Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
klwright69
Topic Author
Posts: 2736
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:09 am

http://crankyflier.com/2016/08/15/shoul ... ready-has/

I haven't read it all but looks interesting.
 
kabq737
Posts: 749
Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2015 3:06 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:00 am

Maybe it's just me but I get the impression that UA is not necessarily trying to fully dehub LAX but is instead trying to make it less of a domestic hub (might as well route those pax through SFO) and more of a west coast international hub that revives pax feed from other hubs throughout its system. Does anybody think there is any possible truth to what I am saying here or no?
Been on: 320, 321, 333, 733, 73G, 738, 739, 744, 752, 763, 764, 772, 789, C208, CR7, CR9, BE20, MD83, MD88, MD90, E70, E75, E90, TRIM
Flown: SEEKER, C150M C172N, C172R, C172S, C182RG, DA40, PA-46
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13669
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:02 am

Reads like it was written by an AvGeek.

Less traffic does not equate to "dehubbing," and the fact remains that you can still connect FROM just about significant city west of the Rockies, TO nearly every major business and leisure city in the country, plus multiple intercon destinations, via [email protected]
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
grbauc
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:09 am

LAX772LR wrote:
Reads like it was written by an AvGeek.

Less traffic does not equate to "dehubbing," and the fact remains that you can still connect FROM just about significant city west of the Rockies, TO nearly every major business and leisure city in the country, plus multiple intercon destinations, via [email protected]


Did you read it? He talks about there change in traffic flows so No it is not a read about lower traffic numbers. Its about traffic flows and capacity changes. Read it or reread it. Some great comments by other posters also TIM DUNN to name one.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13669
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:22 am

grbauc wrote:
Did you read it?

I would ask the same of you. Not only does the author spend two of the first three opening paragraphs focusing primarily on that, but look under each sub-heading, and you'll see the same.

Does cutting frequencies lower connection potential? Yes. Does it grant UA the most competitive scheduled? No. But many and most of those flows are still available for those who choose to remain with UA
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3698
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 5:49 am

Talk about UA/LAX is getting so old. There's 50 million articles criticizing UA for trimming LAX, while few are ever published about the reason they can do it--the success up the road in SFO. I suppose that would mean a positive article about UA, and that would be blasphemous.

Claiming that UA has somehow "de-hubbed" LAX is just stupid. What DL did at MEM is de-hubbing. What UA did at CLE was de-hubbing. US at PIT and LAS. AA at STL. Etc. What UA is doing at LAX is right-sizing the market for them. It's still an important hub, but in different ways than before. Markets grow and shrink all the time. Every airline has to make adjustments.
 
steex
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:15 am

The article loses me at:

At the same time, it has eliminated 22 nonstop destinations from LAX while adding 11.


That is obviously only one metric, but it certainly does suggest LAX is a hub whose role is changing for UA. If you look around the industry at hubs that have been closed, though, you do NOT see an add for every two drops. Airlines really don't add new destinations to locations being fully dehubbed - they subtract and, at best, reallocate some capacity to hub routes to accommodate increased connecting flow.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1648
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 8:48 am

Call it what you will. UA's LAX facilities are in the midst of an extensive $573 million overhaul due to be completed in December 2017. Everything from the ticket counters and security checkpoint to the gate areas and United Club is being renovated so that UA can remain competitive with other major operators at LAX. UA's downsizing has not only reduced costs but also made for a much better passenger experience - UA mainline pax no longer have to worry about long walks to/from the end of Terminal 6; UAX pax no longer have to worry about shuttle transfers to spartan remote facilities. UA now offers jet service across the board from LAX, with all long haul intercontinental destinations served by state of the art 787 aircraft (note that one of the 2 daily LHR flights is still operated by a 777). I doubt many Angeleno business travelers and other important FFers miss destinations like Guatemala City, Inyokern and Pittsburgh - but I bet they certainly appreciate additions like Austin, Bozeman (or should I say Bozangeles?) and Shanghai. Perhaps this is all just UA's way of dehubbing LAX, or perhaps it's progress...
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
klwright69
Topic Author
Posts: 2736
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:37 am

I thought the article was one sided. There is an obsession with UA and LAX and IAD hubs. Why? I nearly laughed out loud when the article said that LAX-MEL nonstop was really no big deal at all because UA already served MEL with a tag on flight.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 9178
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:08 pm

I get the statistic that UA has dropped twice as many destinations as it has added. But ONT, Oxnard, Santa Maria, Inyokern on EMB-120s? Who cares? Regional flying economics just don't support those kinds of routes. The adds have been much more relevant than the drops.

