Guest

UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:07 am

A report from New York contributed by Japanese media today says that United currently prepares for it's biggest gamble in order to survive.

Alont with the proposed 29% wage cut to all staff, the airline is considering to sell Trans-Pacific route when necessary.

The airline hopes to cut USD2.4billion in spending by Feb 15, 2003.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:14 am

UA is in a great position to make these sales, actually.

UA has tons and tons of Asian partners - now that Asiana will be joining soon, and even before.

I think its good they're considering this before they consider selling LHR.

N
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:20 am

I can't see UA selling the lucrative NRT slots & routes. This (along with LHR) is the crown of their network. The most likely purchaser would be AA and they don't have the cash. UA would not want to build up AA.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:23 am

I think the DOT would block AA getting any bigger.

DL is less threatening, directly, to UA in many ways. Not that DL could afford it either, but god DL seems to be flying MD-11s domestically right now more than ever. Those planes could sponsor an Asian buildup until new 777s could be sourced.

N
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:38 am

Any sale of the UA NRT slots would likely also involve offloading some 744/772 aircraft by UA which the purchaser would pick up.

I cant see DL or CO being in a financial position to buy the UA Pac division. UA would have to discount the price which would reduce the purpose of the sale.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:48 am

It would dimish the purpose yes, but there's other aspects to the route.

There's the cost of operating them as well. UA could really use a cutback in recurring costs right now, and that could help them.

Don't think that I want this to happen - I think selling the prestigious routes might be a bit premature compared to a massive rationalization of domestic routes. But it sure would make things interesting.

N
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 7982
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:08 am

I think it would be very stupid for UA to dump their transpacific routes.

The reason is simple: they are very lucrative moneymakers. Pan Am's decision to sell their transpacific routes in 1985 was a huge factor in the demise of Pan Am six years later.

I think UA would be better served by cutting back their domestic service and South American international routes and putting more emphasis on their more lucrative transpacific and transatlantic routes.
 
usairways85
Posts: 3534
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 11:59 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:25 am

Guys, were talking about UA selling a route or 2 when necessary, not selling off their entire pacific operation. DL will doubtfully have any interest since they are retiring their MD-11's and only have one or 2 pacific routes to begin with. UA will probably look for one of its Asian partners to buy a route or 2 IF they feel the need to sell it.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:26 am

Everyone keeps saying they're lucrative.

But there've been repeated posts showing numbers indicating UA is losing money both Pacific and Atlantic.

Maybe someone can repost them.

N
 
Guest

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:38 am

Coming from United Airlines, I can tell you that there is a LONG, LONG, LONG way to go before United comes close to even considering selling the transpac network. It's the crown jewel of United Airlines, which has the best and most comprehensive route network of any airline.

Get your facts straight, and provide concrete proof next time.
 
UAL Bagsmasher
Posts: 1839
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 1999 12:52 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:46 am

Selling INTL routes...the beginning of the end. Deja vu all over again.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:49 am

Heh I have no facts to get straight, I just was pontificating on the original poster's supposition with my own analysis of other factors.

I certainly don't want UA selling any international routes.

N
 
Guest

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:01 am

If United sells any international routes, most likely it will be the South American routes. United is much stronger on Europe, North Asia, South Asia, and Oceania flights.
 
User avatar
lindy field
Posts: 2938
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 1:52 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:07 am

What routes does United operate in the Pacific region which are not operated by Northwest? NW is about the only US-based airline I can think of that might want to pick up a few additional routes in Asia or across the Pacific.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:10 am

I disagree... most other airlines would probably like to be able to compete on the Pacific. NW and UA just make it very difficult.

N
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:45 am

Some serious issues to consider:

1) The current bilateral is similar to the one with the UK, two designated US flag carriers with 5/6th freedom rights beyond Tokyo. Unless DL/AA/CO can support connection with their existing frequencies to NRT, those intra-Asian flights have little value to another carrier. NRT-HKG is certainly more attractive to airlines if they can pick up locals in Japan and carry them rather than relying on inbounds from the States. UA has to sell either all NRT rights, or none.

