I'm trying to understand these east coast changes announced this week https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1393953&hilit=ua+east+coast
. I like them, but they don't make sense.
I thought I remember hearing something from UA a few months ago about banking EWR to match AA at PHL. Cutting small markets and upgauging doesn't seem to fit with this, especially as O/D primarily and mainline only at EWR with "growth" and connections" at IAD also mutually incompatible, or at least I don't understand them.
If flow traffic is being moved to IAD it moves volume away from EWR, making those mainline upgauges hard to fill.
Unless frequency is being drastically reduced at EWR I find it hard to imagine UA will fly even 4x A319 EWR-MEM. (3x ERJ now, increasing to 4x in fall)
They've got to be looking at smaller planes; trying to O/D focus a 400 flight/day operation at EWR (New York) for a carrier like UA will trash yields if they pull connecting traffic away.
Making IAD a greater connecting point makes some sense, but then there's the cost issue.
Only thing I can think is that even with IAD's high costs, EWR is even MORE expensive.
Also maybe the removal of slot restrictions at EWR gives UA less reason to slot-squat.
The problem with IAD as a hub, though, is that its extremely limited in terms of Florida service. Mainline to ORF, PWM, IND, CVG, etc. is great, but what do you fill those planes with without high-volume markets to source from.
Something like this is needed (at a minimum) to help fill those new mainline flights.
IAD-JAX (mainline added)
So UA now has major growth plans (at least from statements) at ORD, DEN, IAH, LAX, EWR, and IAD.
Interesting to see SFO, the major growth engine in the past, left out....(but UA has pulled the trigger against AS more quietly there)
Since DEN is UA's "most profitable" hub according to Kirby; but ORD+DEN+IAH have a combined margin 10% below (ATL+DTW+MSP+DFW+CLT for AA and DL) IAH and ORD must be much lower in profit to make the math work out.
Also as Kirby has said UA is more profitable than AA and DL at LAX and NYC, it seems that UA's hubs can be ranked (roughly) as follows in profitability.
7. IAD (assumption)
Interesting to see what seems to fall out from Kirby's statements, DEN was most surprising to me, and with all the positives he has said (hub x is so profitable!), how come UA is underperforming AA and DL?
I guess AA and DL's "strategic moves" must be losing money or near-break-even (LAX and SEA), but I guess that is to be expected. What that means then is that ORD and IAH must be poor performers for UA, again making DEN's performance (when it was once rumored to be closed in the Smisek years) more surprising....
Its a convoluted subject, but again Kirby always seems to have a surprise......wonder if Mexico is unprofitable given this https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/278602/united-airlines-mexico-service-changes-from-late-june-2018/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+airlineroutenews+%28Airlineroute%29
A Traddie wannaby---UA DL LH NW AA --- Next DEN-IND (to be decided) Any suggestions?
"Born in Wonder, Brought to Wisdom"