Cranky - and biased - indeed.
 
codc10
Posts: 3020
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:32 pm

Most of the SkyWest EM2 flying from LAX came off the UA contract during BK, and continued to be operated at-risk by OO under the UAX banner. This service clearly was not core to UA, yet is often cited as evidence that United has only recently (in other words, post-merger to tie it to Smisek/CO) decided to draw down LAX.

Even though [email protected] is smaller than before, it's still much larger than other airline operations that nobody disputes is a "hub", like [email protected] or [email protected] One could certainly argue anti-UA bias.
 
crazytoaster
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:42 pm

One thing not taken into account in the analysis is that the merger between United and Continental happened in the time frame analyzed, so LAX's role has changed from 2006 to 2016. Many of the flows to Mexico and Central America make a lot more sense out of IAH instead of LAX now. Granted I know there is decent local traffic between many of those markets.

Also the trend of removing 50 seat flying is very evident in the evident data but it is not called out as such. But even still very interesting data on the changing of a hub. The number of seats and flights overall are down so that cannot be argued.
DEN homebase. Frequent traveler to IND and RNO.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 12:43 pm

steex wrote:
That is obviously only one metric, but it certainly does suggest LAX is a hub whose role is changing for UA. If you look around the industry at hubs that have been closed, though, you do NOT see an add for every two drops. Airlines really don't add new destinations to locations being fully dehubbed - they subtract and, at best, reallocate some capacity to hub routes to accommodate increased connecting flow.

MIflyer12 wrote:
I get the statistic that UA has dropped twice as many destinations as it has added. But ONT, Oxnard, Santa Maria, Inyokern on EMB-120s? Who cares? Regional flying economics just don't support those kinds of routes. The adds have been much more relevant than the drops.


I think the above is really the point. United is optimizing LAX for how it fits into the airline's network today, in the context of competition in the local market and interaction with other hubs. United doesn't need LAX today in the way that it did perhaps 15 or 20 years ago, because of how much the SFO hub has strengthened in that time. Plus, United obviously faces far more intense competition from focused network carrier competitors today than it did a decade ago. So yes, United's operation at LAX has been shrinking - and I think it is likely to shrink some more as some of the shorter, lower-frequency regional RJ routes end - but United is obviously going to remain a very large, very competitive presence at LAX going forward.
 
User avatar
cosyr
Posts: 1548
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:23 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:03 pm

I think we have reached a point (and arguably it has always been true) that no airline truely has a hub at LAX. UA used to have what most resembled a hub, and that has shifted to AA or possibly DL, but really they all have something in between a hub and a focus city. None will really have the connecting traffic that a true hub has, nor should they in such a competitive and capacity constrained airport, but all have strong O&D for the 2nd largest city in the US which is not Geographically central to anything except Hawaii and Australia...which is where UA is using it largely. It is the same problem BOS has faced for decades. There is an eb and flow to the paradigm of which airlines are strongest at BOS, although B6 seems committed.

UA will not abandon LAX, but even more small cities may get cut as they focus on profits, not prestige; and strengthening SFO where they actually can dominate and connect pax as well.
 
User avatar
william
Posts: 3396
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 1999 1:31 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:17 pm

1. Does Crankflyer post here?

2. Why would want a city in the corner of the US to be a hub? SFO is the Trans Pacific hub.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:25 pm

cosyr wrote:
I think we have reached a point (and arguably it has always been true) that no airline truely has a hub at LAX. UA used to have what most resembled a hub, and that has shifted to AA or possibly DL, but really they all have something in between a hub and a focus city. None will really have the connecting traffic that a true hub has, nor should they in such a competitive and capacity constrained airport, but all have strong O&D for the 2nd largest city in the US which is not Geographically central to anything except Hawaii and Australia...which is where UA is using it largely. It is the same problem BOS has faced for decades. There is an eb and flow to the paradigm of which airlines are strongest at BOS, although B6 seems committed.

UA will not abandon LAX, but even more small cities may get cut as they focus on profits, not prestige; and strengthening SFO where they actually can dominate and connect pax as well.