2) In addition, if UA would sell certain US in-bound frequencies to others, that would devastate their in bound US traffic over the NRT hub. So selling JFK-NRT to AA just cuts another connection point to send people over the hub. Similar with Pan Am, it is all of Asia or none. UA could support OZ, NZ, perhaps PEK/HKG flights from either LAX or SFO (which ever one survives) but probably not worth the effort. If they are going to, might as well dump the whole thing.

3) UA is in a very precarious position at the moment. If they are going to sell any assets (debatable whether they can in the first place) they have to be the ones with value. South American flights have little value since AA/DL and CO already fly there, and most are retrenching not expanding in the area. LHR and NRT are the only things that have real tangible value. UA may have to make a decision in order to get some cash in the door.

4) Nasty 747's. I am sure that UA would love to get rid of them completely, but as long as they fly to Asia/Australia they can't. Dump the Pacific, the 747 issue goes away.

5) AA can't buy the LHR slots, CO can't buy the Pacific ops (unless they dump the NW code share) DL probably can have either but doesn't have enough cash for both. Even if they do put those assets up for sale, who can legitimately buy them except Southwest? Again, it only has value if someone wants it.

Tough times ahead from UA.
 
TonyBurr
Posts: 1059
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2001 1:00 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:20 am

If upper management seriously considers selling the trans Pacific routes ( esp NRT), then there is NO DOUBT of the mental illness of management! They have allowed "some" doubt ( not much) to exist as to their competnecy, but this would remove all duobts.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:38 am

SYD will be the 2nd last to go before NRT if they sell. I can't see it happening. The problem with the 747's is that often it's those pilots who are the highest paid, so by rationalising their 747 fleet they can retrench some highly paid pilots. Of course this opens another can of worms that has already been opened in no small way in another thread, but killing off NRT and SYD will undoubtedly kill UA. As has been mentioned, South and Central America looks like a place to trim down and rationalise.
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
Guest

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:29 pm

United proved they could get the 777-200ER from LAX to New Zealand...that is really the only "747 critical" flight to Asia that United has. They fly the 777 ORD-PEK, ORD-NRT, and from the west coast to Asia as well. Since CO used to do EWR-HKG, UA would be able to (range wise) put a 777 on ORD-HKG.

As much as I hate saying this, the above fact proves that United does not need to fly 747-400s really at all. They are the most expensive airplane United has to fly. Inside company sources indicate that United most likely will retire the vast majority, if not all, of the 747-400s.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4870
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:31 pm

I agree with Coachman here, if UA sell SYD and NRT routes that is the end of UA! I think as long as UA keep flying they will keep the 747-400!

NW doesn't fly to Australia or New Zealand other than that they probably fly most of the same routes UA fly. If UA goes I think NW sholud give these routes a try most likely with ex UA 744's. There is certainly room for more than 2 airlines (NZ and QF) on the pacific routes to SYD, MEL and AKL!
 
mel
Posts: 1041
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 1999 5:13 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:35 pm

I agree. I don't see a huge need to UA to operate B744s at all. I could see all B744 routes switching over to B777s with the exception of SFO-SYD and ORD-HKG. I think SEA-NRT might possibly be one of the only NRT flights that could see the axe. Anyone know if HNL-NRT is a high revenue-earning market for UA?
NO URLS in signature
 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 12:42 pm

Is there really any need to operate non-stops SFO-SYD? I know it is a somewhat profitable route, but would eliminating the route along with eliminating an aircraft type be better off financially for UA? After all, nobody else operates on the route (at all, let alone non-stop) so UA could still operate it but stopping off somewhere - they would then keep the crowd who want the same plane right through. Can't really see them losing anyone from this, as who would want to transfer in LAX to a non-stop to SYD?

The fleet economics of this would be good, since if they can operate 777's on LAX-SYD, then they could effectively eliminate the 744 from their fleet. (Don't know enough about the ORD-HKG market to comment on this one).

As for HNL-NRT, given the demographics of the Hawaiian population I would have thought it would be a lucrative route - what competition is there on it?

Dave
 
Guest

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:05 pm

United's Honolulu-Narita route is currently a 747-400, but will transfer to a 777. United might also start Honolulu-Osaka service with a 777, but that is just company speculation. United has a great network to Hawaii, and seeks to keep it strong.
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:09 pm

JAL and ANA both fly to HNL, obviously.

