Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Deltabravo1123
Topic Author
Posts: 266
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2014 3:32 am

United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:28 pm

It's a well known fact that United hasn't had a huge presence in the Florida for some number of years. It seems to be the only part of the country where UA doesn't have a large footprint. Of course this is completely hypothetical, but how successful would UA be if they tried to build up a hub in FL somewhere? MCO, FLL, and MIA are all extremely congested already and many markets are already saturated with multiple carriers. TPA sticks out in my mind as the airport with the most potential for such a venture. TPA would give UA a chance to serve more smaller markets in northern South America which can't already be reached from IAH, while at the same time limiting down the possible competition to mostly just WN as they are the only other airline to have a focus city/hub there. What are your thoughts on this? How would such an attempt go over?

Interested in hearing your opinions.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:34 pm

TPA would be a mostly Southeast-to-Caribbean type of scissor hub. It's too far south to act as intra-southeast hub, and lacks sufficient traffic to be major LatAm hub. But I do see some value in making TPA more like a focus city, targeting the business aspect of it.

The issue is mostly regarding high-level corporate strategy, in which UA has been reluctant to do p2p routes, and even less so now that the EMB120 fleet draw down is (mostly) complete. UA doesn't need more hubs, but they can likely benefit from an expanded list of focus cities.
 
User avatar
DolphinAir747
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:39 pm

UA wants a hub with a large number of originating business pax to serve as a high-yielding customer base, which MCO despite being a very large destination lacks. In Florida only MIA has this but the market is too saturated.
 
codc10
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:43 pm

a380787 wrote:
The issue is mostly regarding high-level corporate strategy, in which UA has been reluctant to do p2p routes, and even less so now that the EMB120 fleet draw down is (mostly) complete. UA doesn't need more hubs, but they can likely benefit from an expanded list of focus cities.


I think many of the decision-makers responsible for United's strict adherence to its hub-and-spoke strategy have left the building in the past few months (even weeks). Though I seriously doubt a new hubsite is in the mix, I am not foreclosing on the possibility of United being more opportunistic (on a smaller scale) in non-hub markets going forward. Time will tell.
Last edited by codc10 on Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
ua900
Moderator
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:14 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 5:44 pm

I would add the PNW as an area where UA doesn't have a large footprint these days and expand FL to the South in general since that's more DL and AA territory. Which smaller northern South American market do you have in mind for TPA? It's been a couple years since I've last visited TPA, remind me, didn't TPA have standalone terminals not connected airside? If so, that too might hinder it's aspirations to become a transfer point.

UA inherited MIA from PanAm and got rid of it in the past. While that was before the merger with Continental, IAH, ORD, IAD and EWR these days seem to provide UA with sufficient capacity to fill flights to the Caribbean, Central America and northern South America, in addition to having AV and CM as LatAm alliance partners in Central and South America.

As you say, MCO, FLL and MIA provide plenty of direct flights on competitors for Floridians to all of the above markets, including AV / CM flights if someone is married to *A but doesn't want to backtrack to the UA hubs. I'd say UA should focus on its strengths, and for FL that means UA flights to points north and west and *A / partner flights to points south and east.
2020: AMS | BRU | DEN | DFW | EWR | FRA | IAH | LAX | MCO | MUC | ORD | PTY | SFO | TXL
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:01 pm

The only one I see as remotely feasible is JAX, and it's not feasible...
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10246
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:02 pm

I think UA has looked at closing IAD and creating a new hub. I'd think TPA would be a second choice behind RDU in such a scenario, but I think RDU is a much better choice because there isn't enough USA south of TPA and it's Latin ties are too weak compared to MIA/FLL/MCO.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:23 pm

enilria wrote:
I think UA has looked at closing IAD and creating a new hub. I'd think TPA would be a second choice behind RDU in such a scenario, but I think RDU is a much better choice because there isn't enough USA south of TPA and it's Latin ties are too weak compared to MIA/FLL/MCO.


Why would UA want to abandon a fortress hub (IAD) in favor of RDU, a place that already has a lot of competition and is a much smaller market?
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
crazytoaster
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2014 9:09 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:40 pm

enilria wrote:
I think UA has looked at closing IAD and creating a new hub. I'd think TPA would be a second choice behind RDU in such a scenario, but I think RDU is a much better choice because there isn't enough USA south of TPA and it's Latin ties are too weak compared to MIA/FLL/MCO.


RDU makes alot more sense than TPA from a geographic standpoint if you are going for connecting traffic. But is it too late with DL and AA with many p2p routes? DL seems intent on increasing there footprint in RDU with all the recent additions. Although AA seems to be shrinking.

On the otherhand RDU is only 224 mi away from IAD (mostly south). Really the geographic difference between the two isn't much. Any service from NE and SE will have similar routings. Most service from the Midwest to SE is already better served through ORD than either RDU or IAD.

Don't really think a new hub is a good idea. Maybe more focus city flying to Florida or other areas would provide better value.
DEN homebase. Frequent traveler to IND and RNO.
 
Italianflyer
Posts: 680
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 3:06 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:49 pm

That ship has sailed and ain't coming back.
Florida..and the deep SE in general...is an important spoke to the network but will never be a nexus. The pm UA hublett at MIA was too small of achieve economy of scale against AA. The pm UA focus city @ MCO in the 90s suffered the same fate against an entrenched DL.
 
727LOVER
Posts: 8621
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2001 12:22 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 6:49 pm

You're forgetting 2 things:

1. United HAD a hub @ MCO, but it failed
2. United HAD a hub @ MIA, but it failed.

I think they were not aggressive enough @ MIA. Lack of gate space may have also contributed.

Interestingly, had Frank Lorenzo not lost contriol of Eastern, he likely would have merged it into Continental. CO would have had an ATL hub...and you know the rest.
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24606
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:08 pm

Yes the southeast is a gap, but a hub is in the region is not in the cards.

Comments from Oscar only last week during crew Q&A event --

One question often asked is are we thinking about a hub in the Southeast were some say we have a network hole today. It’s something we have explored, and it’s an unlikely outcome. First of all, a lot of southeast locations are taken. Also, it would take resources to launch a southeast hub and we would have to find a good argument for diverting our resources. We only have so many planes, so can you steal them from existing hub where we are already fighting competitive battles.



And more from a previous town hall by Brian Znotins former VP of Network Planning --

Q. What kind of plans does the airline have to fill network gap in the economically growing Southeastern United States? Has there been any thought to a hub in places like Orlando, or Carolinas?

A. In large, we aren’t big in the southeast because of a combination of low yields, our history/geography, and other priorities.

First, southeast yields tend to be lower than the U.S average. Building a presence in a new market/region is always expensive, especially when there are entrenched competitors.
AA’s bankruptcy was not a traditional one, as they went in with plenty of cash and grew their network during the process. They have a strong hubs in CLT and MIA and DL has a very strong hub in ATL.
Given our costs, it makes more sense for us to build our network for business passengers first, and then focus on leisure traffic where possible. We do fly from all of our hubs to the Southeast, but establishing a new hub there would be a risky venture as we go after lower-yield traffic with a high-cost airline. Over time, we might be able to make some inroads there, but it would be incredibly expensive and distract us from other important parts of our network, and we'll get to that part last.

