Prost wrote:

I wonder if a lot of it is backward looking when UA/AA were the top airlines in the US and the ‘natural share’ is rallying the troops and Wall Street to allow them to grow.

SFOtoORD wrote:

I think this “natural market share” idea is largely a product of how much NB capacity sUA gave up when the dumped the 733/735 fleet without replacement. After the merger sUA absorbed a lot of the sCO NB capacity in their hubs and it left the airline short of mainline across the board. I think they’re still recovering.

mercure1 wrote:

PMUA+PMCO > new UA, in terms of ASMs.
Probably something like that.
While DL grew. The new UA floundered and retreated for ~5yrs post merger.

United1 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

PMUA+PMCO > new UA, in terms of ASMs.
Probably something like that.
While DL grew. The new UA floundered and retreated for ~5yrs post merger.

Actually the "new" UA is about 4% larger than it was at time of merger. They must have grown enough to catch up to DL as UA has passed DL in terms of ASMs and RSMs. UA is about 3% larger than DL is now.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Man oh man, I would love to see UA launch some more destinations within Texas like ACT, TYR, and ABI.

I think DL could try and launch ATL/SLC-MAF to capture oil traffic.

tphuang wrote:

UA's natural share is whatever they want it to be. Kirby wants to expand because UA shrunk too much. But others have already added capacity due to their cuts. Who is to say what each airline's market share should really be. It's all nonsense.

Rdh3e wrote:

United1 wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

PMUA+PMCO > new UA, in terms of ASMs.
Probably something like that.
While DL grew. The new UA floundered and retreated for ~5yrs post merger.

Actually the "new" UA is about 4% larger than it was at time of merger. They must have grown enough to catch up to DL as UA has passed DL in terms of ASMs and RSMs. UA is about 3% larger than DL is now.

UA is only larger than DL because of its very long haul operations. For flights under 7,000 miles DL is larger.

jetero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

I think this “natural market share” idea is largely a product of how much NB capacity sUA gave up when the dumped the 733/735 fleet without replacement. After the merger sUA absorbed a lot of the sCO NB capacity in their hubs and it left the airline short of mainline across the board. I think they’re still recovering.

UA has to rebuild a competitive domestic network or it doesn’t have a future. I’ve said many times the only part of the plan I disagree with is spreading the growth over 3 hubs. But 3 years of 8-10% growth at IAH and DEN and as much as can be squeezed out of ORD will create pretty powerful hubs, just not the same “category killer” as DL at ATL and AA at DFW and CLT, which, quite honestly, you need at the end of the day to compete against WN in the denser trunk markets. I just don’t know if the economy will hold up for the 3 years required to do that.

MIflyer12 wrote:

jetero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

I think this “natural market share” idea is largely a product of how much NB capacity sUA gave up when the dumped the 733/735 fleet without replacement. After the merger sUA absorbed a lot of the sCO NB capacity in their hubs and it left the airline short of mainline across the board. I think they’re still recovering.

UA has to rebuild a competitive domestic network or it doesn’t have a future. I’ve said many times the only part of the plan I disagree with is spreading the growth over 3 hubs. But 3 years of 8-10% growth at IAH and DEN and as much as can be squeezed out of ORD will create pretty powerful hubs, just not the same “category killer” as DL at ATL and AA at DFW and CLT, which, quite honestly, you need at the end of the day to compete against WN in the denser trunk markets. I just don’t know if the economy will hold up for the 3 years required to do that.

Eight to ten percent annually for several years over multiple hubs? The investor community would have a crap fit. It's hard to see how yields could be sustained with that rate of growth, frankly.

jetero wrote:

I don’t disagree, but they’re doing it now at IAH and DEN and have announced 6% growth at mid continent hubs over next 3 years, on average. ORD is running closer to 3%, IAH 7%, DEN 8%. Hence the point re the economy—it’s difficult enough to begin with, but if the economy takes a turn in the near term (which is almost inevitable), they’ll either have to erase all that growth or undertake a major network restructuring (i.e. close a hub).

Rdh3e wrote:

UA is only this year in 2018 surpassing merger capacity levels domestically. This while both AA and DL have grown (and the market overall) well into double digits.

United1 wrote:

...nothing quite like cherry picking a number is there Rdh? I doubt if 7k is an accurate number but whatever it's irreverent.

MSPNWA wrote:

Measuring total system ASMs, in 2017 DL was only about 3.6% larger than DL & NW were in 2007

winginit wrote:

While it makes for a good sound bite to a non-aviation audience, the complexities behind calculating "natural share" are such that it's obviously not that simple. Sure, if all of the majors used an off the shelf QSI product or a simple MIDT share to capacity share gap analysis to agree to their "natural share" that was public that would be one thing, but UA, AA, and DL all use their own proprietary analytical black boxes to crunch a combination of industry and internal data to calculate their own FMS values that they then bake into their corporate contracts.

Having said all of that, I do recall off the shelf QSI products showing that UA had a negative FMS gap when measured at the system level.

Rdh3e wrote:

United1 wrote:

...nothing quite like cherry picking a number is there Rdh? I doubt if 7k is an accurate number but whatever it's irreverent.

