nopeotone
Posts: 135
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:08 am

UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:01 am

After reading the article regarding 1,000 management salaries to be dropped, it also includes Tilton saying that some long-haul flights will be dropped. They don't make sense with 65 dollars a barrel.
Anyone have any ideas which long-haul flights might be dropped by UA? I would like to hear peoples ideas on this.

(Tilton also told the gathering that some long-haul flights will be dropped because of stubbornly high fuel prices that have averaged more than $65 per barrel, but he didn't specify the flights.)
 
tonytifao
Posts: 788
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 10:22 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 5:26 am

I'm not sure, but I'm curious too.

To be honest, I don't give a shit about UA anymore  Smile J/K. When they decide to fly their 777s to Brasil, fly from MIA and back to Belo Horizonte I will start flying them again. ohhhhhhhh... also... and when they get rid of their damn TED product line too. I fly out of Orlando and lost over 50 500-mile upgrades because I can't fly anywhere but LAX and SFO on regular UAL.
 
MalpensaSFO
Posts: 1110
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 10:17 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:15 am

Quoting Nopeotone (Thread starter):
Anyone have any ideas which long-haul flights might be dropped by UA?

1x LHR-IAD
1x LHR-ORD
LHR-JFK

NRT-SEA
NRT-JFK

AMS-ORD
TO FLY IS TO SERVE
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:30 am

I don't see UA leaving JFK, as it makes them money. Same with NRT-SEA.

We know SFO-CDG is going (might already be gone) and AMS might be another...
 
mymiles2go
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:00 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:30 am

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
1x LHR-IAD
1x LHR-ORD
LHR-JFK

NRT-SEA
NRT-JFK

AMS-ORD

Is that just random speculation, or?
 
incitatus
Posts: 2718
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 6:59 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I don't see UA leaving JFK, as it makes them money. Same with NRT-SEA.

Do you have direct access to United's recent profit report by route? I would not be so confident that any route makes money, unless I could check the figures.
Stop pop up ads
 
centrair
Posts: 2845
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 3:44 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:04 am

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
NRT-SEA



Quoting Stitch (Reply 3):
I don't see UA leaving JFK, as it makes them money. Same with NRT-SEA.

I agree. SEA-NRT is now operated by NW and UA. NW is now daily A332 and UA is a daily 777. These flights are relatively full in all areas. Don't think they will be going anywhere.

I just hope that SFO-NGO stays.
Yes...I am not a KIX fan. Let's Japanese Aviation!
 
N174UA
Posts: 860
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:17 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:41 am

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 5):
Do you have direct access to United's recent profit report by route? I would not be so confident that any route makes money, unless I could check the figures.

A voice of reason...thank you. It's all speculation until we know which routes are profitable above the $65/bbl fuel cost level. And I doubt those figures will ever show up here.

In economics terms, the flights that will likely be suspended (not dropped altogether) are likely still overall profitable for UA, but with the increase in marginal cost (CASM) the analysis suggests that UA is better off in the long run by saving the fuel and possibly routing pax on partner airlines instead and still picking up some shared revenues.

I'm glad to see UA making the effort to make these decisions and not fly the routes anyway just for prestige. It just may make the difference between UA continuing to rebound or going back in the wrong direction.
 
rwsea
Posts: 2423
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:23 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:45 am

Does anyone know how UA's flights to GRU/EZE are doing? I would imagine that South American flights might get the ax first because UA is relatively weak in Latin America compared to AA, CO, and DL. Of course if they did give up the valuable rights, DL and CO would stand to benefit so UA might not do that.
 
