etops1 From Puerto Rico, joined Nov 2005, 865 posts, RR: 1 Posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 27129 times:
I read where UA will cancel its planned IAH Auckland service due to SW given the right to fly Internationally from HOU . Also , they will reduce flying out IAH 10% which will result in job losses . Not good .
Roseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8790 posts, RR: 52 Reply 1, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 27162 times:
"We will have to reallocate some resources, including the 787 that we had planned to operate from Houston to Auckland, New Zealand. That flight is heavily dependent on connecting traffic and won’t work if this proposal is enacted," Clark said in an email.
Speculation is that the 787 that was going to operate IAH-AKL will fly DEN-NRT.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 3, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 27048 times:
Quoting etops1 (Thread starter):
I read where UA will cancel its planned IAH Auckland service due to SW given the right to fly Internationally from HOU . Also , they will reduce flying out IAH 10% which will result in job losses . Not good .
There are about 4 threads actively discussing this...and I'm on all of them.
Who here believes these moves are really in response to WN and HOU?
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1810 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 27009 times:
IAH-AKL is cancelled because WN wants to do HOU-MEX. (According to UA)
[Edited 2012-05-30 18:35:05]
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company, organization, or Southwest Airlines.
seatback From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 594 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 27008 times:
United is looking very silly at this point. No one is buying their argument. Once this blows over and SW is flying out of their huge six gate international terminal at HOU, look for AUK to be re-announced.
OA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4998 posts, RR: 25 Reply 7, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26915 times:
Quoting seatback (Reply 5): Once this blows over and SW is flying out of their huge six gate international terminal at HOU, look for AUK to be re-announced.
I'd be shocked if they ever re-announce this route. It made sense for pre-merger CO since they had no other hub to connect AKL to. Post-merger, they can fly to AKL from either LAX or SFO, both of which are larger markets to New Zealand than IAH.
Quoting LHCVG (Reply 6): I've got a bridge to sell whoever believes that!
They really ought to be embarrassed that they're even making this argument. No one is dumb enough to buy it.
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2221 posts, RR: 4 Reply 9, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26739 times:
Quoting seatback (Reply 5): United is looking very silly at this point. No one is buying their argument. Once this blows over and SW is flying out of their huge six gate international terminal at HOU, look for AUK to be re-announced.
Yes UA looks just like a 4 year old who didn't get it's way right now, bad UA, bad! If UA wants to piss off it's local flyer base in Houston, then so be it, what a bunch of maroons. If UA thinks these childish antics are going to get things changed the way they wanted them to be, they are being public fools.
I do disagree that IAH-AKL will happen ever. I also doubt UA will fly SFO-AKL either as others have speculated in the "other threads", their *A partner NZ has that route well covered. I think when CO announced they would operate 787's starting with IAH-AKL it made sense for CO at that time, and had the 787 deliveries been on time, we would have seen the launch of that route years ago, but gas prices have changed and routes are being rescrutinized.
Next Flights: AS PDX-SAN-LIH on 739/738 in F, HA LIH-HNL-KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 10, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26743 times:
Ok I've composed myself from
As a Houstonian and recent loyal United defector, allow me to attempt to assassinate what will assuredly be United's latest public relations debacle.
1. Cancel plans to start IAH-AKL
- as many have said, route was interesting and made sense prior to the merger; and honestly I think it is a viable market in the current scheme - however, many more lucrative routes to be served first. I could see NZ being conned into starting it at some point. This route already was in the works to be moved elsewhere in favor of greener pastures.
2. Layoff 1300 Houston employees
- something that was most likely in the works or desired upon; they think WN will be a convenient scapegoat. How stupid does UA think we are.
3. Trim capacity at IAH by 10%.
- Well, Saab drawdown, accelerated retirement of 735/762, 763 reconfig sending 753s to Hawaii to backfill, route consolidation of pmUA and pmCO aircraft at IAH probably account for the bulk of the capacity trim ANYWAY and the rest was probably already desired and planned upon.
4. The second phase of Terminal B reconstruction "probably will not happen".
- Well, it was not funded or set in stone anyway. That is why they build $hit in phases anyway. If it makes financial sense in 2015 then it will be built.
All this is a response to WN starting service from HOU from 4 gates...beginning in 2015...
If they were smart they would get all their ducks in a row to be a strong competitor to WN by 2015. A tip, get your partner COPA to start HOU service from that 5th international gate so at least you have a piece of a foothold there.
thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3727 posts, RR: 25 Reply 11, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26520 times:
I have always been skeptical about UA intentions for IAH, despite the propaganda and rhetoric coming from Mr FLIBS and company. As many here have far more eloquently stated, UA was looking for a reason to scrap this route and WN and the Houston City Council handed it to them on a silver platter.
Sad, as I was looking forward to try this flight. That said, I fully support WN along with the City Council's move on this. Houston has a history of telling corporate bullies like UA and the likes of Bud Adams (owner of the former Houston Oilers)......."NO, we will not yield to your threats". It may hurt Houston a bit now, but I have no fear that int'l traffic will continue to grow., hell we got another NFL franchise, granted a mediocre one.
AWACSooner From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1492 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26449 times:
Here's what I read from the entire article and thread:
traindoc From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 312 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26310 times:
UA really seems determined to drive people away, especially their frequent flyer base. The Wall Street Journal has covered this in depth this month. I don't understand what is going on, except that it seems to be ineptitude on a grand scale. I am a 1K and my wife is Platinum and we are looking elsewhere due to the s*****y service, especially since the March 3rd computer debacle. UA management has done nothing that I can see to make nice to their FF base, especially those of us who have borne the brunt of their arrogance and incompetency.
chepos From Puerto Rico, joined Dec 2000, 5990 posts, RR: 12 Reply 14, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 26170 times:
Big strong UAL feels that threatened by WN, come on NOW. This is them just throwing a little kid tantrum for WN getting their way,
That being said, as usual the employees take the brunt of this, the best of luck to the affected UAL employees in the IAH area.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, RR: 18 Reply 15, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 25785 times:
Quoting chepos (Reply 14): Big strong UAL feels that threatened by WN, come on NOW. This is them just throwing a little kid tantrum for WN getting their way,
Can I ask the obvious question, so the City of Houston builds an aiport, IAH, to takeover as the primary airport for the region from Hobby. Hobby becomes a general aviation airport until SWA comes in and decides IAH is too expensive and wants to operate from Hobby after Continental has moved up the road and built its hub. In other words it doesn't want to compete with the dominant carrier, at the airport the City built to takeover as the prime gateway for its region due to expense.
Fast Forward and now Southwest wants to operate from Hobby to International destinations because it doesn't want to compete at the more expensive airport that the dominant competitor in the market had to move to in order to operate its International flights? Why is that fair to United who has built an International Hub at IAH in accordance with the Cities wishes over decades only to find that they could have stayed where they were to start with and cut out a whole bunch of expense in the mean time?
jfklganyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2706 posts, RR: 5 Reply 17, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 25577 times:
"Why is that fair to United who has built an International Hub at IAH in accordance with the Cities wishes over decades only to find that they could have stayed where they were to start with and cut out a whole bunch of expense in the mean time?"
United built nothing at IAH...CO did.
Just as WN "decided" to use HOU and DAL instead of the main airports close to 35 years ago.
Times change and so do circumstances.
Nothing is more evidence of that then the new name on the side of the 737s flying into and out of IAH.
Time to get over it and move on. Lots of cities have multiple airports...especially large cities like Houston.
lightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 10895 posts, RR: 100 Reply 18, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 25451 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 3): Who here believes these moves are really in response to WN and HOU?
Not I. I think its just a re-decision on where to deploy equipment in a high oil price environment. It isn't as if the 787s won't find homes...
Now wouldn't it be ironic if Air New Zealand launched the route to their *A partner's hub?
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 10): 2. Layoff 1300 Houston employees
- something that was most likely in the works or desired upon; they think WN will be a convenient scapegoat.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 19, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 25350 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 15): Can I ask the obvious question, so the City of Houston builds an aiport, IAH, to takeover as the primary airport for the region from Hobby. Hobby becomes a general aviation airport until SWA comes in and decides IAH is too expensive and wants to operate from Hobby after Continental has moved up the road and built its hub. In other words it doesn't want to compete with the dominant carrier, at the airport the City built to takeover as the prime gateway for its region due to expense.
Fast Forward and now Southwest wants to operate from Hobby to International destinations because it doesn't want to compete at the more expensive airport that the dominant competitor in the market had to move to in order to operate its International flights? Why is that fair to United who has built an International Hub at IAH in accordance with the Cities wishes over decades only to find that they could have stayed where they were to start with and cut out a whole bunch of expense in the mean time?
Maybe you are not well versed in the history of things, but your assessment is not historically or chronologically accurate; therefore not very applicable.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 15):
Oh don't get me wrong, I think United is correct to throw a tantrum for the reasons you mention, Sydscott.
Besides his information being factually wrong?
IAH was built in 1969 due to runway constraints at HOU and the need to expand due to infrastructure. This was 3 years or so before the inception of Southwest...also before Continental as we know it today exist. Continental did not move its headquarters to Houston until 1980 or so. BTW, WN began its first Houston services at IAH. CO served HOU on and off many times through the past 3 decades before finally settling on IAH solely, at the same time WN pulled its sole IAH-DAL service. The issue is not necessarily about WN fleeing from IAH a more expensive airport - it is about starting service from an airport they served BEFORE CO HQ and hub was even in Houston! WN has a loooooooooooooong history at HOU and its as ridiculous and not even feasible to move total ops to IAH, anybody that thinks that is a possibility is on something. The idea of a split operation international at IAH and domestic at HOU for 1 airline obviously is foolish. If you believe that UA is right and WN is wrong - fine, at least make that decision based on some historical facts that are somewhat accurate.
IrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1770 posts, RR: 5 Reply 21, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25303 times:
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 1): "We will have to reallocate some resources, including the 787 that we had planned to operate from Houston to Auckland, New Zealand. That flight is heavily dependent on connecting traffic and won’t work if this proposal is enacted," Clark said in an email.
Quoting OA412 (Reply 7): I'd be shocked if they ever re-announce this route. It made sense for pre-merger CO since they had no other hub to connect AKL to. Post-merger, they can fly to AKL from either LAX or SFO, both of which are larger markets to New Zealand than IAH.
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18): Not I. I think its just a re-decision on where to deploy equipment in a high oil price environment. It isn't as if the 787s won't find homes...
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 10): 1. Cancel plans to start IAH-AKL
- as many have said, route was interesting and made sense prior to the merger; and honestly I think it is a viable market in the current scheme - however, many more lucrative routes to be served first. I could see NZ being conned into starting it at some point. This route already was in the works to be moved elsewhere in favor of greener pastures.
All of these points basically point to the sign that UA simply just doesn't want to launch IAHAKL anymore, and they're seeing this as the perfect exit strategy. Period.
AAIL86 From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 391 posts, RR: 2 Reply 22, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25186 times:
Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 21): All of these points basically point to the sign that UA simply just doesn't want to launch IAHAKL anymore, and they're seeing this as the perfect exit strategy. Period.
Yeap, exactly. If anything, the shiny red 747 soon to operate daily to DFW from SYD has a lot more to say about this cancellation then a few WN 737s possibly flying HOU-MBJ/CUN/SJD in five years.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6540 posts, RR: 11 Reply 24, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25033 times:
MGMT team looks like a bunch of wusses...grow up.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25748 times:
Here is the real question...
DEN-NRT is starting next March, a time when there should be more than the original 5 frames online. This leads me to believe the 787s that were planned for IAH-AKL are going elsewhere...these are not the 787s for DEN-NRT. IAH-LOS I'm sure will go 787 in short order as originally planned, we know DEN-NRT is starting, the other 2 or 3 unaccounted for IAH-AKL 787s? I think that they will go IAH-AMS...UA had mentioned that a few months back and I believe it was a token for oil contracts IIRC...I don't have the link, I'll have to do some sleuthing. As of now the only pilot base for the UA 787 is IAH, so they would have to change all plans that have been made and infrastructure in place to move that base to DEN or another hub if they really want to take their toys and leave the playground to start routes from other hubs before IAH en masse. I am doubtful of that move. As it is now DEN-NRT is to be staffed with IAH based flight crew and DEN based cabin crew...where will the bird originate? Looking at the schedule for DEN-NRT...IAH is a foregone conclusion.
That's just my analysis at least...
Tdan From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 309 posts, RR: 3 Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 26123 times:
NZ will pick up IAHAKL once their 789s come online. I would put money on it. Honestly, other than South America, where else will NZ grow with the 78s? 3 daily LAXAKLs or connecting two large star alliance hubs that will open up the entire eastern US and Canada one-stop to New Zealand?
The city of Houston will be the ones laughing in the end. Pathetic and really sad behavior from UA. It is a shame that individual egos can give an entire airline and its employees a black eye (and even costing some of those employees their jobs!!!). Jeff made this debate with the city personal and in the end, it will hurt his company significantly in the form of customer loyalty and pricing power. Continental was beloved in Houston. United is vilified. If I were an airline serving Houston, I would be using this escapade to my advantage in order to grow share, revenue and service in one of the highest yielding US O&Ds; hopefully leading to a more profitable operation.
We will ride this thunderbird, silver shadows on the earth, a thousand leagues away our land of birth... -Captain Bruce
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25875 times:
Quoting Tdan (Reply 27): NZ will pick up IAHAKL once their 789s come online. I would put money on it. Honestly, other than South America, where else will NZ grow with the 78s? 3 daily LAXAKLs or connecting two large star alliance hubs that will open up the entire eastern US and Canada one-stop to New Zealand?
The city of Houston will be the ones laughing in the end. Pathetic and really sad behavior from UA. It is a shame that individual egos can give an entire airline and its employees a black eye (and even costing some of those employees their jobs!!!). Jeff made this debate with the city personal and in the end, it will hurt his company significantly in the form of customer loyalty and pricing power. Continental was beloved in Houston. United is vilified. If I were an airline serving Houston, I would be using this escapade to my advantage in order to grow share, revenue and service in one of the highest yielding US O&Ds; hopefully leading to a more profitable operation.
COSIGN!!!
Couldn't have said it better. Houston is ripe for AS to expand its presence here as well as VX and B6.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 25288 times:
Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 21): and they're seeing this as the perfect exit strategy.
Key words: They're
I think this will boomerang right in their (UA) face again.
Not impressed at all. This saga tells me there is a lot of other negative spin going on at UA.
Besides, playing your cards this way, so obvious and publicly, kind of exposes weakness as well. Again, not impressed how this played out. If I were a PMCO IAH employee, I'd feel about betrayed by now. Not for cancelling a route that has no merit currently but for playing it so shady. Way to build some trust there, Chicago folks.
This quote spoken like a true Washington politician. We all know what WN would do has absolutely nothing to do with UA's feed to the other side of this planet. It's just laughable.
"We will have to reallocate some resources, including the 787 that we had planned to operate from Houston to Auckland, New Zealand. That flight is heavily dependent on connecting traffic and won’t work if this proposal is enacted," Clark said in an email.
[Edited 2012-05-30 21:29:06]
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5702 posts, RR: 39 Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 25108 times:
Quoting Tdan (Reply 27): NZ will pick up IAHAKL once their 789s come online. I would put money on it. Honestly, other than South America, where else will NZ grow with the 78s? 3 daily LAXAKLs or connecting two large star alliance hubs that will open up the entire eastern US and Canada one-stop to New Zealand?
I wouldn't put my money on it. There are a few airports which NZ could choose for a 789 service - another being ORD. But who's to say that they won't just continue operating to LAX and SFO? The only factor that brings ORD/IAH/DEN (and a much less chance in EWR) into consideration is the timing/connectivity with the eastern half of USA.
NZ has stated that the 787s will also be used to replace their 763 fleet so that means it's likely they'll be flying them to Japan and PVG too.
jporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 25000 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 3): Who here believes these moves are really in response to WN and HOU?