Even SFO isn't a horrible place for SYD connections either. Using an extreme example of MSY-SYD, via LAX is 9158mi while via SFO is 9328mi, a mere difference of 170mi.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:32 pm

on top of their own network, AC also flies LAX to YVR YYC YYZ YUL (some possibly rouge or seasonal), which reduces the need for UA to deploy their own metal up north
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4689
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 2:39 pm

Hub as a metaphor has limitations. And every application of the metaphor is limited in its own way. I don't think the term is even all that helpful. For example, EK uses Dubai as a hub, but the spokes don't go in all directions, and of course are not the same size. 1Stop, focus city, web are competitive metaphors.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
User avatar
EA CO AS
Posts: 15807
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2001 8:54 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:18 pm

Regardless of the author's where-for-art-thou, United? tone, UA remains a significant player at a fragmented LAX, where AA, DL, WN, UA, and AS/VX control 90% of the market. UA's 18% equals WN and is still very, very relevant.
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan

Comments made here are my own and are not intended to represent the official position of Alaska Air Group
 
usflyer123
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 7:55 pm

i think today LAX for UA is less of a connecting hub, but they definitely have many of the most luxury LA O&D routes.
and as said above, if this hub was closing down, UA would not add 11 routes.
for most people the sky is the limit. for those who love aviation, the sky is home...
 
grbauc
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:03 pm

usflyer123 wrote:
i think today LAX for UA is less of a connecting hub, but they definitely have many of the most luxury LA O&D routes.
and as said above, if this hub was closing down, UA would not add 11 routes.


And that's what i got out of the blog. The comments from some on the post were some of the best discussion. UA is not leaving LAX but they have given away a fair bit of market. People like to talk about these things. Until they give us other stuff to talk about some things are going to get regurgitated over and over.
 
User avatar
jfklganyc
Posts: 6257
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 2:31 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:30 pm

Good article. I think UA at LAX and IAD will look a lot like AA at JFK. Small hub, O and D based.

Anyone that doesn't see the trend doesn't want to see the trend.

As for the JFK route, I know I am a JFK fan, but I still can not believe they axed the biggest market from LAX. I know they beefed up EWR...but what a loss for LAX, JFK and United. Sad.
 
jayunited
Posts: 3307
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Wed Aug 17, 2016 11:54 pm

jfklganyc wrote:
Good article. I think UA at LAX and IAD will look a lot like AA at JFK. Small hub, O and D based.

Anyone that doesn't see the trend doesn't want to see the trend.

As for the JFK route, I know I am a JFK fan, but I still can not believe they axed the biggest market from LAX. I know they beefed up EWR...but what a loss for LAX, JFK and United. Sad.


The truth is UA has already shifted LAX to O&D, most flights that depart LAX are filled with O&D traffic the exceptions are flights to Hawaii and UA's flights to both SYD and MEL. It may surprise a lot people on this site but UA's flights to PVG, NRT and LHR are primarily filled with O&D traffic. Which is why I laughed when the article mention UA is just flying LAX-PVG to hold on to the slot nothing could be further from the truth. When I first started with UA 20 years ago LAX served a different purpose and UA did move a lot of connecting traffic through LAX. I agree that the still may be some cuts at LAX to some smaller markets especially if the route has marginal yields but for the most part UA has finished transitioning or right-sizing LAX. Like someone posted earlier in the thread CLE was dehubbed, LAX has not been dehubbed it has been right-sized and a lot of unprofitable routes have been dropped.

As far as your comment about JFK being a loss, I have to disagree with you. Working at world headquarters kind of offers employees a behind the scenes view and you start to understand the operation more and why certain decision are made. What I've learned is one of the biggest complaints UA heard from the top frequent fliers and corporate clients from LA and NYC was the lack of consistency or consistent product on their transcon flights between both LAX-JFK/EWR and SFO-JFK/EWR. The only way to address this concern was to harmonize the product. There was a lot of debate over this issue UA executives had to make a hard decision but ultimately it was the right decision for both UA and their customers.
I completely understand why you feel like closing JFK was a loss however, the days of flying to airports for nostalgic or heritage reasons are over here in the US the only way for UA to give the customers what they wanted was to leave JFK and move P.S. flights to EWR, now customers traveling in the premium cabin on these routes know there are lie flat seats on all flights operated between LAX/SFO - EWR. What you see as a loss has actually helped UA retain corporate contracts, and premium customers and overall it has helped UA compete more effectively with AA and DL for business on flights between LA and NYC.
 
usflyer123
Posts: 567
Joined: Thu May 26, 2016 6:21 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:23 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Good article. I think UA at LAX and IAD will look a lot like AA at JFK. Small hub, O and D based.