DTWAGENT
Posts: 753
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 1:16 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 7:50 am

All I know is that UA to GRU/EZE has been some what full all the way up to October of this year. I can't get my 6 clients on UA because their are no seat left in any class. And when I check at random seating, UA was over 80% full on their flights.....
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:01 am

UAL has been shedding routes based on rasm/casm since 2000...a lot more since filing chapt 11 obviously. As oil remains high this weeding out will continue. However, my recollection is that UAL has made several statements over the past year that the criteria is where can UAL get the best bang for the buck for the next 4 years with a no-growth long haul fleet. Routes that are only marginally profitable and little perceived chance for better results apparently will be shed for sure hitters and those new routes that planners believe have a better growth/profit capability over the period both as a standalone and in conjunction with their Star partners.
 
UA868
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:44 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:08 am

I do not see any pacific route going, that is the main money maker. I could see the LHR-JFK going plus maybe the day flight IAD-LHR. Also maybe closing AMS since they cant close BRU for Political reasons.

BTW....Tonytifao, you do not loose your 500 mile upgrades they become normal miles once they expire.

868
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:14 am

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 5):
Do you have direct access to United's recent profit report by route? I would not be so confident that any route makes money, unless I could check the figures.

Not the specific numbers, but I do know the trends per discussions with UA management. SEA-NRT does pretty good on paid First and Business Class and during baseball season, fills up the back with Japanese Tour Groups coming to see Ichiro.

JFK is a specialty market for UA, served pretty much solely by their business clients. This is why they use the p.s. service (and First and Business revenue has risen significantly since per UA's own press releases) and why they only serve LHR and NRT from there while most of their STAR partners have significant presence to cities throughout Europe and Asia.
 
shane
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:38 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:18 am

Quoting RwSEA (Reply 8):
I would imagine that South American flights might get the ax first

they'd have to be stupid considering the state of affairs with Varig.
 
mymiles2go
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 4:00 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:23 am

I would agree that it would be highly unlikely you'll see any Pacific routes cut, especially to/from NRT.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9606
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:36 am

Well this is an interesting a purely speculative topic. I personally would guess that they would want to cut flights on the most competitive routes. That would probably be flights across the North Atlantic. I'll take a shot in the dark and say that Chicago-Munich might end since UA hasn't flown the route for long and they compete against LH.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
UA868
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 11:44 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:45 am

true....the MUC and the ZRH has been a waist of A/C
 
Bicoastal
Posts: 2446
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 5:56 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 8:48 am

Quoting Centrair (Reply 6):
I just hope that SFO-NGO stays

NGO won't be dropped. United landed a plum when they got the Toyota corporate travel account. They've made a commitment to Toyota which requires them to fly from NGO.
Airliners.net has many forums. It has spell check and search functions. Use them before posting!
 
Guest

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:02 am

MUC and ZRH are both 763 flights, which makes me wonder where these aircraft will be re-allocated. They don't have the range for Asia ops or the configuration for Hawaiian flightsm, which leaves only existing destinations in Europe and South America, unless they want to start new service.
 
LH459
Posts: 793
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 2:41 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:18 am

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 15):
they compete against LH.

Not exactly. One could argue that they compete for o/d pax, but ORD-MUC is essentially a hub to hub flight with strong feed at both ends. The capacity is definitely needed in high season. From my own observation, the IAD-ZRH flight is now feeding LX flights to Africa and India and seems to have strong loads (though, as we all know, loads and yield are two different things).
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
 
AirCop
Posts: 5553
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2005 2:39 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:24 am

Couldn't help but notice that everyone is talking internationally, what about trans-con in the states. Maybe some long hauls out of IAD, or ORD?
 
VHVXB
Posts: 5309
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2006 7:54 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:25 am

With dropping some route is UA thinking of increase capacity on other routes??
 
AADC10
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:40 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:01 am

At the Merrill Lynch conference, although it was not discussed, an accompanying slide said that they would reduce the gaugernin the Pacific. At present, only 772s and 744s are used across thernPacific. Either they would switch some 744 flights to 772s or 772s torn763s.

