alexinwa
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:08 pm

UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 12:52 am

I was looking at the upcoming schedule at SEA for today and saw something rather depressing.

As of Nov 1st, UA will only operate 28 mainline flights a day. Along with 16 UAE. Total 44.

WN has 36 daily out of SEA.

I remember the good ole days when UA alone had over 70 mainline flights a day. UAE added another 36 or so.

Its so sad to see UA in the shape it is in.
You mad Bro???
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:10 am

alex,
i too remember when ual had alot of flights in and out of sea but, ual is tweeking the schedule to hopefully make it more profitable.
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
flyboy80
Posts: 1827
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2001 8:10 am

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:25 am

From what I know however, UA still flys some wide body jets into SEA, which is a nice touch, in addition to that, PDX has a 67 now too I believe
 
alexinwa
Posts: 867
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 2:08 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:44 am

Back in the day UA flew as many as 14 DC10/747/767 a day in/out of SEA. The DC10 went to ANC, YVR, ORD, DEN, SFO, IAD, and HNL. 747's to NRT, HKG, and ORD. 767's to SFO, DEN, LAX, IAD, and ORD.

Today the 777 to DEN(1) and NRT(1), along with a 763 to DEN.

The one thing about the new schedule is that most of the ORD/DEN flights are 757's. A few 757's in the SFO and LAX schedules as well.
You mad Bro???
 
baw716
Posts: 1460
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:49 am

I remember when United was the powerhouse here in Seattle. They pretty much ruled and could leverage their size and route network to be able to capture a high percentage of the business markets in this part of the country.

No more. Alaska has grown exponentially over the past 10 years and as such, has taken over dominance of Seattle. With Alaska's expansion into transcon flying and the connecting of Alaska with certain routes in the lower 48, they are slowly beginning to position themselves as a carrier to be reckoned with, not only here, but in the west as a whole.

Alaska has successfully penetrated the California market, and as a result has weakened further United's position not only in north/south flying, but eastbound from both all the western states. With the strategic decisions Alaska has enter into code-share agreements with NW, HA, AA, and now DL, those carriers feed into Alaska's system and Alaska's passengers can connect onward, making Alaska a much stronger competitor to United in markets outside the west.

As a result, United is relegated to flying its core routes, ORD, DEN, LAX, SFO, JFK, IAD from Seattle. There isn't much left for them to fly.

Should United drop the SEA-NRT route (note there is NO mention anywhere that they are discussing this...this is for conjecture only), then you will see further reductions. The DEN/ORD routes are heavily dependent on connecting traffic and should the route be dropped, then you will see even further dramatic reductions.

It is a sad thing to see. However, the reality of the Seattle marketplace is that Alaska has won the war for the Seattle market. Their expansion now is wholly designed to align themselves with some other airline alliance (perhaps SkyTeam?) in order to create a network of small carriers who can share the traffic while not having the overwhelming overhead that a larger carrier would be forced to maintain.

Is this indicative of what is happening to United elsewhere? That is the question.

David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
uadc8contrail
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:23 am

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 1:54 am

BAW,
look at mia...ual is down to 6 flights a day, look at where ual was flying back in the 1990s and its hard to believe it, they too have ceeded mia over to AA.
bus driver.......move that bus:)
 
baw716
Posts: 1460
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:02 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:19 am

UAdc8contrail:
You are quite correct. In fact, the writing on the wall for Miami was written more than ten years ago.

American was the dominant carrier at Miami, then (help me with history) United purchased some carrier's routes into South America and then tried to go toe to toe with American. The difficulty for United was that American was already so entrenched in Miami that United had to use enourmous resources to build up its route net in South America in order to compete with AA, let alone the other airlines that flew to South and Central America. Since AA historically has been far better at marketing its product than UA (UA being the stronger of the two carriers operationally) AND already had a strong northbound traffic base, it was nearly impossible for United to a real player, especially in generating northbound originating traffic (which is where the real money is in South America) from BUE/SAO/RIO, etc.

United then tried to link its strong Orient base to South America; however, it could not do so via Miami. Once AA had code-share agreements in place with certain Asian carriers, AA could carry traffic between Asia and South America with one connection service at DFW and JFK. United tried to carry them via JFK and ORD; however, with the number of destinations that AA offered v. United, it was difficult to generate northbound traffic from South America to Asia.

United also tried to end run American by building up its flying to Dulles and JFK, then later Chicago. The reality, however, is that most business conducted with South America in the US is done in the Miami area (although California is growing fast). AA understood this from the beginning, hence, really focused in on building local presence in South America while bringing its resources to MIA. As such, AA was able to turn MIA into its third fortress hub (behind DFW, ORD). Then when AA was able to get into the Caribbean in one fell swoop, building up SJU as its Caribbean hub and shuttling passengers from Caribbean points into Miami direct, there was really no place for United to go...They could not capture the deep south; the north of South America was a nightmare, and AA in the Caribbean with the feed from North American points to those two cities, there was no place for United to go.

Like Seattle, it was a sad thing to see. Frankly, I believe United had a far better product to South America than AA. However, AA played the South American market better than United.


David L. Lamb, fmr Area Mgr Alitalia SFO 1998-2002, fmr Regional Analyst SFO-UAL 1992-1998
 
jakob77
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:09 am

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 2:45 am

UA bought Pan Am's South American routes if i'm not mistaken.
 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:20 am

UA bought Pan Am's South American routes if i'm not mistaken.

Yes, I think that's right. I also believe AA purchased it's South American routes from Eastern, who originally acquired them from Braniff.

Charles, SJ
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
ord
Posts: 1356
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 1999 10:34 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 3:41 am

"However, AA played the South American market better than United."

What AA did was commit resources to Miami in part by eliminating hubs in Nashville, San Jose and Raleigh. If UA were to have built up Miami the planes would have needed to come from somewhere, and it would have been a bad move to reduce service at one of the five hubs (where UA was #1 in each market) just to go head-to-head with AA in Miami.

As for Seattle, it simply got caught after deregulation of not being a UA hub. UA has tried to maintain a good size presence there (much larger than AA and DL), but the fact is UA is a hub airline and must concentrate its resources at its hubs.
 
ctbarnes
Posts: 3269
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2000 2:20 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 6:49 am

Their expansion now is wholly designed to align themselves with some other airline alliance (perhaps SkyTeam?)

My guess would be OneWorld given their already well-established relationships with AA, BA, QF and CX.

But then again...

Charles, SJ

[Edited 2004-10-27 23:51:56]
The customer isn't a moron, she is your wife -David Ogilvy
 
zvezda
Posts: 8891
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:00 am

Perhaps UA could have tried to serve South American cities from LAX and MIA rather than from ORD, IAD, and JFK. That might have worked to attract traffic originating in South America. This is just speculation now, as it's probably too late to try.
 
bahadir
Posts: 1295
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2001 4:57 pm

RE: UA And SEA

Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:24 am

UA is here to stay in SEA. The SEA-NRT flight is always doing well with a lot of freight moving back and forth. It is also nice alternative to connect in SFO. There are a lot of folks connecting in NRT to other Asian destinations. On top of that let us not forget the Star Alliance airlines serving with UA codeshare to CPH and Asia.

The schedule always goes down a bit compared to the summer time. SEA has been doing well for UA and will still do..
Earthbound misfit I