Second, our history and geography also play important roles. If you might recall, UA used to have a meaningful MIA operation, which ultimately proved to be unprofitable and needed to be cut. A history of losses are a strong predictor of future losses albeit not the only one. Delta in ATL is incredibly well-positioned as a connecting hub not only for the Southeast, but also for a vast demand-weighted portion of the country. While it does connect lots of Southeast traffic, we wouldn’t call it a Southeast hub, as it does connect international traffic as well as East-West.
Industry data also indicate that MIA isn’t a traditional connecting hub for AA, and largely just serves the local Latin community and some US Domestic Leisure. One might think there would be an opportunity to compete for this local traffic, but history has shown this to be tough. US tried to grow its presence in FLL last decade and had to retreat from that strategy as losses mounted, while today the market has very strong LCC presence. Adding capacity in already well-served markets is almost always going to result in losses, and historical results both ours and others has shown that more of than not.

Finally, regarding priorities. Most industry analysts accept that the current success of the U.S. majors is due to capacity discipline. In the “bad old days” of boom/bust, carriers pursued market share above all other priorities, which drove huge losses over the course of the business cycle, and resulted in the entire industry having lost money in aggregate since deregulation. In recent years, things have changed. While carriers do pursue market share objectives, they do it not by adding net new capacity, but by moving capacity from other underperforming parts of the network. DL has been doing exactly this as they try to build a bigger NYC presence at LGA and a Pacific gateway at SEA. The long term viability of both is not a certainty. Rather than order airplanes en masse to add this capacity, they pulled airplanes from CVG, MEM, and other hubs to “fund” the growth. AA has done the same by reducing STL, PIT, and LAS. So in a world where we want to grow our presence in the Southeast market and risk losses, what are we willing to give-up? Are we willing to reduce flights at SFO and give others an incentive to grow there? Are we willing to give up slots at EWR? Are we willing to shrink ORD and allow AA/WN an easy path to take our Chicago passengers? In that context, one can see that only the surest of bets should be undertaken, because any strategic effort we make will come at a much higher cost than just buying new airplanes.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
hOMSaR
Moderator
Posts: 2342
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 4:47 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 7:16 pm

a380787 wrote:
The issue is mostly regarding high-level corporate strategy, in which UA has been reluctant to do p2p routes, and even less so now that the EMB120 fleet draw down is (mostly) complete.


What do you mean "(mostly) complete"? I thought the EMB120 fleet has been gone for a while.
I was raised by a cup of coffee.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:08 pm

enilria wrote:
I think UA has looked at closing IAD and creating a new hub. I'd think TPA would be a second choice behind RDU in such a scenario, but I think RDU is a much better choice because there isn't enough USA south of TPA and it's Latin ties are too weak compared to MIA/FLL/MCO.


No they haven't. They've stated time and time again that IAD is profitable and isn't going anywhere.

Their best shot would some P2P and using Silver Airways as a partner in FLL or MCO. Even then, Smisek-era decision making shut the door as Silver being a feeder for them.

I'd even be curious how a feeder at BNA would pan out. Probably too close to IAD to be successful.

"First of all, a lot of southeast locations are taken. Also, it would take resources to launch a southeast hub and we would have to find a good argument for diverting our resources. We only have so many planes, so can you steal them from existing hub where we are already fighting competitive battles."

Basically translates to "We don't want to take risks and we don't have enough aircraft" Which is fine - let DL have an RDU focus city all to themselves.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4291
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:14 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
enilria wrote:
I think UA has looked at closing IAD and creating a new hub. I'd think TPA would be a second choice behind RDU in such a scenario, but I think RDU is a much better choice because there isn't enough USA south of TPA and it's Latin ties are too weak compared to MIA/FLL/MCO.


No they haven't. They've stated time and time again that IAD is profitable and isn't going anywhere.

Their best shot would some P2P and using Silver Airways as a partner in FLL or MCO. Even then, Smisek-era decision making shut the door as Silver being a feeder for them.

I'd even be curious how a feeder at BNA would pan out. Probably too close to IAD to be successful.

"First of all, a lot of southeast locations are taken. Also, it would take resources to launch a southeast hub and we would have to find a good argument for diverting our resources. We only have so many planes, so can you steal them from existing hub where we are already fighting competitive battles."

Basically translates to "We don't want to take risks and we don't have enough aircraft" Which is fine - let DL have an RDU focus city all to themselves.


It doesn't translate to we don't want to take risks, if you read his quote he says it has to be a very sure bet to risk losing profitable flying at a profitable hub to invest loss-leading flying for several years to gain market share in a different city to build the economy of scale to be a profitable hub.

The company is definitely taking more risks, but they also aren't taking stupid risks. Establishing a SE hub at the expense of any of the other hubs seems to be a nonstarter.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:18 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
enilria wrote:
I think UA has looked at closing IAD and creating a new hub. I'd think TPA would be a second choice behind RDU in such a scenario, but I think RDU is a much better choice because there isn't enough USA south of TPA and it's Latin ties are too weak compared to MIA/FLL/MCO.


No they haven't. They've stated time and time again that IAD is profitable and isn't going anywhere.

Their best shot would some P2P and using Silver Airways as a partner in FLL or MCO. Even then, Smisek-era decision making shut the door as Silver being a feeder for them.

I'd even be curious how a feeder at BNA would pan out. Probably too close to IAD to be successful.

"First of all, a lot of southeast locations are taken. Also, it would take resources to launch a southeast hub and we would have to find a good argument for diverting our resources. We only have so many planes, so can you steal them from existing hub where we are already fighting competitive battles."

Basically translates to "We don't want to take risks and we don't have enough aircraft" Which is fine - let DL have an RDU focus city all to themselves.


It doesn't translate to we don't want to take risks, if you read his quote he says it has to be a very sure bet to risk losing profitable flying at a profitable hub to invest loss-leading flying for several years to gain market share in a different city to build the economy of scale to be a profitable hub.

The company is definitely taking more risks, but they also aren't taking stupid risks. Establishing a SE hub at the expense of any of the other hubs seems to be a nonstarter.


They can grab from Houston. That hub seems to be struggling a bit.

I'm not advocating for them to make stupid decisions (we've seen enough of those over the last 5 years) but if they're first jab at P2P is LGA-RDU, then that's beyond stupid.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:21 pm

LAXintl wrote:
Yes the southeast is a gap, but a hub is in the region is not in the cards.

Comments from Oscar only last week during crew Q&A event --

<snip>


Thanks for sharing all of this. I think this is a really great explanation for why UA isn't going to build up a hub from scratch anytime soon, and also why UA isn't going to wholesale abandon at least IAD.

UA is in a tough spot having direct or indirect competition at nearly all of its hubs. UA doesn't really have a low cost fortress hub like what DL has at ATL/MSP/DTW/SLC or AA at DFW/MIA/CLT/PHX. Having all the major business markets and having them all spread out very well geographically was billed as one of the strong assets of the UA/CO merger, but post-merger management squandered opportunities and didn't take competition seriously. Let's hope they can hold the fort down better.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
winginit
Posts: 2851
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:27 pm

intotheair wrote:
UA is in a tough spot having direct or indirect competition at nearly all of its hubs.