A previous poster mentioned that the Pacific flights arernout of range of the 763. I am not so sure of that. The 763ER has arnrange of 5875nm, which should be enough to get from the West Coast to Japan, PEK and PVG, particularly with the relaxed ETOPS rules. Some destinations from LAX like HKG are probably too far but they can use it on routes like SEA-NRT, SFO-NGO-TPE, SFO-KIX, NRT-BKK or maybe NRT-HKG. They would probably not want to use it in China due to the 763's cargo limitations.

They could so something like upgaugue the two 763s IAD-LHR to one 772.
If they did use the 763 in the Pacific, I would hope they would do the previously announced upgrading of the First and Business cabins, so that they would be competitive with other carriers.
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:07 am

United has an agreement with LH that allows them to share all revenue 50/50 on their transatlantic routes. it is part of their antitrust immunity with LH. this makes ALL their german routes, including ORD-MUC, goldmines, somethign they want to add more of, not reduce
 
User avatar
Aaron747
Posts: 8558
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 2:07 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:17 am

They will never go 763 on SFO-NGO-TPE. Cargo loads on the NGO-TPE leg are particularly high and only 772 capacity can match.
If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
 
trex8
Posts: 4619
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2002 9:04 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:17 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 22):
The 763ER has arnrange of 5875nm, which should be enough to get from the West Coast to Japan, PEK and PVG, particularly with the relaxed ETOPS rules.

the 767s will not have adequate range going westbound

at what point would the price of fuel make it more economical to make a technical stop somewhere,eg ORD-HKG is already stretching the 744, would it not make more sense to stop in ANC and have a much higher payload capability for cargo etc than being able to barely make it with passengers??
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:22 am

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
1x LHR-IAD
1x LHR-ORD
LHR-JFK

That would be just plain stupid

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
NRT-SEA
NRT-JFK

That would be even stupider

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
AMS-ORD

Not likely

Quoting UA868 (Reply 16):
true....the MUC and the ZRH has been a waist of A/C

Waste would be the word and no they aren't. MUC is part of the UA/LH antitrust immunity and ZRH is likely to be included in that now that LX is owned by LH.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20):
Couldn't help but notice that everyone is talking internationally, what about trans-con in the states.

US transcons are what has been United's brightest spot, particularly the LAX/SFO-JFK p.s. routes which have seen United crank up their yields big time.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20):
Maybe some long hauls out of IAD, or ORD?

ORD doesn't really have any "long haul" or transcon domestic flights, except Hawai'i and Alaska. Further, those longer flights out of both airports are lucrative hub to hub flights that aren't going anywhere.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
oobitsa
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:05 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:25 am

While not having any knowledge of their profit/loss by route, I can tell you that it is IAD-LHR is always packed to the gills when I fly it, which is on a monthly basis. In fact, I'm on it this Saturday. It's like a Greyhound bus. Absolutely miserable.
 
hiflyer
Posts: 1271
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:38 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:26 am

Didn't someone post elsewhere awhile back that UA has a problem with pilot crew rest on the 767? unlike the 777 or 747. Believe it was said that they can't go full range due to that issue..think it came up when discussing their going EZE/GRU to LAX or SFO.
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:35 am

Quoting Oobitsa (Reply 27):
While not having any knowledge of their profit/loss by route, I can tell you that it is IAD-LHR is always packed to the gills when I fly it, which is on a monthly basis. In fact, I'm on it this Saturday. It's like a Greyhound bus. Absolutely miserable.

IAD-LHR? try that route in the off season - January/February/ March (EXCLUDING SPRING BREAK) and even parts of April and Early May.. i flew those flights every monthly during the off season and those flights were EMPTY... just this year.. and I was flying to LHR from IAD on Fridays and returnign on Sundays, typically peak days for Europe. They're packed in the summer and during holidays, but that's about it...
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23209
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:35 am

NH is starting up ORD-NRT, so perhaps UA will drop that route? They don't serve NRT from IAD (NH handles it), so it wouldn't be a shock if they let NH handle ORD, as well.