I highly doubt that UA suddenly thinks that they will be unprofitable on a IAH-AKL route if WN starts service from HOU to MEX. Two completely different routes! Is UA afraid that people will all of a sudden change plans and go to MEX instead of AKL? . Either, as others suggested, UA is just not interested in operating IAH-AKL, or this has something to do with 787 delays.
Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 21): All of these points basically point to the sign that UA simply just doesn't want to launch IAHAKL anymore, and they're seeing this as the perfect exit strategy. Period.
I assume from the routes that UA has proposed operating from DEN that the 787s will not be subject to noticeable weight penalties due to DEN's altitude?
Quoting Tdan (Reply 27): If I were an airline serving Houston, I would be using this escapade to my advantage in order to grow share, revenue and service in one of the highest yielding US O&Ds; hopefully leading to a more profitable operation.
I'm tempted to somehow send your whole reply to Gary Kelly.
billreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24975 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 3): Who here believes these moves are really in response to WN and HOU?
I do.
There is no need for a customs facility at Hobby to support one low end, welfare claiming airline. Why do they need a free ride from the tax payers of America while taking business away from UA. Again if WN wants to compete become a "MAN" and do it head to head. They do not need to be a protected "baby" any more.
I have no respect for WN any more.
UA should send a message to Houston you can have world wide connectability, or you can become another MEM, CVG or PIT.
Flights on WN will only take money out of the area, none of the destinations are going to economic generators for TX. They are all outbound markets.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
FlyingSicilian From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24826 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 32): do.
There is no need for a customs facility at Hobby to support one low end, welfare claiming airline. Why do they need a free ride from the tax payers of America while taking business away from UA. Again if WN wants to compete become a "MAN" and do it head to head. They do not need to be a protected "baby" any more.
I have no respect for WN any more.
UA should send a message to Houston you can have world wide connectability, or you can become another MEM, CVG or PIT.
Flights on WN will only take money out of the area, none of the destinations are going to economic generators for TX. They are all outbound markets.
So cutting flights three years before WN even flies Mexico from Hobby is smart in your view? UA should just give current traffic to DL, US and AA (which has already happened since the merger)...?
Houston is a major energy and trade center with people willing to pay for C/J class service, last minute, to places all over the globe and they always prefer non-stop. UA is not going to give that market to more international carriers is it?
The premise that a 6.5 million person metro area will become like PIT or MEM is absurd.
jporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24764 times:
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 33): The premise that a 6.5 million person metro area will become like PIT or MEM is absurd.
Precisely. PIT and MEM thrived on connecting traffic: they didn't have a lot of O&D traffic. HOU has a ton of O&D traffic, and also a lot of connecting traffic thanks to UA and WN.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6540 posts, RR: 11 Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24759 times:
Like I said in the NRT-DEN thread, if UA is TRULY worried about WN flying a bunch of 737s to to LatAm and the Caribbean then we have other things to talk about here. The whole premise of their argument is completely absurd.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
Max Q From United States of America, joined May 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 19 Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24779 times:
Another Moronic Smisek move.
Laying off thousands of employees and cancelling AKL service because SW will, one day have a few flights to Mexico out of Hobby is really quite incredible.
What is this, management by Tantrum ?
Perhaps we should cancel all service if SW is forecast to operate nearby.
Smisek is a ridiculous joke
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4740 posts, RR: 10 Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24729 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18): Now wouldn't it be ironic if Air New Zealand launched the route to their *A partner's hub?
and always a more likely prospect than CO/UA.
Quoting Tdan (Reply 27): NZ will pick up IAHAKL once their 789s come online. I would put money on it. Honestly, other than South America, where else will NZ grow with the 78s? 3 daily LAXAKLs or connecting two large star alliance hubs that will open up the entire eastern US and Canada one-stop to New Zealand?
NZ has previously stated that they want to fly into the center/east of USA.
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 30):
I wouldn't put my money on it. There are a few airports which NZ could choose for a 789 service - another being ORD. But who's to say that they won't just continue operating to LAX and SFO? The only factor that brings ORD/IAH/DEN (and a much less chance in EWR) into consideration is the timing/connectivity with the eastern half of USA.
DEN is too high and weather dependent for such a long flight. ORD is probably just a little too far and really just creates backtracking. IAH is a good option particularly to compete with QF who fly to DFW for connections. NZ can rebuild some of its Oz feed out of MEL/SYD/BNE etc via AKL and IAH. If a pax is trying to get to the East coast of the USA then in theory they could fly MEL-AKL-IAH-East Coast in close to the same amount of time as MEL-SYD-DFW-East Coast not too mention on the way back the QF flight has to go East Coast-DFW-BNE-MEL which is a messy connection in BNE (terminals far apart), in AKL the pax literally have only 500 metres maximum (more likely 300m) to walk to their next flight.
billreid From Netherlands, joined Jun 2006, 852 posts, RR: 0 Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24689 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 10): All this is a response to WN starting service from HOU from 4 gates...beginning in 2015...
If they were smart they would get all their ducks in a row to be a strong competitor to WN by 2015. A tip, get your partner COPA to start HOU service from that 5th international gate so at least you have a piece of a foothold there.
Why shouldn't UA take this position.
They offer about 10X as many city pairs and bring INBOUND traffic.
They offer global service.
WN doesn't have the balls to go head to head.
Why does WN need a private hand out at an airport that does not have facilities. If WN is so damn good then why can't they take their product to IAH? WN has been profitable for 30 years, so what are they affraid of?
All those who bash on UA should rethink their argument. WN does not need a free ride at any location.
Competition is good but this country doesn't have the money to provide a handout to WN when facilities already exist. There are ten million better projects than WN, like schools, and roads, and health care and jobs.
Some people don't get it. Business is about making MONEY!
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2221 posts, RR: 4 Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24617 times:
Quoting lightsaber (Reply 18): Now wouldn't it be ironic if Air New Zealand launched the route to their *A partner's hub?
It may happen, maybe it was already part of the plan with NZ when UA decided to publicly end their intentions to fly the route.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 19): CO served HOU on and off many times through the past 3 decades before finally settling on IAH solely,
Heck, CO even flew DC-9's between the two airports for a time.
Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 21): All of these points basically point to the sign that UA simply just doesn't want to launch IAHAKL anymore, and they're seeing this as the perfect exit strategy. Period
If UA sees this as perfect, I'd sell any UA stock I owned.
Quoting Tdan (Reply 27): other than South America, where else will NZ grow with the 78s? 3 daily LAXAKLs or connecting two large star alliance hubs that will open up the entire eastern US and Canada one-stop to New Zealand?
YVR, would be a great connection to a *A hub and a great route for the 787, IMO.
Next Flights: AS PDX-SAN-LIH on 739/738 in F, HA LIH-HNL-KOA-OGG on 717 in Y, AS OGG-PDX on 738 in F
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6540 posts, RR: 11 Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24526 times:
Did you miss the part where they will fund the project at the tune of $100M? Did you miss the fact that WN has been operating out of HOU for, forever and a day. They have their own following there. Just like ORD vs MDW, DCA/IAD vs BWI. Did you miss the fact that they've been going "head-to-head" with UA in DEN?
Seems to me that UA is the one with their tail between their legs at the moment, not WN...and I am not WN fan by no definition but right is right and wrong is wrong. Come on UA, 4 gates, really!! LOL this whole argument is so funny.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
COflyerBOS From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 292 posts, RR: 0 Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24559 times:
It's as if UA is trying to ruin every bit of good will CO had created in Houston over the last decade and a half. If that is the goal then they're doing a bang up job so far.
As for the very public threats to fire 1,300 folks and table the project at Terminal B, if I was a share holder, I'd be pissed. Just today, the Census released its official 2011 figures. Houston grew by over 139,700 people in ONE year. The unemployment rate is lower than 24 out of the 29 metro areas with more than 2,000,000 inhabitants. In terms of raw numeric growth, the Houston region added more people than all of Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St Louis, Kansas City, Sacramento, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Las Vegas COMBINED.
Heck, if you add the population gains of Chicago and Denver together, you'd come up over 40,000 short of Houston's one year growth.
UA would be foolish to mess with IAH right now. But, that is what they're doing. From bad public relations to bully tactic politics to the bad taste left in people's mouths when CO disappeared and high paying jobs left for Chicago, it's one black eye after another for UA. Quite frankly, it's off putting.
After 17 loyal years to CO, I just booked my second international trip with another carrier in the last 2 months. I thought BA's service was far superior and I am looking forward to flying with QR next month. I am exactly the type of flyer UA should be trying to retain but they've all but lost me already...
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24264 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 38): Competition is good but this country doesn't have the money to provide a handout to WN when facilities already exist. There are ten million better projects than WN, like schools, and roads, and health care and jobs.
LOL. I don't believe WN is a project
WN just wants the facility in order to expand, create jobs, increase competition...
Even if WN were to pack up and move over to IAH, something tells me UA would continue with the same foolish argument.
If anything, this saga makes DL look extremely professional, cool and collected, when faced with WN. This has me a bit concerned for UA, really.
I hope you are aware how NFL teams are strong arming city council members into approving and forking over millions of dollars for new stadiums or else. I believe that should get you mad, not what WN is trying to do...an immigration facility that creates jobs and competition.
Like you said: Competition is good.
What UA is attempting here is not what you are trying to convey yourself. There is a contradiction.
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
jporterfi From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 361 posts, RR: 0 Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 24129 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 38): There are ten million better projects than WN
To me, WN seems much more like a highly successful airline than a project...
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 39): Heck, CO even flew DC-9's between the two airports for a time.
DC-9s!?!? What was the load factor on those flights, and for how long were those fights operated? That's like UA doing a JFK-EWR route today with a Dash 8: I'm pretty sure it would not be profitable because of landing fees and slot restrictions (if there are any). Not to mention that there are other ways to get between the two airports that are much cheaper albeit much longer.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, RR: 18 Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 23911 times:
Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 17): Just as WN "decided" to use HOU and DAL instead of the main airports close to 35 years ago.
Times change and so do circumstances.
You're exactly right, it was WN's choice to operate at these airports. Under the circumstances CO has to move. Why shouldn't the same rules apply to Southwest?
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 19): Maybe you are not well versed in the history of things, but your assessment is not historically or chronologically accurate; therefore not very applicable.
I never pretended I was well versed in anything, I merely made the observation that it's funny all of the Southwest supporters jump up and down and call UA sour grapes by living merely in the present.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 19): IAH was built in 1969 due to runway constraints at HOU and the need to expand due to infrastructure.
Exactly.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 19): Continental did not move its headquarters to Houston until 1980 or so.
Did I raise CO, or anybody else HQ's? Lets stick to relevant points.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 19): CO served HOU on and off many times through the past 3 decades before finally settling on IAH solely, at the same time WN pulled its sole IAH-DAL service
CO served HOU as a domestic destination yes. But not as any sort of primary International destination after IAH opened. That's my point.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 19): The issue is not necessarily about WN fleeing from IAH a more expensive airport - it is about starting service from an airport they served BEFORE CO HQ and hub was even in Houston!
The point is that Southwest is wanting to serve International Routes from an airport that was replaced in its International status by IAH. That was the point of what the City did way back when, the intention was to replace HOU, not to supplement it. Southwest knew this when they made the business decisions that they did. Again, nothing about a Headquarters here, that's irrelevant.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 19): WN has a loooooooooooooong history at HOU and its as ridiculous and not even feasible to move total ops to IAH, anybody that thinks that is a possibility is on something. The idea of a split operation international at IAH and domestic at HOU for 1 airline obviously is foolish.
Nor did I say any of that. I merely made the observation that the forebearers of Continental in Houston were made, by the City of Houston, to move to IAH as the primary International gateway of the region. HOU was replaced, not supplemented, by IAH. Now Southwest comes along with a plan to make HOU an International Airport again and people jump up and down when UA rightly points out the investment, and the historical intent of the City, in respect of IAH being the International Airport for the region. I just think it's funny that there is 1 rule for Southwest, and when a mainline carrier that just happens to have a hub down the road kicks up about it everyone jumps all over them and depends poor little Southwest Airlines, the largest domestic carrier in the US.
Times change. Nothing is really permanent, in spite of promises/intent from the past.
Seeing how international (including latino oriented) Houston has become over the years, a good argument could be made that Houston's second airport should be able to serve Caribbean/Latin markets. Why could this not be re-visited?
WN could try, right?
UA should try to counter it. It's their right and fiduciary duty. I just don't believe the way they are doing it is very smart/ classy.
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 23441 times:
Quoting nzrich (Reply 46): I think AKL-IAH was in the vision of NZ so it will happen whether it is NZ or UA is the question !
Vision is great. But if we have to believe UA's words today and WN's opens up a tiny (short/medium haul) international operation from HOU, they may not have the feed for this ULH flight...
Not my words. UA's spokesperson.
See how silly this all sounds now? Isn't there a more professional way to toy around with the IAH-AKL flight?
No, UA tries to get fancy and make a soup out of IAH-AKL. Ingredients: 787, IAH, HOU, DEN, NRT, AKL, WN, Caribbean and Latin America. Directions: Toss everything in 1 pot, bring to a boil, cross your fingers and see what happens...
We definitely need a UA reality show. This is good stuff folks.
[Edited 2012-05-30 23:20:24]
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, RR: 18 Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 23342 times:
Quoting peanuts (Reply 45): UA should try to counter it. It's their right and fiduciary duty. I just don't believe the way they are doing it is very smart/ classy.
Exactly, and that's my point. People are jumping up and down because UA, in a silly way, are pointing out the detriment that happens if a well understood policy is changed along with the potential detriment to their hub if connecting pax move from IAH to HOU. It's their right to make an argument that, based on the history of the City, its intent and infrastructure, that International services should be confined to IAH. Indeed that's what we would expect them to do and with the beating of the chests cancelling of IAH-AKL, we see exactly that strategy. Whether we have sympathy for it or not, whether we believe in the contrived way the IAH-AKL cancelling was done or whether we don't, the bashers in this thread believing that UA should just lay down while Southwest Cherry Picks their best short haul International Routes to compete on from a cheaper facility, are wrong. UA should make arguments against WN being able to do that and should pull out all stops preventing it from happening. Indeed they should do that and should protect their interests as strongly as they can.
Quoting peanuts (Reply 45): Seeing how international (including latino oriented) Houston has become over the years, a good argument could be made that Houston's second airport should be able to serve Caribbean/Latin markets. Why could this not be re-visited?
I think the key question is, if HOU was judged back in the 60's to not have sufficient infrastructure, capacity and other traits to be made into an International Hub, and the City then invested in a new Airport to cater for this, what has changed between now and then to alleviate these challenges? Can the Airport be expanded so that others can build reasonable service, like IAH can, against WN in HOU or will we be stuck with a market dominated by WN like what we see in MDW and DAL? WN has a history of doing this, a pattern of behaviour if you like, and I merely make the observation that what has been good for 1 airline, indeed all International airlines serving IAH since 1969, should be good enough for Southwest today. Or is competition only fair when WN gets its way?
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5103 posts, RR: 28 Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 23100 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 48): I think the key question is, if HOU was judged back in the 60's to not have sufficient infrastructure, capacity and other traits to be made into an International Hub, and the City then invested in a new Airport to cater for this, what has changed between now and then to alleviate these challenges?
City:
1970: 1,232,802
2010: 2,099,451
Metro Area:
1970: 2,201,849
2011: 6,086,538
You would have to live there to understand the vastness of the Houston area, and the time it takes to get across town. In addition, no one had even conceived of hub/spoke operations when IAH opened; and at that time, airlines were heavily regulated, with government-set fares. The scale of commercial flight today was not even dreamed-of when airports like IAH and DFW were planned.
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
DLD9S From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 250 posts, RR: 0 Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 22219 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 32): one low end, welfare claiming airline.