Direct or indirect competition, so said differently, they have competition within their hubs... does any carrier not have that issue?
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4291
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:29 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:

No they haven't. They've stated time and time again that IAD is profitable and isn't going anywhere.

Their best shot would some P2P and using Silver Airways as a partner in FLL or MCO. Even then, Smisek-era decision making shut the door as Silver being a feeder for them.

I'd even be curious how a feeder at BNA would pan out. Probably too close to IAD to be successful.

"First of all, a lot of southeast locations are taken. Also, it would take resources to launch a southeast hub and we would have to find a good argument for diverting our resources. We only have so many planes, so can you steal them from existing hub where we are already fighting competitive battles."

Basically translates to "We don't want to take risks and we don't have enough aircraft" Which is fine - let DL have an RDU focus city all to themselves.


It doesn't translate to we don't want to take risks, if you read his quote he says it has to be a very sure bet to risk losing profitable flying at a profitable hub to invest loss-leading flying for several years to gain market share in a different city to build the economy of scale to be a profitable hub.

The company is definitely taking more risks, but they also aren't taking stupid risks. Establishing a SE hub at the expense of any of the other hubs seems to be a nonstarter.


They can grab from Houston. That hub seems to be struggling a bit.

I'm not advocating for them to make stupid decisions (we've seen enough of those over the last 5 years) but if they're first jab at P2P is LGA-RDU, then that's beyond stupid.


So remove marginal flying at IAH to build up unprofitable flying in a SE market to build scale. When oil traffic picks back up, as it always does, UA will have a weaker position in the now profitable IAH hub, and a high cost marginable operation in a SE city that is now subject to even higher costs with greater fuel prices.

IAH and Texas is actually the company's greatest network hedge against higher fuel prices -- when fuel prices are high, IAH is emmensely profitable with higher oil traffic which subsidizes the rest of the networks marginal flying. When oil prices are depressed, other hubs which benefit from reduced fuel costs can subsidize the IAH hub to get it through the other side.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:38 pm

winginit wrote:
intotheair wrote:
UA is in a tough spot having direct or indirect competition at nearly all of its hubs.


Direct or indirect competition, so said differently, they have competition within their hubs... does any carrier not have that issue?


Sure, there's competition everywhere in some form. But there is a big difference between having a main hub at ATL where costs are low and you can funnel a ton of connections into relatively efficiently versus having a main hub at ORD, where costs are high and there's another carrier with a hub there that can near-match your offerings. Or take a look at SLC, where DL doesn't really have any significant singular carrier to compete with for mountain west connections, whereas UA at DEN has to put up with a now very strong WN and a ULCC'd F9. All airlines exist in a competitive environment, but I don't think it's fair to say that DL and AA have quite the same competitive network challenges that UA has.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:48 pm

727LOVER wrote:
You're forgetting 2 things:

1. United HAD a hub @ MCO, but it failed
2. United HAD a hub @ MIA, but it failed.

I think they were not aggressive enough @ MIA. Lack of gate space may have also contributed.

Interestingly, had Frank Lorenzo not lost contriol of Eastern, he likely would have merged it into Continental. CO would have had an ATL hub...and you know the rest.


Let's be clear, MCO failed but MIA was plugged as a result of BK consolidation (like JFK.) They had a nice profile of destinations through around 2004.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 9:57 pm

enilria wrote:
I think UA has looked at closing IAD and creating a new hub. I'd think TPA would be a second choice behind RDU in such a scenario, but I think RDU is a much better choice because there isn't enough USA south of TPA and it's Latin ties are too weak compared to MIA/FLL/MCO.


RDU is a terrible place for a hub (so is TPA). RDU can only be a North/South hub. There is nowhere in the UA network (or for that matter in the AA or DL network) that isn't already covered North/South by either EWR/IAD/ORD. And swapping RDU for IAD provides no additional benefits and actually harms the overall operation.

DL is targeting the P2P O&D business market at RDU, which is sizable. I suspect we won't see much additional buildup with a few notable exceptions (ORD). They have the right fleet and enough of the FF base to pull this off. But there are current terminal constraints, and a lack of population in the region to every make RDU anything more than it is.
 
codc10
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:01 pm

727LOVER wrote:
You're forgetting 2 things:

1. United HAD a hub @ MCO, but it failed
2. United HAD a hub @ MIA, but it failed.

I think they were not aggressive enough @ MIA. Lack of gate space may have also contributed.


Neither [email protected] at MIA or MCO were 'hubs' per se. MIA in particular never saw more than about 30 mainline flights per day, and while there was a variety of international destinations and widebody flights connecting to the South American services, it did not exceed the scope of what we would today call a 'focus city'. AA's feed structure was always far more developed, and the numbers don't lie... AA consistently was about 6-8x larger than UA in virtually all metrics at MIA during the existence of any sort of UA connecting complex.

MCO was and is much more of an endpoint for UA, and can support comprehensive service from virtually any major US market, but United's operation was not a major connecting complex.

piedmont762 wrote:

Let's be clear, MCO failed but MIA was plugged as a result of BK consolidation (like JFK.) They had a nice profile of destinations through around 2004.


The Latin operation was mostly pulled down during bankruptcy between 2002 and 2003. By 2001, the feed structure consisted of hub service, often widebody through flights to South America, and a handful of other points like ATL, MCO and LGA. In 2004, all that remained was hub service, and LAX/SFO were dropped around that time too.
Last edited by codc10 on Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:01 pm

jetmatt777 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

It doesn't translate to we don't want to take risks, if you read his quote he says it has to be a very sure bet to risk losing profitable flying at a profitable hub to invest loss-leading flying for several years to gain market share in a different city to build the economy of scale to be a profitable hub.

The company is definitely taking more risks, but they also aren't taking stupid risks. Establishing a SE hub at the expense of any of the other hubs seems to be a nonstarter.


They can grab from Houston. That hub seems to be struggling a bit.

I'm not advocating for them to make stupid decisions (we've seen enough of those over the last 5 years) but if they're first jab at P2P is LGA-RDU, then that's beyond stupid.


So remove marginal flying at IAH to build up unprofitable flying in a SE market to build scale. When oil traffic picks back up, as it always does, UA will have a weaker position in the now profitable IAH hub, and a high cost marginable operation in a SE city that is now subject to even higher costs with greater fuel prices.

IAH and Texas is actually the company's greatest network hedge against higher fuel prices -- when fuel prices are high, IAH is emmensely profitable with higher oil traffic which subsidizes the rest of the networks marginal flying. When oil prices are depressed, other hubs which benefit from reduced fuel costs can subsidize the IAH hub to get it through the other side.


Even then, they say that the energy industry in IAH with the level spend of business travel that was seen in the early/mid 2000s will not be coming back. All those backfill of planes seem to be tied up at SFO or DEN though.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:11 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
Let's be clear, MCO failed but MIA was plugged as a result of BK consolidation (like JFK.) They had a nice profile of destinations through around 2004.


