carrier. LAX-PVG is a local ma
33 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : DL ruled out LAX-China before this and they certainly wont reconsider after two airlines with much stronger local bases of flyers apply. They are alr
34 Post contains images deltal1011man : PS anyone have a docket number?
35 commavia : OST-2010-0255
36 Post contains images ChopChop767 : This is a great move with UAL. I'm glad to see, like many of the previous posters, that UA (new UA) is maintaining a commitment to dual hubs in the W
37 MAH4546 : No, but it can get creative with scheduling to add some room. It can probably handle another 20-25 daily mainline flights. But how many redeyes to Mi
38 goldenstate : You seem very sure of this. Where do you get your information.
39 9252fly : After a quick read through this thread,one gets a sense of how much the market dynamics have shifted with all the recent mergers. Years ago,people spo
40 Post contains images deltal1011man : Proof? Thank you. All it takes is less banking and more of a rolling hub. Think about it this way, Delta at one point had 220 flights in T5 and three
41 Flighty : The real question is Chinese tourist visas and how the State Dept pans out their policy. Sure there are a lot of VFR US passport holders on the route.
42 SlcDeltaRUmd11 : I have alot of friends who work for delta. All are corporate that i really base my views on so i think they hear real information and less rumors. No
43 chris7217 : Very interesting indeed but I have doubts. UA dropped LAX-HKG again some time ago as there was not a market (which still makes me wonder as CX got 2 d
44 LAXintl : United did not drop LAX-HKG as there was no market, they dropped it 1) the spike of fuel cost in 2007-8, and 2) lower yields the flight produced comp
45 peanuts : Explain this one to me: how can a business flight be "under performing" 6 (six!) months ahead of its first scheduled flight when we all know business
46 NYCAdvantage : I think that there is an other reason UA is doing this, DL could care less if AA makes it or not but when you start pushing a new ST partner, my quest
47 DFWEagle : I fail to see how DL starting LAX-PVG themselves would defend MU. DL has no antitrust immunity and no joint venture with MU so they would simply beco
48 LAXdude1023 : DL starting LAX-PVG would hurt MU, not help them. DL and MU are alliance partners only. They do not have a joint venture.
49 jetlanta : I don't think DL ever had 220 flights at LAX. Event at the post-WA high, it was barely up to 150 and that included all the OO-operated flights. And t
50 panamair : If you're referring to ATL, that must have been during the pre-merger, pre-Anderson days when DL applied for ATL-China. Not saying that DL will consi
51 LAXintl : Like the AA application, the DOT did not waste anytime and today awarded United the requested 7 frequencies for LAX-PVG.
52 NYCAdvantage : Yes I do understand what you are saying and agree to some extend with you, I am sure they will try to code share the flights, but I will not be surpr
53 Post contains images deltal1011man : 9 times out of 10 he doesn't. He for some reason hates the idea of Delta doing anything at LAX, so everytime anyone brings it up it will fail, He add
54 VC10er : Unless i missed it, what type of metal would UA use? A UA refitted 747 would be more attractive (I think)
55 incitatus : Don't they fly SFO-PVG with a 747? If initially LAX-PVG on UA does not do well, they can trim SFO down to a 777 and more traffic will flow to the LAX
56 luvtheflying : They will fly a 777 on the route
57 AZNCSA4QF744ER : I could be wrong, but didn't DOT awarded the route to UA already?
58 Schweigend : To aid UA's case for the LAX-PVG route, CO will be happy to add feed from Houston and points south and east. Convenient one-stop IAH-LAX-PVG service w
59 SurfandSnow : Except that they can already access better routings through ORD and SFO, depending on their point of origin. LAX is largely redundant since most UA/C
60 SA7700 : A fair amount of posts were removed from this thread due to various forum rule violations. Please ensure that you post within the parameters of the fo
61 ckfred : Remember that on another thread, Horton indicated that AA was seriously considering adding more domestic flights to the LAX schedule. Add frequencies
62 UAL777UK : Which UA might retailiate with as well. Its going to be interesting how LAX as a whole plays out for UA, AA and for that matter DL over the next 6-12
63 Cubsrule : That may need to change. As UA adds more service from SFO to "flyover country," they seem to be running out of gate space at SFO during that time - S
64 aaway : Have to agree here. UA's move was reactionary. I'd hazard to suggest that UA would've been happy with the status quo if AA not filed to operate LAX -
65 GlobalCabotage : ORD-DME was a dog on AA. ORD-EZE filled seats on a seasonal basis, but yields tanked it. Would be a better route on UA/CO, adjusted for seasonal impac
66 SCL767 : One-stop connections are available from LIM to ICN, HKG, NRT, etc. The new United does not operate into South America from either LAX or SFO. AA alre
67 klkla : It's interesting to see the post-Tilton UA. This was an aggressive response that the old UA management would never have tried.