I disagree that WN is a low end, welfare claiming airline. Unlike most other airlines that have had to claim chapter 11 several times, WN has remained viable since it's inception. It is also a very popular airline with business travelers (especially in the wealthy Texas market in question).
HOU - like DAL - are also close to large parts of the population base and the almighty downtowns. Many people don't care what agreements were made back in the 60s and 70s. They pay the taxes, and they want to fly out of these airports on Southwest.
floorrunner From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 21340 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 38):Why shouldn't UA take this position.
They offer about 10X as many city pairs and bring INBOUND traffic.
They offer global service.
WN doesn't have the balls to go head to head.
Why does WN need a private hand out at an airport that does not have facilities. If WN is so damn good then why can't they take their product to IAH? WN has been profitable for 30 years, so what are they affraid of?
All those who bash on UA should rethink their argument. WN does not need a free ride at any location.
Competition is good but this country doesn't have the money to provide a handout to WN when facilities already exist. There are ten million better projects than WN, like schools, and roads, and health care and jobs.
You continue to propose that Southwest do things that will hurt it's business. I have to wonder if you really believe what you have in your signature line, that business is about making money. It sounds very contradictory to me.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2674 posts, RR: 2 Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20925 times:
Quoting peanuts (Reply 47): Isn't there a more professional way to toy around with the IAH-AKL flight?
What something like "Due to the high cost of fuel, coupled with ongoing redistribution of assets following the merger of Continental and United, we have regrettably ceased plans to serve Auckland. This decision was made in light of the increased costs of operating the route since its inception, and the knowledge that scarce assets could be utilised more profitably in other markets. As part of the aforementioned restructuring process, we further regret that we may need to release 1100 employees from their positions."
Nothing like the truth eh
I wonder how much less goodwill that would have cost them
floorrunner From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 259 posts, RR: 0 Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 20905 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 48): Exactly, and that's my point. People are jumping up and down because UA, in a silly way, are pointing out the detriment that happens if a well understood policy is changed along with the potential detriment to their hub if connecting pax move from IAH to HOU. It's their right to make an argument that, based on the history of the City, its intent and infrastructure, that International services should be confined to IAH. Indeed that's what we would expect them to do and with the beating of the chests cancelling of IAH-AKL, we see exactly that strategy. Whether we have sympathy for it or not, whether we believe in the contrived way the IAH-AKL cancelling was done or whether we don't, the bashers in this thread believing that UA should just lay down while Southwest Cherry Picks their best short haul International Routes to compete on from a cheaper facility, are wrong. UA should make arguments against WN being able to do that and should pull out all stops preventing it from happening. Indeed they should do that and should protect their interests as strongly as they can.
No one is saying that UA should not protect their interests. They just should not do it by lying. It makes them look like fools.
strfyr51 From United States of America, joined Apr 2012, 488 posts, RR: 0 Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 20568 times:
Nobody At United even believed in that Route!! Fly Houston to Aukland?? For What other than show?? Bolster the routes you Already have internationally until everybody on the international system gets to see and turn the airplane. you've got Narita, London Seoul, Kong Kong all needing to KNOW how to handle the airplane and they want to send it to AKL?? Why?? Just so IAH can have a route they don't NEED?? That made no sense , The IAH flap is a smokescreen to get out of the planned $600M upgrade @ IAH! Faggetaboutit! IAH has been asking for this since the Merger and now they've GOT IT!! Maybe NOW the rhetoric will die down since the HDQ is fully Downtown Chicago and NO longer up for Speculation. This is Childish at BEST!!
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4740 posts, RR: 25 Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 20092 times:
Quoting AWACSooner (Reply 12): Here's what I read from the entire article and thread:
United =
Perfect!!
I'd hope the UA Board of Directors is bright enough to take some action (get rid of the problem) and see this is simply a childish act of I'm taking my toys out of the sandbox and going to another sandbox. Hope SWA is already in that sandbox too!!
Come on, a cut at IAH of 10% in September...a month that historically has seen cuts in traffic after the summer travel season. And, making the cuts appear to be related to HOU and SWA when the HOU expansion is some not started let alone completed.....what a pile of BS from United and "it's all about me" from the arrogant person running the joint.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
us330 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 3769 posts, RR: 14 Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19849 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 32): UA should send a message to Houston you can have world wide connectability, or you can become another MEM, CVG or PIT.
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 33): Houston is a major energy and trade center with people willing to pay for C/J class service, last minute, to places all over the globe and they always prefer non-stop. UA is not going to give that market to more international carriers is it?The premise that a 6.5 million person metro area will become like PIT or MEM is absurd.
Even native dallasites like myself recognize that Houston is a major market and will not become another MEM, CVG, or PIT. As long as the world uses oil and gas as its predominant energy source, Houston will be a strong business market. If UA pulls out of IAH, plenty of other airlines would gladly move in to pick up the slack.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 48): UA should make arguments against WN being able to do that and should pull out all stops preventing it from happening. Indeed they should do that and should protect their interests as strongly as they can.
Nobody is objecting to that--that's completely reasonable. The problem is that the arguments they are making appear to lack merit, substance, or causation.
Quoting DLD9S (Reply 50): I disagree that WN is a low end, welfare claiming airline. Unlike most other airlines that have had to claim chapter 11 several times, WN has remained viable since it's inception.
ual777uk From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 19536 times:
Have I missed something heere, have UA actually stated that the flight is cancelled. If so, can someone please post the source because some people heere are going off on a tangent here on complete hearsay.
nuggetsyl From United States of America, joined May 2006, 208 posts, RR: 0 Reply 60, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 19046 times:
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 34): Precisely. PIT and MEM thrived on connecting traffic: they didn't have a lot of O&D traffic. HOU has a ton of O&D traffic, and also a lot of connecting traffic thanks to UA and WN.
Sorry but the vast majority of IAH traffic is connecting traffic. About 30% is O&D.
IAH does not belong in the same sentence as MEM or PIT. IAH is extremely rich in high yielding international O&D.
That said, I think were missing the real reason UA won't be flying IAHAKL, they simply didn't want to. They have been looking for an excuse not to fly it for some time. Part of that has come since the merger and part has come because QF beat them to the punch and is already establishing success.
UA doesnt want to fly IAHAKL, WN and HOU is just an excuse.
DFW Fan Boy: Im crude, irreverent, and blunt, but Im not clueless. I offer no apologies.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 62, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18629 times:
Quoting billreid (Reply 32): There is no need for a customs facility at Hobby to support one low end, welfare claiming airline. Why do they need a free ride from the tax payers of America while taking business away from UA.
Quoting billreid (Reply 32): Again if WN wants to compete become a "MAN" and do it head to head. They do not need to be a protected "baby" any more.
I have no respect for WN any more.
So you are just ignoring the battle that UA just won in Denver reducing their debt load and forgiving leases that WN and F9 vehemently fought against? Hey, United won at Denver and lost at Houston.
Quoting billreid (Reply 32): UA should send a message to Houston you can have world wide connectability, or you can become another MEM, CVG or PIT.
You are foolish to think that IAH would ever become like those outpost. Another airline would SWOOP in and hub Houston so fast or at worst it would be fragmented like LAX with no 'clearcut' hub airline but with alot of service everywhere.
Quoting billreid (Reply 38): WN doesn't have the balls to go head to head.
WN has been going head to head everywhere...aren't they the largest domestic airline by ASM?
Quoting RWA380 (Reply 39): Heck, CO even flew DC-9's between the two airports for a time.
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 43): DC-9s!?!? What was the load factor on those flights, and for how long were those fights operated?
Yep, CO flew IAH-HOU/EFD on and off for quite some time up until the early 2000s. The Houston Pride fleet was DC9-10/15 type birds. They then switched to Brasilias and ATRs, for a short time 733/735s were used as the birds would ferry to HOU for mx anyway so they tried carrying passengers. Finally they were ERJs. I flew them from HOU on Brasilias to IAH and flew from EFD frequently. It was great, free parking at Ellington and more OnePass miles. The flights were full of Elites.
Quoting peanuts (Reply 42): I hope you are aware how NFL teams are strong arming city council members into approving and forking over millions of dollars for new stadiums or else.
And you see what Houston told Bud Adams to do...
Quoting sydscott (Reply 44): That was the point of what the City did way back when, the intention was to replace HOU, not to supplement it. Southwest knew this when they made the business decisions that they did. Again, nothing about a Headquarters here, that's irrelevant.
Nothing was contractual like the Wright Amendment. Its also not 1969 anymore.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 44): I just think it's funny that there is 1 rule for Southwest, and when a mainline carrier that just happens to have a hub down the road kicks up about it everyone jumps all over them and depends poor little Southwest Airlines, the largest domestic carrier in the US.
United just finished defeating WN in DEN over the lease forgiveness.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 48): UA should just lay down while Southwest Cherry Picks their best short haul International Routes to compete on from a cheaper facility, are wrong.
NO, UA should pull up their britches and dig it...the flights won't start until 2015. That is like a golden egg to have a preview at what a competitor is trying to do in the future.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 48): if HOU was judged back in the 60's to not have sufficient infrastructure, capacity and other traits to be made into an International Hub, and the City then invested in a new Airport to cater for this, what has changed between now and then to alleviate these challenges?
Umm...long range 737s...aircraft that can operate from shorter fields...its sad to see a guy stuck in the past.
UA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1639 posts, RR: 3 Reply 63, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18594 times:
Is the UA marketing/public relations department being run by some university PR101 class?
Even that is giving them too much credit- a communications student has way more sense than the crap UA's corporate communications team has displayed post-merger.
usairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3114 posts, RR: 7 Reply 64, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18512 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 61): That said, I think were missing the real reason UA won't be flying IAHAKL, they simply didn't want to. They have been looking for an excuse not to fly it for some time. Part of that has come since the merger and part has come because QF beat them to the punch and is already establishing success.
UA doesnt want to fly IAHAKL, WN and HOU is just an excuse.
Another excuse are the 787 delays, weren't they supposed to have some 787s already? They are getting by with a 772 on IAH-LOS but that is not going to fly on IAH-AKL.
hiflyer From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2123 posts, RR: 4 Reply 65, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18408 times:
The AKL dream was pre-merger and before solid specs on the early block of 787's in revenue service were known. Early production aircraft are notorious for being overweight which reduces range. With only 5 frames to be delivered this year and IAHAKL needs two then it became a no-brainer.
Now...using Southwest as an excuse was 3rd grade schoolyard dumb. Period. Especially the 1300 layoff threat....but seems to be typical new UA hoof in mouth disease....angering the mileage group...poor choice on computer systems....pretty much poor top level decisions that most Board of Directors would sit up and go "huh?"
DENNRT...old UA must have a wealth of data on DENNRT traffic over their hubs which makes it look feasible. I will be surprised if no new IAH-Asia as a followup...with IAH feed from the south that would make it a natural...aside from the Feds requiring everyone to have a US Visa...no transiting without one since 9/11.
Lot bigger issues for UA to contemplate....Express carriers financials with 50 seat rj's completely uneconomical and no good new turboprops coming...not to mention a large looming scope issue with ALPA. Replacement narrowbody aircraft and fleet standardization are also staring them in the face. All the more why this Southwest blamefest is illogical.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 67, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 18354 times:
Quoting hiflyer (Reply 65): Lot bigger issues for UA to contemplate....Express carriers financials with 50 seat rj's completely uneconomical and no good new turboprops coming...not to mention a large looming scope issue with ALPA. Replacement narrowbody aircraft and fleet standardization are also staring them in the face. All the more why this Southwest blamefest is illogical.
That's exactly why I am a bit concerned for UA. I think this WN/AKL drama may be just the tip of the iceberg. There may be some fundamental issues post merger CO/UA going on that are going to snowball soon...
I don't know. But if this is any sign, it's not looking so good.
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4 Reply 68, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 18298 times:
Wow, there is some real bitterness against UA from the CO loyalists ... To suggest that UA is in trouble with Houston travelers is absurd. For so many smart aviation people, I'm amazed at the number of you who have let your personal feelings get in the way of negotiation and business.
The fact is 1) the IAH-AKL market was announced prior to the merger and 2) the WN push to serve shorthaul international traffic comes within months of the combined UA/CO getting 787s. With new hubs in DEN, SFO, IAD, ORD and joint venture agreements with ANA across the Pacific and a slew of Star carriers across the Atlantic, why is it so hard to believe that IAH-AKL isn't the next best or even in the top ten of the next best 787 markets?
So, is UA using the WN desire for HOU-shorthaul international flights as a smokescreen to delay or cancel a market that isn't the next best use of a 787? Is a business that is negotiating with a city suppose to show all its cards to the other side? Come on guys, grow up!!
I think it's pretty shrewd of UA to intimate that the reduction of international feed at IAH could affect future flights at IAH. But let's be honest, IAH is UA's largest hub and a HUGE local market, and UA probably doesn't have a ton of leverage because they will never significantly reduce operations at IAH. The timing of the DEN-NRT announcement and the potential delay or cancellation of IAH-AKL, while likely not related to the WN situation, was probably a bit coincidental initially. But, the result is that it certainly might get the attention of the some of the leaders in Houston, especially if IAH-AKL isn't the next best 787 market for a combined UA/CO. In addition, apparently DEN offered UA a sweet deal on airport costs if they promised to grow ASMs 4.5% over the next four years or so. DEN-NRT adds nearly 3%.
And, anyone who makes the argument that people in Houston are going to abandon UA and, therefore, it's a great opportunity for other airlines to compete more aggressively against UA in Houston are smoking some bad crack. In the past four years with the significant rise in fuel prices and the worst recession in recent times, the paradigm has shifted -- own your hubs, axe poor performing markets, make money, pay down debt, and improve products and services. That's what the network carriers are focused on now.
So what if they are being coy about the reason while creating some doubt and concern with business leaders in one of your largest hubs. OH THE HORROR!!!! Like we've never seen that before ....
So what? Well for one, no one is buying it...that's not good. Houston politics may be a tad different from Chicago politics. Even if it's run by same party.
Excerpt from link provided in reply #59:
Mayor Annise Parker addressed the prospect of job losses at her post-Council news conference. She said:
I’ll wait to see that they do that. I think United is committed to this city and that they’re going to do their best to continue to grow jobs here in Houston. We already know that we provide a much more competitive environment in terms of cost of living and work force than any of their other hub areas. They committed early on that we would be the largest hub in the largest airline in the world, and that’s the commitment I expect them to keep.
She also said she believes United will maintain its investment at IAH by bringing more flights here, not reducing them.
She added:
They’ve stated continuously that they welcome competition. That competition is at least three years away. So for United to say there are going to be 1,300 people laid off next week or so, that’s just not reasonable. Because nothing is going to happen until that terminal is built. There’s no competition today. So any decisions they make in terms of personnel are based on other things, not the vote we cast today.
[Edited 2012-05-31 06:42:04]
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 70, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17914 times:
Aside my Dana Carvey post from earlier, I think this news story shows two things:
1. UA is playing hardball with Houston and by doing this glorifying the Denver hub (DEN-NRT plus SHV and Grand Forks service), issuing layoffs, possible dropped routes, and thus creating a major slap in the face mentality due to the WN HOU int'l services.
2. This is all for show. Other than nixing the AKL service (which it's my personal opinion that AKL will be served from SFO at some point soon) it's really just UA trying to get what they want. I wouldn't expect major cuts to IAH and given that IAH is operating PMUA 757s in larger numbers this summer, there are some notable capacity increases.
3. UA clearly doesn't give a f***
But honestly, what you see is what you get. This is CO at the helm of the new United, and the arrogance of this executive management team is proving to be the most incompetent and childish in history. It just shows that Continental really doesn't have any business running a true global airline. Most of the CO inspired decisions have been complete disasters at the new United.