Yes, let's be clear. MIA was never really a 'hub' for UA. They ran a couple of flights into South America, but at the max, United only had 30 flights/day in 1994, but generally hovered in the low 20's. By 2002, all the long haul was gone, and eventually turned into a TED operation.

The BK filing is not a convenient excuse here for "consolidation.'
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 10:54 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:

No they haven't. They've stated time and time again that IAD is profitable and isn't going anywhere.

Their best shot would some P2P and using Silver Airways as a partner in FLL or MCO. Even then, Smisek-era decision making shut the door as Silver being a feeder for them.

I'd even be curious how a feeder at BNA would pan out. Probably too close to IAD to be successful.

"First of all, a lot of southeast locations are taken. Also, it would take resources to launch a southeast hub and we would have to find a good argument for diverting our resources. We only have so many planes, so can you steal them from existing hub where we are already fighting competitive battles."

Basically translates to "We don't want to take risks and we don't have enough aircraft" Which is fine - let DL have an RDU focus city all to themselves.


It doesn't translate to we don't want to take risks, if you read his quote he says it has to be a very sure bet to risk losing profitable flying at a profitable hub to invest loss-leading flying for several years to gain market share in a different city to build the economy of scale to be a profitable hub.

The company is definitely taking more risks, but they also aren't taking stupid risks. Establishing a SE hub at the expense of any of the other hubs seems to be a nonstarter.


They can grab from Houston. That hub seems to be struggling a bit.

I'm not advocating for them to make stupid decisions (we've seen enough of those over the last 5 years) but if they're first jab at P2P is LGA-RDU, then that's beyond stupid.

I doubt it, Jetmatt777 has a point, opening a SE hub just won't make sense, they just can't grab from one hub such as IAH, it's not that simple.There is a lot that goes into opening a new hub, alot more than just moving capacity and planes.
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:36 pm

airzim wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
Let's be clear, MCO failed but MIA was plugged as a result of BK consolidation (like JFK.) They had a nice profile of destinations through around 2004.


Yes, let's be clear. MIA was never really a 'hub' for UA. They ran a couple of flights into South America, but at the max, United only had 30 flights/day in 1994, but generally hovered in the low 20's. By 2002, all the long haul was gone, and eventually turned into a TED operation.

The BK filing is not a convenient excuse here for "consolidation.'


What exactly do you call it? What do you call CO shutting down Denver when they were in Bankruptcy? Same principle.

"I doubt it, Jetmatt777 has a point, opening a SE hub just won't make sense, they just can't grab from one hub such as IAH, it's not that simple.There is a lot that goes into opening a new hub, alot more than just moving capacity and planes."

That's just an example of a road they could go down to achieve it. I mentioned it's probably not a likely situation since extra IAH capacity is going to DEN and SFO at the moment.

Had UA took new aircraft deliveries and kept some of those 757s they dumped, they'd probably have enough to backfill a portfolio of P2P routes. Long gone and a sadly missed opportunity at this point.
Last edited by piedmont762 on Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
DFW789ER
Posts: 399
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 11:20 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Tue Oct 25, 2016 11:40 pm

Why does UA need a hub in Florida or the southeast? The had MIA-South America, it didn't work. They tried to build up a focus city at MCO, it didn't work. They can get everywhere they need from IAH, EWR, and IAD. It may not be optimal for someone who lives in CLT for example, but AA and DL have the SE to Latin America locked tight.

Edited for spelling.
 
User avatar
airzim
Posts: 1441
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2001 7:40 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:42 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
What exactly do you call it? What do you call CO shutting down Denver when they were in Bankruptcy? Same principle.'


I don't know what you call it? How about a station.

CO had at one point over 300 flights a day at Denver. Compared to 30 for UA at MIA. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.

However, UA never really had a chance at MIA once AA developed their impressive network and EA shut down. Pan Am couldn't make it work either.

piedmont762 wrote:
Had UA took new aircraft deliveries and kept some of those 757s they dumped, they'd probably have enough to backfill a portfolio of P2P routes. Long gone and a sadly missed opportunity at this point.


You have some strange attachment to anything sUA (757s and anything Airbus) If UA had dumped the sCO 75s and kept the old UA birds, would you still be whining about this?
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4291
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 2:53 pm

airzim wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
What exactly do you call it? What do you call CO shutting down Denver when they were in Bankruptcy? Same principle.'


I don't know what you call it? How about a station.

CO had at one point over 300 flights a day at Denver. Compared to 30 for UA at MIA. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.

However, UA never really had a chance at MIA once AA developed their impressive network and EA shut down. Pan Am couldn't make it work either.

piedmont762 wrote:
Had UA took new aircraft deliveries and kept some of those 757s they dumped, they'd probably have enough to backfill a portfolio of P2P routes. Long gone and a sadly missed opportunity at this point.


You have some strange attachment to anything sUA (757s and anything Airbus) If UA had dumped the sCO 75s and kept the old UA birds, would you still be whining about this?


It's amazing isn't it? At an employee/management station town hall meeting last night, a man was furious with management that there was a Continental plane flying in the system, referring to the retro CO paint job.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:01 pm

I can't believe some on here have such an ax to grind that they want to relitigate the UA post merger livery and 757 retirements in every UA thread. I was a PMUA flyer and was upset, but I got over it. It's been six years. Time to move on. Could we just once, one time, have a discussion without dirtying ourselves in those food fights again?

The livery happened, and UA saved money retiring poorly-maintained 757s with 739s. There's no way they could have kept both while taking delivery of so many new planes because post merger UA needed capacity control badly in order to keep costs down. The days of flying half full 757s on DEN-OMA are long gone for good financial reasons. There are plenty of other Smisek-era decisions that are more worthy of debate and criticism.

Please...
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14126
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:05 pm

With regards to UA in Miami, it was flawed from the beginning. UA paid $135 Million for the Miami/Latin America rights where AA paid nearly $500 Million. Should give an idea of what they thought they could get out of the assets. Obviously AA planned big.

Pan Am's Miami operation was always inferior to Eastern. Even after Eastern sold their Latin rights they were still bigger in Miami than Pan Am.

piedmont762 wrote:
airzim wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
Let's be clear, MCO failed but MIA was plugged as a result of BK consolidation (like JFK.) They had a nice profile of destinations through around 2004.


Yes, let's be clear. MIA was never really a 'hub' for UA. They ran a couple of flights into South America, but at the max, United only had 30 flights/day in 1994, but generally hovered in the low 20's. By 2002, all the long haul was gone, and eventually turned into a TED operation.

The BK filing is not a convenient excuse here for "consolidation.'


What exactly do you call it? What do you call CO shutting down Denver when they were in Bankruptcy? Same principle.

"I doubt it, Jetmatt777 has a point, opening a SE hub just won't make sense, they just can't grab from one hub such as IAH, it's not that simple.There is a lot that goes into opening a new hub, alot more than just moving capacity and planes."

That's just an example of a road they could go down to achieve it. I mentioned it's probably not a likely situation since extra IAH capacity is going to DEN and SFO at the moment.