Its called putting things in context. Natural share isn't about total company ASMs. ASMs don't bring you market share. Seats bring market share. UA is massively undersized domestically and that is what "Natural Share" is about.

United787 wrote:

jetero wrote:

I don’t disagree, but they’re doing it now at IAH and DEN and have announced 6% growth at mid continent hubs over next 3 years, on average. ORD is running closer to 3%, IAH 7%, DEN 8%. Hence the point re the economy—it’s difficult enough to begin with, but if the economy takes a turn in the near term (which is almost inevitable), they’ll either have to erase all that growth or undertake a major network restructuring (i.e. close a hub).

And to add, ORD would likely be growing faster if it could. ORD's growth is hampered by it's terminal capacity which won't be resolved until the O'Hare 21 starts to kick in and they only just started looking for architects... I think most of that growth has been from upgauging aircraft and shifting from RJs to mainline. Not in aircraft movements.

Judge1310 wrote:

I find it absolutely mind-boggling that some folks on here think that the Network Planners at the larger airlines have not considered all the route possibilities. Network Planning is *sooo* much more than "oh wouldn't it be nice to connect the dots between these two cities, etc...?"The algorithms and data points involved are so immense. Is it okay to dream? Sure! But to bemoan carriers for not serving certain routes is premature -- try to take a few more mental steps to develop a clearer idea as to why certain routes aren't operated.

nmdrdh787 wrote:

I'm curious what off the shelf QSI products you are refering to also? I have only tested OAG's.

winginit wrote:

nmdrdh787 wrote:

I'm curious what off the shelf QSI products you are refering to also? I have only tested OAG's.

DOB Systems offers a MIDAS-driven QSI product that they've rolled out to a host of Amadeus carriers, IATA offers AirportIS that has a QSI-tool, and FlightGlobal offers a QSI package through their subsidiary tClara to name a few.

SFOtoORD wrote:

I think this “natural market share” idea is largely a product of how much NB capacity sUA gave up when the dumped the 733/735 fleet without replacement. After the merger sUA absorbed a lot of the sCO NB capacity in their hubs and it left the airline short of mainline across the board. I think they’re still recovering.

GSP psgr wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

I think this “natural market share” idea is largely a product of how much NB capacity sUA gave up when the dumped the 733/735 fleet without replacement. After the merger sUA absorbed a lot of the sCO NB capacity in their hubs and it left the airline short of mainline across the board. I think they’re still recovering.

...and yet they're still endlessly dithering on a 100-120 seat narrowbody order.

slider wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Man oh man, I would love to see UA launch some more destinations within Texas like ACT, TYR, and ABI.

I think DL could try and launch ATL/SLC-MAF to capture oil traffic.

Given all that Kirby has said about reclaiming home turf, you'd think they'd have done just that. Instead, it's IAH-CAK, IAH-DAY??? Makes zero sense whatsoever when UA ceded the TX & Gulf Coast region post-merger.

GSP psgr wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

I think this “natural market share” idea is largely a product of how much NB capacity sUA gave up when the dumped the 733/735 fleet without replacement. After the merger sUA absorbed a lot of the sCO NB capacity in their hubs and it left the airline short of mainline across the board. I think they’re still recovering.

...and yet they're still endlessly dithering on a 100-120 seat narrowbody order.

SFOtoORD wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

I think this “natural market share” idea is largely a product of how much NB capacity sUA gave up when the dumped the 733/735 fleet without replacement. After the merger sUA absorbed a lot of the sCO NB capacity in their hubs and it left the airline short of mainline across the board. I think they’re still recovering.

...and yet they're still endlessly dithering on a 100-120 seat narrowbody order.

Probably because dramatically increasing 100 seat flying won’t be good for margins. Mainline pay rates on small aircraft will be tough.

jetero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

...and yet they're still endlessly dithering on a 100-120 seat narrowbody order.

Probably because dramatically increasing 100 seat flying won’t be good for margins. Mainline pay rates on small aircraft will be tough.

Is there anyone out there in the know who can do a simple back-of-the-envelope illustration?

1x Capt $x/hr
1x FO $y/hr
3x FA $z/hr

+ work rule differences (e.g. hotel daily room rate, what else?)

= CS100 cost

Compared with E75 cost

Plus incremental revenue from 30 seats

Less load factor decrease

Plus net differential acquisition cost

Less fuel CASM savings

Is it that clear a difference?

Or is it less a downward comparison to the E75 and more an upward comparison to a 319 or 320?

SFOtoORD wrote:

jetero wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Probably because dramatically increasing 100 seat flying won’t be good for margins. Mainline pay rates on small aircraft will be tough.

Is there anyone out there in the know who can do a simple back-of-the-envelope illustration?

1x Capt $x/hr
1x FO $y/hr
3x FA $z/hr

+ work rule differences (e.g. hotel daily room rate, what else?)

= CS100 cost

Compared with E75 cost

Plus incremental revenue from 30 seats

Less load factor decrease

Plus net differential acquisition cost

Less fuel CASM savings

Is it that clear a difference?

Or is it less a downward comparison to the E75 and more an upward comparison to a 319 or 320?

I’m guessing they are comparing it to buying and staffing used A319/320s or new 739s.