I am dubious of nonstop 777s from LAX to SYD. QF bailed on the 777 for a reason. God I wish I knew what it was.

SFO is actually closer, BTW.

N
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1475
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:13 pm

"...as who would want to transfer in LAX to a non-stop to SYD?"

You would probably be surprized how many people would rather go down to LAX for the non-stop on UA 815 then have to deal with a stop over in the Pacific during the middle of the night for 2 hours.

"The fleet economics of this would be good, since if they can operate 777's on LAX-SYD, then they could effectively eliminate the 744 from their fleet. (Don't know enough about the ORD-HKG market to comment on this one)."

Ok, so yeah the 777 can make it on LAX-SYD. But what I hear from LAX CSR's for UAL, flight 841 on LAX-AKL a 777 has had some very hard times in the past with weight restrictions. Same goes for CO with EWR-HKG. ORD-HKG would be no different. I think while the capacity is lower, it also has a pretty high risk of not turning a profit if it can not carry the extra passengers and cargo the whole way that a 747-400 can do!

"As for HNL-NRT, given the demographics of the Hawaiian population I would have thought it would be a lucrative route - what competition is there on it?"

Competition on this route comes from Japan Airlines and All Nippon Airways. I believe this route runs strong in economy class frequently.

 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessar

Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:14 pm

Yes, I know it is closer - but I am thinking in terms of demand, LAX-SYD obviously has much more demand than SFO-SYD ever will.

Isn't there an issue with ETOPS to SYD and MEL?

Dave
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:20 pm

Thadocta-

You know, I keep saying that. But its because I heard Concordeboy say it once a long time ago.

Nobody knows for sure if the FAA allows ETOPS 180 to SYD or MEL. I wish someone did. I ask all the time.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

As to the 777 and weight restrictions - I thought the 777 could clearly carry what a 744 can't necessarily just as far. CO vs UA NYC-HKG rounds proved that. The UA 744 was badly weight restricted but the CO 777 can carry max pax.

Heh my brain starts to hurt. I hear so many different conflicting things I'm never really sure what's true.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

N
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1475
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:25 pm

Gigneil, I agree!! My brain hurts too after hearing so many different stories!!

"Yes, I know it is closer - but I am thinking in terms of demand, LAX-SYD obviously has much more demand than SFO-SYD ever will"

While I think this comment makes sense to a certain degree, dont forget that UA 863 SFO-SYD most of the time is just as full if not more full then LAX-SYD. The only reason I do not completely disagree with your idea is due to the fact of QF and NZ also serving SYD from LAX. I bet if QF were to start up operations in SFO, that flight would also be running strong!
 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:31 pm

Doesn't it all have something to do with payload restrictions? The 744 is severely payload restricted due to prevailing headwinds when operating LAX-SYD - which is why QF are ordering 744ER's, which are not AS restricted.

Since the 777 carries somewhat less paxs (although not by much) the payload restrictions aren't as great, and therefore the 777 is a better proposition? (Or something along those lines).

Dave
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4870
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 4:52 pm

While UA is flying they will continue to operate the 747-400 for routes like LAX-SYD and ORD-HKG along with several NRT flights! AKL is going to see some 744's soon and already had 1 because of high loads and that 1 complemented the 772 so there was 2 flights that day!! Don't forget that the extra 70 odd seats carried means an awful lot to UA!! If a 777 was used LAX-SYD it probably would carry virtually no cargo with a full load of pax! I would say that if CO use the 772ER for EWR-HKG this would be the case!? (someone confirm this)

With the 772 it simply could not operate LAX-SYD flights and make a profit due to it being to restricted. IMO!  Smile

As for SFO this is another UA hub! I guess UA could operate a second daily LAX-SYD but why not operate a non-stop from SFO instead. I agree who would want to stop in the middle of the pacific at some rediculous hour of the morning 2am or something. As for LAX-MEL this flight was better non-stop but had very severe payload restrictions so was dropped. The loads via AKL were pathetic often say 50 on the AKL-MEL leg! People prefered the non-stop!
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:54 pm

CO can carry max pax and bags plus 9t cargo, according to a previous post.