NH codeshares on SFO-NGO, so I don't see that one going away since I believe UA has a nice contract with Toyota.
 
Rottamo
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:40 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
1x LHR-IAD
1x LHR-ORD
LHR-JFK

That would be just plain stupid



Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
NRT-SEA
NRT-JFK

That would be even stupider



Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):
Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
AMS-ORD

Not likely

Do you think that they are making money in these routes and if so why?

Good yields? High PRASM?

Rottamo
 
toltommy
Posts: 2497
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:44 am

A few of you have commented on certain routes that always appear to be full. Full flights don't equal profitable flights. Or even a profit margin that justifies keeping the service going. I suspect that you'll see planes pulled from markets that don't provide a good return on investment, regardless of the load.

UA was in trouble from the moment they emerged from CH11 as their business plan was built on fuel costing less than it currently does. I won't be surprised to see a second trip to CH11, similar to US.
 
ORD2PHL
Posts: 242
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2003 9:15 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:49 am

Quoting AADC10 (Reply 22):
They could so something like upgaugue the two 763s IAD-LHR to one 772.

As long as they don't get rid of the morning IAD-LHR flight, I don't care what they do!

ORD2PHL
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13224
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 10:58 am

Here's my take depending on how deep they cut:

IAD, ORD-GRU/EZE
JFK-LHR
JFK-NRT
HNL-KIX
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
SeeTheWorld
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:46 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:05 am

I can't imagine they'd pull completely out of GRU or EZE, primarily because of Varig. Also, if they drop flights in LHR or NRT, they would replace them with other LHR/NRT flights because of the slot issue.

There may be some international adjustments, but I'll bet most of the decrease will be domestic - just a guess.
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 362
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:06 am

are you kidding? UA flies that route twice daily. UA and NH DO NOT share revenues on that route. even though UA may codeshare on on the IAD-NRT route, they give MOST of the revenues to NH. Believe me, ORD-NRT is one of UA's most profitable routes and there's no way in hell that that they would give it up, even though NH is a star alliance carrier.

my money is on ORD-KIX, HNL-KIX, JFK-LHR, JFK-NRT

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
NH is starting up ORD-NRT, so perhaps UA will drop that route? They don't serve NRT from IAD (NH handles it), so it wouldn't be a shock if they let NH handle ORD, as well.

NH codeshares on SFO-NGO, so I don't see that one going away since I believe UA has a nice contract with Toyota.
 
jpetekyxmd80
Posts: 3976
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 3:16 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:06 am

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 2):
1x LHR-IAD
1x LHR-ORD
LHR-JFK

NRT-SEA
NRT-JFK

AMS-ORD

This is pure speculation and should be stated as such. Take this users comments with a grain of salt.
The Best Care in the Air, 1984-2009
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:11 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 30):
NH is starting up ORD-NRT, so perhaps UA will drop that route? They don't serve NRT from IAD (NH handles it), so it wouldn't be a shock if they let NH handle ORD, as well.

Someone at United would have to be truely possessed by the "I don't want to make money fairy" this isn't going to happen. ORD is United's largest station and NRT is their most important international destination. They will not drop the route and if they did, it would definately be out of left field.

Quoting Rottamo (Reply 31):
Do you think that they are making money in these routes and if so why?

Good yields? High PRASM?

Think about it. You are talking about limited entry high yield business routes into LHR, shared risk STAR hub to STAR hub business routes and a major capital route from their largest hub using a low trip cost, low risk aircraft. There is no reason at all to drop any of them.

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 32):
UA was in trouble from the moment they emerged from CH11 as their business plan was built on fuel costing less than it currently does. I won't be surprised to see a second trip to CH11, similar to US.

