Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Out Of 8 Routes To NRT, UA Downgrades LAX, Why?  
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1030 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17620 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

(point of inquiry)

Why is UA replacing the 777 with the 787 on LAX-NRT.... This route is probably the most important route over the Pacific Ocean, I guess the Pacific's version of JFK-LHR... I'd think they would want to offer more seats, not less... United flies to NRT from 8 U.S points, LAX is where they will offer the least amount of seats. Why?

there is far more O&D traffic from LAX to NRT than any of these

SEA-HNL-777
HNL-NRT-777
ORD-NRT-777
IAD-NRT-777
EWR-NRT-777
IAH-NRT-777
SFO-NRT-747
LAX-NRT-787???

comments

67 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17585 times:

Yeah, but have you seen how many airlines fly LAX-Tokyo? UA, AA, DL, ANA, JL, MAS, and SQ all fly the route. With the 787 UA can still capture the higher yielding business traffic while pushing the junk economy fares onto someone else. (See the Transcon PS service as a model).

User currently offlineAA737-823 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 5947 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 17531 times:

Two reasons, if you ask me (which you did):
1. Offer the best onboard product, which at this point, is definitely the 787. Unless, of course, you're one of the schmucks stuck in coach, in which case you'll emerge in Narita approximately the same size as the average Japanese tourist.
2. Bring yields back up. Where there is competition, there is ever-decreasing yields. By taking seats out of the market, prices can increase.

I'm sure it's way more complicated than that, but I'm not a route analyst.


User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 549 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 17349 times:

It can also be a marketing ploy. As UA knows their product is inferior (especially in Y) they can use the "state of the art" 787 to entice fliers to try us out  . As someone who works sCO scheduling, I am excited to see how we schedule this route. sCO takes control of the ORD-SNN route (ewr-snn-ord-snn-ewr). And, just for trivia sake, the third IAH-LHR route is now a 6 day trip. yikes!! lol

User currently offlinespeedbird0125 From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 184 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 17248 times:

Does it mean that LAX-NRT will be operated by sCO's 787 along with sCO crews? What about LAX based sUA crews? Are they losing NRT trip? I guess this is the only Japan route that LA base has.

[Edited 2012-12-11 16:19:58]

User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6197 posts, RR: 24
Reply 5, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 17023 times:

Quoting speedbird0125 (Reply 4):

All the 787's are s-CO, so yes. The s-CO type have been picking up more Trans-pac flying as of late including NRT-SIN. The s-UA crew will find other flying, this is only 1 route.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16978 times:

There's a ton of capacity in the market. This will give UA a much more efficient plane on the route, which should make the numbers looks a bit nicer from the cost end of the equation.

Dis UA offer First to NRT? The loss of the premium seats would seem to be a bigger deal than the loss of Y seats. And, of course, a 788 isn't that much smaller than a 772, or is UA sticking with 8 across Y?


User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16806 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 1):
Yeah, but have you seen how many airlines fly LAX-Tokyo? UA, AA, DL, ANA, JL, MAS, and SQ all fly the route. With the 787 UA can still capture the higher yielding business traffic while pushing the junk economy fares onto someone else. (See the Transcon PS service as a model).

This is all pretty much the case here. Also maybe UA wanted to promote their 787 on this heavily-traveled and competitive route.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 538 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16773 times:

ORD-NRT at the peak was 2x daily 744 and ORD-KIX daily as well. LAX has much more competition and UA has to do what they have to do.

ORD-NRT has NH with a 77W to compliment UA and is adding a 2nd flight (so we are "rumored" to hear). I would guess ORD-KIX and ORD-NGO will be added with 787's in the next few years. Right plane for the route and can connect to GRU (and possibly others - DTW DL lovers and DFW AA lovers know the routine of Asia to deep South America via any place but the left coast).


User currently offlinedank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 915 posts, RR: 15
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16748 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Why is UA replacing the 777 with the 787 on LAX-NRT.... This route is probably the most important route over the Pacific Ocean, I guess the Pacific's version of JFK-LHR... I'd think they would want to offer more seats, not less... United flies to NRT from 8 U.S points, LAX is where they will offer the least amount of seats. Why?

there is far more O&D traffic from LAX to NRT than any of these

I'd think that NYC-TYO is probably a "more important" route. Traffic doesn't equal profit and maybe they can deploy those planes somewhere where they will generate better profit. For UA SFO likely can generate more traffic to TYO than LAX.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16699 times:

The correct term is downgauge. We can all agree the 787 is an upgrade.