Had UA took new aircraft deliveries and kept some of those 757s they dumped, they'd probably have enough to backfill a portfolio of P2P routes. Long gone and a sadly missed opportunity at this point.


CO was not in bankruptcy when they closed Denver, and the Australia/New Zealand operation. They closed Denver when Stapleton closed. They moved the narrowbodies to IAH to grow the domestic operation and they moved the widebodies to EWR to grow their Trans-Atlantic network. Strategy worked well.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Bald1983
Posts: 622
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:04 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 3:34 pm

727LOVER wrote:
You're forgetting 2 things:

1. United HAD a hub @ MCO, but it failed
2. United HAD a hub @ MIA, but it failed.

I think they were not aggressive enough @ MIA. Lack of gate space may have also contributed.

Interestingly, had Frank Lorenzo not lost contriol of Eastern, he likely would have merged it into Continental. CO would have had an ATL hub...and you know the rest.

I believe Lorenzo's plans for Eastern were to pick it apart, transferring what he wanted to Continental and selling off the rest. When Continental and United merged, the new carrier kept Continental's 'Go Forward" plan. One of its axioms is Fly to Win and that meant concentrating on its strengths. That is why you see the efforts to build up SFO and Denver. I doubt UAL would be interesting in picking a fight with Delta over the Southeast particularly when SWA has a lot going in Florida as well.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:19 pm

intotheair wrote:
I can't believe some on here have such an ax to grind that they want to relitigate the UA post merger livery and 757 retirements in every UA thread. I was a PMUA flyer and was upset, but I got over it. It's been six years. Time to move on. Could we just once, one time, have a discussion without dirtying ourselves in those food fights again?

The livery happened, and UA saved money retiring poorly-maintained 757s with 739s. There's no way they could have kept both while taking delivery of so many new planes because post merger UA needed capacity control badly in order to keep costs down. The days of flying half full 757s on DEN-OMA are long gone for good financial reasons. There are plenty of other Smisek-era decisions that are more worthy of debate and criticism.

Please...


Um, please. I think you aren't seeing my point. Had UA not dumped aircraft they could have added routes instead of panicking and ordering 65 73Gs after the fact.

FYI: Delta is keeping over 100 752s. PMUAs were not poorly maintained, never encountered an MX delay with them ever. I've seen some 738s in current times that haven't been updated interior-wise since 1997 however.

"I don't know what you call it? How about a station.

CO had at one point over 300 flights a day at Denver. Compared to 30 for UA at MIA. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.

However, UA never really had a chance at MIA once AA developed their impressive network and EA shut down. Pan Am couldn't make it work either."

Wrong. Same principle - both airline cut stations and costs when in bankruptcy. UA did it with JFK/MIA, CO did it with DEN as well as other smaller stations. I know you have a bone to pick with anything PMUA. Your logic is flawed.

"CO was not in bankruptcy when they closed Denver, and the Australia/New Zealand operation. They closed Denver when Stapleton closed. They moved the narrowbodies to IAH to grow the domestic operation and they moved the widebodies to EWR to grow their Trans-Atlantic network. Strategy worked well."

So shut down a hub in the West to grow a hub in New Jersey? This is illogical - it had to do with costs.
 
codc10
Posts: 2865
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:28 pm

I don't think United could sell an organic hub buildout to Wall Street, and while I think the notion of moving IAD to RDU or some other site would look pretty on paper in terms of geographical balance, leaving IAD at this point seems a bit short-sighted as the airport is in the midst of a growing region with a great deal of overseas demand and has a ton of capacity into which United can expand... something that can't happen at DCA or at United's other coastal hubs. Anyway, discussion of a wholesale move of the IAD hub elsewhere doesn't seem to be useful given last week's announcement of a six-year extension and revision to the current lease.

The question is whether the future play at IAD is worthwhile if the operation is loss-making, or if there is any way to increase margins. I think there is a "right size" for UAL at IAD, but I am not privy to any numbers such that I can estimate how many departures, seats, gates or destinations that right size may be.

piedmont762 wrote:
Um, please. I think you aren't seeing my point. Had UA not dumped aircraft they could have added routes instead of panicking and ordering 65 73Gs after the fact.

FYI: Delta is keeping over 100 752s. PMUAs were not poorly maintained, never encountered an MX delay with them ever. I've seen some 738s in current times that haven't been updated interior-wise since 1997 however.


You are correct that United dumped over 100 airplanes with no obvious replacement, which impaired its ability to compete in the domestic market (vis-a-vis AA/DL) in the post-recession upswing. But that was the pre-merger United 737 fleet, not the 757s, which essentially had one-for-one replacements at similar capacity in the 739s. In 2007/2008, United either replaced the capacity of the 737s with regional or cut it altogether. Meanwhile, many of those airplanes were of the same vintage (though higher-cycle) as dozens of the 757-222s United retired 6-8 years later while they still had some residual value.

The 73G order is part of a completely different strategy, and will fill out a role the 757 cannot do directly, which is the consolidation and upgauge of regional frequency to reduce the numbers of contracted 50-seat jets in the system. They'll also be in service for the next 20+ years... the same cannot be said of the 757-222s United retired.

Delta will be keeping a total of 108 757-200s and 15 753s, but 97 752s will see passenger service, as 11 were sold and leased back to Delta for NBA charter work and won't circulate in the mainline network on a regular basis. United will hang on to 41 752s plus 21 753s. Conversely, where's the outrage over American's fleet planning, which will ultimately amount to about 30 757s with over 100 757s retired in the last few years?

Anyway, we've been through this discussion dozens of times, on this website and elsewhere, under several different handles. Obviously some things will never change.
Last edited by codc10 on Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
bigb
Posts: 1125
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 4:54 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
I can't believe some on here have such an ax to grind that they want to relitigate the UA post merger livery and 757 retirements in every UA thread. I was a PMUA flyer and was upset, but I got over it. It's been six years. Time to move on. Could we just once, one time, have a discussion without dirtying ourselves in those food fights again?

The livery happened, and UA saved money retiring poorly-maintained 757s with 739s. There's no way they could have kept both while taking delivery of so many new planes because post merger UA needed capacity control badly in order to keep costs down. The days of flying half full 757s on DEN-OMA are long gone for good financial reasons. There are plenty of other Smisek-era decisions that are more worthy of debate and criticism.

Please...


Um, please. I think you aren't seeing my point. Had UA not dumped aircraft they could have added routes instead of panicking and ordering 65 73Gs after the fact.

FYI: Delta is keeping over 100 752s. PMUAs were not poorly maintained, never encountered an MX delay with them ever. I've seen some 738s in current times that haven't been updated interior-wise since 1997 however.

"I don't know what you call it? How about a station.

CO had at one point over 300 flights a day at Denver. Compared to 30 for UA at MIA. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.

However, UA never really had a chance at MIA once AA developed their impressive network and EA shut down. Pan Am couldn't make it work either."

Wrong. Same principle - both airline cut stations and costs when in bankruptcy. UA did it with JFK/MIA, CO did it with DEN as well as other smaller stations. I know you have a bone to pick with anything PMUA. Your logic is flawed.