Quoting COflyerBOS (Reply 41): As for the very public threats to fire 1,300 folks and table the project at Terminal B, if I was a share holder, I'd be pissed. Just today, the Census released its official 2011 figures. Houston grew by over 139,700 people in ONE year. The unemployment rate is lower than 24 out of the 29 metro areas with more than 2,000,000 inhabitants. In terms of raw numeric growth, the Houston region added more people than all of Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, St Louis, Kansas City, Sacramento, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Las Vegas COMBINED.
It's funny how ex-IAH CO management running the show with UA in ORD is behaving like this to their former HQ city. It's really really childish (like most of the Continental influenced decisions at the new United.)
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 62): You are foolish to think that IAH would ever become like those outpost. Another airline would SWOOP in and hub Houston so fast or at worst it would be fragmented like LAX with no 'clearcut' hub airline but with alot of service everywhere.
Yes please people we can talk trash on United but lets be honest they aren't going to ditch IAH. IAH is an extremely lucrative hub market for UA and without it they would lose in LATAM to AA and DL.
Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 63): Is the UA marketing/public relations department being run by some university PR101 class?
Yes but most of us had a hunch it was going to be the way it is back in May 2010 when they kept the CO color scheme. We knew it was bad news from the get go.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
UA772IAD From Australia, joined Jul 2004, 1639 posts, RR: 3 Reply 71, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17857 times:
Quoting hiflyer (Reply 65): DENNRT...old UA must have a wealth of data on DENNRT traffic over their hubs which makes it look feasible. I will be surprised if no new IAH-Asia as a followup...with IAH feed from the south that would make it a natural...aside from the Feds requiring everyone to have a US Visa...no transiting without one since 9/11.
There could be a market there, but I imagine DL has captured most of the Southeastern US-Asia market (which probably isn't huge compared to other parts of the country). Not 100% familiar with SE regional markets... Which small cities are exclusive to IAH (meaning customers can't connect in DEN, IAD, EWR or even ORD) that command significant demand to Asia?
Quoting sydscott (Reply 48): I think the key question is, if HOU was judged back in the 60's to not have sufficient infrastructure, capacity and other traits to be made into an International Hub, and the City then invested in a new Airport to cater for this, what has changed between now and then to alleviate these challenges? Can the Airport be expanded so that others can build reasonable service, like IAH can, against WN in HOU or will we be stuck with a market dominated by WN like what we see in MDW and DAL? WN has a history of doing this, a pattern of behaviour if you like, and I merely make the observation that what has been good for 1 airline, indeed all International airlines serving IAH since 1969, should be good enough for Southwest today. Or is competition only fair when WN gets its way?
Well for starters, that is relying on an argument that is over four decades old. The elected officials that make these determinations should look at the issue from a consumer standpoint. In the 1960s, it was determined that a new airport would provide the best option for passengers and the local economy, so that HOU wouldn't become swamped and unable to provide competitive and efficient service for Houston.
It's a touch idealistic, sure, but beureaucrats and elected officials should be looking out for the consumer and the local economy in making these determinations. If WN can (and did) establish that they can bring something to the table to benefit the city, why oppose it? What UA should do, is negotiate for more competitive operating contracts out of IAH, and emphasize what they have done to support the local economy- and what they will continue to do to enhance services. They should not threaten to cut jobs and services which would hurt the local economy and the consumer- its in poor taste and just makes them look foolish.
SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4 Reply 72, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17882 times:
Quoting peanuts (Reply 69): So what? Well for one, no one is buying it...that's not good. Houston politics may be a tad different from Chicago politics.
Oh, please, I'm tired of hearing about Chicago politics, Texas politics, DC politics ... Whatever ... Ultimately, if WN operates 40 to 50 departures into the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and Northern South America, don't you think some of UA airframes will make sense in other places besides the third or fourth or fifth flight to CUN where yields aren't great now?
Regardless, UA is negotiating in public with Houston and Houston is negotiating in public with WN and UA ... It's not pretty, but it's business. There are going to missteps and PR issues, but this is a skirmish, and it will pass. Houston and UA (and WN) all need each other. To suggest that management has no idea what they are doing and the PR department is being run by high schoolers is just naive. I'm not saying everyone is playing this correct, but most of us are not privy to the details ... and remember, the devil is always in the details.
WN is going to fly short-haul international and UA is going to protest and make some pretty strong statements ... and when it's all said and done, UA, WN, and Houston will all sleep comfortably in the same bed.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 73, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17398 times:
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 68): To suggest that UA is in trouble with Houston travelers is absurd.
They are...I don't know if you are in Houston or not - I am and the there is a resounding voice of discontent here. Of course you can't really quantify that it is more subjective than anything. We won't know if the complaints against UA here in Houston will translate into lower revenues or not for a few quarters.
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 68): why is it so hard to believe that IAH-AKL isn't the next best or even in the top ten of the next best 787 markets?
I'm not going to go as far as to agree with that, but I do think that it is a viable route - I think NZ will be the one to start it.
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 68):
And, anyone who makes the argument that people in Houston are going to abandon UA and, therefore, it's a great opportunity for other airlines to compete more aggressively against UA in Houston are smoking some bad crack.
People in Houston ARE abandoning UA. The fares are ridiculous. It makes more sense to drive out to Austin and catch UA to change planes at IAH. Fares here have skyrocketed, loyal CO/UA fliers are beginning to book away...I know I am. You are naive to think that people are not. Now, granted, I doubt people will abandon the airline in droves, but there is some defecting going on.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 74, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 17351 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 73): They are...I don't know if you are in Houston or not - I am and the there is a resounding voice of discontent here.
But any different than ORD, DEN, SFO, LAX, IAD, or EWR? I think a lot of people regardless are pissed because upgrades to elites aren't coming through as promised and the SHARES conversion issue -- hour long phone waits on the regular and 1K lines as well as gate agents f-ing up on policy changes.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
BC77008 From United States of America, joined Sep 2011, 231 posts, RR: 0 Reply 77, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17201 times:
Quoting Max Q (Reply 36): Smisek is a ridiculous joke
He is an embarrassment to UA and I can only hope at this point that he is digging himself a grave with poor financial results and corporate temper tantrums. He has done what he was suppose to do, get the merger done. Hopefully soon he'll be replaced by someone that can successfully clean up his mess.
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 55): mods, please modify the thread title since its speculation but has the impression of confirmed fact
SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4 Reply 78, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 17158 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 73): They are...I don't know if you are in Houston or not - I am and the there is a resounding voice of discontent here. Of course you can't really quantify that it is more subjective than anything. We won't know if the complaints against UA here in Houston will translate into lower revenues or not for a few quarters.
We've seen this before ... discontent, we'll show them ... it's like boycotts, they rarely work. I'm not saying that UA and CO passengers aren't frustrated, I'm just saying a few connections through ATL, DTW, CLT, PHX, MIA will bring most people back to UA. This happens all the time.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 73): I'm not going to go as far as to agree with that, but I do think that it is a viable route - I think NZ will be the one to start
It is irrelevant whether the route is viable or not. The only relevant thing is what's the next best market for the next airframe.
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 73): People in Houston ARE abandoning UA. The fares are ridiculous. It makes more sense to drive out to Austin and catch UA to change planes at IAH. Fares here have skyrocketed, loyal CO/UA fliers are beginning to book away...I know I am. You are naive to think that people are not. Now, granted, I doubt people will abandon the airline in droves, but there is some defecting going on.
The fares are high most everywhere with consolidation and decreased capacity. If you're example of passengers leaving UA in droves, especially the high paying business person, is that they are driving 160 miles to Austin to save a couple of hundred bucks, then you're the one that is naive. If anything, they are going over to Hobby. But how is Hobby any different that MDW, BWI, FLL, OAK? This is nothing new. Revenue management will balance it all out just as it has done in all the other major markets. What is so unique about Houston and the frustration that locals have with the dominant airline? Locals love to bash their major hub carrier ... but they keep flying them, especially the ones on business who book at the last minute.
Sulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 503 posts, RR: 3 Reply 79, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16957 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 70): But honestly, what you see is what you get. This is CO at the helm of the new United, and the arrogance of this executive management team is proving to be the most incompetent and childish in history. It just shows that Continental really doesn't have any business running a true global airline. Most of the CO inspired decisions have been complete disasters at the new United.
CO never did things like this -- especially with Houston.
Has anyone checked recently. Is 77 Wacker on fire? It seems like everything is spinning out of control.
I'm also shocked at how fast Houstonians turned on UA. Texans have such thin skin (especially when it comes to losing an almighty corporate headquarters!)
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 80, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16910 times:
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 78): If you're example of passengers leaving UA in droves
I specifically said they are not leaving in droves.
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 78): especially the ones on business who book at the last minute.
Alot of those are going over to WN because there walk-up fare is lower. This will happen more and more as the bastardization of the Elite customer continues at UA.
Houston has the highest airfares in the nation right now...fact. WN is reaping those benefits as well at HOU, but they do have lower day of fares than UA - typically. I flew HOU-BNA on WN for $500...I think I paid $660 to go to HNL last summer on UA from IAH - a shame. I would have rather paid the $500 on WN for the 737 vs. the $551 on UA on the ERJ.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6955 posts, RR: 7 Reply 81, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16868 times:
Quoting gigneil (Reply 16): However, believing that is the reason for their change - and not a convenient excuse - isn't going to happen.
It is a convenient excuse but not without merit. Let's face it, WN growth next door is likely to shrink demand for UA at IAH. In an age of high fuel prices and rock bottom yields, even a small reduction of local O&D customers will be enough to cut routes some of which serve no purpose other than to feed other flights. If you can no longer operate those feeder routes profitably then IAH will start losing some of its hub business to DEN and LAX. So while WN expanding may not the the reason now, I can see how it can be the first domino piece to fall.
Look to BOS for a perfect example of what happened to the legacy carriers here once the likes of B6, Spirit, and WN entered the market. Granted that in BOS they are all in the same airport but that's not as relevant because the local market/catchement area is the same for HOU/IAH.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 82, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16832 times:
Quoting Sulley (Reply 79): CO never did things like this -- especially with Houston.
Well now they are. I'd like to think it's more Smisek than the rest of the staff. However, he's setting the standard for all the ex-CO and UA executives to follow. And it's destructive behavior no matter how you slice it.
The two majorly bad things he kept from Continental is their disastrous arrogant PR machine and computer systems. SHARES is selling upgrades for cheap at kiosks to non-elites (elites aren't getting upgrades), GA's are having issues rebooking passengers during IRROPS because of inadequate training (no more FAST AIR) and employee morale is at an all time low. They need to hire back a visionary like Bethune or Crandall to get things in order, and fast.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4 Reply 83, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16824 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 80): Alot of those are going over to WN because there walk-up fare is lower. This will happen more and more as the bastardization of the Elite customer continues at UA.
Walk up fares on WN are generally always lower ... everywhere .. BWI, MDW, OAK and HOU not to mention MCO, DEN, PHL, LAX, SFO, SEA, ATL, DTW, MSP ... this is nothing new ...
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 84, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16765 times:
Quoting Sulley (Reply 79): Texans have such thin skin (especially when it comes to losing an almighty corporate headquarters!)
While it was an ego thing...it would be different if UA had not had soooo many P.R. and soft product blunders to go along with it. Coupled with skyrocketing airfares here in Houston for deteriorating service? How often are you going to go to the restaurant that keeps being rude to you but charges more money?
Quoting airbazar (Reply 81): In an age of high fuel prices and rock bottom yields, even a small reduction of local O&D customers will be enough to cut routes some of which serve no purpose other than to feed other flights. If you can no longer operate those feeder routes profitably then IAH will start losing some of its hub business to DEN and LAX. So while WN expanding may not the the reason now, I can see how it can be the first domino piece to fall.
Well, Houston has the highest airfares in the nation and the yields here are typically higher. While the competitor can erode your yields - what makes the difference had WN started the international flights from another city? If I was a business I would bolster my product to compete, I would not just watch the customers go to the other guy. Southwest has given United 3 year notice and a pretty good idea as to what routes will be served...the ball is in United's court.
Sulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 503 posts, RR: 3 Reply 85, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16722 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 82): The two majorly bad things he kept from Continental is their disastrous arrogant PR machine and computer systems. SHARES is selling upgrades for cheap at kiosks to non-elites (elites aren't getting upgrades), GA's are having issues rebooking passengers during IRROPS because of inadequate training (no more FAST AIR) and employee morale is at an all time low. They need to hire back a visionary like Bethune or Crandall to get things in order, and fast.
I haven't noticed an exodus of elites -- yet. Every flight has 25+ upgradables on the system.
The GUI should be done soon but it should have been done BEFORE the cutover. SHARES used to be usuable; I've never seen so many issues now that it's the single PSS.
However I will say that there is arrogance on both sides... there's a lot of coastal elistism at UA.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 86, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16694 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 82): SHARES is selling upgrades for cheap at kiosks to non-elites (elites aren't getting upgrades),
Yea, I'm not Elite this year and I feel bad for purchasing those deals at the kiosk from those Elites...LOL, seriously though, I agree with you 100%.
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 83): Walk up fares on WN are generally always lower ... everywhere .. BWI, MDW, OAK and HOU not to mention MCO, DEN, PHL, LAX, SFO, SEA, ATL, DTW, MSP ... this is nothing new ...
But what is new is that UA no longer is offering a product incentive to keep those passengers. The mileage incentive use to keep passengers but that is steadily being whittled away. WN has arguably better service domestic. Why would I pay the last minute fare of $551 to fly an ERJ to BNA when I can pay $500 last minute to take a 737 with more pitch and slightly better inflight service...as an example?
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 87, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16710 times:
Quoting Sulley (Reply 85): The GUI should be done soon but it should have been done BEFORE the cutover. SHARES used to be usuable; I've never seen so many issues now that it's the single PSS.
That's because it's common sense -- the system was designed for America West to use back in the 1980s. It had no business being used to run a juggernaut of a merged airline.
Quoting Sulley (Reply 85): However I will say that there is arrogance on both sides... there's a lot of coastal elistism at UA.
Coastal elitism is exactly right. I guess when DL merged with NW it was southern Kentucky fried culture mixing with no nonsense Midwest culture -- it blended better. They rolled up their sleeves and put the egos aside.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
SeeTheWorld From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1275 posts, RR: 4 Reply 88, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16590 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 86): But what is new is that UA no longer is offering a product incentive to keep those passengers. The mileage incentive use to keep passengers but that is steadily being whittled away. WN has arguably better service domestic. Why would I pay the last minute fare of $551 to fly an ERJ to BNA when I can pay $500 last minute to take a 737 with more pitch and slightly better inflight service...as an example?
Again, this is nothing new. This has been happening all over the country. The fact is there are many reasons why people make the purchases they do. Miles, elite status, upgrades, etc. Price is a big deal, but it is less of a big deal for the business traveler, i.e. the old 80/20 rule ... 80% of the revenue from 20% of the passengers ... As the merger goes through its hiccups, people are going to be inconvenienced, annoyed, etc. Ultimately, UA, WN, and Houston will all coexist fine ...
If you want to go even deeper, EAL built Houston. CO is the spawn of Frank Lorenzo the charming fellow that pilfered pieces of EAL to the point of insolvency. Most of his Texas Air Corp thefts from EAL were given to CO in exchange for promissory notes that were not due to be paid to EAL until 2012! CO is full of the Lorenzo mentality leadership. How these people ever were thought of as leaders in a service industry is beyond me.
If you don't like the fact that CO is now UAL then knock yourself out. However, that is the name and those that are running the show are all CO. So when you guys start complaining about UAL tactics you can just as easily throw those words at your beloved CO leadership.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 91, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 16449 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 89): CO is full of the Lorenzo mentality leadership. How these people ever were thought of as leaders in a service industry is beyond me.
All true. It's disturbing to read about what Lorenzo did to EA to prop up CO. The sale of System One, A300s, gates and facilities, international route swapping etc. CO was a discombobulated form of Eastern no matter how one sliced it. And now those roots are running UNITED.