The UA 744 was very heavily payload restricted JFK-HKG.

That's why I was saying... I think the 777 wouldn't be restricted at all LAX-SYD, but I don't know that.

There is a nonstop SFO-SYD on UA.

N
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1475
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:40 pm

"The 744 is severely payload restricted due to prevailing headwinds when operating LAX-SYD"

I may not be 100% correct, but from my meteorology course I have taken recently, I can voice this info. The flights that are truely affected by the headwinds would be those staying usually in a certain part of the north or south hemisphere. If you were to look at normal wind direction patters of the earth, you would see that on flights to Asia, the winds are usually westerly thus creating the range issues. However going to Australia and crossing deep through both the N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere the patters flip flop from head wind to tail wind and so on. To say the 747-400 is severely payload restricted is not really true. I have flown LAX-SYD numerous times. often times while talking to the flight crew about the stats of the flight ahead we often will leave LAX at max take off weight of 875,000lbs. I dont believe a full load of passengers, their bags and fuel alone can add up to 875,000 lbs... there is obviously plenty of cargo those birds are taking for the long flight down under. With my personal experience on numerous flights to SYD, the 747-400 is doing an excelent job and getting its passengers and cargo their!

Cheers!
Brian
 
LJ
Posts: 4103
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 1999 8:28 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:55 pm

Maybe a stupid question but from where will UA get the 777 they need if UA is going to replace the 744 with the 777 on Trans Pacific flights? Can they come from the domestic network?
 
donder10
Posts: 6944
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2001 5:29 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:15 pm

I think their domestic 772s are non-ER or at least some of them.Do UA have the highest weight 772ER with P&W engines?
 
User avatar
PW100
Posts: 2723
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 9:17 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:25 pm

I can not stop feeling that UA is in a deep Catch 22 situation.

Reading the aviation press [and more so the non-aviation], UA is still bleeding huge amount of money and are severely risking running out of DIP-finance before they can say "Shuttle by United".

UA not only need to bring cost under control, they also desperately need to raise some serious cash, since I don't think they'll get another trench of DIP. It's either raise cash or straight out chapter 7. However raising cash means selling assets, and not some South-American routes that nobody really wants [or at least not willing to cough up some serious bucks for...]. They'll need to sell assets that will generate good money, which is going to be very difficult these days.

Only three assets will generate such cash: LHR routes, Pacific routes, 744 fleet.
The catch is when they sell their LHR/Pacific routes, they are no longer a serious airline, and will lose most of their premium customers [FF will run away to other network carriers or even LCC] and thus will most likely face Chapter 7. But not selling assets may lead them in Chapter 7 even faster. . .

I think there is consensus here that selling routes [either LHR or Pacific] really is the beginning of the end. So it looks like they'll have to sell the 744 fleet and transform their long haul operation into a leaner operation [a bit like CO], and adjust their routes as required to operate without 744.

The second hand market for the 744 is not really good the moment. The market for used 744 is going towards cargo. Cargo carriers are willing to pay up to $ 50-60M for a 744SFD. The cost of conversion is approx 15M -20M, meaning that a 744 airframe could fetch up to 30-40M, depending on mod status and maintenance. UA has something like 40 744s [?]. Theoretically, these could generate up to $1000M including spares. Beyond the direct cash [if anyone will buy them in the first place], they would bring very welcome savings through a simplified long haul fleet structure. UA would then have to work with the 777 and 767 for their long haul fleet, and adjust their route structure accordingly. Meaning, removing 777/767 from domestic ops by cutting mainline domestic, and dropping long haul routes if sufficient or suitable equipment is no longer available.

I'm not sure if I hope that UA will winter the storm. Re-emerging from Chapter 11 may be the absolute nightmare scenario for ALL US-network carriers, and may very well be the path that they all have to follow. An rest assured, some of them will nor re-emerge...