Anyone that doesn't see the trend doesn't want to see the trend.

As for the JFK route, I know I am a JFK fan, but I still can not believe they axed the biggest market from LAX. I know they beefed up EWR...but what a loss for LAX, JFK and United. Sad.


while LAX is indeed an O&D hub, IAD still operates as a connection hub, with many connecting pax from europe and asia.
for most people the sky is the limit. for those who love aviation, the sky is home...
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:12 am

I think UA will decide when its not a hub, not anyone else. It clearly is still a hub and I think it will remain to be so for many a year to come, complemented by that mega hub up north.
 
grbauc
Posts: 1469
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 9:05 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Thu Aug 18, 2016 11:39 pm

UAL777UK wrote:
I think UA will decide when its not a hub, not anyone else. It clearly is still a hub and I think it will remain to be so for many a year to come, complemented by that mega hub up north.


Of course its large enough for sure it can be called a hub. What most people are talking about is what kind of hub. [email protected], connecting, gateway etc...
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5400
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 12:03 am

a380787 wrote:
on top of their own network, AC also flies LAX to YVR YYC YYZ YUL (some possibly rouge or seasonal), which reduces the need for UA to deploy their own metal up north

AC and UA have a JV no?

jayunited wrote:

The truth is UA has already shifted LAX to O&D, most flights that depart LAX are filled with O&D traffic the exceptions are flights to Hawaii and UA's flights to both SYD and MEL. It may surprise a lot people on this site but UA's flights to PVG, NRT and LHR are primarily filled with O&D traffic. Which is why I laughed when the article mention UA is just flying LAX-PVG to hold on to the slot nothing could be further from the truth. When I first started with UA 20 years ago LAX served a different purpose and UA did move a lot of connecting traffic through LAX. I agree that the still may be some cuts at LAX to some smaller markets especially if the route has marginal yields but for the most part UA has finished transitioning or right-sizing LAX. Like someone posted earlier in the thread CLE was dehubbed, LAX has not been dehubbed it has been right-sized and a lot of unprofitable routes have been dropped.

and I think a lot of focus on is on the cuts that basically had to happen because OO dumped the E120. The vast majority of that flying hasn't been replicated by AA or DL but for some reason its a big deal UA cut it.
The only places that I really see UA as "missing" at LAX is PDX and MIA. The only one that would be logical to bring back is PDX but it does fly basically right over SFO.
UA understandably struggles in Miami, hell even DL who is stronger in South Florida has a hard time having anything more than a token red eye on LAX-MIA.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:57 pm

deltal1011man wrote:
a380787 wrote:
on top of their own network, AC also flies LAX to YVR YYC YYZ YUL (some possibly rouge or seasonal), which reduces the need for UA to deploy their own metal up north

AC and UA have a JV no?


I think there is, but even in the absence of a JV, it still allows frequent flyers to enjoy most of their mileage earning, status qualification, and alliance benefits without the extra need to deploy their own metal. Other than smaller markets like YEG Victoria Winnipeg Ottawa etc, I see AC's coverage to be quite comprehensive for a LAX based UA passenger already.

I think YVR-LAX was "rouged" for a while and now back to AC mainline.

Back to the whole discussion about UA LAX, the only major gaps I see would be HKG, BNE, PDX, ATL, SoFL, maybe LIM + CDG, and some beefing up of frequencies to places like LAS SEA and DFW.
 
klwright69
Topic Author
Posts: 2736
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:06 pm

Yes, UA should look at adding an ATL nonstop. I have noticed that UA is often the cheapest on LAX-ATL, but always via a connecting city. Maybe they want to keep it that way.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 2011
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:09 pm

Does T7 still have a gate(s) out of service due to the Terminal/Club renovation?
 
PITflights
Posts: 35
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:33 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:18 pm

klwright69 wrote:
Yes, UA should look at adding an ATL nonstop. I have noticed that UA is often the cheapest on LAX-ATL, but always via a connecting city. Maybe they want to keep it that way.


That is how airline pricing works non-stop is higher priced than a connection - if they flew a direct most likely it will be priced at a premium
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:23 pm

klwright69 wrote:
Yes, UA should look at adding an ATL nonstop. I have noticed that UA is often the cheapest on LAX-ATL, but always via a connecting city. Maybe they want to keep it that way.