I used to not think so but I think it's finally true to a certain extent: Smisek exhibits many Lorenzo qualities.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
Sulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 503 posts, RR: 3 Reply 92, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16340 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 89): If you want to go even deeper, EAL built Houston. CO is the spawn of Frank Lorenzo the charming fellow that pilfered pieces of EAL to the point of insolvency. Most of his Texas Air Corp thefts from EAL were given to CO in exchange for promissory notes that were not due to be paid to EAL until 2012! CO is full of the Lorenzo mentality leadership. How these people ever were thought of as leaders in a service industry is beyond me.
If you don't like the fact that CO is now UAL then knock yourself out. However, that is the name and those that are running the show are all CO. So when you guys start complaining about UAL tactics you can just as easily throw those words at your beloved CO leadership.
These people? CO is not full of the Lorenzo mentality -- quit parroting UA ALPA. Everyone at CO hates Lorenzo.
I know you guys out in SFO think CO and CO employees are so beneath you, but come on.
I see many UAL tactics these days. You pilots are refusing AC for the silliest of reasons, such as a broken coffee pot or an INOP APU.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2175 posts, RR: 7 Reply 93, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16307 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 82): SHARES is selling upgrades for cheap at kiosks to non-elites (elites aren't getting upgrades)
The fact of the matter (take it as you wish) is that this is a deliberate business decision by the company to sell the upgrades out from under elites. SHARES does this because that's exactly how Continental, now United, programmed it to behave. This is no unintended consequence of the SHARES migration. I do not agree with the cheapo up-sells, but that's precisely how the company wants it.
I'll note that I have not seen a material reduction in my upgrade percentage, though I do better on Delta (and now AA thanks to my EXP status match! )
mcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1296 posts, RR: 17 Reply 94, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16212 times:
Quoting Sulley (Reply 92): I know you guys out in SFO think CO and CO employees are so beneath you, but come on.
I see many UAL tactics these day... you pilots are refusing AC for the silliest of reasons, such as a broken coffee pot or an INOP APU.
First I am not in SFO and I do not think CO employees are beneath me. I am glad to have new co-workers from CO and have made good acquaintances. The leadership is very much CO and many of them link back to the dark days of CO and the Lorenzo tactics. The poster I was responding to seemed to believe that saying United and IAH in the same sentence was somewhat blasphemous.
As for refusals. A coffee pot? I agree that would be frivolous. However, an APU INOP on certain flights is not a good idea. You have to base the refusal on the mission to be flown. An INOP APU between SFO and SEA is very different than an one on a SFO to PEK flight. So why you are throwing blanket refusals as being silly can you provide any data that the refusal numbers are higher than in the past? We were just given some info in a class at TK that showed LESS refusals are occurring this year versus last.
tommy767 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 6195 posts, RR: 9 Reply 96, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16107 times:
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 93): The fact of the matter (take it as you wish) is that this is a deliberate business decision by the company to sell the upgrades out from under elites. SHARES does this because that's exactly how Continental, now United, programmed it to behave.
Hmmm, so this was the elite program that CO fan boys have been praising about for years? Seems cheap.
However this is exactly how you erode elite loyalty. Might not be showing the affects just yet. As a matter fact I just read a WSJ article that says 20% of all revenue is provided by business travelers (elites) dedicating their business to a carrier. United is going to have some major issues if they keep giving that $150 upgrade to the vacation traveler as opposed to a revenue generating elite.
"Folks that's the news and I'm outta here!" -- Dennis Miller
Sulley From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 503 posts, RR: 3 Reply 97, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 16065 times:
Quoting mcdu (Reply 94): First I am not in SFO and I do not think CO employees are beneath me. I am glad to have new co-workers from CO and have made good acquaintances. The leadership is very much CO and many of them link back to the dark days of CO and the Lorenzo tactics. The poster I was responding to seemed to believe that saying United and IAH in the same sentence was somewhat blasphemous.
Ok, I apologize for my remarks. I have just seen some very nasty things being said about CO employees from (mostly senior) UA employees at SFO/ORD and wanted to speak up... everyone should be in this together. Not everyone in Texas is an uneducated redneck (though admittedly Texas isn't my favorite place and it does seem that way sometimes).
Quoting mcdu (Reply 94): As for refusals. A coffee pot? I agree that would be frivolous. However, an APU INOP on certain flights is not a good idea. You have to base the refusal on the mission to be flown. An INOP APU between SFO and SEA is very different than an one on a SFO to PEK flight. So why you are throwing blanket refusals as being silly can you provide any data that the refusal numbers are higher than in the past? We were just given some info in a class at TK that showed LESS refusals are occurring this year versus last.
I understand - but there seems to have been a spike at IAH of sUA operated flights. I was referring to the domestic flights at IAH only. This has just been my (and others) observations and experiences, but I'm praying there isn't a repeat of 2000... or 1985 The support in this country for labor action these days is almost nil and would hurt everyone at the company.
Are you guys unhappy to be flying from IAH?
For what it's worth, I love (most) of the UA side. I even list myself on an Airbus vs. a 737 when I have a choice because I've grown to enjoy them...
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2175 posts, RR: 7 Reply 98, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15933 times:
Quoting tommy767 (Reply 96): Hmmm, so this was the elite program that CO fan boys have been praising about for years? Seems cheap.
I certainly never did. It was a better program some years ago, with richer bonuses, better upgrade percentages and nicer inflight services. Since 2004 or so, CO has not won any kind of awards for its elite program, and rightfully so. I fly UA because of the convenience and the Mileage Plus program. As a currency, I find MP miles infinitely more valuable than SkyPesos and I prefer *A to OW. Of course, YMMV.
As far as the product 'seeming' cheap, well, it is. Everything about the company since the merger just looks and feels rushed, cheap. It appears that all decisions lately are based purely on cost, not value.
mcdu From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 1296 posts, RR: 17 Reply 100, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15956 times:
Quoting Sulley (Reply 97): Are you guys unhappy to be flying from IAH?
I think our pilots are glad to have IAH flying. There was a bid for the A320 and B756 base that is opening on the S-UA side in the fall. All positions filled with people wanting to go there except for a few 320 F/O's.
Don't bother yourself with the chatter from people that bash the other side. We are all in this together now. We just need to make sure we have leadership that wants to run and airline and make it prosper.
I am concerned that Smisek is going to treat the labor contracts as an ego issue for himself and forget about running the company.
I don't think the NMB would ever release the pilots to strike in an election year and all the reports say they are making progress in negotiations. But I have been wrong before....many times over.
More to the issue of the OP. I don't like the fact that WN is getting int'l access from HOU. The IAH airport was to be the international airport for Houston. Giving favors and special handouts to WN is getting old. Let them compete like everyone else in the market.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 101, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15841 times:
Quoting Sulley (Reply 97): (though admittedly Texas isn't my favorite place and it does seem that way sometimes).
Sorry for you. Four of the fastest growing cities in the country are in Texas.
Quoting mcdu (Reply 100): Giving favors and special handouts to WN is getting old. Let them compete like everyone else in the market.
How is that different from the favorable treatment UA got in DEN that WN and F9 objected too?
Quoting mcdu (Reply 100): I think our pilots are glad to have IAH flying. There was a bid for the A320 and B756 base that is opening on the S-UA side in the fall. All positions filled with people wanting to go there except for a few 320 F/O's.
Sidenote - any hints as to what new routes the 763s will see from IAH?
blueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3160 posts, RR: 1 Reply 102, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15779 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 62): WN has been going head to head everywhere.
WN hasn't been going head-to-head everywhere and isn't above using lies and deceits (aka marketing) a la UA to excuse itself from doing so. Their departure from DFW when they acquired FL is the perfect example.
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 68): And, anyone who makes the argument that people in Houston are going to abandon UA
IAH is a huge corporate-market contracts. The people in Houston are going to fly who their boss tells them to, and as long as travel managers think UA gives them the best value proposition overall, who they fly is going to be UA even if every domestic flight is operated with a 737 straight out of Ryanair's fleet, non-reclining seat and all...
Quoting peanuts (Reply 69): Mayor Annise Parker addressed the prospect of job losses at her post-Council news conference.
Nice to read of a politician who doesn't talk from both sides of her mouth to try and please everyone...
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 73): I doubt people will abandon the airline in droves, but there is some defecting going on.
And some AA loyalists have finally had enough with the inferior TATL premium product and are headed to UA. Some US fliers are moving on to DL because they need a bigger international network, and some DL fanboys are looking for a new home because they don't like the widget's new shade of red...
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 93): SHARES does this because that's exactly how Continental, now United, programmed it to behave.
And yet we didn't hear this kind of complaining when the two companies were separate. There are plenty of problems at the new UA, it is painfully obvious that SHARES can't handle the extra volume, but can we stop with the silly, unfounded allegations that every issue in this merger is not only by design, but business as usual for CO?!?
96texan From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 16 posts, RR: 0 Reply 103, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 15772 times:
When UA says they're going to cut capacity by 10%, has anyone thought that this is because UA is putting E+ on all their Boeing aircraft? For UA to cut routes out of IAH would be silly. When all the dust settles I see UA actually being a real competitor against SW in this whole "international race".
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 104, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15684 times:
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 102): WN hasn't been going head-to-head everywhere and isn't above using lies and deceits (aka marketing) a la UA to excuse itself from doing so. Their departure from DFW when they acquired FL is the perfect example.
No they sure are not, I can tell you that I am not a WN fanboy and believe that they can do no wrong. I will say as a consumer they offer a consistant product that is actually pretty good for short/medium haul domestic. DFW vs. DAL and IAH vs. HOU - is vis-a-vis same markets and WN has been competing very well...at least in Houston where they aren't pigeon held by anti-competitive legislation.
FlyingSicilian From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 105, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15439 times:
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 102): Their departure from DFW when they acquired FL is the perfect example.
not to sidetrack, but they had to leave, it was part of the previous law and amendments they agreed to with Wright (please currect me if I am wrong on Wright...)
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2175 posts, RR: 7 Reply 107, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15313 times:
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 102):
And yet we didn't hear this kind of complaining when the two companies were separate. There are plenty of problems at the new UA, it is painfully obvious that SHARES can't handle the extra volume, but can we stop with the silly, unfounded allegations that every issue in this merger is not only by design, but business as usual for CO?!?
How is it "painfully obvious" that SHARES cannot handle the extra volume? Do you have any evidence to back up that claim or is it merely your hypothesis based on an unfavorable experience?
I am not disagreeing with the fact that the changeover was botched. They took on too much at one time and completely blew it, destroying a great deal of goodwill both among customers and employees.
The evidence points to a few conclusions:
- Former UA employees were not sufficiently trained to use the new system. Many CO agents (the ones largely conducting the training of UA agents) were barely proficient at SHARES to begin with. The lack of a GUI overlay (comparable to FastAir) on 3/3 only made things worse.
- The company grossly misjudged customer expectations regarding the availability of features important to UA customers. Whether that was ignorance or purposeful is up for discussion. I have my theories.
- The company actively wants to upsell customers in many areas, including first class upgrades and E+. To believe the TOD upgrade offers are a SHARES defect is missing the point. United is deliberately trying to sell upgrades out from under elites. Again, make of that what you will.
- IRROPS handling was better with UA because of FastAir, which automated strings of keystrokes that agents are now required to manually enter in a more time-consuming process. Further, a policy change implemented on 3/3 (among others, many of which are arguably customer-unfriendly) moved major IRROPS handling outside the hands of airport agents.
There are others, but I don't feel like going in to great detail. I am in no way trying to defend the company. In fact, I believe my point is far more of an indictment of management's real intentions. Painting a computer system as the scapegoat for the company's problems is woefully misguided and shortsighted. There are far deeper and broader issues here than a PSS.
totesen From Mexico, joined Dec 2008, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 109, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15149 times:
Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 4): AH-AKL is cancelled because WN wants to do HOU-MEX.
Well that route is quite good for United, they operate almost 8 flights daily with a mix of 738, 73NG, 735 and ERJ145XR plus aeromexico has 3 daily E190 Flights, sometimes during the summer they go with the 73NG as Well. Not surprised SWA wants to fly to MEX, they are already doing it from Orange County and San Antonio, HOU seams like the next logical step. plus their partner Volaris already operated codeshare flights to their Chicago Midway, LAX, Oakland and San Jose bases.
totesen From Mexico, joined Dec 2008, 62 posts, RR: 0 Reply 110, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15092 times:
Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 72): if WN operates 40 to 50 departures into the Caribbean, Mexico, Central America, and Northern South America, don't you think some of UA airframes will make sense in other places besides the third or fourth or fifth flight to CUN where yields aren't great now?
I dont belive that HOU will ever have the international capacity of having so many flights. i dont think they will be able to manage more than 2X to CUN 1X to PVR 1x to Cabo and probably 2X to MEX.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 111, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 15033 times:
Quoting totesen (Reply 110): I dont belive that HOU will ever have the international capacity of having so many flights. i dont think they will be able to manage more than 2X to CUN 1X to PVR 1x to Cabo and probably 2X to MEX.
I think (hope) he was being facetitious. WN won't be offering more than that, not out of only four gates at least.
They will actually have five gates, four of which Southwest will have the use of on a "preferential basis so long as Southwest conducts an average of at least four operations per day on each gate."
The four preferential gates can be used by other airlines when Southwest is not using them.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 113, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14784 times:
Thanks for the clarification - In know it was 5 gates total though...From the more current news about the subject the 4 gates are supposed to be exclusive to WN with the 5th CUTE. If I was UA I would try and get COPA to fly PTY-HOU or add a sole freq to CUN/MEX/PVR from HOU from that gate.
IAHFLYR From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 4740 posts, RR: 25 Reply 114, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14847 times:
Quoting Sulley (Reply 97): For what it's worth, I love (most) of the UA side. I even list myself on an Airbus vs. a 737 when I have a choice because I've grown to enjoy them...
I was forced to recently have to be on an A320, kicking and screaming the entire way. When I got on the plane I was VERY SURPRISED, roomy, very nice seats in First Class, very friendly Flight Attendants and would no hesitate to book the Bus when offered on the city pair I'm flying.
Quoting mcdu (Reply 100): I think our pilots are glad to have IAH flying. There was a bid for the A320 and B756 base that is opening on the S-UA side in the fall. All positions filled with people wanting to go there except for a few 320 F/O's
Nice to know!
Quoting mcdu (Reply 100): I am concerned that Smisek is going to treat the labor contracts as an ego issue for himself and forget about running the company.
That friggin ego is my largest single issue........and the childish.
Any views shared are strictly my own and do not a represent those of any former employer.
fxramper From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 7048 posts, RR: 92 Reply 115, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14549 times:
AADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 1864 posts, RR: 0 Reply 116, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 14396 times:
UA is just grasping at straws to get restrictions placed on HOU just as AA got restrictions placed on DAL. It is not going to happen since WN has far more political power than UA.
Quoting chepos (Reply 14): Big strong UAL feels that threatened by WN, come on NOW. This is them just throwing a little kid tantrum for WN getting their way,
UCH is much smaller by market cap than LUV, so by that standard, WN is the big boy. WN also has a much larger fleet. UA has more seats and destinations.
mogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 117, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 14202 times:
begin sarcasm :
SMI/J should grow up and be the adult and say :
"We welcome Southwest with open arms to come in town and trash our yields since lower fares for customers is more important than either profits or shareholders"
"We sincerely apologize for choosing Chicago as our headquarters for strategic and business reasons even though it's the sensible choice, and humbly beg for forgiveness and repentance"
"We will blindly continue our massive expansion blueprints no matter what the competition is doing"
"We will never fire workers based on demand slowdown, since employee goodwill is worth more than balance sheet liquidity"
No, but using the WN/HOU 4 gate international expansion as an excuse for something you were going to do either way is the issue. I doubt the 1,300 jobs are going to be airport positions. I think the vast majority will be support positions in the various offices around north Houston that were supporting the CO side of the operation up until the systems were formally combined in March/April or whenever that was. They are coming to the point where they won't need all of the network planners, finance people, crew schedulers, etc...