Don't get me wrong, I mean I feel tremendously sorry for all of the families that are going to suffer from bankruptcy [either Ch.11 or 7], but I can not help feeling that employees are as much at fault as management. If I understood correctly, UA was basically an employee owned airline. As such, the same employees can not just point the finger to management... the employees were [indirectly] responsible for that management in the first place. I will not go into [overpaid] pay-schemes and summer of hell, since I have not sufficient knowledge on these subjects from the other side of the pond. However these things now look completely different in the light of looming bankruptcy as compared to a couple of years ago.

Sometimes it can be very refreshing to look back a couple of years and start realising where you might have made a difference yourself, setting things in perspective with the benefit of hindsight, and not picking on others. Not pointing on anyone, just asking everyone too first look at themselves prior to pointing any fingers. Well, that's what my mother always taught me. . . .

Hmmm, I should leave my keyboard alone now. Anyway, if anyone has different views, I will be most interested to read and learn from them.

Best luck to you all, I hope the new year will leave some of the dark days of aviation behind us...

Kind Regards,
PW100
Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:34 pm

The thing with SFO-SYD is that UA's connecting traffic can run through this flight. It's also a convenient flight for businesses in the Bay area, including San Jose and Silicon Valley, it's a lot more convenient than QF's LAX connection. UA's hub at SFO helps make the flight profitable, in fact, I think it was mentioned on this board before that the SFO flight makes more money than the LAX-SYD flight. Yield on the SYD routes is very high, QF has admitted that 65% of its international profits comes from LAX routes. Australia/USA demand is there and I cannot see 1 x B777 being sufficient. QF would ramp up another frequency and another SYD non-stop which would pretty much guarantee a monopoly on this route. If UA pulled out of Australia, QF would more than likely open up a SFO service from SYD. If there is demand for one B747-400 daily, then QF would take it on if UA pulled out. This will lose UA passengers from NZ and Australia who have stayed with the Mileage Plus program, even though AN collapsed over a year ago. These passengers are reasonably valuable and QF I'm sure would welcome them with open arms.
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
9844
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2001 12:36 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:07 pm

Come Feb when UAL can't meet its D.I.P revenue targets. The banks WILL hawk the best routes to get their money back. ALL I read is emotional blather. UAL blew it a year ago, when Goodwin made his famous statement.
 
BBD
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2001 2:12 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Sun Dec 29, 2002 11:34 pm

Additional pressure on UA's SYD flights will come in March when QF adds another three frequencies to its SYD-LAX schedule.
Also interesting that QF's on-line timetable shows AKL-LAX going from seven to nine in August 2003 with the addition of early afternoon flights on Monday and Saturday. It will be interesting to see if this proposed increase will be affected if and when the QF/NZ "get together" is approved.
Perhaps the flagging of this increase is being used not only as pressure on UA's operations but also to ensure that the NZ government and NZ continue to realise the merit of a closer relationship.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1207
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 12:56 am

I am not certain, but I believe the restriction with LAX-SYD is solely due to lack of diversion points between LAX and Fiji. The LAX-AKL flight can take a more Easterly approach closer to Mexico and South America but SYD doesn't have that option. I am certain that more airlines would be flying the OZ market if it were not for the fact that only NW and UA have/had 747's.

Funny thing is about that market is QF makes heaps of profits and UA seems to hold their own, but no other airline is able to make it work for them. Why has NZ cut way back and NW/AA/CO pull out if it is such a "high yield" market. Strange.

BTW, UA is not "over" if they sell their international flights. Are you forgetting the domestic system? It is really a stretch to compare UA to PA. First off PA had virtually no domestic system whereas UA has a huge presence. UA is in a strong alliance position whereas PA was out on their own. Quite frankly it is an apples and oranges comparison. In addition UA needs to retrench from either SFO of LAX. Get rid of the Pacific system, and SFO and all their delay prone departures goes with it. I am not saying stop flying to SFO, but no need to make it a hub if their is nothing flying beyond Golden Gate Park.

I predict (with all the caveats and disclaimers implied) UA is going to sell the LHR flights (they have a weak Europe system anyway), dump IAD and SFO as hubs, and focus on point-to-point international traffic from LAX and SFO.
 
blink182
Posts: 5269
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 1999 3:09 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 3:20 am

Since no US airline is in a position to buy the slots financially, and most US airlines have asian partners that they can connect with and codeshare with, couldn't United let one of their Asian partners have the slots?

blink
Give me a break, I created this username when I was a kid...
 