NS


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 16687 times:

LAX is becoming a 787 base -- LAX-PVG also gets the 787.

Also remember JV partner ANA also has 2x daily to LAX. Between them plenty of capacity and flights.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineSR117 From Mexico, joined Jun 2000, 799 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16640 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):

The correct term is downgauge. We can all agree the 787 is an upgrade.

Is 3-3-3 in a 787 better than 3-3-3 in a 777?? Given the fuselage width of both airplanes, one would be hard pressed to argue that the 787 is an upgrade with regards to passenger comfort... at least with regards to the Y cabin.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31421 posts, RR: 85
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16612 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting delimit (Reply 6):
Does UA offer First to NRT?

The 787 has Business First.

The 747 offers Global First as do the pmUA 777s.


User currently offlinedank From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 915 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16609 times:

Quoting SR117 (Reply 12):

Quoting gigneil (Reply 10):

The correct term is downgauge. We can all agree the 787 is an upgrade.

Is 3-3-3 in a 787 better than 3-3-3 in a 777?? Given the fuselage width of both airplanes, one would be hard pressed to argue that the 787 is an upgrade with regards to passenger comfort... at least with regards to the Y cabin.

Though with other characteristics (such as the lower cabin atmosphere), etc. it could be an upgrade.


User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9820 posts, RR: 52
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16613 times:

LAX-NRT has the lowest yield route to NRT from the US for United. There are 8 airlines competing on the route which kills yields. There's no other route to the US with that much competition. Discount travel agents frequently route people via LAX to get to Tokyo since both LAX-HND and LAX-NRT are very cheap.

The 787 makes sense because it has great operating economics and doesn't have that many seats to fill. UA doesn't have to offer cheap discount tickets in business or economy to fill up the plane.

Another beneficial factor is it is easy to reroute people on NRT-LAX if an airplane goes tech. There are always entry into service problems, so the on time completion factor will be low.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineg500 From United States of America, joined Oct 2011, 1030 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16483 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 15):

8 airlines competing on LAX-NRT? I think I got my awswer right there


User currently offlinedelimit From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 1513 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16483 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 13):
The 747 offers Global First as do the pmUA 777s.

So, downgrade in that the 787 will not offer a true First (ANA can handle those fliers I guess?), but upgrade in that the 787 should be a nicer ride in general.


User currently offlineSR117 From Mexico, joined Jun 2000, 799 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16338 times:

Quoting dank (Reply 14):
Though with other characteristics (such as the lower cabin atmosphere), etc. it could be an upgrade.

Yeah but being a couple of inches closer to your next door neighbor can make all the difference .

I'll change my tune if there's somebody that does a longhaul in a full Y cabin and they say that the higher humidity and lower cabin atmosphere made the pain less vs a 777 with seats that give you almost 2 more inches of shoulder room  

So far most of the long hauls are operated by ANA and JAL, operating 2-4-2 cabins, so let's wait and see for reports from people flying carriers flying with 3-3-3 configurations.


User currently offlineDTWLAX From United States of America, joined Aug 2009, 820 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 16285 times:

Quoting g500 (Reply 16):
8 airlines competing on LAX-NRT? I think I got my awswer right there

Yeah.. AA, DL, UA, JL, NH, SQ, KE and MH


User currently offlineDeltal1011man From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 9700 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 16204 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):

same reason Delta doesn't keep a 747 on LAX-NRT. Market has a ton of capacity.

UA/ANA have (IIRC) 3x NRT 1x HND.



yep.
User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13549 posts, RR: 100
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 12889 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Down GAUGE! Its not a downgrade in service quality, but a reduction in gauge. Heck, it might be an improvement in service quality.   

Quoting Polot (Reply 1):
Yeah, but have you seen how many airlines fly LAX-Tokyo? UA, AA, DL, ANA, JL, MAS, and SQ all fly the route.
Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 15):
LAX-NRT has the lowest yield route to NRT from the US for United. There are 8 airlines competing on the route which kills yields.

The above two explain why there is no reason to compete on size on the route.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):

LAX is becoming a 787 base -- LAX-PVG also gets the 787.

Interesting. That makes sense. So will SYD go to the 787.  
Quoting SR117 (Reply 18):
So far most of the long hauls are operated by ANA and JAL, operating 2-4-2 cabins, so let's wait and see for reports from people flying carriers flying with 3-3-3 configurations.