My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else, any company or any un
IrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1770 posts, RR: 5 Reply 119, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13807 times:
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 117): "We welcome Southwest with open arms to come in town and trash our yields since lower fares for customers is more important than either profits or shareholders"
Yes, because the Southwest effect is still in whopping full-force and they NEVER charge anywhere near the legacies.
I'm sure that a mere 5 gates that will be used by a 737-only run airline will really just wipe out the bottom lines for United at IAH.
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 117): "We sincerely apologize for choosing Chicago as our headquarters for strategic and business reasons even though it's the sensible choice, and humbly beg for forgiveness and repentance"
Most of the people who "matter" in your opinion (elite fliers and shareholders) really don't give a sh*t about the location of the HQ.
Do you buy Facebook stock because it's headquartered in Menlo Park, CA??
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 117): "We will blindly continue our massive expansion blueprints no matter what the competition is doing"
I don't even know what this means.
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 117): "We will never fire workers based on demand slowdown, since employee goodwill is worth more than balance sheet liquidity"
Thats where UA could stand to grow a pair. Be honest and transparent about their decisions, difficult or not, and isolate them independently from p*ssing matches with the competition.
135mech From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 360 posts, RR: 2 Reply 121, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 13667 times:
Quoting jporterfi (Reply 31): I assume from the routes that UA has proposed operating from DEN that the 787s will not be subject to noticeable weight penalties due to DEN's altitude?
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 37): DEN is too high and weather dependent for such a long flight.
DEN solved this problem by extending one of their runways to 16K ft to alleviate weight restrictions and truly become an "international" airport. LH currently flies an A346 from there direct to Germany, so long flights are originating from DEN now...NRT shouldn't be a problem at all with this expansion.
panamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4595 posts, RR: 25 Reply 123, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13337 times:
Quoting AADC10 (Reply 116): UCH is much smaller by market cap than LUV, so by that standard, WN is the big boy
Actually, that's not true. Currently, UAL has a market cap of $8.4B while LUV is just shy of $7B.
T5towbar From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 423 posts, RR: 1 Reply 124, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 13111 times:
Quoting IAHFLYR (Reply 114): Quoting mcdu (Reply 100):
I am concerned that Smisek is going to treat the labor contracts as an ego issue for himself and forget about running the company.
That friggin ego is my largest single issue........and the childish.
IMHO, that is the biggest problem. Getting all of the joint contracts together is a real test of leadership from the top.
A lot can happen in three years, so UA should get it's act together and have a plan. I think they will........
This decision about WN flying International was a no-brainer for the politicians in Houston since the loss of HQ @ Smith St.
IAH-AKL? What was the thinking of flying this route in the first place? Was it supposed to be for proving for the 787?
DEN-NRT was a better choice and hopefully do well.
A comment from an Ex CON: Work Hard.....Fly Standby!
Quoting enilria (Reply 76):
The market is tiny. If it is being cancelled it is because it is a dumb route.
And you know that how?
Because DOT reports international demand by O&D. :p
I'd post the exact demand, but there are legal restrictions on it's distribution.
If you're just looking at AKL-IAH O&D, the numbers are likely tiny. But:
1. A significant proportion of NZ's pax to the U.S. originate from MEL and BNE - they prefer connecting in AKL rather than SYD and/or prefer NZ service.
2. IAH is a gateway to the U.S. centre/south/east cost, not just a destination (guess why QF has switched service from SFO to DFW?).
I doubt that CO's route planners were "dumb", any more than NZ's planners who have indicated that they're considering IAH and ORD as additional gateways. I'm sure they have access to the DOT and much more data.
From the DOT website:
"Bureau of Transportation Statistics
BTS provides free downloads of unrestricted airline data from the BTS BOOKSTORE, including a public version of the Origin and Destination Survey, the Data Bank 28 (Domestic Segment, Domestic Market, International Segment and International Market) Traffic data from the Form 41 Schedules T-100 and T-100f."
SonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 127, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12905 times:
The IAH to AKL route isn't dumb when you consider there is connecting traffic at both ends and both being Star Alliance hubs. Part of the problem is the incredible delays in the 787 program. Since the delays began, CO went from having IAH as one of their two fortress hubs to being one of nine hubs within UA. Also, the price of fuel substantially increased squeezing profitability of the route overall.
I think we'll eventually see the route established but not for several years which will allow for the 787 deliveries to occur. As was mentioned, this route mandates two a/c full time (not counting spares and maint/IRROPS). UA needs more of the 787's to be able to reliably service the route.
WN and HOU are red herrings. The DEN to NRT route makes more sense given the subsidies and timing of the route.
nzrich From New Zealand, joined Dec 2005, 1488 posts, RR: 1 Reply 128, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 12708 times:
Quoting peanuts (Reply 47): Quoting nzrich (Reply 46):
I think AKL-IAH was in the vision of NZ so it will happen whether it is NZ or UA is the question !
Vision is great. But if we have to believe UA's words today and WN's opens up a tiny (short/medium haul) international operation from HOU, they may not have the feed for this ULH flight...
Not my words. UA's spokesperson.
See how silly this all sounds now? Isn't there a more professional way to toy around with the IAH-AKL flight?
No, UA tries to get fancy and make a soup out of IAH-AKL. Ingredients: 787, IAH, HOU, DEN, NRT, AKL, WN, Caribbean and Latin America. Directions: Toss everything in 1 pot, bring to a boil, cross your fingers and see what happens...
We definitely need a UA reality show. This is good stuff folks.
Yes but I was talking about Air NZ wanting to operate this route. I think you may find that if NZ gets their 789 before UA start this route NZ will start it .
nomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 322 posts, RR: 0 Reply 131, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10666 times:
pmCO is calling the shots. Houston and Chicago are calling each others blufs and adding the multiplier affect, f---ing politics! On the other hand, NZ has interest in ORD and NZ AKL-ORD-LHR/FRA/etc. is just a 789 away, if SA)">UA cooperates. SA)">UA seems to protect ORD from alliance partners (other than LH).. ANA had to basically beg SA)">UA to be in T1 and SA)">UA kept SA out of ORD to favor LH via FRA/MUC (and these are * Alliance members, AA could only dream of this pull). It's the Chicago way! You are in bed with SA)">UA or you are on the naughty list!
point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1964 posts, RR: 1 Reply 132, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10607 times:
DEN-NRT seems to make more sense in terms of connecting people. The DEN catchment can be around 4M, and then Tokyo, well, that has some 30+ million.
In comparison, Houston is a bit over 6M, and AUK is just over 4M.
And yes, IAH maybe has more premium than DEN, but I would think that Tokyo has more premium then Auckland, Houston, and Denver combined.
Good choice UA, in spite of the perceived politics......
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2674 posts, RR: 2 Reply 133, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 10524 times:
Quoting Kaiarahi (Reply 126): If you're just looking at AKL-IAH O&D, the numbers are likely tiny. But:
1. A significant proportion of NZ's pax to the U.S. originate from MEL and BNE - they prefer connecting in AKL rather than SYD and/or prefer NZ service.
2. IAH is a gateway to the U.S. centre/south/east cost, not just a destination (guess why QF has switched service from SFO to DFW?).
I doubt that CO's route planners were "dumb", any more than NZ's planners who have indicated that they're considering IAH and ORD as additional gateways.
To over-simplify the issue, will NZ or UA fly AKL-IAH? Yes. The proof is over at DFW (hint: it has a kangaroo on the tail )
As with QF7/8 IAH-AKL is almost entirely aimed at connections to the Eastern Seaboard.
In the past when QF and NZ flew to LAX and SFO if anyone wanted to go anywhere in the East that wasn'y NYC, BOS, IAD or ORD it required a double connection. That's what they're eliminating. DFW (for QF) and IAH (for NZ) will basically function like a DXB style hub: it's all in the over-flight traffic with very little O&D
blueflyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3160 posts, RR: 1 Reply 135, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10300 times:
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 105): but they had to leave, it was part of the previous law and amendments they agreed to with Wright
That is what the Southwest PR would have you believe, but the Wright Amendment Agreement does give Southwest the right to operate in DFW. In exchange, though, Southwest must give up a gate at DAL for every gate it leases at DFW. More competition at DFW, yes, but not if the price is more competition at DAL, that is what Southwest is really saying.
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 107): How is it "painfully obvious" that SHARES cannot handle the extra volume?
For once, extended time to process inputs entered by agents both at the airport and over the phone.
For another, there are numbers backing up this claim (1), although I'll readily agree that is less painfully obvious evidently.
Quoting CODC10 (Reply 107): Painting a computer system as the scapegoat for the company's problems is woefully misguided and shortsighted.
First off, it isn't a scapegoat, it is the source of some of the problems that United is going through, and that is no excuse for that is what load testing is for. I know a lot of time and efforts went into preparing the transition on the IT side, but obviously at least one area was lacking.
Secondly, your conclusions are not incompatible with a badly performing system. The system can be slow and programmed to act as you suspect it has been programmed to. Having dealt with systems as large as SHARES and knowing how hard it is to work on them live, I choose not to share your conclusions yet, but I am starting to question their technical proficiency.
Thirdly, and most importantly, I am getting a little bit tired of the "hollier-than-thou" attitude that permeates the complaints of many pmUA fliers that all the problems, deficiencies, imperfections, totally-opposite-to-ass-kissing, grouchy attitude, whatever... United is going through were part and parcel of pmCO and that the CO fliers are so blind, stupid, brain-dead that they were getting screwed over and couldn't notice. Thank God UA fliers will save us!
The integration of the two companies isn't as smooth as expected or promised. There are some serious issues and there are also some overblown issues, it is very difficult to separate them without insider information. The issue of upgrades seems to attract the most attention with plenty of complaints of elites not getting their upgrades as they expected, but there are other elites pointing out that their upgrade statistics haven't changed much (2). There are many explanations possible (although a slow SHARES shouldn't be one of them for this specific issue unless it is programmed to skip the upgrade process if it needs to speed up transaction processing, possible but not likely).
All in all, I think the window of time to put this down to "normal" integration issues has closed and the new UA needs to do some massive damage control, but it is by no means how things were before because if they were, there would not have been a CO for UA to merge with.
(1) No, I won't share.
(2) I don't have a useful record either way.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 136, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10269 times:
Quoting point2point (Reply 132): In comparison, Houston is a bit over 6M, and AUK is just over 4M.
If by AUK you mean AKL, then you would be assuming that the entire population of NZ (4 million) is the catchment?
The population of Auckland is a wee bitty over 1 million.
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 133): To over-simplify the issue, will NZ or UA fly AKL-IAH? Yes. The proof is over at DFW (hint: it has a kangaroo on the tail
How is that "proof"? Air NZ isn't Qantas and NZ isn't Australia.
I can't think why any large number of Kiwis would want to go to Houston, either for business or pleasure. Unlike LA, there is no NZ infrastructure there and most Kiwis that I know don't want to overfly LA.
I guess AKL-IAH could be forced to work, through the connections, but why fragment what is not a large market?
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 137, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10214 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 136): I can't think why any large number of Kiwis would want to go to Houston, either for business or pleasure.
That's why the route is not aimed at them...Star hub to Star hub with a plane that was designed for missions such as this...long thin routes.
Of course there are more profitable routes to be made. The thing is here people, I don't think DEN-NRT was started instead of IAH-AKL...I believe there is another route in the works...
Not sure why anyone is surprised. They said they would reduce service and layoff employees. So they are. Cynics will point to any other reason for the reduction which best suits their personal viewpoint. Who you believe, is for you to decide. Just know much of this discussion is heat, rather than light.
Airlines, like United, and even Southwest, are moving toward rewarding travelers based on dollars spent, rather than miles traveled. Sorry. Some will lose benefits. However, many will gain benefits. It's unfortunate that the most vocal group, are the minority losing the benefits.
If it doesn't make sense, it's because it's not true.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 139, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10074 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 137): That's why the route is not aimed at them...Star hub to Star hub with a plane that was designed for missions such as this...long thin routes.
If the route isn't aimed at any O&D traffic I wouldn't put money in it.
As I said, it can be forced to work through connections, but NZ/US is not a huge market anyway - why fragment it? Why cannibalize ALK-West Coast?
LAXdude1023 From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6790 posts, RR: 24 Reply 140, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 10059 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 139): If the route isn't aimed at any O&D traffic I wouldn't put money in it.
As I said, it can be forced to work through connections, but NZ/US is not a huge market anyway - why fragment it? Why cannibalize ALK-West Coast?
QF has found success at DFW. AKL and New Zealand is a much smaller market, but a 787 might do the trick. I do think UA got less enthusiastic about it in part because of QF at DFW.
The thing is that UA doesnt want to fly it. UA made that clear with their canceling the upcoming service. NZ might have better luck.
DFW Fan Boy: Im crude, irreverent, and blunt, but Im not clueless. I offer no apologies.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 141, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10033 times:
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 140): The thing is that UA doesnt want to fly it. UA made that clear with their canceling the upcoming service. NZ might have better luck.
Whether US flies it or not is irrelevant to me. What worries me is that Air NZ might try it.
CODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2175 posts, RR: 7 Reply 142, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 10000 times:
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 135): For once, extended time to process inputs entered by agents both at the airport and over the phone.
Again, this is due to the lack of a GUI overlay. FastAir automated the keystrokes that are so time consuming in native-mode SHARES.
Quoting blueflyer (Reply 135): Thirdly, and most importantly, I am getting a little bit tired of the "hollier-than-thou" attitude that permeates the complaints of many pmUA fliers that all the problems, deficiencies, imperfections, totally-opposite-to-ass-kissing, grouchy attitude, whatever... United is going through were part and parcel of pmCO and that the CO fliers are so blind, stupid, brain-dead that they were getting screwed over and couldn't notice. Thank God UA fliers will save us!
I certainly hope you are not accusing me of such an attitude. I can assure you that I patently DO NOT feel this way at all. In fact, I agree with your notion 100%. Some of the more prominent frequent flyer boards have turned into veritable 24-hour bashfests, complete with moderators engaging in mob-style attacks (to the extent possible online) against those who are perceived to be 'toeing the company line', so to speak. It's counterproductive at best and outright childish at worst.
I call it like I see it, and the issues (and plenty of facts) seem to bear out a system that was poorly implemented primarily from a training/staff readiness perspective. Perhaps it is overloaded, but there isn't much evidence that Apollo could have supported the changeover without a hitch, either.
MillwallSean From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 1122 posts, RR: 5 Reply 144, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9753 times:
I heard that this route was a no go over a year ago and wrote so in one or two New Zealand aviation threads. The main reason being that there is not enough yield in it to make it profitable. Even if the 787 would have met the promises made it would have been a lossmaker.
NZ of today doesnt see enough traffic from Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane and the entire NZ market in itself is way to small for the route. Apparently CO expected the majority of the passengers to be from Oceania and not US originating.
Id also put a wager on NZ not starting AKL-IAH.
I see no businesscase at all for that route.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, RR: 18 Reply 145, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 9719 times:
Quoting sccutler (Reply 49): You would have to live there to understand the vastness of the Houston area, and the time it takes to get across town. In addition, no one had even conceived of hub/spoke operations when IAH opened; and at that time, airlines were heavily regulated, with government-set fares. The scale of commercial flight today was not even dreamed-of when airports like IAH and DFW were planned.
I understand that. That's why airports te size of DFW and IAH have sprung up because of their ability to expand their infrastructure and to allow competition between airlines and airline hubs. Why should WN be allowed to exist at an infrastructure limited airport that was judged back in the 60's to not be adequate for International pax, when everyone else has their International services at IAH? Why isn't IAH capable of handling a WN International connecting hub in the same way it handles a UA connecting hub? Why don't the same rules apply to WN that applied to other airlines serving Houston?
Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 71): What UA should do, is negotiate for more competitive operating contracts out of IAH, and emphasize what they have done to support the local economy- and what they will continue to do to enhance services.
Or they could move their hub back to HOU. If it's good enough for WN to operate an International hub out of HOU, then why can't UA? Oh that's right, the City selected IAH as International and made them move.
Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 71): Well for starters, that is relying on an argument that is over four decades old.
Not really. What applies to one, should apply to another. WN knew the limitations of HOU when it started service there. Sure it's expanded, sure the WN business model has changed, but why shouldn't WN, if it wants to compete Internationally, be subject to the same things every other airline serving Houston is subject to at IAH?
Quoting mariner (Reply 141): Whether US flies it or not is irrelevant to me. What worries me is that Air NZ might try it.
If they can get a 787 onto it before QF becomes too entrenched into DFW, then I see no reason for it not to be successful. What they'll have to watch, the same as QF will have to watch, is what happens to LAX loads and yields. But certainly being able to fly into LGA and DCA, instead of JFK and IAD, are selling points of such a service via IAH the same way QF sells it via DFW. It gives better coverage of the Eastern US and of Mexico/Caribbean routes along with 1 stop South/Central America services. (Even if it is the long way!)
For the reasons I've given above in posts #136 and 138.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): If they can get a 787 onto it before QF becomes too entrenched into DFW, then I see no reason for it not to be successful.
I would have thought Qantas was already entrenched at DFW.
I simply don't see the point of AKL-IAH - for Air NZ - and I think too many people are blinded by the capability of the 787.
Just because the aircraft can technically fly the route doesn't mean the route is commercially viable.
peanuts From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, RR: 4 Reply 147, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9592 times:
You still need a healthy dose of O&D traffic for the hub to hub to work. We're not talking flying from FRA-EWR here guys. This is a ULH between AKL-IAH.
It'll be tough no matter how you slice and dice it...these 787's don't come cheap. There is an opportunity cost.
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
FlyASAGuy2005 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 6540 posts, RR: 11 Reply 148, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9574 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): Why should WN be allowed to exist at an infrastructure limited airport that was judged back in the 60's
You're answering your own question there buddy...it's been 50 years; let's move on. Times change.
Look at the mess that is JFK/LGA all thanks to the same type of thinking.
CAM2:"Lightning coming out of that one." CAM1: "What?"
IrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 1770 posts, RR: 5 Reply 149, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9556 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 146): For the reasons I've given above in posts #136 and 138.
Well, you've stated mostly fixed facts about population sizes and an opinion, but I don't really see how that is tied with your concern that NZ will fly to IAH.
NZ flies to YVR at the moment which is a much smaller market than IAH.
Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 131):
pmCO is calling the shots. Houston and Chicago are calling each others blufs and adding the multiplier affect, f---ing politics! On the other hand, NZ has interest in ORD and NZ AKL-ORD-LHR/FRA/etc. is just a 789 away, if SA)">UA cooperates. SA)">UA seems to protect ORD from alliance partners (other than LH).. ANA had to basically beg SA)">UA to be in T1 and SA)">UA kept SA out of ORD to favor LH via FRA/MUC (and these are * Alliance members, AA could only dream of this pull). It's the Chicago way! You are in bed with SA)">UA or you are on the naughty list!
Okay, pmCO is NOT solely the people calling the shots. pmCO may be representing the executive leadership, but there are MANY people involved in the business decisions at the new United that hail from pmUA. The same people who probably have collectively agreed that there is no longer a business case to fly IAHAKL.
As others have pointed out, it could arguably be that the success of the QF route to DFW has preempted the need to fill in a Southern US-Oceania gap.
Also, I don't buy your argument that UA seeks to keep alliance partners away from ORD. Why then would you have AC, CM, LO, OS, SK, LX, TA and TK all serving ORD, alongside the usual guys like NH and LH???
I can see why UA would want to bar the latter to considering it flies to FRA, MUC and NRT on its own metal; but with JBAs UA doesn't need to worry about that anymore. If your factoid about SA is indeed true, then to me that seems more likely designed in a move to protect LH's interests rather than UA's, similar a la AC preventing EK and EY growing in Canada at the expense of LH's connectivity out of FRA and MUC.
Even still that is stupid and anti-competitive, IMO. SA flies to JFK and IAD and nobody seems to care. Not that I really think SAA would have much success at ORD anyway but that's a separate argument altogether.
Whereas in the context of NZ, United does NOT (any more) have plans to serve NZ directly, so why should they raise a stink if a fellow *A carrier wants to fly into ORD?
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 2674 posts, RR: 2 Reply 150, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9557 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 136): How is that "proof"? Air NZ isn't Qantas and NZ isn't Australia.
I can't think why any large number of Kiwis would want to go to Houston, either for business or pleasure. Unlike LA, there is no NZ infrastructure there and most Kiwis that I know don't want to overfly LA.
I guess AKL-IAH could be forced to work, through the connections, but why fragment what is not a large market?
I don't know a single Australian who wants to go to Texas either. But I know a lot who want to go to somewhere in the USA that isn't California.
For NYC, WAS etc it's as long as it is broad.
But for the smaller markets on the East Coast (and I'm lumping in MCO, MSY, BNA etc as "small" markets) the convenience of going SYD-DFW-MCO is obviously greater than SYD-LAX-DFW-MCO.
Also, as pointed out above, it is not inconceivable that NZ could pick up quite a bit of MEL traffic (and to a lessor extent BNE) given that AKL is significantly easier to connect at than SYD.
Right now there is a 77W to LAX, a 744 to SFO and the surplus capacity on NZ1/2 - so that is a lot of capacity AKL-LAX. It surely therefore not that small a market? If, in time, SFO went to 787 and IAH went 787 then that would be a (small) increase in capacity but make NZ services (especially to people wanting to go East) more attractive. I personally think that the market (including Australia) could absorb that.
And I say that QF at DFW is somehow "proof" because in a year that route has gone from 4x weekly to daily. That shows that there is demand from Australia to the East Coast. Further, that includes the double stop on the return but it would appear that people aren't too concerned due to the added convenience eastbound.
You are, of course, absolutely right that NZ and Aus aren't the same. Australia is 5x larger, and a 747 isn't 5x 787. But, as I said above, I also see some demand for AKL-IAH on this side of the ditch.
Quoting mariner (Reply 146): Just because the aircraft can technically fly the route doesn't mean the route is commercially viable.
Well the 747 isn't technically capable of flying DFW-BNE with 100% reliability and a full load, but it is still commercially viable. The 787 could comfortably fly IAH-AKL and shouldn't take a weight penalty unless the gales are really howling.
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, RR: 18 Reply 151, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9526 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 146): I would have thought Qantas was already entrenched at DFW.
I mean in terms of passenger flows from Australa which NZ will need for their IAH service.
There is plenty of evidence around about the number of pax getting off QF's DFW service in BNE and about how it is largely a flight full of connections at the Australian end. Given NZ's network for those same connections, plus New Zealand originating traffic and IAH originating traffic I don't see why it couldn't work. With VA on side and well timed connections to the Northwest of Australia, Bass Strait etc there is also no reason why NZ couldn't piggy back off of UA's FF base in the Oil Industry in Houston to make their service the preferred service over QF's. It comes down to the opportunity cost and the business case and the degree of success QF ultimately finds in DFW. If they do build it up and make it the success we expect they will, then UA/NZ will really have no choice but to deploy something to match it.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 153, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 9527 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 151): I mean in terms of passenger flows from Australa which NZ will need for their IAH service.
I don't get the comparison to Qantas and DFW. Air NZ doesn't carry near the volumes of business traffic that Qantas does.
I simply don't understand why AKL-IAH is perceived as a desirable route. No matter how much Australian traffic flows through AKL, Air NZ must still rely on Kiwi O&D as its core market. I can think of very few reasons why Kiwi business traffic would go to Houston and no reasons why the Kiwi leisure market would want to go to Houston.
Nor do I understand - again - why most Kiwi traffic would want to overfly the west coast, unless it was for somewhere attractive - in that sense, DEN would be more attractive, to the Kiwi tourist, than IAH, a two season vacation whammy, winter and summer.
Despite it's massive feed at IAH, United has decided that IAH-AKL isn't commercially viable and I agree with United. Why, with very much less feed, AKL-IAH would be attractive to Air NZ is beyond my imagining.
Can it be made to work? Forced connections, sure, but probably at a cost to west coast traffic, so - why?
gigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16215 posts, RR: 88 Reply 154, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 9449 times:
All I know is that this is lining up as I hoped for in my mind but was afraid would not happen.
I really thought the CO executives would cherrypick the United fleet and augment EWR and IAH at the expense of the UA network and that I'd never see a 787 at an sUA hub so soon.
I know that you've spent a lot of time in the USA, but have you ever tried to fly to a secondary market on the Eastern Seaboard? I have and I can tell you that BNE-SYD-DFW-ORF (and just ORF-DFW-BNE on the return) is a lot better than BNE-LAX-DFW-ORF. This applies to just about any city you want to throw a dart at east of the Rockies. At the end of the day QF have said something along the lines of 60% of their USA traffic is O&D California (I can't remember the exact figure) but that 40% isn't worth ignoring.
That said, I do acknowledge that there is less reason for NZ to cater for this market since they now have no competition, whereas offering one-stop service makes QF more attractive than UA, VA or DL.
Finally, bear in mind that the 60% CA figure is artificially inflated by people buying a QF ticket LAX-Aus, and then a separate ticket on UA, DL, US, WN etc for the domestic flight. This happens quite a lot. I've done it myself flying DL SFO-LAX connecting onto QF to MEL. Since the legacies through-check luggage even on different PNRs it is always interesting to watch the myriad of bags going around the conveyer belt off a flight from LAX which started their journey on DL, US or UA. I have no doubt the same applies to NZ.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 156, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9410 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 155): I know that you've spent a lot of time in the USA, but have you ever tried to fly to a secondary market on the Eastern Seaboard? I have and I can tell you that BNE-SYD-DFW-ORF (and just ORF-DFW-BNE on the return) is a lot better than BNE-LAX-DFW-ORF. This applies to just about any city you want to throw a dart at east of the Rockies.
Everything you say may be a good reason for Qantas to fly to DFW (although I know very few people who want to go directly to ORF and only to ORF).
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, RR: 18 Reply 157, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9411 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 153): Nor do I understand - again - why most Kiwi traffic would want to overfly the west coast, unless it was for somewhere attractive - in that sense, DEN would be more attractive, to the Kiwi tourist, than IAH, a two season vacation whammy, winter and summer.
Oil & Gas, that's who NZ would be aiming their service at. Forget the tourists if you like, it's Engineers and Executives coming from BP America, Shell, Apache Energy, Conoco Philips, BHP Petroleum etc that NZ would be hoping to attract to their services from IAH. All of these, and many more Co's based in Houston, have extensive operations in Australia. What NZ does is gives them an option of coming directly into the region via AKL rather than transitting LAX or DFW. If those people are UA FF's, even better and given the UA hub alot of them would be. That's what would make the case for NZ. Sure the connections to the East Coast are nice and far more convenient than LAX, sure some Kiwi O&D is nice, but if you can't cut your lunch flying from an Oil and Gas Capital into a region where the Company's based in said Capital are investing hundreds of billions of dollars then that's what will kill the service. UA doesn't have the capacity in this region to make it work. NZ and VA have a better shot at it using combined Frequent Flyer programs and the UA connections at the other end. It would be an interesting analysis and I doubt would be as far fetched as what you are imagining considering the Corporate Traffic that comes from there to here.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 158, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 9391 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 157): Oil & Gas, that's who NZ would be aiming their service at. Forget the tourists if you like, it's Engineers and Executives coming from BP America, Shell, Apache Energy, Conoco Philips, BHP Petroleum etc that NZ would be hoping to attract to their services from IAH. All of these, and many more Co's based in Houston, have extensive operations in Australia. What NZ does is gives them an option of coming directly into the region via AKL rather than transitting LAX or DFW.
Most of the high level traffic there would want First Class (hello, Qantas) or company aircraft and while there may be mid-level traffic, I wouldn't base a route on it.
If there is the traffic that you claim, why has United dropped the route? I fully accept there may be political issues to it but generally - in my experience - airlines don't easily or lightly drop profitable or potentially profitable routes.
airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 6955 posts, RR: 7 Reply 160, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days ago) and read 9071 times:
Quoting drerx7 (Reply 137): That's why the route is not aimed at them...Star hub to Star hub with a plane that was designed for missions such as this...long thin routes.
When CO announced this route they were not in *A so that argument is flawed. It's also flawed because calling AKL a hub in this context is overreaching a bit. It basically connects Australia and NZ but Australia is already well served via LAX and DFW not to mention that the vast majority of the NZ/AUS-US market is really on the West Coast. In very simple terms, people from NZ and AUS want to go to California, not Texas or for that matter anywhere else in the country except maybe NY. The reverse is also true. It made sense for CO but it's a wasted 787 for UA who has a hub in LAX and SFO.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 161, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 8936 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): Why should WN be allowed to exist at an infrastructure limited airport that was judged back in the 60's to not be adequate for International pax, when everyone else has their International services at IAH?
The infrastructure that was limited at HOU was limited by runway length, it could not comfortably handle the larger longer range aircraft with decent loads that were on the drawing board at the time. Coincidentally when I flew out and into HOU last week there was a private 767-200 there operating a sports charter. The 737 now has intercontinental range - time and technology has changed. BTW, HOU did serve international passengers before IAH opened.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): Why isn't IAH capable of handling a WN International connecting hub in the same way it handles a UA connecting hub?
Because WN has a significant operation that they built up at HOU that IAH DOES NOT have the infrastructure to support even if it was a reasonable business move (which it is not). IAH does not have the adequate gate space for another full fledged airline operation like what WN has at HOU and the same FIS staffing issues would be there that are allegedly there with a new FIS at HOU
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): Why don't the same rules apply to WN that applied to other airlines serving Houston?
They are not rules. HOU is not regulated and if any other airline wanted to fly international from HOU vs. IAH then they would have the LEGAL right to the same due diligence process that WN had with the City of Houston. Also, any other airline can fly international from HOU from the facilities that WN is paying to be built.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): Or they could move their hub back to HOU. If it's good enough for WN to operate an International hub out of HOU, then why can't UA? Oh that's right, the City selected IAH as International and made them move.
The City of Houston did NOT make anybody move. Like I said before, CO did not have a meaningful hub in Houston until 1980. Prior to that Eastern, Pan Am, National, Texas International, and Delta all had larger ops at IAH.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): WN knew the limitations of HOU when it started service there. Sure it's expanded, sure the WN business model has changed, but why shouldn't WN, if it wants to compete Internationally, be subject to the same things every other airline serving Houston is subject to at IAH?
Again, there are no regulations governing Houston like the Wright Amendment. The limitiations when WN moved from IAH to HOU were not on the airports...it was on the aircraft. Welcome to 2012. If UA was smart they would gear up to take advantage of that 5th gate the WN is building at their own cost and operate a couple of routes from there or COPA should start PTY service.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 145): they can get a 787 onto it before QF becomes too entrenched into DFW, then I see no reason for it not to be successful. What they'll have to watch, the same as QF will have to watch, is what happens to LAX loads and yields. But certainly being able to fly into LGA and DCA, instead of JFK and IAD, are selling points of such a service via IAH the same way QF sells it via DFW. It gives better coverage of the Eastern US and of Mexico/Caribbean routes along with 1 stop South/Central America services. (Even if it is the long way!)
Now, this...I agree with you on.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 160): When CO announced this route they were not in *A so that argument is flawed. It's also flawed because calling AKL a hub in this context is overreaching a bit.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 160): It made sense for CO but it's a wasted 787 for UA who has a hub in LAX and SFO.