Guest

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:34 am

UAL1837:

In a sense, I think I can see your frustration on the news (or rumour, in your POV) about this.

I tried to translate this small articles carefully, because the report didn't say UA won't sell or well sell their Pacific route.

But, they mention that UA is in its biggest gamble right now, and they also mention UA is considering to sell it when necessary.

Yes, UA won't sell the Pacific route for the time being. But keep in mind that IF the crisis at United deepens (I'm sure nobody wants to see this happen), they might have to force themself to sell it.
 
A330_DTW
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2000 9:29 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:05 am

Posted 2002-12-29 02:10:57 and read 597 times.
I disagree... most other airlines would probably like to be able to compete on the Pacific. NW and UA just make it very difficult.

N

Neil,

I don't think that NW and UA make it difficult for other airlines to fly to Asia. Japan was the only stumbling block when it came to flights to Asia. Now that the US and Japan basically have open skies, anyone can fly to Japan.

What differentiates NW and UA from the rest is their ability to pick up Japanese traffic and fly to third countries from there. (Called Fifth Freedom Rights). Americans can fly from LAX to LGW on NZ because they have fifth freedom rights in the US. Varig and Japan Airlines can carry local traffic between Brazil and the US, and the US and Japan.

DL had flights to HKG, NGO, NRT, AA flew SJC to TPE, NRT, etc. but they dropped those routes because they weren't profitable. AA certainly had the feed for those flights, as did DL, but because they couldn't make money, they dropped the routes. UA and NW cannot be blamed for their failure.
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:32 am

I'm sorry, but AA had horrible feed out of SJC...no way to get a plane full of people to either TPE or NRT...

United Will Stand

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:52 am

AA's feed from SJC was better than a kick in the pants, and the local traffic from the SJC area is PRIME for cargo between those destinations.

They still fly to NRT don't they?

N
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:01 am

Ok, so yeah the 777 can make it on LAX-SYD. But what I hear from LAX CSR's for UAL, flight 841 on LAX-AKL a 777 has had some very hard times in the past with weight restrictions. Same goes for CO with EWR-HKG. ORD-HKG would be no different. I think while the capacity is lower, it also has a pretty high risk of not turning a profit if it can not carry the extra passengers and cargo the whole way that a 747-400 can do!

What a lot of your guys/gals seem to be forgetting is that the 772ERs belonging to UA and CO are among the lowest MTOW versions available. A 772ER powered by GE90-94Bs (such as AF's) or Trent895s (BA's) would be barely challenged by a route such as LAX-SYD.

UA was originally to be the launch customer of a 772 powered by PW4098, but that never came into fruition due to costs. KE is the sole operator of that engine type (currently the most powerful engine in operation) and even then, only on their 773As.
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
AA717driver
Posts: 1502
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:27 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Nec

Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:26 am

Everyone here is forgetting that assets will be sold to fund the operation. If UA can make enough revenue to meet its profit goals as established BY THE DIP PROVIDERS(caps to emphasize exactly who is calling the shots at UAL during the bankruptcy) then they won't have to sell anything.

They will sell aircraft, routes, buildings and desks if THE COURT(caps to emphasize exactly who authorizes ALL transactions during bankruptcy) dictates.

I posted here last month a warning that once in Ch. 11 UAL would be along for the ride. Tilton can suggest what he want's to happen with "his" company but the reality is that only the creditors and the court have the final answer.

As for no one being able to afford the Pacific routes, who says? If the price gets low enough, someone will buy. Same for the 747's(which shoud go REAL low), the 777's and anything else they need to sell to meet the earnings deadline. The NRT rights, I believe, will go whole. UAL had to take all of PAA's LHR rights(ironic, isn't it?) and AA had to take TWA's entire LHR operation due to the bialteral agreement.

Honestly not trying to dump on UAL but there are no rose-colored glasses allowed here.TC
FL450, M.85
 
thadocta
Posts: 389
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2001 9:44 am

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:53 am

"I may not be 100% correct,"

You aren't.