Once the A359 is out in numbers, we'll see more airlines convert to the 3-3-3 just as the 777s are going to 10 across Y. Its economics. If someone is going to be cheap, they're looking for the lowest cost. If they want a little more room, go Y+.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offline777ord From United States of America, joined May 2010, 549 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12655 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):
LAX is becoming a 787 base -- LAX-PVG also gets the 787.

That is correct! There will be a 787 base, as well as a 75 base in the near future!!  
Quoting as739x (Reply 5):
All the 787's are s-CO, so yes. The s-CO type have been picking up more Trans-pac flying as of late including NRT-SIN. The s-UA crew will find other flying, this is only 1 route.

Look for ORD-NRT to go sCO 777.


User currently offlineJAAlbert From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 1624 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 12317 times:

Anything that can differentiate you from the competitors has got to be good. And the 787 is different!

Quoting 777ord (Reply 3):
And, just for trivia sake, the third IAH-LHR route is now a 6 day trip.

Can you explain what this means for us non-professional aviation enthusiasts (such as myself)?


User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9820 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 11990 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 11):

LAX is becoming a 787 base -- LAX-PVG also gets the 787.

Interesting. That makes sense. So will SYD go to the 787.

I can't imagine SYD going to the 787. That would be too dramatic of a capacity downgrade. Also SYD fills the first class and business class cabin with revenue passengers.

LHR is a candidate. 5 airlines on the route and similar to NRT and while they have used 767s in the past to supplement capacity, that fleet is relatively thin.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinelaca773 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 4064 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 11636 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 24):
LHR is a candidate. 5 airlines on the route and similar to NRT and while they have used 767s in the past to supplement capacity, that fleet is relatively thin.

   !

UA has Star partner NH, flying the route daily to NRT with a 77W which has PJWY and HND with a 77E JWY.
Since UA product is markedly behind in regards to service and product, it makes since for UA to downgauge LAX-NRT to a 788. I don't see upgrades happening like they probably do now with a PJWY 77E. I see the J cabin being more revenue flying passengers versus upgrades on the 788.
I wouldn't be surprised to see LAX-LHR downgauged to a 788 as well. Star partner NZ flies in this market with the best product out there when you compare it to what BA, AA, UA and VS offer in the same cabins.


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 26, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11102 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Why is UA replacing the 777 with the 787 on LAX-NRT.... This route is probably the most important route over the Pacific Ocean, I guess the Pacific's version of JFK-LHR..

This isn't all that surprising, for many of the reasons others have already listed. Also, you mentioned the NYC (well JFK)-LHR route. Remember, UA flies 4 out of their 5 daily flights on that route with 757s. so they apparently have no qualms putting a smaller aircraft on an "important" route when others are flying much larger aircraft.


User currently offlineAussieItaliano From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2005, 442 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 11334 times:

I wouldn't be shocked to see the 788 on LAX-LHR. I fly this route often, and there are always lots of empty seats in Y and especially in Y+. Even though I prefer NZ, many times I'm happy to fly UA when I get 3 seats to myself in Y+ to lie down and sleep. I find it easier to sleep across 3 Y seats on the sUA 772 than in J on the same aircraft!

On the other hand, the reason why we may not see a 787 on this route is because the J cabin almost always goes out full, and the F cabin often goes out full. The 787 would mean a reduction of J and elimination of F.

That may be the reason why UA is keen to allow so many empty Y seats between LAX and LHR, and possibly between LAX and SYD as well.



LHR - The Capital of the World
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 11082 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 26):

This isn't all that surprising, for many of the reasons others have already listed. Also, you mentioned the NYC (well JFK)-LHR route. Remember, UA flies 4 out of their 5 daily flights on that route with 757s. so they apparently have no qualms putting a smaller aircraft on an "important" route when others are flying much larger aircraft.

You mean EWR-LHR, I hope as UA does not fly to LHR from JFK. Plus they use a 772 in addition with the 752's form EWR.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinecopter808 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 1132 posts, RR: 1
Reply 29, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 11000 times:

Quoting 777ord (Reply 22):
Look for ORD-NRT to go sCO 777.

Wow, you mean I can actually watch some good movies enroute? Last week I actually booked NRT-EWR-ORD just so I could watch my choice of movies! I just hope there are still enough seats available to get me there and back!