See, this is the part most people don't understand. Yes, United's business plan that they presented to potential financiers and the Bankruptcy Court included estimates for steady $50 oil (which may still happen if the BP guy is right). The thing is, United dropped their non-fuel CASM to among the lowest of any legacy carrier. What that means is that all things being equal, which they are when it comes to the economies of scale of a major airline buying oil, United is actually in an advantageous position as compares to their competition who have not as thoroughly reworked their cost structure (whether United would have been able to do the same thing out of bankruptcy and saved hundreds of millions in costs is a whole different ballgame. United could not have wracheted down costs any lower without risking a major industrial action or lessors taking their ball and going home, leaving United without aircraft to fly.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
SeeTheWorld
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2005 2:46 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:15 am

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
See, this is the part most people don't understand. Yes, United's business plan that they presented to potential financiers and the Bankruptcy Court included estimates for steady $50 oil (which may still happen if the BP guy is right). The thing is, United dropped their non-fuel CASM to among the lowest of any legacy carrier. What that means is that all things being equal, which they are when it comes to the economies of scale of a major airline buying oil, United is actually in an advantageous position as compares to their competition who have not as thoroughly reworked their cost structure (whether United would have been able to do the same thing out of bankruptcy and saved hundreds of millions in costs is a whole different ballgame. United could not have wracheted down costs any lower without risking a major industrial action or lessors taking their ball and going home, leaving United without aircraft to fly.

In addition, while Wall Street was a little disappointed with the CASM and with their fuel cost assumptions coming out of bankruptcy, their unit revenues have been stronger than then their post-bankruptcy plan, which has offset some of the greater costs.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1269
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:04 pm

Interesting topic, I have heard the opposite from the FAs on my United Flight today, from SFO-IAD. They didn't mention anything about any routes being cut, but rather routes being added. They didn't mention any specific posiblities, but from their perspective the Kuwait additional was a real surprise. They were expecting a European destination, such as Prague or Coppenhagen, but not Kuwait.


Quoting JasonCRH (Reply 29):
IAD-LHR? try that route in the off season - January/February/ March (EXCLUDING SPRING BREAK) and even parts of April and Early May.. i flew those flights every monthly during the off season and those flights were EMPTY... just this year.. and I was flying to LHR from IAD on Fridays and returnign on Sundays, typically peak days for Europe. They're packed in the summer and during holidays, but that's about it...

I have heard that the loads on this are always near full. Also, note that there is a fourth flight being added in the summer schedule: 763, 763, 777, 777. And in the winter: 763, 744, 777. LHR-IAD is a very strong route. I think yours may have been the exception.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 26):
Quoting AirCop (Reply 20):
Maybe some long hauls out of IAD, or ORD?

Not likely. As stated, LH and UA split profits as a matter of antitrust, not to mention the fact (also stated) that ZRH will also fall under that umbrella of protection. I also think it says a lot that UA is operating IAD-AMS with a 777 (most of the year), while KL operates a 763... Also, the captain on my flight (744) told me that UA made IAD a 744 base for pilots about a year ago, and plans on keeping one there.

Quoting AirCop (Reply 20):
Couldn't help but notice that everyone is talking internationally, what about trans-con in the states. Maybe some long hauls out of IAD, or ORD?

I think my flight today was an example of strong domestic loads. The flight, is normally operated by a 763 (UA950 SFO-IAD, UA915 IAD-SFO), and yet it was 100% full today. I asked the captain about the substitution, and he said that two things occured. The first, was that there became 744 availability, and the planners decided to throw it into this particular route for a few weeks (maybe even the whole summer). The second point he made was that when the flight was operated by a 763, it was oversold 130%, every day, making it very difficult to book. This was his fourth trip on the SFO-IAD-SFO, and his ops managers reported full loads every day in both directions.
 
CWAFlyer
Posts: 536
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 3:33 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:13 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
Think about it. You are talking about limited entry high yield business routes into LHR, shared risk STAR hub to STAR hub business routes and a major capital route from their largest hub using a low trip cost, low risk aircraft. There is no reason at all to drop any of them.