"but from my meteorology course I have taken recently, I can voice this info. The flights that are truely affected by the headwinds would be those staying usually in a certain part of the north or south hemisphere. If you were to look at normal wind direction patters of the earth, you would see that on flights to Asia, the winds are usually westerly thus creating the range issues. However going to Australia and crossing deep through both the N. Hemisphere and S. Hemisphere the patters flip flop from head wind to tail wind and so on. To say the 747-400 is severely payload restricted is not really true."

You had better run off and tell QF and NZ and UA flight planning then - Qantas aircraft regularly depart fully booked with 40 or 50 empty seats, due to payload limitations. These flights are great to be in steerage on, as you can generally spread out over the centre block of four seats.

One of the advantages of the B747-438ER that Qantas is currently taking delivery of is the 700nm or so of extra range - doesn't sound like a hell of a lot, and it isn't, but it reduces the payload limitations quite signifigantly.

And one other thing which I haven't seen mentioned (although I have only had a cursory glance at the thread) is that routes to Australia are not, and never will be, up for sale. There are no designated US carriers on this route, any US carrier can start flying here tomorrow if they wanted to (and indeed, in the past we had Continental, American, North West and Hawaiian all flying here in addition to United, I think the record was four different US carriers all here at once).

The routes to NRT are certainly available for sale, but they are the only ones.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:02 am

The thing is whether UA wants to run an Australian operation with B777's. I doubt it would be competitive, otherwise one would have seen B777's down-under already. AKL has seen them, but ETOPS problems and lack of a diversionary between LAX and Fiji (as has already been stated) for the SYD route means that no B747's = no SYD. Unfortunately it's a case of if the B747's go, SYD goes too. NRT can survive on B777's if it comes down to that, but there's all sorts of awful scenarios to have to contemplate.
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
kaitakfan
Posts: 1475
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 1999 1:04 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:12 pm

"You had better run off and tell QF and NZ and UA flight planning then"

Haha... good one!

"- Qantas aircraft regularly depart fully booked with 40 or 50 empty seats, due to payload limitations. These flights are great to be in steerage on, as you can generally spread out over the centre block of four seats"

I am fully aware that this is the case with these type of flights sometimes. But how is this information relevant to a few aspects of my post? Its a shame you didn't copy and paste the second part of my post which is more relevant to the topic now. As I said before, on several flights on the LAX-SYD-LAX flights I have done, 3 of those flights have been booked 100% full. Every single seat taken and no room to stretch out in the center section. Also, since I am a standby passenger, I am last priority getting on that flight. Passengers and cargo before me! If these flights were so plagued by restrictions, how is it I have no problem getting the last few precious seats in Biz class? So with that fact said, would it really appear that LAX-SYD is affected so severely by payload restrictions as some are making it to be? Don't get me wrong, I know under certain conditions, these flights do have restrictions. But I really do not see this occurrence often. A simple check on UAL's skynet on the high travel days this winter break are also hard facts that those 747-400s are leaving LAX or SYD at 14-14, 73-73, and 260 sold to 260.

Concordeboy...
"What a lot of your guys/gals seem to be forgetting is that the 772ERs belonging to UA and CO are among the lowest MTOW versions available. A 772ER powered by GE90-94Bs (such as AF's) or Trent895s (BA's) would be barely challenged by a route such as LAX-SYD."

Its a shame UA does not have those nice GE90's or else there would be no problem here then right? But since they do not have them, UA will have to deal with what they have and what ever challenges face the 777 on the long hauls.


 
propilotjw
Posts: 520
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2000 1:02 pm

RE: UA May Sell Trans-Pacific Route "when Necessary"

Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:22 pm

I agree with UAL1837, UAL does not need the 747-400. the 777 can fill all the holes that the 747 would leave when taken out of the fleet. The 777 is more efficient and if they really wanted something that has both the range and the capacity as a 747-400, look at the 777-300ER.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 817Dreamliiner, agrflyer, andrej, Baidu [Spider], BartSimpson, bill142, BreninTW, Google [Bot], jamesontheroad, jetblastdubai, LA704, LazarosK, Mani87, mozart, NolaMD88fan, sirtoby, steex, steman, TP777 and 212 guests