CONTACREW From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 424 posts, RR: 0 Posted (2 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 10576 times:
SFO - ATL - SFO on UA is resuming effective April 1st 2014 eastbound and April 2nd 2014 westbound. Flights are now loaded and bookable on united.com. In addition LAX - MSP - LAX launches April 1st using CR7 aircraft. SFO - ATL - SFO flights will use 737-800 aircraft.
Flight Attendants prepare doors for departure, cross check verify straps standby for all call
OH-LGA From Denmark, joined Oct 1999, 1436 posts, RR: 21 Reply 6, posted (2 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 10121 times:
Most of the new flights into SFO can't be scheduled close to the peak times because there just isn't space at SFO to fit anything else in.
The eastbound timings ATL-SFO are actually reasonable for connections, with about 2 hours for NRT and slightly less for ICN, KIX, and longer for SYD, PEK, PVG (& CTU when it launches in June 2014). Throw in some SFO ATC flow and shorten that connection time right down to minimums
A lot of these routings can be handled with shorter connections through other hubs (esp w NRT & PEK), so return trips could be handled through other hubs as well for the most part. Interestingly, anecdotal experience has shown me that people prefer one stops, even if they have a longer connection. When SFO-MCI was new (and a late afternoon flight, 1600 departure actually) it was filled with passengers making connections from Asia that had arrived as early as 0830 or so, opting for the direct rather than an additional connection via DEN (whether that was driven by fare limitations or passenger preference I'm not entirely sure, but it was only a CR7 nonstop vs. Airbus equipment via DEN)
Good to see the return of SFO-ATL on UA, for sure.
Head in the clouds... yet feet planted firmly on the ground.
I figured this would make a comeback sooner or later. Atlanta was the largest domestic market without nonstop UA service to SFO. That unfortunate distinction now goes to Detroit, and as such I wouldn't be surprised to see UA break the DL monopoly by adding SFO-DTW sometime soon. In fact, the Detroit metropolitan area is almost twice as populous as the Tampa Bay Area, now the second largest domestic market unserved from UA's burgeoning Pacific hub at SFO. In addition to DTW and TPA, I wouldn't be surprised if UA is considering a resumption of BDL, or new flights to BNA, CLT, CMH, or OMA (UAX/CR7) from SFO.
Anyhow, back on the subject of UA's SFO-ATL. I think there may be a few competitive factors to consider as well:
1) O&D travelers may forget/not know to check southwest.com, and once the FL flights are gone, UA will be that only other/non-DL option on those popular travel sites...
2) Devolving DL/KE relationship reducing SkyTeam attractiveness/options for Atlanta-Asia traffic, UA can capitalize on this issue...
3) Preempt VX addition of SFO-ATL. One can logically assume that Atlanta (and Houston) is on that carrier's shortlist for future expansion...
Interesting, I honestly can't remember the last time UA adding a competitive domestic route from LAX (they usually add unserved niche routes with zero nonstop competition, i.e. ITO, PIT right after US dropped the route, etc.). Not only is the aircraft choice rather uncompetitive, but the schedule sucks! Arrive into MSP around midnight, depart MSP at 6 AM! Doesn't link up with Australia at all, can't connect from Hawaii to the eastbound MSP (except HNL)... While I am happy to see UA do something new from LAX, I'm not sure how they intend to be successful with this service!
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
RWA380 From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 2582 posts, RR: 4 Reply 8, posted (2 months 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 9580 times:
Sounds like a route UA should have kept the first time around, SFO-ATL-SFO makes sense. UA will have to connect every large city east of the river to SFO non-stop, in order to keep the fortress hub UA is building even further currently in SFO.
I hope UA keeps adding mainline service to all the places possible, with single connections to much of Asia, and double for the rest.
Now LAX-MSP on a CR7 makes a lot less sense to me, they are not trying to compete with DL obviously, nor are they going to capture much O/D traffic except for the die hard star guys, and there are plenty in LA, but I bet fares will not be bargain basement, because this flight will likely connect AKL, SYD, HNL to MSP. What a let down flying F or J to LAX, then domestic F on a CR7 for 3.5 hours ater flying 14 hours in a premium cabin.
jetlanta From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 3035 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (2 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 9470 times:
It is no coincidence that these routes were added a week after DL added SFO-SEA. I think, however, if UA had known that DL was also dropping SFO-NRT, neither of these markets would have ever been announced. It will be interesting to see how long they stick with them...especially LAX-MSP.