You contradict yourself with these two statements....but I agree, that now at UA LAX and SFO make more sense - if a route to AKL has to be started. NZ has stated they want to serve midcontinent N.A. and I still believe that they will try IAH once 789s come online - if not IAH then ORD.
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 163, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 8936 times:
Quoting CALMSP (Reply 162): correct. The DEN-NRT has been available for internal for quite some time prior to the announcement of WN looking for service at HOU.
Ah-HAH!!!
Now let the speculation begin...
I read on a thread here some time ago that IAH-AMS is supposed to be going 787...
If its a new route - my guess is IAH - PEK or PVG.
Well, if any decision maker at UA in Chicago read this article, I hope their cheeks turn red from embarrassment.
You got a poor country down under all tangled up in your made up "lack of feed" drama.
A bit cheap and shameful, if you'd ask me. There was another way out UA.
I believe there will be consequences. There always are, down the line. And if anything, this stuff fires up the competition...
[Edited 2012-06-01 17:00:35]
Question Conventional Wisdom. While not all commonly held beliefs are wrong…all should be questioned.
It does say in that article AKL airport will continue to talk with UA about other routes. Personally I can't see them from LAX or SFO with NZ flying those and in Star, EWR and ORD I can't see either.
Because we're Not flying IAH-AKL?? Please!!! That's a LOSS leader route. A plan for Sure losses! Let ANZ fly the route if it's guaranteed to be THAT profitable. That route was a "GIFT" That Now isn't going to happen. You could see it happening sure as shotin' when all the fuss was raised by the City of Houston because the merger was going to BE United and the World headquarters was GOING to be in Chicago. So it's going to be tit for Tat for a while until somebody CALMS the hell Down, Find it Hilarious that the MAYOR of Houstin was lat for her flight out of SFO recently and nobody would go out of their way to grease the skids for her to get through Security. And I Hear she's coming to the open house for the "Bigwigs" as we open the new "Network Operationsl Center" at the Willis Tower in Chicago. Gotta admit though The place has a real touch of class. (as much as I hate to admit that I like it..)
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5240 posts, RR: 6 Reply 171, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7990 times:
Quoting gasman (Reply 170): Hmmm. I wonder if UA management realised they would've had a captive audience in the form of disgruntled NZ frequent fiers?
Very few of whom they would have picked up with an AKL-IAH route. Now AKL-LAX/SFO that would be a different story!
sydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, RR: 18 Reply 172, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 7932 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 158): Most of the high level traffic there would want First Class (hello, Qantas) or company aircraft and while there may be mid-level traffic, I wouldn't base a route on it.
I don't necessarily agree with that. I think a lay flat business product would be perfectly acceptable like what NZ and QF have in the Skybed Mark 2. If they're desperate for first then the options is till there for someone to go IAH-DFW-LAX-SYD to pick up the A380. But barring that a true lie flat business class product would, I think, be more than adequate.
Quoting mariner (Reply 158): If there is the traffic that you claim, why has United dropped the route?
Again, I don't think UA has the opportunity that NZ/VA does while NZ can use the pulling power of VA's FF scheme and Uniteds to gather traffic. I haven't seen the numbers, but we know that most US airlines aren't that keen on long haul and considering UA is supposedly making LAX/SFO - SYD all 777, I really can't see them deploying the 787. NZ, on ther other hand, could potentially make the better case. Whether they will or not is the question.
Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 167): Personally I can't see them from LAX or SFO with NZ flying those and in Star, EWR and ORD I can't see either.
I can't see UA expanding anywhere in this region. I think it'll be status quo from LAX & SFO unless someone pushes the out of that too.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 160): In very simple terms, people from NZ and AUS want to go to California, not Texas or for that matter anywhere else in the country except maybe NY.
I don't think that's necessarily true. You find plenty of Australians in the Rockies during Sky season and picking up cruises out of Florida. California has been the SIN of the US for alot of Australians purely because it's an easy hub for the airlines with lots of O&D. Judging by the QF experience on DFW, the market is certainly there for services directly into hubs that better serve the Eastern US, the Caribbean and Latin America. The pity is that we don't have any AA data on where people are going from the QF services once they're in DFW.
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 173, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 7867 times:
Quoting sydscott (Reply 172): I don't necessarily agree with that. I think a lay flat business product would be perfectly acceptable like what NZ and QF have in the Skybed Mark 2. If they're desperate for first then the options is till there for someone to go IAH-DFW-LAX-SYD to pick up the A380. But barring that a true lie flat business class product would, I think, be more than adequate.
I don't think it's a case of being desperate - within my experience, it just goes with the territory. Once when I had to fly SXM-BNE immediately, because of a crisis, the company offered to route me through SYD because Qantas only had Business Class, not First, on the SIN-BNE leg then.
I'm also not sure how much of this oil traffic there is.
The Pilbara is the epicentre of the Australian boom economy, but there's remarkably little scheduled service from SYD/MEL to PHE. Most of the mining companies either use company plane or charter for field work and most of the management work is done back at headquarters.
Quoting sydscott (Reply 172): I haven't seen the numbers, but we know that most US airlines aren't that keen on long haul and considering UA is supposedly making LAX/SFO - SYD all 777, I really can't see them deploying the 787.
I don't know that. I see the US legacies as favorable to international right now. Which raises the question of how much DEN is throwing at United for DEN-NRT, of course.
It's also entirely possible that United has done a deal with Air NZ to start the route - although the press today suggests otherwise - and/or IAH may throw a big bunch of money at the airline - Qantas got $3 million from DFW - so it may happen. And/or Virgin Australia may come to the party and if they did a CPA with Air NZ that might help change my mind.
But as you may have guessed, I don't like it. I don't think it does anything for Air NZ's core market, and as both of us have said, it may cannibalize the west coast routes.
point2point From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 1964 posts, RR: 1 Reply 174, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7541 times:
Quoting mariner (Reply 173): I don't know that. I see the US legacies as favorable to international right now. Which raises the question of how much DEN is throwing at United for DEN-NRT, of course.
It's still early here (not on my second cup of coffee yet), but from what I can recall there is about $2M (give or take) on the table as incentive from the airport for any carrier that starts new international routes from DEN.
I think with the DEN-NRT route there is also some more $$$ (mostly being thrown at NH) from the local community. However (can't find the link) UA is not using the any of the $2M because of the concessions deal UA struck with the airport (the one that F9 and WN were objecting to) so I believe that somehow UA is coming out with a lot more than $2M in the long run.
In the meantime..... Kim Day seems to be a pretty sharp manager there and probably did something with F9 and WN because they've been quiet about all of this after making an initial stink about the UA deal. I think both of those must have gotten something in their pockets as well.
Now.... all of the above is just my take of the events......
hohd From United States of America, joined May 2008, 270 posts, RR: 0 Reply 175, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7531 times:
If UA does not expand at IAH, then other country airlines will start adding services, just like EK, QR, SQ etc. I think UA could have reduced the impact of this, if Jeff Smisek had gone to meet the mayor and explained the position and also offered incentives to keep Southwest from building this terminal or reducing the size of the terminal to perhaps 3 gates.
UA was arrogant and Jeff who claims to be a Houston resident did not have time to show up for the meeting at City hall, instead sends a VP to this all important meeting.
And lastly if UA had its HQ in Houston, this never would have happened.
IF the Merger HADN'T happened this would all be academic also!! But it ISN'T so they need to find a way around it too
Since WHEN does a CEO kowtow to this or ANY mayor?!?!?
drerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 4916 posts, RR: 8 Reply 177, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7366 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 176): Since WHEN does a CEO kowtow to this or ANY mayor?!?!?
True...Gary Kelly did show up to the city hall hearing though to present his case.
Quoting hohd (Reply 175): I think UA could have reduced the impact of this, if Jeff Smisek had gone to meet the mayor and explained the position and also offered incentives to keep Southwest from building this terminal or reducing the size of the terminal to perhaps 3 gates.
Well, perhaps...that would have been ideal if there was not already ego's and bad blood in place on both sides.
Quoting hohd (Reply 175): UA was arrogant and Jeff who claims to be a Houston resident did not have time to show up for the meeting at City hall, instead sends a VP to this all important meeting.
Agreed. Kelly showing up in person did carry a lot of psychological weight - hell even I was impressed. It sends the message that this is important enough for me to be here and my airline is serious about the commitment to Houston - meanwhile on the UA front...
mariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 22874 posts, RR: 87 Reply 178, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 7364 times:
Quoting point2point (Reply 174): It's still early here (not on my second cup of coffee yet), but from what I can recall there is about $2M (give or take) on the table as incentive from the airport for any carrier that starts new international routes from DEN.
That $2 million has been available for about 10/12 years for certain nominated cities, of which NRT was one. Mexicana got $1 million (first year) for starting DEN-MEX and a follow up $1 million the second year.
But DIA has been chasing Japan service so long and so avidly that I would not fall over in shock if the total package to United is not very much more.
thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3727 posts, RR: 25 Reply 179, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 7274 times:
Quoting airbazar (Reply 160): In very simple terms, people from NZ and AUS want to go to California, not Texas or for that matter anywhere else in the country except maybe NY
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 150): I don't know a single Australian who wants to go to Texas either. But I know a lot who want to go to somewhere in the USA that isn't California.
Their loss.
Having spent several years in Aussie myself, I have to concur that for the average Aussie visitor to the US, few venture further east of Vegas (though NYC/DC is popular) and dare traverse "Fly Over Country" opting for Hawaii the West Coast and NYC/DC.
I agree 100%. Having spent a sizable amount of my childhood in VA/NC I think that it is such a shame that international visitors (not just Australian, everyone) seem to not go anywhere except NY/FL/CA/LAS. The USA is a truly amazing country to visit and I'm proud to call it my joint "second home" (joint with the UK where I was born). That said we have the same trend here in Aus: most people stick to SYD/CNS/AYQ.
True! But that being said?? I've NEVER EVER seen One thing that would make someone from outside of the USA want to visit HOUSTON.. Few if anybody not in the OIL business knows much of Texas aside from DALLAS. and they know them because of the "COWBOYS". Houstom might be a grand place but other than the Johnson Space center ?? What is the marketing draw and what have they done even here in the USA to market Houston?? Jeff never made it a secret that the Hometown of United was CHICAGO and the Airline would be UNITED. That was a point that the BOD made FIRMLY. So Jeff knew EXACTLY what the Deal was and SO did the MAYOR of HOUSTON! So NOW she want's Jeff to Explain WHY World headquarters is in CHICAGO??? I think he explained it to Congresswoman Barbara LEE didn't he?? If he cut's back 50% at IAH now what is it going to Change?? This is STILL childish!! I can't believe these people run anything more complex than a paid Toilet acting like this!!
FlyingSicilian From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 835 posts, RR: 0 Reply 182, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6931 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 181): True! But that being said?? I've NEVER EVER seen One thing that would make someone from outside of the USA want to visit HOUSTON.. Few if anybody not in the OIL business knows much of Texas aside from DALLAS. and they know them because of the "COWBOYS". Houstom might be a grand place but other than the Johnson Space center ?? What is the marketing draw and what have they done even here in the USA to market Houston?? Jeff never made it a secret that the Hometown of United was CHICAGO and the Airline would be UNITED. That was a point that the BOD made FIRMLY. So Jeff knew EXACTLY what the Deal was and SO did the MAYOR of HOUSTON! So NOW she want's Jeff to Explain WHY World headquarters is in CHICAGO??? I think he explained it to Congresswoman Barbara LEE didn't he?? If he cut's back 50% at IAH now what is it going to Change?? This is STILL childish!! I can't believe these people run anything more complex than a paid Toilet acting like this!!
Houston gets millions of foreign visitors a year, who shop, go to museums, the theatre, and the Rodeo (the worlds largest( draws big on the foreign crowds) but yes, Houston is more of a business destination (as is most of Texas). That wasn't the point of th service to AKL however.
As for the merger Glenn Tilton told Smisek that two thing were non-negotiable in a merger, the Name UNITED and the headquarters in CHicago. Everything else was on the table. IT was that way from the begining.
thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3727 posts, RR: 25 Reply 183, posted (1 year 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 6861 times:
Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 181):
True! But that being said?? I've NEVER EVER seen One thing that would make someone from outside of the USA want to visit HOUSTON.. Few if anybody not in the OIL business knows much of Texas aside from DALLAS. and they know them because of the "COWBOYS". Houstom might be a grand place but other than the Johnson Space center ?? What is the marketing draw and what have they done even here in the USA to market Houston?? Jeff never made it a secret that the Hometown of United was CHICAGO and the Airline would be UNITED. That was a point that the BOD made FIRMLY. So Jeff knew EXACTLY what the Deal was and SO did the MAYOR of HOUSTON! So NOW she want's Jeff to Explain WHY World headquarters is in CHICAGO??? I think he explained it to Congresswoman Barbara LEE didn't he?? If he cut's back 50% at IAH now what is it going to Change?? This is STILL childish!! I can't believe these people run anything more complex than a paid Toilet acting like this!!
WOW........simply........WOW!
Think you pretty much missed the point of the last two posts. It was not about Texas or Houston specifically, but how visitors have a history of sticking to the large cities and tourists centers thus missing out on a great deal of what a given country, state, province, ect...... have to offer
If you truly believe your theories about those not "In The Oil Business" and knowledge of the 'Dallas Cowboys', know nothing about Texas, well you might want to get out more. Trust me, I have traveled on 6 continents and to some 70 countries, people know of Texas. Sadly much of what they know often comes 3rd party sources, namely the media and Hollywood, still many want to visit (Austin and San Antonio rate very high).
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 182): Houston gets millions of foreign visitors a year, who shop, go to museums, the theatre, and the Rodeo (the worlds largest( draws big on the foreign crowds) but yes, Houston is more of a business destination (as is most of Texas). That wasn't the point of th service to AKL however.
Nicely said.
Quoting FlyingSicilian (Reply 182): As for the merger Glenn Tilton told Smisek that two thing were non-negotiable in a merger, the Name UNITED and the headquarters in CHicago. Everything else was on the table. IT was that way from the begining.
I can picture Tilton telling ol Jeffy.........."Pull down your pants and bend over" and Jeffy gladly obliged. Isn't it amazing how some will sell their souls for a little power?
I know, I know. If you look up the thread you will see several Antipodean posters (myself included) saying we don't know anyone who wants to go to Texas. However AKL-IAH (like SYD-DFW) isn't supposed to be an O&D route. It's the same as the 3 daily 77Ws from your back yard to DXB: it's the connections which those routes rely on.
Quoting thomasphoto60 (Reply 183): I can picture Tilton telling ol Jeffy.........."Pull down your pants and bend over" and Jeffy gladly obliged. Isn't it amazing how some will sell their souls for a little power?
I actually think they were both equally willing
One poster said a while back that Tilton was so desperate to merge his company that he would have done so with an alpaca farm in Kalamazoo if the opportunity arose
sccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5103 posts, RR: 28 Reply 185, posted (1 year 2 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 6167 times:
Funny. Was at a wedding this last weekend in the Texas hill country, numerous Aussies in attendance (groom is Australian). Pretty much all f them had full travel itineraries, in the state. Only one couple planned to travel anywhere in the states outside Texas, an overland drive to SFO.
All were effusive in their praise for QF's initiation of its DFW service and the ability to (finally) bypass LA.
BWTHD they know?
...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
Sponsor Message: 
From Puerto Rico, joined Nov 2005, 865 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 8790 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2396 posts, 
From Finland, joined Feb 2011, 391 posts, 
From Germany, joined Mar 2009, 835 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Dec 2009, 1312 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 5702 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, 
From Lebanon, joined Sep 2006, 6790 posts, 
From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 6160 posts, 
From Mexico, joined Dec 2008, 62 posts, 
From Brunei, joined Apr 2008, 1122 posts, 
From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 31156 posts,