User currently offlinePSA727LAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 18 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 10788 times:

UA it appers has determined there is too much direct competiton out of LAX to NRT so they are goin after the business flyers primarily by offering 787 service. Out of SFO they can use the 747 because they OWN SFO an also are aware there is huge vacation traffic to/from that won't always be after upper class seats.

Also it seems that several of the regulars of TransPac service are setting up LAX as their respective 787 base much as they did with the 777 when fazing out 747 service.


User currently offlineslider From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 6924 posts, RR: 34
Reply 31, posted (2 years 1 week 3 days ago) and read 10762 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 15):
There are 8 airlines competing on the route

Bingo--which makes the 787 the perfect fit for exaclty this route. It's an optimal application for the mission and why Boeing's decision to go in this direction is validated.

High number of F seats, lower # of Y, goose yield up on a premium aircraft with outstanding economics and get an advantage over competitors.

Isn't that the whole point?


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 32, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10704 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
Down GAUGE! Its not a downgrade in service quality, but a reduction in gauge. Heck, it might be an improvement in service quality.

But "service" is often applied to schedules. I've seen dozens of references in the media, and even in airline ads, to airlines increasing "service" in a market, referring to frequency or capacity, nothing to do with product changes or inflight service.

If an industry jargon term like "downgauge" or "upgauge" was used in an airline press release, few people would know what it means.


User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9820 posts, RR: 52
Reply 33, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10649 times:

Quoting laca773 (Reply 25):
UA has Star partner NH, flying the route daily to NRT with a 77W which has PJWY and HND with a 77E JWY.
Since UA product is markedly behind in regards to service and product, it makes since for UA to downgauge LAX-NRT to a 788. I don't see upgrades happening like they probably do now with a PJWY 77E. I see the J cabin being more revenue flying passengers versus upgrades on the 788.

I’m not sure UA management agrees on all models except the 747. They have upgraded the food in business class to match what they had been offering in first. They upgraded the seats in all cabins to again be industry competitive (some might complain about 2-4-2 in business, or bad flight attendants, or poor reliability). UA has no illusions that they are market leading in the product they offer, but I don’t think UA leadership thinks they are markedly behind. A.net and flyertalk might think that, but they aren’t the ones making fleet decisions.

[Edited 2012-12-12 13:05:25]


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 34, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10668 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Why is UA replacing the 777 with the 787 on LAX-NRT.... This route is probably the most important route over the Pacific Ocean, I guess the Pacific's version of JFK-LHR... I'd think they would want to offer more seats, not less... United flies to NRT from 8 U.S points, LAX is where they will offer the least amount of seats. Why?

there is far more O&D traffic from LAX to NRT than any of these

LAX is not really a hub for UA (on the Pacific, SFO is THE hub), therefore, they have no need for capacity. Only way they can survive on this highly competitive (but potentially lucrative) market is to adjust capacity to a minimum while maintaining the premium offer at its best. The 787 will certainly give them an advantage as it is their most modern product (when was last time UA got a new plane again?)

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 24):
I can't imagine SYD going to the 787. That would be too dramatic of a capacity downgrade. Also SYD fills the first class and business class cabin with revenue passengers.

And why not? QF A380s are there to make every single plane in UA's fleet (besides the 787) look obsolete. LAX-SYD is almost point-to-point for UA (vs hub-to-hub for QF obviously)



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlinePolot From United States of America, joined Jul 2011, 2366 posts, RR: 1
Reply 35, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10596 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 34):
And why not? QF A380s are there to make every single plane in UA's fleet (besides the 787) look obsolete. LAX-SYD is almost point-to-point for UA (vs hub-to-hub for QF obviously)

If you consider QF flying LAX-SYD hub to hub than you have to consider LAX a hub for UA, considering they are larger than AA (who I presume you are attributing to QF's LAX "hub") in LAX.


User currently offlineukoverlander From United Kingdom, joined May 2010, 385 posts, RR: 0
Reply 36, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 10608 times:

Quoting Polot (Reply 1):
1. Offer the best onboard product, which at this point, is definitely the 787.

On United?.....you've got to be kidding surely?


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3806 posts, RR: 29
Reply 37, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10249 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
there is far more O&D traffic from LAX to NRT than any of these

Do you have the actual numbers to back that claim? Just curious to know inasmuch as, historically speaking, based on timetables of 1960s-'80 vintage, SFO has/had been the primary U.S. gateway to/from Tokyo...don't know whether/how/why that may have changed between 'then' and 'now.'


User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9820 posts, RR: 52
Reply 38, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10145 times:

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 34):

And why not? QF A380s are there to make every single plane in UA's fleet (besides the 787) look obsolete. LAX-SYD is almost point-to-point for UA (vs hub-to-hub for QF obviously)

I’m not sure QF is hub to hub. UA has more LAX traffic than AA. LAX-SYD is filled mostly with point to point for all airlines operating the route, and UA splits connections over SFO & LAX.

QF has both the A380 and 747 on LAX-SYD. It’s not all about having the best product. UA’s first and business class seats on their 747s are better than QF. UA has a lousy economy product, and some say UA has a lousy overall product, yet they are still the largest airline in the world depending on how you measure.

UA does a pretty good job of filling their 747s, however the route is nothing like the cash cow it was before Delta and V started competing. I don't see the route going to the 787.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3671 posts, RR: 12
Reply 39, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9912 times:

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 37):
SFO has/had been the primary U.S. gateway to/from Tokyo...don't know whether/how/why that may have changed between 'then' and 'now.'

Well, he said O&D, not "gateway", and as to "why" SFO might not even have that traffic anymore would probably be because there are more non-stops now - there's no need to fly JFK-SFO-NRT, for example. So that takes that traffic away from SFO, and Los Angeles is just a bigger city so would probably have more O&D traffic naturally.

Of the routes UA serves (which includes EWR but not JFK), I wouldn't doubt LAX has the most O&D to/from NRT.



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently onlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9820 posts, RR: 52
Reply 40, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9822 times:

Quoting spacecadet (Reply 39):

Of the routes UA serves (which includes EWR but not JFK), I wouldn't doubt LAX has the most O&D to/from NRT.

Honolulu - Tokyo is the biggest O/D route to Tokyo from the US. It has around 12 daily flights compared to 8 from LAX and has virtually zero connecting traffic.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineSFOA380 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 41, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 9726 times:

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
.... This route is probably the most important route over the Pacific Ocean, I guess the Pacific's version of JFK-LHR

JFK-LHR has 1.4 million more passengers than LAX-NRT--more than double the traffic and it's a declining route. SFO-HKG isn't too far behind LAX-NRT and probably has way higher yields than LAX-NRT to boot.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 42, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9508 times:

Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 37):
Do you have the actual numbers to back that claim? Just curious to know inasmuch as, historically speaking, based on timetables of 1960s-'80 vintage, SFO has/had been the primary U.S. gateway to/from Tokyo...don't know whether/how/why that may have changed between 'then' and 'now.'
SFO is a significantly smaller US-Asia local market compared to LAX except to HKG. If anything LA basin having double the population of the Bay Area is a good reason for the difference.

Matter of fact what service SFO does have today is exaggerated due to the UA hub. If there was no hub, there would be even less seats in the market between Asia and SFO.

I posted the O&D numbers for dozen US city pairs a few months back in a thread. Since I don't feel like repeating the exercise, here are the Tokyo numbers for 12-months ending June 2012.

NRT-HNL: 1,472,045
NRT-LAX: 1,188,167
NRT-GUM: 973,749
NRT-ORD: 631,090
NRT-JFK: 619,140
NRT-SFO: 590,411

As you can see the NRT-SFO market is smaller than even Chicago.

[Edited 2012-12-12 17:04:23]

[Edited 2012-12-12 17:05:31]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8770 posts, RR: 3
Reply 43, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9435 times:

If UA had a huge network at LAX, which they do not, they might need to haul a lot of economy passengers from the network. But it's mainly just local. 787 tells us, pay a premium fare in this O&D market, otherwise don't fly UA. If they are flying onward from NRT, UA most likely isn't getting that revenue either so screw that person as well.

User currently offlineSFOA380 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 224 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9379 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 42):
If anything LA basin having double the population of the Bay Area is a good reason for the difference.

Thanks captain obvious
 


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4593 posts, RR: 7
Reply 45, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 9353 times:

Quoting brilondon (Reply 28):
You mean EWR-LHR, I hope as UA does not fly to LHR from JFK. Plus they use a 772 in addition with the 752's form EWR.

No, I was careful to write NYC-LHR, as we're always being preached to here on a.net that EWR is a NYC airport.  

And the count is 4 752s and 1 772, which is my point: Clearly UA has no problem using small aircraft on an "important" route.