N62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4083 posts, RR: 4 Reply 10, posted (2 months 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 8073 times:
Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 7): I figured this would make a comeback sooner or later. Atlanta was the largest domestic market without nonstop UA service to SFO.
Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 7): In fact, the Detroit metropolitan area is almost twice as populous as the Tampa Bay Area, now the second largest domestic market unserved from UA's burgeoning Pacific hub at SFO.
Yes, very clearly retaliation for SFO-SEA. I'm not sure they wouldn't have still reacted. They were also peeved about LAX-SFO. SFO-SEA was just the last straw. I think if you see DL add any other UA routes (like ORD-SEA) which seems like a possibility, you will see another round of UA routes in Delta markets.
I don't see DL backing off, though. I think UA's irritation lies mostly with the frequency level. If they had just gone for PAC connects like they claim they are you wouldn't have seen a reaction. Despite their comments, they clearly went after the local customer. UA had to react. I wonder what UA will pull to fund this?
Agreed. Been talked about a while. Therefor, I don't believe this has much to do with DL announcing SEA-SFO at most seem to think. It strategically compliments a lot of the new routes being launched from SFO.
Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 7): 3) Preempt VX addition of SFO-ATL. One can logically assume that Atlanta (and Houston) is on that carrier's shortlist for future expansion...
With VX lack of expansion and few planes coming on to property, I don't think UA is overly concerned with them as this point.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
regardless of UA's reasons for adding these 2 routes (SFO-ATL & LAX-MSP) I'm glad to see UA expanding and I hope these 2 routes work out of UA although I really don't know why UA cut the SFO-ATL route to begin with.
However I do have a comment and a question about the LAX-MSP route, that is a very long flight for a CR7 I would hope UA once we start taking deliveries of the E175 place that aircraft on this route? A CR7 is comfortable for a little while but a E170 (which UA already has is much more comfortable) and the E175 should increase that comfort level especially seeing the number of first and Y+ seats those aircraft will have onboard.
What are your thoughts on UA placing the E175 on this route it seems like it would be a perfect aircraft for the route?
Quoting as739x (Reply 14): CLT will come as the alliance with US ends.
I'd think it'd give priority for DTW over CLT first. While both CLT and DTW are large hubs for another airline, DTW is from a significantly larger metropolitan area of the two.
Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 7): In addition to DTW and TPA, I wouldn't be surprised if UA is considering a resumption of BDL, or new flights to BNA, CLT, CMH, or OMA (UAX/CR7) from SFO.
TPA doesn't have LAX service either. Maybe it needs more industry and thus business traffic to support longer flights than it does currently. On BDL, UA doesn't service BDL-DEN, so would it over-fly the DEN hub for a full transcon to SFO? Also it may view BDL-SFO too close to the competitive JFK-SFO service.
CMH and BNA both fall in similar sizes of metropolitan area regions, allthough BNA is a big WN city (although WN doesn't fly BNA-SFO). MKE is a somewhat smaller focus for WN, and think that if UA chose to offer the service on the route with a more competitive flight time, WN might cease the route. But, UA might see the region too close to ORD, although MKE is an overall different market.
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 4053 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (2 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 6395 times:
Quoting Flytravel (Reply 16): I'd think it'd give priority for DTW over CLT first. While both CLT and DTW are large hubs for another airline, DTW is from a significantly larger metropolitan area of the two.
But business community ties between SFO and CLT are probably much stronger due to Wells Fargo/Bank of America
bioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 152 posts, RR: 0 Reply 23, posted (2 months 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 5147 times:
Quoting jayunited (Reply 15): However I do have a comment and a question about the LAX-MSP route, that is a very long flight for a CR7 I would hope UA once we start taking deliveries of the E175 place that aircraft on this route? A CR7 is comfortable for a little while but a E170 (which UA already has is much more comfortable) and the E175 should increase that comfort level especially seeing the number of first and Y+ seats those aircraft will have onboard.
What are your thoughts on UA placing the E175 on this route it seems like it would be a perfect aircraft for the route?