I think the issue with ATL is that unlike most of the mid-con/Texas destinations, LAX-ATL would most certainly require mainline for any reasonable payload ... and for the route to be sustainable, it would require a minimum 2-3x daily during weekdays. So the hurdle that must be met for UA is whether they can fill 3x daily 73G on such a route ..... primarily with O&D traffic.

That itself is a tall order whenever you're going to someone else's fortress hub. Just for reference, AA, the largest at LAX, is 3x E75 to IAH. Both UA and AA are just 2x to MSP and 0x to DTW. For DL LAX to UA hubs, it's 5x E75/CR9 to DEN, and 0x to ORD IAD IAH.
 
UAL777UK
Posts: 2370
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2005 1:16 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:30 pm

grbauc wrote:
UAL777UK wrote:
I think UA will decide when its not a hub, not anyone else. It clearly is still a hub and I think it will remain to be so for many a year to come, complemented by that mega hub up north.


Of course its large enough for sure it can be called a hub. What most people are talking about is what kind of hub. [email protected], connecting, gateway etc...


Huh? Did you read the title of the thread?
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5400
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:58 pm

a380787 wrote:
I think there is, but even in the absence of a JV, it still allows frequent flyers to enjoy most of their mileage earning, status qualification, and alliance benefits without the extra need to deploy their own metal. Other than smaller markets like YEG Victoria Winnipeg Ottawa etc, I see AC's coverage to be quite comprehensive for a LAX based UA passenger already.

true, and UA still has a t least a flight (IIRC) on LAX-YVR which is probably the most important Canada city from LAX.

a380787 wrote:
Back to the whole discussion about UA LAX, the only major gaps I see would be HKG, BNE, PDX, ATL, SoFL, maybe LIM + CDG, and some beefing up of frequencies to places like LAS SEA and DFW.

It would be great to see UA on LAX-ATL again. I don't think it'll happen though.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:11 pm

deltal1011man wrote:
a380787 wrote:
I think there is, but even in the absence of a JV, it still allows frequent flyers to enjoy most of their mileage earning, status qualification, and alliance benefits without the extra need to deploy their own metal. Other than smaller markets like YEG Victoria Winnipeg Ottawa etc, I see AC's coverage to be quite comprehensive for a LAX based UA passenger already.

true, and UA still has a t least a flight (IIRC) on LAX-YVR which is probably the most important Canada city from LAX.

a380787 wrote:
Back to the whole discussion about UA LAX, the only major gaps I see would be HKG, BNE, PDX, ATL, SoFL, maybe LIM + CDG, and some beefing up of frequencies to places like LAS SEA and DFW.

It would be great to see UA on LAX-ATL again. I don't think it'll happen though.


*if* UA had some sort of E75/E90 that could fly LAX-ATL year-round nonstop, they might take a shot at it. Having to deploy 3x 73G is a sizable commitment knowing that barely any seats will be filled with connections. The challenge of UA with LAX-ATL would be similar to DL's challenge on something like LAX-ORD.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5400
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 4:23 pm

a380787 wrote:
deltal1011man wrote:
a380787 wrote:
I think there is, but even in the absence of a JV, it still allows frequent flyers to enjoy most of their mileage earning, status qualification, and alliance benefits without the extra need to deploy their own metal. Other than smaller markets like YEG Victoria Winnipeg Ottawa etc, I see AC's coverage to be quite comprehensive for a LAX based UA passenger already.

true, and UA still has a t least a flight (IIRC) on LAX-YVR which is probably the most important Canada city from LAX.

a380787 wrote:
Back to the whole discussion about UA LAX, the only major gaps I see would be HKG, BNE, PDX, ATL, SoFL, maybe LIM + CDG, and some beefing up of frequencies to places like LAS SEA and DFW.

It would be great to see UA on LAX-ATL again. I don't think it'll happen though.


*if* UA had some sort of E75/E90 that could fly LAX-ATL year-round nonstop, they might take a shot at it. Having to deploy 3x 73G is a sizable commitment knowing that barely any seats will be filled with connections. The challenge of UA with LAX-ATL would be similar to DL's challenge on something like LAX-ORD.

agreed completely.

The difference for UA and DL is that DL will have a 100 seater that can fly LAX-ORD (easily) in 2 years.