User currently offlineCODC10 From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 2463 posts, RR: 6
Reply 46, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 9181 times:

The 787 on LAX-NRT serves a few purposes, as have been pointed out. The route is a worse performer than other NRT transpacs, so the '87 reduces capacity, improves margins and serves as a product differentiator that United will most certainly attempt to exploit. The NH joint venture also dictates strategies as to capacity discipline/rationalization.


Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):
No, I was careful to write NYC-LHR, as we're always being preached to here on a.net that EWR is a NYC airport.

Why am I not surprised you've found a way to work your tired schtick into a thread about NRT, LAX and the 787?  


User currently offlinespink From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 319 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8815 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 42):
SFO is a significantly smaller US-Asia local market compared to LAX except to HKG. If anything LA basin having double the population of the Bay Area is a good reason for the difference.

Matter of fact what service SFO does have today is exaggerated due to the UA hub. If there was no hub, there would be even less seats in the market between Asia and SFO.

I think you are undervaluing the value of the SFO-ASIA biz market. Bay Area to Asia flights have a vary high percentage of corp/biz passengers.


User currently onlinebobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6535 posts, RR: 9
Reply 48, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8786 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 21):
Down GAUGE! Its not a downgrade in service quality, but a reduction in gauge. Heck, it might be an improvement in service quality.

Be assured that not everyone agees with your definition of Down gauge or Up gauge.


User currently offlineHeeseokKoo From South Korea, joined Jan 2005, 666 posts, RR: 1
Reply 49, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 8791 times:

Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 19):
Yeah.. AA, DL, UA, JL, NH, SQ, KE and MH

According to airlineroute.net, NRT-LAX sector is all zeroed out from Mar 31st 2013. Although there's no confirmation yet, KE might be stepping away from this war.


User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2100 posts, RR: 3
Reply 50, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 8670 times:

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 49):
Quoting DTWLAX (Reply 19):Yeah.. AA, DL, UA, JL, NH, SQ, KE and MHAccording to airlineroute.net, NRT-LAX sector is all zeroed out from Mar 31st 2013. Although there's no confirmation yet, KE might be stepping away from this war.

Maybe a shoe finally fell to earth here. Why on earth is KE in this market to start with.

I had a friend that flew MH LAX-NRT in the 80's. So they have some history in the market, even though I believed they withdrew for awhile.

Don't forget UA is also starting DEN-NRT, further reducing the need for a LAX connection to NRT.

UA does not need F to NRT from LAX. Probably the folks that can pay it take Singapore.


User currently offlineHOONS90 From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 3078 posts, RR: 52
Reply 51, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8636 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting klwright69 (Reply 50):
Maybe a shoe finally fell to earth here. Why on earth is KE in this market to start with. I had a friend that flew MH LAX-NRT in the 80's. So they have some history in the market, even though I believed they withdrew for awhile.
KE has been in the LAX-NRT/TYO market for 41 years.

[Edited 2012-12-13 08:02:42]


The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
User currently offlineIAH59 From Pakistan, joined Nov 2012, 469 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8591 times:

Well Korean Air is ending there Tokyo route this up coming March and Delta flies to both Tokyo Airports.

User currently offlineklwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2100 posts, RR: 3
Reply 53, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 8563 times:

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 51):
Quoting klwright69 (Reply 50):Maybe a shoe finally fell to earth here. Why on earth is KE in this market to start with. I had a friend that flew MH LAX-NRT in the 80's. So they have some history in the market, even though I believed they withdrew for awhile.KE has been in the LAX-NRT/TYO market for 41 years.

I stand corrected. This area is not my area of expertise. Thanks.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2241 posts, RR: 15
Reply 54, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8519 times:

Quoting IAH59 (Reply 52):

Well Korean Air is ending there Tokyo route this up coming March and Delta flies to both Tokyo Airports.

Interesting. DL and KE do not have TATL ATI as far as I know. Is SkyTeam simply trying to right-size the amount of capacity on LAX-NRT?



next flights: jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg, cdg-phl-msp
User currently offlinecoolfish1103 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 405 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8461 times:

As of now, ICN is decent enough to do transit on its own. KE can offer lower prices to force the passengers to route NRT-ICN-LAX v.v. and still have decent profit than to compete in this bleeding direct NRT-LAX v.v. with 7 other carriers.

It does makes me wonder how long MH will survive on KUL-NRT-LAX v.v. I don't think they are getting better yields routing this through Tokyo than Taipei. With Taiwan getting VISA exempt to the U.S., capacities have been filled on BR and CI flights. Would MH or even SQ care to make a return?


User currently offlinecommavia From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 11976 posts, RR: 62
Reply 56, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8443 times:

Quoting coolfish1103 (Reply 55):
It does makes me wonder how long MH will survive on KUL-NRT-LAX v.v. I don't think they are getting better yields routing this through Tokyo than Taipei. With Taiwan getting VISA exempt to the U.S., capacities have been filled on BR and CI flights. Would MH or even SQ care to make a return?

Agreed, although they are the smallest player in the market with only a few flights per week. I still think that once MH is in oneworld, and once AA loses BR to UA/Star, it might make sense for MH to return their LAX-KUL flights to the past routing via TPE, if for nothing else then to restore some nonstop North America-TPE connectivity for oneworld passengers. The LAX-TPE market is crowded and has lots of low-cost competition from BR and CI, but of course MH faces a similar dynamic on LAX-NRT now, anyway, plus overlap with two soon-to-be-fellow-oneworld members.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 57, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 8443 times:

One thing to keep in mind -- US-Japan is a shrinking market.

Not only has the overflights of Japan become more prevalent reducing number of folks that fly via gateways like Narita, the hard economics and demographic shifts in Japan has lessened overseas travel to the US.

So unlike much of Asia which is booming, the Japan-US travel market is going the other way.


For KE, a Tokyo to Los Angeles link was its first ever flight across the Pacific in 1971, and has remained a route ever since with variations including stops on Honolulu. Matter of fact my first visit to Japan in the early 1980s was on KE using a LAX-HNL-NRT routing. Dropping this long historic route might just be appropriate pragmatism. Its gone from 747 to 777 to A330 in recent times, so quite clearly the traffic has also declined.

And for Malaysian, frankly I'm not sure what its up to. In the past it had operated to LAX via Narita also, but for the longest reverted to routing via Taipei instead during the 1990s. Even with the downgauge to 777 its loads between NRT-LAX are not that strong - registering only about 72% for the first 10-months of 2012.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7970 posts, RR: 19
Reply 58, posted (2 years 1 week 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 8282 times:

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 49):
According to airlineroute.net, NRT-LAX sector is all zeroed out from Mar 31st 2013. Although there's no confirmation yet, KE might be stepping away from this war.

I wouldn't be so sure yet, my buddy is confirmed on the KE LAX-NRT sector in April.



Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 59, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 8053 times:

Quoting Roseflyer (Reply 40):
Honolulu - Tokyo is the biggest O/D route to Tokyo from the US. It has around 12 daily flights compared to 8 from LAX and has virtually zero connecting traffic.

I believe many passengers connect to OGG and other islands. They're not all destined to HNL.


User currently offlineAADC10 From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 2103 posts, RR: 0
Reply 60, posted (2 years 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 7674 times:

Quoting AA737-823 (Reply 2):
1. Offer the best onboard product, which at this point, is definitely the 787. Unless, of course, you're one of the schmucks stuck in coach, in which case you'll emerge in Narita approximately the same size as the average Japanese tourist.
Quoting delimit (Reply 17):
So, downgrade in that the 787 will not offer a true First (ANA can handle those fliers I guess?), but upgrade in that the 787 should be a nicer ride in general.

I was not impressed with the seating on the UA 788. People are excited now but the reality is that the 788 is less comfortable than current 772 in both C and Y, narrower seats and aisles in both classes. I have flown in all classes on both, although not longhaul on the 787. I guess the restrooms are nicer but how much of the flight do you spend in there? The increased pressure and humidity might help but few have noted a benefit and the dimming windows have so far been a minus when trying to sleep. The bins and lighting are token improvements.

The 788 will draw passengers for a while but after riding it a couple of times, it will be something to be only tolerated. It is mostly hype. The 788 is a benefit to UA, not the passengers. Maybe they will convert the 772s to 10 abreast in Y to make the 788 and A350 look better.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 8):
ORD-NRT at the peak was 2x daily 744 and ORD-KIX daily as well. LAX has much more competition and UA has to do what they have to do.

In the late 90s, there were double daily 747s to NRT from LAX in peak season, usually 1 742 and 1 744. There were more regional connecting routes out of NRT in those days of course. Adding DEN-NRT will subtract some LAX-NRT passengers too.