OO starts taking delivery of its E175s in April 2014 so hopefully they place that aircraft on LAX-MSP as well as other long routes like SFO-AUS and SFO-SAT. On a personal note, I dread SFO-AUS trips on CR7s.
iowaman From United States of America, joined May 2004, 4254 posts, RR: 7 Reply 24, posted (2 months 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 5119 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
Quoting catiii (Reply 1): Yikes, 3.5 hours on a CR7 seems like an awfully long time, even in a two class configuration.
Even worse - It's actually scheduled at exactly four hours westbound.
Quoting Surfandsnow (Reply 7): right after US dropped the route, etc.). Not only is the aircraft choice rather uncompetitive, but the schedule sucks! Arrive into MSP around midnight, depart MSP at 6 AM!
LAX-MSP will surprisingly be 2x daily:
Time flies when you're havin' fun flying
25 Alsatian: DL's response ? The new toy will mainly operate on the ATL-SFO route. Schedule for 2014/03/20 : DL 2049 ATL 0825 - 1043 SFO 739 DL 1680 ATL 1050 - 130
26 Schweigend: Well, I think it's nice that Delta does still consider SFO worth serving from its large hub at Atlanta. Of course, they would most likely prefer that
27 RWA380: Although I am sure you are right, that someplace in Atlanta there is one guy who will fly UA vs the 900 pound gorilla hometown airline, that is not t
28 Surfandsnow: With the exception of Detroit, they already have. After Detroit, you are talking about much smaller/secondary metropolitan areas like Charlotte and T
29 enilria: I suspect this will be gone long before E75s are available. I give it 6 months. I don't really see who will even be on the MSP-LAX. LAX is majorly ou
30 Flytravel: HOU-SFO seems very viable on WN, but I'm not sure if WN would directly compete against UA on STL-SFO and MCI-SFO, and if it did, the importance of SF
31 flydeltajets: The 1st flight connects with every international and the 2nd one connects with the SYD.
32 MaverickM11: That's not their response. Give it about 3-4 days and we will see how they respond.
33 klwright69: DL flies small jets on LGA-IAH (Oh the horror) which is over 4 hours. UA flies LAX-DFW and SFO-DFW with small jets. These routes obviously serve a str
34 UALFAson: No. Perhaps surprisingly, there is no nonstop WN service from BNA to any of the Bay Area airports (SFO, OAK, or SJC). Actually, no airline currently
35 MSPNWA: I'm pleasantly surprised at the 2x daily addition of LAX-MSP, but a CR7? Ouch. No way I'm flying that in couch instead of DL or SY. I'm still hoping A
36 slcdeltarumd11: UA probably decided AA would soon so they can make the market a little less attractive by jumping in now. Its an important business market no doubt.
37 usflyer msp: UA is in the process of reconfiguring the CR7's to add 4 seats and cut the Economy plus section by 50%.
38 RyanairGuru: Yes it works well WESTBOUND, but eastbound is more problematic. In many cases it results in 5+ hour layovers.
39 Atrude777: The start of date for LAX-MSP is April, the same month SkyWest is getting the E175's. So..it's possible to see the OO E175 on it, even with your 6 mo
40 MSPNWA: Yeah, it's not well-timed for SYD, but honestly I don't think that's what UA is going for. The current SFO-MSP flight is well-timed in both direction
41 modesto2: DL's 739s on ATLSFO is NOT the response to UA's route announcement. The 739s have been earmarked for ATLSFO for several months now.
42 FL787: Well looks like these routes probably were a response of some sort. Here's the press release announcing the new service: http://ir.unitedcontinentalho
43 alfa164: Yes, but those "small jets" are all E170's and E175's; that make a huge difference compared to the cramped, uncomfortable CRJ's UA will be using.
44 Alsatian: According to this thread OAG Changes 10/25/2013: B6/DL/UA/WN (by enilria Oct 21 2013 in Civil Aviation) DL will add a 8th ATL - SFO daily frequency ne
45 modesto2: In recent years, DL has always operated 8x ATLSFO during the summer; however, it appears that the 8th frequency will be starting earlier next year in
46 CALMSP: ATL was pretty much a given for any expansion out of SFO, so I do not think this has anything to d using on what route?