Not to mention how valuable the LHR slots are. Can they simply
use the same slots to fly the IAD, JFK, and ORD flights to LAX
or any other UA hub? JFK/ORD flights to LHR seem a little far
fetched to get cut.
 
BigGSFO
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:27 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:20 pm

Personally, if UA were to drop any long-hauls, I would guess it would be South America. Given that it takes 2 aircraft for each route, this could free up a lot of equiptment for other uses, including retirement, if that it part of UA's cost strategy.
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:49 pm

How about NH picking up some Japanese-US flying, so that UA can deploy its aircraft elsewhere in its system?
NH doesn't have any shortage of long-haul aircraft with upcoming deliveries of 773ERs & 772ERs.
For example, NH could take over one of the NRT-ORD flights, plus hand over the NRT-SEA flying.
 
NWDC10
Posts: 904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:15 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 12:55 pm

UA should cut back where they are "weakest" and that is South America Routes. Then UA should try to become stronger on their strongest routes. What is UA strongest Route? ORD/LAX/SFO-NRT? Anyone of those? Robert NWDC10
 
N1120A
Posts: 26468
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:20 pm

Quoting CWAFlyer (Reply 41):
Not to mention how valuable the LHR slots are. Can they simply
use the same slots to fly the IAD, JFK, and ORD flights to LAX
or any other UA hub? JFK/ORD flights to LHR seem a little far
fetched to get cut.

Yes they can, as long as said slots are used within a certain time window.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 40):
As stated, LH and UA split profits as a matter of antitrust

Actually, they split them in spite of antitrust as they have an exemption from the antitrust laws that allows them to collude.

Quoting UA772IAD (Reply 40):
Also, the captain on my flight (744) told me that UA made IAD a 744 base for pilots about a year ago, and plans on keeping one there.

UA found that based on ownership costs, the 744s were significantly cheaper to run than the 772ERs. This was above and beyond the CASM advantage the 744 already has.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
An-225
Posts: 3859
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2000 2:55 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:28 pm

Dropping routes is pure speculation at this point.

Alex.
Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2142
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:08 pm

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 42):
Personally, if UA were to drop any long-hauls, I would guess it would be South America. Given that it takes 2 aircraft for each route, this could free up a lot of equiptment for other uses, including retirement, if that it part of UA's cost strategy.

Agreed, and then merge with CO and get a stronghold in South America...see its easy really when you think about it!
 Wink
 
panamair
Posts: 3767
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2001 2:24 am

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:43 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 38):
The thing is, United dropped their non-fuel CASM to among the lowest of any legacy carrier. What that means is that all things being equal, which they are when it comes to the economies of scale of a major airline buying oil, United is actually in an advantageous position as compares to their competition who have not as thoroughly reworked their cost structure

Looking at Q1 06 though, didn't UA end up at the higher end of the mainline non-fuel CASM chart? They reported 8.03 cents vs. 7.97 at NW, 7.82 at DL, 7.69 at AA, and 7.51 at CO...
 
Rottamo
Posts: 135
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 1:45 pm

RE: UA To Drop Some Long-Haul Routes

Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:47 pm

Quoting TOLtommy (Reply 32):
UA was in trouble from the moment they emerged from CH11 as their business plan was built on fuel costing less than it currently does. I won't be surprised to see a second trip to CH11, similar to US.

Stronger yields has helped a lot.

Quoting JpetekYXMD80 (Reply 37):
Think about it. You are talking about limited entry high yield business routes into LHR, shared risk STAR hub to STAR hub business routes and a major capital route from their largest hub using a low trip cost, low risk aircraft. There is no reason at all to drop any of them.

I don't have to think  Smile
There are some public information about these routes available like DOT data from where you can calculate yields. Based on that data I would argue that
JFK- LHR, LHR - ORD and IAD - LHR are not doing well. But of course situation is more complicated. Important corporate accounts, network effects and etc.

Rottamo