"CO was not in bankruptcy when they closed Denver, and the Australia/New Zealand operation. They closed Denver when Stapleton closed. They moved the narrowbodies to IAH to grow the domestic operation and they moved the widebodies to EWR to grow their Trans-Atlantic network. Strategy worked well."

So shut down a hub in the West to grow a hub in New Jersey? This is illogical - it had to do with costs.


CO started scaling back of their DEN operations during the 2nd bankrupty, but you are correct. The final straw was the closure of Stapleton. However, you are definetly incorrect about sUA 757s being in great condition. It has been well known that those birds were poorly maintain by UA along with other sUA birds. This was due to cost cutting that UA did during their bankrupties and deferring maintenance quite often. On top of that, FedEx were offering good money for those sUA 757s too. Selling those 757s will be a win in the long run with the overall dispatch reliability fleet wide improving.
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:27 pm

bigb wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
I can't believe some on here have such an ax to grind that they want to relitigate the UA post merger livery and 757 retirements in every UA thread. I was a PMUA flyer and was upset, but I got over it. It's been six years. Time to move on. Could we just once, one time, have a discussion without dirtying ourselves in those food fights again?

The livery happened, and UA saved money retiring poorly-maintained 757s with 739s. There's no way they could have kept both while taking delivery of so many new planes because post merger UA needed capacity control badly in order to keep costs down. The days of flying half full 757s on DEN-OMA are long gone for good financial reasons. There are plenty of other Smisek-era decisions that are more worthy of debate and criticism.

Please...


Um, please. I think you aren't seeing my point. Had UA not dumped aircraft they could have added routes instead of panicking and ordering 65 73Gs after the fact.

FYI: Delta is keeping over 100 752s. PMUAs were not poorly maintained, never encountered an MX delay with them ever. I've seen some 738s in current times that haven't been updated interior-wise since 1997 however.

"I don't know what you call it? How about a station.

CO had at one point over 300 flights a day at Denver. Compared to 30 for UA at MIA. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.

However, UA never really had a chance at MIA once AA developed their impressive network and EA shut down. Pan Am couldn't make it work either."

Wrong. Same principle - both airline cut stations and costs when in bankruptcy. UA did it with JFK/MIA, CO did it with DEN as well as other smaller stations. I know you have a bone to pick with anything PMUA. Your logic is flawed.

"CO was not in bankruptcy when they closed Denver, and the Australia/New Zealand operation. They closed Denver when Stapleton closed. They moved the narrowbodies to IAH to grow the domestic operation and they moved the widebodies to EWR to grow their Trans-Atlantic network. Strategy worked well."

So shut down a hub in the West to grow a hub in New Jersey? This is illogical - it had to do with costs.


CO started scaling back of their DEN operations during the 2nd bankrupty, but you are correct. The final straw was the closure of Stapleton. However, you are definetly incorrect about sUA 757s being in great condition. It has been well known that those birds were poorly maintain by UA along with other sUA birds. This was due to cost cutting that UA did during their bankrupties and deferring maintenance quite often. On top of that, FedEx were offering good money for those sUA 757s too. Selling those 757s will be a win in the long run with the overall dispatch reliability fleet wide improving.


Recall UA dumped classic 737s but it was CO that had almost as many ERJs as AA with the S80s that they are rapidly trying to dump.

"Poorly Maintained along with other sUA birds" I think that's just spin from the sCO side of the house. Come to think of it I had a whopping 1 sUA 757 cancellation and that was at ORD in 2009. I flew them quite few times post merger out of EWR and LAX - not a single delay or cancellation. Comfy seats, free IFE, Channel 9, I was happy. Whereas I can tell you how poorly maintained the interiors of some of the sCO 737s are even to this day and how the DTV product is extremely frustrating. I even hear dispatch ratings on the 739s were below average until they ordered the tail sticks.

But back to topic, I don't think even with the fleet additions that a hub in Florida would make sense. I do think back in 2012-2013 with the partnership with Silver Airways and the bulk of the 757s retained, they could've made a focus city at FLL work but probably at a loss with all the LCC competition. They had a nice network, club, gates at FLL back then.
 
User avatar
TWA772LR
Posts: 7277
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 6:12 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 5:32 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
I can't believe some on here have such an ax to grind that they want to relitigate the UA post merger livery and 757 retirements in every UA thread. I was a PMUA flyer and was upset, but I got over it. It's been six years. Time to move on. Could we just once, one time, have a discussion without dirtying ourselves in those food fights again?

The livery happened, and UA saved money retiring poorly-maintained 757s with 739s. There's no way they could have kept both while taking delivery of so many new planes because post merger UA needed capacity control badly in order to keep costs down. The days of flying half full 757s on DEN-OMA are long gone for good financial reasons. There are plenty of other Smisek-era decisions that are more worthy of debate and criticism.

Please...


Um, please. I think you aren't seeing my point. Had UA not dumped aircraft they could have added routes instead of panicking and ordering 65 73Gs after the fact.

FYI: Delta is keeping over 100 752s. PMUAs were not poorly maintained, never encountered an MX delay with them ever. I've seen some 738s in current times that haven't been updated interior-wise since 1997 however.

"I don't know what you call it? How about a station.

CO had at one point over 300 flights a day at Denver. Compared to 30 for UA at MIA. Hardly an apples to apples comparison.

However, UA never really had a chance at MIA once AA developed their impressive network and EA shut down. Pan Am couldn't make it work either."

Wrong. Same principle - both airline cut stations and costs when in bankruptcy. UA did it with JFK/MIA, CO did it with DEN as well as other smaller stations. I know you have a bone to pick with anything PMUA. Your logic is flawed.

"CO was not in bankruptcy when they closed Denver, and the Australia/New Zealand operation. They closed Denver when Stapleton closed. They moved the narrowbodies to IAH to grow the domestic operation and they moved the widebodies to EWR to grow their Trans-Atlantic network. Strategy worked well."

So shut down a hub in the West to grow a hub in New Jersey? This is illogical - it had to do with costs.

The CSeries was on the table, and they passed over it. Keep in mind UA is also buying used A319s, and the 73Gs were bought dirt cheap from Boeing. They don't need to integrate a new type into the fleet when they decided that the existing types can handle the 100-124 capacity range just fine. I got this from a guy that works in UAs network planning, and he is an sUA guy.

United has enough clout and capacity to order both Airbus and Boeing where they seem fit. We don't know for sure what will happen to the A32x family or what will replace the RR 757s, but we do know that UA has ordered the A35J (the sUA order was for ~20 A359s, then the Smisek regime saw something they liked with the plane and upped it to 35 A35Js) and 77W for the same reason, to replace the 744. Why they feel they need both is beyond me but I don't get paid to make decisions and the guys at United aren't slouches when it comes to these decisions. Just sit back and let the pros handle it.

But back on topic, UA doesn't need an SE hub. IAH and IAD cover it adequately. Just draw a line from XNA to JAX and those are the respective areas they serve well, even with over lap from ORD. And Florida is large enough to where the big cities can be served from all the hubs.
When wasn't America great?