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 61, posted (2 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7378 times:

Quoting bobnwa (Reply 48):
Be assured that not everyone agees with your definition of Down gauge or Up gauge.

Its impossible to disagree.

An upgauge is an increase in the size of an airframe. And a downgauge is a decrease.

There's no way to misinterpret it . The plane either seats more or less people.

NS


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6132 posts, RR: 9
Reply 62, posted (2 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7372 times:

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 60):
I was not impressed with the seating on the UA 788. People are excited now but the reality is that the 788 is less comfortable than current 772 in both C and Y, narrower seats and aisles in both classes.

The Y class seats are a little narrower then those that are on the 777s (same width as the seats on the 744s actually) ...the seats in J however are exactly the same size as those found on the 777.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineN782NC From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 63, posted (2 years 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 7333 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 42):

NRT-ORD: 631,090
NRT-JFK: 619,140
NRT-SFO: 590,411

As you can see the NRT-SFO market is smaller than even Chicago.

I'm assuming this doesn't include JAL's HND service? If not, these number don't accurately reflect the entire market.



Stairway to Seven
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26150 posts, RR: 50
Reply 64, posted (2 years 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 7065 times:

No it does not - but market only year prior when JAL was at NRT was not much bigger.

NRT-JFK - 616,646
NRT-ORD - 609,512
NRT-SFO - 608,361

Even at 100% LF JAL would only carry about 80,000 annually on its 772 HND-SFO flight.

At the end of the day, the facts remain that Japan-US is a declining market compared to historic numbers, and SFO is not as big of a market as people assume it might be across the Pacific.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 65, posted (2 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5885 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):

No, I was careful to write NYC-LHR, as we're always being preached to here on a.net that EWR is a NYC airport.  

And the count is 4 752s and 1 772, which is my point: Clearly UA has no problem using small aircraft on an "important" route.
Quoting N62NA (Reply 26):
This isn't all that surprising, for many of the reasons others have already listed. Also, you mentioned the NYC (well JFK)-LHR route. Remember, UA flies 4 out of their 5 daily flights on that route with 757s. so they apparently have no qualms putting a smaller aircraft on an "important" route when others are flying much larger aircraft.

As you can see, you stated JFK-LHR route and did not even hint you meant EWR. I thought you were talking about from JFK.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 26005 posts, RR: 22
Reply 66, posted (2 years 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 5874 times:

Quoting gigneil (Reply 61):
Quoting bobnwa (Reply 48):
Be assured that not everyone agees with your definition of Down gauge or Up gauge.

Its impossible to disagree.

An upgauge is an increase in the size of an airframe. And a downgauge is a decrease.

I would say it's the seating capacity, not the size of the aircraft. For example, NH high-density 10-abreast 772s used on domestic routes have almost twice as many seats as their longhaul 77Ws.

[Edited 2012-12-18 13:39:59]

User currently offlinepanamair From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 4976 posts, RR: 25
Reply 67, posted (2 years 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 5822 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 54):
Interesting. DL and KE do not have TATL ATI as far as I know.
DL and KE have had ATI since 2002. However, they don't have a JV as yet, and they don't codeshare on each other's NRT-LAX service - only the nonstops to/from ICN.

[Edited 2012-12-18 14:00:28]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
All US Out Of Europe To PHL Are Canx 10Feb posted Tue Feb 9 2010 08:42:24 by vlad1971
AZ Out Of Funds To Buy Fuel? posted Sat Sep 13 2008 07:14:30 by MMEPHX
Ryanair-Are They Running Out Of Routes? posted Thu Dec 15 2005 01:12:09 by KA501
How To Get UA Upgrade LAX-JFK Or EWR posted Wed Oct 6 2004 09:10:04 by Gkpetery
HP New Service Out Of LAS To YEG posted Mon Dec 15 2003 18:34:27 by Yegbey01
Status History Out Of FLL To Europe posted Tue Nov 18 2003 15:30:49 by ScottysAir
LY; Transfer Of Routes To Arkia Doesn't Affect Rev posted Wed Jan 8 2003 22:57:51 by El Al 001
United 747 Routes Out Of LAX posted Wed Aug 1 2012 09:26:02 by sennabestever
UA 787 Routes Out Of IAH. posted Sun Jul 8 2012 20:33:04 by AVENSAB727
Why So Few Leisure Routes Out Of ABZ posted Tue Nov 8 2011 15:20:19 by CaptainDoony