68 aaway : The point I attempted to convey was the fact that the dearth of one-stop connections between Central / South America and China will bolster LAX as a
69 Schweigend : I dunno -- to help make the LAX flight work, CO/UA may preferentially book flights via LA instead of SF.
70 AZNCSA4QF744ER : I wonder when the new United will relaunch LAX HKG flight.
71 The777Man : UA tried ORD-EZE and it didn't work for UA either. The777Man
72 goldenstate : They did fly it for a number of years though, didn't they?
73 Cubsrule : Yes, and they dropped it not to start another route but because they had to return 763ERs in bankruptcy.
74 incitatus : The United from pre-9-11 planned their network based on American's. Any transcon market American started, United would be there even if it had no cha
75 klkla : That strategy would have been pre-Tilton, however. There doesn't seem to be any evidence to indicate Smisek will be following that path. United is mu
76 UAL777UK : Whats the combined market share of UA and CO now at LAX, including UAX, it must be quite impressive and enough to assume that LAX is only going to get
77 EricR : The relocation of AA from T3 to the former International terminal will help resolve this issue to some extent. UA only has one flight from SFO to PVG
78 Post contains images unitedtristar : Sorry I don't remember it that way, from what I recall, that route was originally operated MIA - EZE - MVD, then moved to ORD - EZE - MVD, then it wa
79 LAXintl : The IAD-EZE flight transfered from JFK, there was a separate ORD-EZE flight. If you need the dates, I can dig them up on Monday.
80 Post contains images unitedtristar : humm....your probably right...I dont have the best memory, I have been getting older -m
81 LAXintl : You need to look at things dynamically. Airlines are not solely fighting for the 550 passengers, airline are vying for many 1000's of daily passenger
82 LAXintl : Here for the record were the Top-25 US-China O&D markets in 2009. Market / Daily pax LAX-SHA = 553 NYC-SHA = 494 NYC-BJS = 481 SFO-BJS = 416 SFO-S
83 Cubsrule : AA has about 5 -6 gates, right?
84 STT757 : UA will serve 8 of the top ten markets to China from the US, pretty good!..
85 EricR : Don't you find it interesting that even though 1,300 passengers travel daily from LAX to the greater China region, UA only has one flight from SFO-PV
86 scorpy : I assume they will move CO over to take over some of these gates, but I suppose they can't be using more than 3-4, so another 3-4 additive gates will
87 EricR : Good point, but the number of CO flights (and therefore gates utilized) should be reduced over time as the merger integration process begins and the
88 Cubsrule : Indeed, and even if they don't change frequencies one bit, most of those frequencies aren't at busy times - passengers going from SFO to BDL or BTR d
89 AADC10 : It shows how far the desire for mainland China flights has fallen. There used to be a big fight for flights. The new routes were available in March b
90 Post contains images Flighty : Well done, this is something that is constantly misunderstood in these threads.
91 B2443 : Not likely. That'd cannibalize their SEA-PEK.
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...
United Applies For LAX-SJD posted Thu Jan 24 2008 18:40:38 by LAXintl
MaxJet Applies For LAX-SEA-PVG posted Tue Jul 17 2007 19:57:21 by Asuflyer05
United Airlines Applies For Daily LAX-DCA Service posted Thu Sep 19 2002 00:24:52 by BA
Volaris Applies For LAX-MTY posted Wed Nov 18 2009 17:32:38 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For LAX-MLM & ZCL posted Fri Oct 2 2009 19:16:06 by LAXintl
Volaris Applies For LAX & OAK posted Tue Mar 24 2009 15:14:32 by LAXintl
Virgin America Applies For LAX-SJD posted Tue Feb 19 2008 16:49:03 by LAXintl
QX Applies For LAX-LTO posted Thu May 10 2007 02:20:54 by Sea2Pdx
Coex Applies For LAX-SJD posted Tue Oct 18 2005 16:37:31 by BigGSFO
Delta Applies For LAX-CUN posted Thu Sep 8 2005 05:03:14 by MAH4546