The thoughts and opinions shared under this username are mine and are not influenced by my employer.
 
klwright69
Posts: 2710
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 6:40 pm

No. The CO DEN hub was not scaled back radically while CO was in bankruptcy in the early 90's. I know I was working at DEN for CO during this time and I had family members working there. So, I know, since I was there. The scaledown of the DEN hub came very soon after CO's departure from the bankruptcy if you want to be more accurate, but the events are very closely timed it is easy to confuse so it's not that big a deal. In 93 it became apparent that CO was not going to fold and was going to continue as a going concern at least for awhile. I believe the CO crew base closed in November of 1994. That was the official end of the DEN hub. It effected family members. UA was clobbering them in DEN and the new airport was going to be expensive for this troubled company. Everyone knew that the DEN hub was in question, despite CO having already signed a lease for concourse A at DEN international. It was no surprise. CO even tried to get the city to keep a runway open at Stapleton to keep maintenance base jobs there. Pretty funny huh.

CO also transferred assets to the new CAL Lite operation, as well as strengthening IAH and EWR. I can't believe you forget this key part.This was a big deal. Even CLE looked better than DEN in CO's eyes then. CO was going to be divided into 3 parts: CAL Lite, CAL classic, and CAL international. By this time they had already implemented and branded businessfirst. CAL Lite was short hop and no frills, CAL Classic was going to be normal flights with normal service. Ironically, this is related to our topic. CO started a hub in GSO for CAL Lite. I remember seeing a picture of CO employees with NC senator Jesse Helms to celebrate their new hub in NC. The GSO was a CAL Lite hub. But it was not really a true hub. It was only shorthaul. They flew routes (with few passengers) like GSO-STL and GSO-MSY multiple times a day to emulate Southwest's strategy at that time. They even did CLE-GSO something like 10 roundtrips a day. Sometimes even over 5 times a day in these other marginal markets. But they soon figured out that having market share sure was dumb if the routes carried such few passengers. After the DEN hub closed, CO maintained flights to Chicago Midway from DEN for a time believing CAL Lite would have a good operation there. Nothing like GSO-LAX or GSO-SFO was ever started. Also CO started receiving 757's so they began routes like EWR-SNA and EWR-SAN with these planes so this reduced the need to connect in DEN for different cross-county markets. The 3 airline approach was also a mess because customers were confused. I have no idea how the history of CO at DEN even came up in this thread, but with all due respect, it is indirectly related to the topic, with CAL Lite and GSO. One day CO had a system wide load factor of 40 percent due to this CAL Lite fiasco. So CO also tried a southeast hub. Yes, I am really telling you this off the top of my head. But please forget about DEN and CO as this is ancient trivia and unrelated to the topic in itself.

I am surprised anybody would think that UA entertained dumping IAD in favor or RDU or TPA or any other place. That is a hairbrained idea yet some are serious about it. Why would UA hand IAD over to a competitor, despite the limitations? UA has a wide array of international routes out of IAD. These routes won't work out of another southeastern city that's not already spoken for. Big strike against it right there. And they certainly can't all be dumped into EWR. And why again, should they hand all this to a competitor? I thought this obsession with UA closing IAD or LAX was faded away by now. It seems everyday on here we see more international carriers coming to IAD. It seems to be getting more attention.

I can't see UA gutting another hub, or acquiring lots of new planes to start a new hub with high risk. MIA for UA was nothing like DEN for CO. CO had hundreds of flights a day and it was a legacy hub for them. MIA and UA? Not so much.
 
jetmatt777
Posts: 4291
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2005 2:16 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 7:53 pm

I think establishing some Florida P2P routes would be wise, but definitely not a full blown hub.

I also wish we had some Florida redeyes out of DEN. A 1am flight to FLL or something, the time change is just too tough leaving at 8am, you lose half a day. But I understand it may not be profitable. Connecting some larger stations with Florida might work.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6164
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:01 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:

They can grab from Houston. That hub seems to be struggling a bit.

I'm not advocating for them to make stupid decisions (we've seen enough of those over the last 5 years) but if they're first jab at P2P is LGA-RDU, then that's beyond stupid.


So remove marginal flying at IAH to build up unprofitable flying in a SE market to build scale. When oil traffic picks back up, as it always does, UA will have a weaker position in the now profitable IAH hub, and a high cost marginable operation in a SE city that is now subject to even higher costs with greater fuel prices.

IAH and Texas is actually the company's greatest network hedge against higher fuel prices -- when fuel prices are high, IAH is emmensely profitable with higher oil traffic which subsidizes the rest of the networks marginal flying. When oil prices are depressed, other hubs which benefit from reduced fuel costs can subsidize the IAH hub to get it through the other side.


Even then, they say that the energy industry in IAH with the level spend of business travel that was seen in the early/mid 2000s will not be coming back. All those backfill of planes seem to be tied up at SFO or DEN though.


First, did you advocate removing planes from a profitable hub to start flying that has super low yield from a hub the fraction of the size?

Second, who is "they"? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows what oil is going to do. Its subject to things we have absolutely no control over.

The relocation of planes meant that demand from O&G traffic at IAH was down (14% is what I remember). However, even with it like this, it is still a massive international market. You still have international O&D higher than most other mega hubs including Atlanta, DFW, Denver, Minneapolis, and Detroit. Also, no UA hub can replace what IAH has to Latin America. On top of this, IAH's domestic O&D is growing not shrinking.

Where IAH is taking it in the shorts is to other oil markets. Markets like IAH-ABZ/SVG/MAF/ISN/DIK/BFL/YYC/YEG/SIN/KUL/PVG/PER are the ones taking the hit. IAH-BOS/LAX/LHR/MEX/NRT/etc. haven't missed much of a beat.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 3385
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:12 pm

I just wonder what it would be like should UA open a hub at MCO and add ATL and DTW right off the bat, I wonder if DL would "compete" i.e retaliate.
...the carriage of liquids, gels, and aerosols are prohibited through the screening checkpoint except for travel size toiletries of 3 ounces or less...
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6164
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:27 pm

flymco753 wrote:
I just wonder what it would be like should UA open a hub at MCO and add ATL and DTW right off the bat, I wonder if DL would "compete" i.e retaliate.


Why not just flush the money directly down the toilet instead? Even considering plumber's fees, it would waste a lot less of it.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:28 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
jetmatt777 wrote:

So remove marginal flying at IAH to build up unprofitable flying in a SE market to build scale. When oil traffic picks back up, as it always does, UA will have a weaker position in the now profitable IAH hub, and a high cost marginable operation in a SE city that is now subject to even higher costs with greater fuel prices.

IAH and Texas is actually the company's greatest network hedge against higher fuel prices -- when fuel prices are high, IAH is emmensely profitable with higher oil traffic which subsidizes the rest of the networks marginal flying. When oil prices are depressed, other hubs which benefit from reduced fuel costs can subsidize the IAH hub to get it through the other side.


Even then, they say that the energy industry in IAH with the level spend of business travel that was seen in the early/mid 2000s will not be coming back. All those backfill of planes seem to be tied up at SFO or DEN though.


First, did you advocate removing planes from a profitable hub to start flying that has super low yield from a hub the fraction of the size?

Second, who is "they"? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows what oil is going to do. Its subject to things we have absolutely no control over.

The relocation of planes meant that demand from O&G traffic at IAH was down (14% is what I remember). However, even with it like this, it is still a massive international market. You still have international O&D higher than most other mega hubs including Atlanta, DFW, Denver, Minneapolis, and Detroit. Also, no UA hub can replace what IAH has to Latin America. On top of this, IAH's domestic O&D is growing not shrinking.

Where IAH is taking it in the shorts is to other oil markets. Markets like IAH-ABZ/SVG/MAF/ISN/DIK/BFL/YYC/YEG/SIN/KUL/PVG/PER are the ones taking the hit. IAH-BOS/LAX/LHR/MEX/NRT/etc. haven't missed much of a beat.


Absolutely not. UA has gone on record to say SFO and DEN are getting the most new mainline planes to the hubs. Well which of all the hubs is shrinking the most? IAH.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1888
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:29 pm

Thanks for sharing that, klwright69. The CO DEN hub was a little bit before my time, so it's always interesting to hear about the final years and to note the vestiges of the CO hub at DIA (giant President's Club, the hangar, and the Chelsea kitchen). You also make a great point about CAL Lite at GSO. I don't know whether the southeastern US is really the market it's made out to be beyond the stronghold that DL at ATL and AA at MIA and CLT have.

The way I see it, I don't see how de-hubbing IAD or LAX will do anything, no matter how much analysts like Hunter Keay like to scream so. UA just got a deal with IAD that will lower landing fees for two years, so that should help stimulate the operation there. LAX is too important of a market to leave, but not important enough to try to expand in when DL and AA are in the middle of a pissing match there. And beyond that, when you look at the map of the US, where else is there that's not currently a hub and/or is being underserved and could sustain a hub? I don't see anywhere else for UA to go other than to double down on their existing hubs and to maybe experiment with point-to-point a little more like DL.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6164
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:32 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:

Even then, they say that the energy industry in IAH with the level spend of business travel that was seen in the early/mid 2000s will not be coming back. All those backfill of planes seem to be tied up at SFO or DEN though.


First, did you advocate removing planes from a profitable hub to start flying that has super low yield from a hub the fraction of the size?

Second, who is "they"? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows what oil is going to do. Its subject to things we have absolutely no control over.

The relocation of planes meant that demand from O&G traffic at IAH was down (14% is what I remember). However, even with it like this, it is still a massive international market. You still have international O&D higher than most other mega hubs including Atlanta, DFW, Denver, Minneapolis, and Detroit. Also, no UA hub can replace what IAH has to Latin America. On top of this, IAH's domestic O&D is growing not shrinking.

Where IAH is taking it in the shorts is to other oil markets. Markets like IAH-ABZ/SVG/MAF/ISN/DIK/BFL/YYC/YEG/SIN/KUL/PVG/PER are the ones taking the hit. IAH-BOS/LAX/LHR/MEX/NRT/etc. haven't missed much of a beat.


Absolutely not. UA has gone on record to say SFO and DEN are getting the most new mainline planes to the hubs. Well which of all the hubs is shrinking the most? IAH.


Im sorry, what are you responding to? You didn't address one thing I wrote.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 3385
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:32 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
Why not just flush the money directly down the toilet instead? Even considering plumber's fees, it would waste a lot less of it.
:|
...the carriage of liquids, gels, and aerosols are prohibited through the screening checkpoint except for travel size toiletries of 3 ounces or less...
 
User avatar
piedmont762
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 9:14 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:36 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

First, did you advocate removing planes from a profitable hub to start flying that has super low yield from a hub the fraction of the size?

Second, who is "they"? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows what oil is going to do. Its subject to things we have absolutely no control over.

The relocation of planes meant that demand from O&G traffic at IAH was down (14% is what I remember). However, even with it like this, it is still a massive international market. You still have international O&D higher than most other mega hubs including Atlanta, DFW, Denver, Minneapolis, and Detroit. Also, no UA hub can replace what IAH has to Latin America. On top of this, IAH's domestic O&D is growing not shrinking.

Where IAH is taking it in the shorts is to other oil markets. Markets like IAH-ABZ/SVG/MAF/ISN/DIK/BFL/YYC/YEG/SIN/KUL/PVG/PER are the ones taking the hit. IAH-BOS/LAX/LHR/MEX/NRT/etc. haven't missed much of a beat.


Absolutely not. UA has gone on record to say SFO and DEN are getting the most new mainline planes to the hubs. Well which of all the hubs is shrinking the most? IAH.


Im sorry, what are you responding to? You didn't address one thing I wrote.


You aren't asking anything, you are just rambling on about Houston. I said in a previous post that UA isn't going to open a hub in Florida.
 
User avatar
AVENSAB727
Posts: 1391
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 4:02 am

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:48 pm

piedmont762 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
piedmont762 wrote:

Even then, they say that the energy industry in IAH with the level spend of business travel that was seen in the early/mid 2000s will not be coming back. All those backfill of planes seem to be tied up at SFO or DEN though.


First, did you advocate removing planes from a profitable hub to start flying that has super low yield from a hub the fraction of the size?

Second, who is "they"? Nobody, and I mean NOBODY knows what oil is going to do. Its subject to things we have absolutely no control over.

The relocation of planes meant that demand from O&G traffic at IAH was down (14% is what I remember). However, even with it like this, it is still a massive international market. You still have international O&D higher than most other mega hubs including Atlanta, DFW, Denver, Minneapolis, and Detroit. Also, no UA hub can replace what IAH has to Latin America. On top of this, IAH's domestic O&D is growing not shrinking.

Where IAH is taking it in the shorts is to other oil markets. Markets like IAH-ABZ/SVG/MAF/ISN/DIK/BFL/YYC/YEG/SIN/KUL/PVG/PER are the ones taking the hit. IAH-BOS/LAX/LHR/MEX/NRT/etc. haven't missed much of a beat.

Absolutely not. UA has gone on record to say SFO and DEN are getting the most new mainline planes to the hubs. Well which of all the hubs is shrinking the most? IAH.


[/quote]You aren't asking anything, you are just rambling on about Houston.[/quote]


As LAXDude said, the shrinking occured in the oil markets out of IAH, plus he mentioned that IAH's domestic O&D is growing not shrinking, and having an international O&D higher than ATL, DFW. UA is still investing in IAH, just as it is doing in other hubs. They just broke ground on a NEW State of the Art Technical Operations Center out of IAH. Sure IAH took a hit with oil going down, and United has gone on recorrd by saying that they will put those planes they moved out of Houston right back there when oil recovers.
Last edited by AVENSAB727 on Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Always look on the bright side of Life!
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 6164
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: United and a Florida Hub

Wed Oct 26, 2016 9:54 pm

flymco753 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
Why not just flush the money directly down the toilet instead? Even considering plumber's fees, it would waste a lot less of it.
:|


Sorry if that came across dickish. What I meant to say is that United would lose a significant amount of money on those flights.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!

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