I think the only Transcon UA really needs to add is FLL or MIA.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Fri Aug 19, 2016 11:36 pm

a380787 wrote:
deltal1011man wrote:
a380787 wrote:
I think there is, but even in the absence of a JV, it still allows frequent flyers to enjoy most of their mileage earning, status qualification, and alliance benefits without the extra need to deploy their own metal. Other than smaller markets like YEG Victoria Winnipeg Ottawa etc, I see AC's coverage to be quite comprehensive for a LAX based UA passenger already.

true, and UA still has a t least a flight (IIRC) on LAX-YVR which is probably the most important Canada city from LAX.

a380787 wrote:
Back to the whole discussion about UA LAX, the only major gaps I see would be HKG, BNE, PDX, ATL, SoFL, maybe LIM + CDG, and some beefing up of frequencies to places like LAS SEA and DFW.

It would be great to see UA on LAX-ATL again. I don't think it'll happen though.


*if* UA had some sort of E75/E90 that could fly LAX-ATL year-round nonstop, they might take a shot at it. Having to deploy 3x 73G is a sizable commitment knowing that barely any seats will be filled with connections. The challenge of UA with LAX-ATL would be similar to DL's challenge on something like LAX-ORD.


UA would never fly LAX-ATL with a E175. That would be a joke compared to what DL & AA fly on the route
 
User avatar
adambrau
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 11:44 pm

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:12 am

Crankyflyer, by definition of his handle, is going be posting opinions which are cynical. All the big US3 are doing well finally. UA's terminal in LAX is a bit horrific as they undergo renovations to make it an appealing option. Why would they expand when the terminal experience is so grim. Maybe it is rightsizing. Maybe it is understanding that the next year they lay low until there is a better product to offer? YMMV but my experience is that UA doesn't need any addition flow right now....
JFK Friendly
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4462
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:17 am

adambrau wrote:
Crankyflyer, by definition of his handle, is going be posting opinions which are cynical. All the big US3 are doing well finally. UA's terminal in LAX is a bit horrific as they undergo renovations to make it an appealing option. Why would they expand when the terminal experience is so grim. Maybe it is rightsizing. Maybe it is understanding that the next year they lay low until there is a better product to offer? YMMV but my experience is that UA doesn't need any addition flow right now....


That's possible, they may have reduced capacity a bit to ease the already existing HUGE security lines for the UA terminals.
 
aaway
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

Re: Crankyflier: UA has already dehubbed LAX

Sat Aug 20, 2016 1:31 am

I've seen this topic discussed previously and the responses are always interesting. I think what's somewhat overlooked is that the topic is so complex, yet nuanced. There were many corporate, fleet, network & real estate decisions - made over a period of years - that led to the state of the current UA presence at LAX.

Having said that, I agree with the post by Jayunited. I was a former (1990-1995) UA employee, and had the opportunity to return briefly in 2004 under contract. I believe that the post- Chapter 11-1 UA management came to realize that it was, essentially, competing against itself with both LAX & SFO.

(1) Despite a major international schedule presence at both, the bulk of the seats on offer remained domestic.
(2) The geographic limitations of the coastal location, and a dearth of traffic generating spokes in the western third of the 48.
(3) The unique international traffic flows (xxx-SFO-Asia & v.v.), (xxx-LAX-Latin America & v.v.) weren't substantial enough to support multiple frequencies for balanced, all-day traffic flows.
(4) UA was already the largest carrier/marketshare leader in most of the western U.S. spokes served over both LAX & SFO. UA bumped up against the limits of the number of daily passengers flying (as an example) XXX-LAX-SBA vs. XXX-SFO-SBA or XXX-SFO-DEN vs. XXX-LAX-DEN. Adding connectivity over LAX was not, of itself, a traffic stimulator.

As was mentioned previously, UA had a head start in SFO in terms of facilities and marketshare leadership. And, SFO historically has enjoyed yield premiums versus LAX.

Some long-time UA employees may recall an internal video presentation - circa 1999 - by Rono Dutta, then SVP-Planning, during the height of the UA-LAX schedule buildup.

Though targeted to a specific audience, the video did give a bit of insight into the network planners' train of thought with regard to marketshare and schedule presence. I recall how Dutta indicated how UA had aspirations for 40% marketshare at LAX, and illustrated some of the measures UA planned (attempted) to achieve that goal.
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos