PacoMartin wrote:

United1 wrote:

Also number of departures isn't really a useful metric...seats available or passengers carried would be more accurate.

350 takeoffs in DEC 2018 from PHL on United mainline
130 ORD 678 miles 163 average number of seats per takeoff
74 IAH 1,325 137
84 DEN 1,558 155
62 SFO 2,521 149

255 takeoffs in DEC 2018 from PIT on United mainline
31 IAD 182 miles 149 average number of seats per takeoff (has become a UAX route since December)
15 EWR 319 miles 142
74 ORD 413 miles 143
30 IAH 1,117 145
61 DEN 1,290 150
44 SFO 2,254 134

= seats & passengers for the month of December 2018

PHL
ORD 21,136 16,832
IAH 10,109 8,378
DEN 13,006 10,938
SFO 9,230 6,754
PIT
IAD 4,628 2,700
EWR 2,132 1,293
ORD 10,606 7,764
IAH 4,338 2,892
DEN 9,167 8,375
SFO 5,896 4,973

United is in fierce competition at PHL
A four-way competition against American, Southwest, Frontier for PHL to Denver.
A three-way competition from PHL to Houston–Intercontinental against American and Frontier.
A three-way competition from PHL to San Francisco against American and Alaska
A two-way competition from PHL to ORD with American.
Of course Southwest is flying into Houston Hobby an Chicago Midway from Philadelphia.

United1 wrote:

There is no point having this debate unless you are willing to provide statistics that look at the entire network not just mainline. UA+UAX and in this case UAs and Amtrak's agreement to feed passengers between PHL-EWR would be a start.

No easy way to do that as BTS data is organized by airlines. Some regional airlines fly for more than one mainline airline.

flights - airline - number of seats | number of passengers for all of PA in December 2018
10,339 American Airlines Inc. 1,659,505 1,271,016
3,340 Southwest Airlines Co. 513,428 414,182
6,817 Piedmont Airlines 340,850 249,663
1,966 Delta Air Lines Inc. 289,334 219,138
3,769 Republic Airline 283,978 196,701
3,218 PSA Airlines Inc. 204,559 141,543
1,083 Spirit Air Lines 183,057 155,200
1,220 United Air Lines Inc. 182,175 140,971
869 Frontier Airlines Inc. 173,150 149,774
1,481 Endeavor Air Inc. 102,084 72,128
788 JetBlue Airways 87,600 65,419
1,159 SkyWest Airlines Inc. 66,894 49,693
341 Allegiant Air 57,726 49,838
903 Envoy Air 49,206 36,400
242 Alaska Airlines Inc. 39,467 32,814
741 Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp 37,050 29,753
456 Mesa Airlines Inc. 32,910 26,398
121 GoJet Airlines LLC d/b/a United Express 8,470 6,576


I am not sure how much information you need. PHL is a major airport completely dominated by American Airlines who flies a competing route to every single one of the four United destinations. In addition, there is more competition from other airlines, some of which are LCCs. American has flights to multiple European and Carribean destinations, so very few passengers will want to fly to Chicago or Washington DC just to fly to the same European destinations.

I don't think that UA is going to cut its routes from PHL anytime soon. Most of the traffic leaks to DC and especially NYC in terms of international traffic. Also, you are not taking into account the connection aspect of the routes. The current routes give good connections to Asia and the rest of the US which is what UA is probably focused on with the current routes, not necessarily point to point. Also, mentioned previously, the traffic is probably focused inbound to PHL. The metro area of Philadelphia is 8th largest(2018 estimate) so cutting PHL would be foolish. I think if you want a good argument, you need to present a broad picture, not a narrow picture with only one point of view.

codc10 wrote:

So what's the question? It seems to be a vague way of leading into asking whether UA will pull out of PHL or PIT (or MDT, ABE, ERI, etc...). The answer is no.

I would imagine that the PHL point of sale is comparatively weak for United in the same way that Delta is not strong in the Houston local market, or American is not a major player in Denver. Higher-yield traffic is probably inbound to PHL from areas of UA strength (hubs) where American is not a heavyweight. The story is the same for most US carriers in non-hub locations, but especially true of UA and AA.

While AA will undoubtedly capture the lion's share of high-yield traffic to markets it serves nonstop (the nonstop premium), United is a compelling option for one-stop service, especially to the Pacific, where AA's coverage is far less comprehensive.

As United continues to upgauge its domestic system, it will seek to recapture that "natural share" mentioned by Kirby when discussing capacity plans.

Hopefully that means a new 100 seater for mainline.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

winstonavgeek wrote:

The metro area of Philadelphia is 8th largest(2018 estimate) so cutting PHL would be foolish.

Metro Philly may be 8th in terms of population but PHL barely makes #20 among U.S. airports in O&D traffic, which is what UA would be chasing. It's smaller than SAN or MSP; barely bigger than DTW.

PacoMartin wrote:

United mainline has reduced operations in Pennsylvania

I count seven cities in Pennsylvania with United service. Why the reference to the state as a whole but then only the focus on mainline and only to PHL and PIT? If people fly UA MDT-ORD-HKG do they not count as UA customers from Pennsylvania?

I remember flying EWR to PHL a zillion years ago on a 737, I was connecting to somewhere else, but it was rather fun as we flew very slow and very low.
Or perhaps I’ve got it wrong- and it was USAir?

codc10 wrote:

So what's the question? It seems to be a vague way of leading into asking whether UA will pull out of PHL or PIT (or MDT, ABE, ERI, etc...). The answer is no.

That wasn't the question per se, but it was an extreme answer. Another less extreme answer is they might reduce the number of hubs they fly to from PHL from 4 to 1, 2 or 3 . If UAL is facing a four way competition to Denver, and there are very few international flights from Denver, they could cut out that hub.

codc10 wrote:

While AA will undoubtedly capture the lion's share of high-yield traffic to markets it serves nonstop (the nonstop premium), United is a compelling option for one-stop service, especially to the Pacific, where AA's coverage is far less comprehensive.

That certainly seems valid. While American Airlines has fairly decent coverage to Europe from PHL, you would have to fly to another American hub and I think you would be limited to Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Tokyo. Whereas if you fly United to San Francisco you have multiple options.

American Airlines from PHL:Amsterdam, London–Heathrow, Madrid, Manchester (UK), Paris–Charles de Gaulle, Rome–Fiumicino, Zurich
Seasonal: Athens, Barcelona, Berlin–Tegel, Bologna, Budapest, Dubrovnik, Edinburgh, Lisbon, Prague, Shannon, Venice

codc10 wrote:

As United continues to upgauge its domestic system, it will seek to recapture that "natural share" mentioned by Kirby when discussing capacity plans.

I am still struggling with that concept. The "natural share" could mean more dominance in a limited number of airports where United has a hub. But you seem to think it means that United can increase it's share in airports like PHL where it is overwhelmed with competition.

PacoMartin wrote:

That wasn't the question per se, but it was an extreme answer. Another less extreme answer is they might reduce the number of hubs they fly to from PHL from 4 to 1, 2 or 3 . If UAL is facing a four way competition to Denver, and there are very few international flights from Denver, they could cut out that hub.

UA is aggressively growing DEN. They won’t be cutting PHL service. Full stop... that’s a pretty unrealistic scenario. What makes UA different from the other players in the market? DEN is a massive United hub.

I am still struggling with that concept. The "natural share" could mean more dominance in a limited number of airports where United has a hub. But you seem to think it means that United can increase it's share in airports like PHL where it is overwhelmed with competition.

It means both. By downgauging the domestic network and reducing frequency in favor of international, UA reduced capacity in major markets with sufficient (and growing) demand. United is expanding into markets with plenty of demand. United has increased its domestic market share by more aggressively growing capacity than competitors, and its been met by favorable results, suggestive of the fact that the notion is viable.

UA at PHL is probably status quo at this point. IAD was a pretty good connecting point that eliminated some back tracking that ORD/IAH cause. But it is not a huge hit. I'm pretty sure SFO remains a tough upgrade.

I don’t get the PHL obsession. It’s perfectly sized for what UA needs. They certainly aren’t running away from Frontier. Not shocking others might have higher mainline. It’s a random market to analyze.

VC10er wrote:

I don’t know- I NEVER saw United advertising from 1991 to about 2015, except for that one Battleship London taxi, and for all those years I went to London once a month for 3 days to a week! And I used to actually look for any United ads,, in part because I worked for the biggest advertising conglomerate. BA, VA, Singapore, Emirates- tons! LCCs tons. British Midland TONS!
I used to figure that the Brits hated United so much that they didn’t bother!

This is not meant to be critical, because I appreciate your love for United and your contributions to this site, but in this case you are at least slightly incorrect. I spent the summer of 2003 interning in London in grad school and UA was running a massive advertising campaign in Tube stops, mostly promoting their premium service. One of my favorite lines was something to the effect of "Discover what it feels like to board a plane and turn left." The add were plastered in the tunnels where the trains would pull into the station.

I don't know how long it ran or how well received it was, but it existed.

PacoMartin wrote:

United1 wrote:

There is no point having this debate unless you are willing to provide statistics that look at the entire network not just mainline. UA+UAX and in this case UAs and Amtrak's agreement to feed passengers between PHL-EWR would be a start.

No easy way to do that as BTS data is organized by airlines. Some regional airlines fly for more than one mainline airline.

I agree. I don't understand where you're going with this anyway and without the UAX contribution, it's meaningless. As a customer, I much prefer the EMB-170/75 over UA's 737s; having UAX on a route out of PHL or PIT with EMB-175s would make me MORE likely to book UA. In some cases, it's an enhancement and better business NOT to have mainline on a route.

UALFAson wrote:

I agree. I don't understand where you're going with this anyway and without the UAX contribution, it's meaningless.

Here is the UAX numbers from December 2018
seats - pssg. - PHL to ?
3926 2982 IAD
3268 2795 IAH

This blogger is asking the same question.

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2018/12/01/united-airlines-philadelphia/
UNITED’S POSITION IN PHILADELPHIA: STRENGTH OR WEAKNESS?
MATTHEW DECEMBER 1, 2018

United Airlines is cutting service between Philadelphia and Washington Dulles in January. The carrier has also abandoned service to Philadelphia from Cleveland, Los Angeles, and Newark. But United insists it is growing, not shrinking in Philadelphia. .... I reached out to United about why the Philadelphia to Washington Dulles route is being cancelled and received a fairly rigorous defense of United’s position in Philadelphia.

Our decision to discontinue service between Washington Dulles and Philadelphia is effective after the holiday peak schedule in January 2019. Service between Washington Dulles and Philadelphia was primarily operated with regional jets and as you have seen with our East Coast schedule adjustments, our focus is providing more mainline service between our hubs and a city like Philadelphia, for example. Because of the short distance the route generated very few local passengers and the majority of the connecting traffic was duplicative of some of the other flights we operate and did not meet our financial expectations.

So there you have it directly from the mouth of a United spokesman. We intend to increase mainline service to PHL despite the massive competition on all four existing routes.

I would like to know if you think such a move is possible?c

UALFAson wrote:

VC10er wrote:

I don’t know- I NEVER saw United advertising from 1991 to about 2015, except for that one Battleship London taxi, and for all those years I went to London once a month for 3 days to a week! And I used to actually look for any United ads,, in part because I worked for the biggest advertising conglomerate. BA, VA, Singapore, Emirates- tons! LCCs tons. British Midland TONS!
I used to figure that the Brits hated United so much that they didn’t bother!

This is not meant to be critical, because I appreciate your love for United and your contributions to this site, but in this case you are at least slightly incorrect. I spent the summer of 2003 interning in London in grad school and UA was running a massive advertising campaign in Tube stops, mostly promoting their premium service. One of my favorite lines was something to the effect of "Discover what it feels like to board a plane and turn left." The add were plastered in the tunnels where the trains would pull into the station.

I don't know how long it ran or how well received it was, but it existed.

I could certainly be incorrect- it was just in my case over 20 years I saw virtually nothing. I would love to go back right now and see a massive UNITED push. Today United really has something competitive with Polaris. (Losing British Midland was sad for ez connections) And personally knowing the UK market so well, Brits are very aesthetically driven. Polaris and it’s lounges have that style now, gone are old grey and blue old fashioned US look.
I can rattle off a bunch of British names of people I know that would grade the seat above BA’s J seat. I think United with its many US hubs and frequencies plus connectivity has a far better shot than ever before at winning UK contracts.
I’m thrilled that UA has all new Polaris from EWR to LHR (except for the morning 764)- I guess I could go look, but what does UA use now from other hubs to LHR? Is UA getting LHR to all Polaris asap?
I’ve also wondered if a Hawaii to LHR nonstop would work.
I could easily see an London to Hawaii nonstop opened with a 788, becoming very attractive. (Hawaii holds a magical hypnotic effect for people around the world) - did BA ever try it?
I do have a question about the LHR longe, the space for Global First is not big enough to be a Polaris only lounge- it’s a nice lounge as is, so less urgent- but sooner or later it will need to be more consistent-and the GIANT Polaris Lounges here in the US are getting pretty crowded despite all the restrictions!

319:
N877UA, Ex B-6041 arrived XMN 2713/11Jul. Ex China Southern unit that did it's last revenue flight in April 2019. Joins N876UA in XMN for probable mod Induction work.

763:
N686UA, Ex N592UA, which entered HKG 3/24/19, took a test hop.  Could be ready soon as second Ex HA unit with High J/PE Polaris

N78003 PMCO 772 Mod Test Hop July 12.

VC10er wrote:

Today United really has something competitive with Polaris. (Losing British Midland was sad for ez connections)

It is really sad to see the luck United has ended up in the UK. Once, one of the strongest carriers in the UK, as one of only two US carriers allowed in LHR. CO also added a unique strength to secondary markets in the UK that no other US airline flew to, plus partnering with KLM, who fly to more cities in the UK than British Airways does. Now finally, with Virgin and Stobart buying FlyBE, I suspect that Stobart and FlyBe will now align more with DL Even if you will still be able to transfer to FlyBE flights, I bet they will be moving to Terminal 3 at LHR, making connections harder and less pleasant. I really wish LH would expand to some more small UK markets, and that UA would restart CPH, so those connections would be available again. Places that my wife and I are most interested in like ABD and INV are likely to now involve train travel and/or extra stops with extra tickets.

cosyr wrote:

It is really sad to see the luck United has ended up in the UK. Once, one of the strongest carriers in the UK, as one of only two US carriers allowed in LHR. CO also added a unique strength to secondary markets in the UK that no other US airline flew to, plus partnering with KLM, who fly to more cities in the UK than British Airways does. Now finally, with Virgin and Stobart buying FlyBE, I suspect that Stobart and FlyBe will now align more with DL Even if you will still be able to transfer to FlyBE flights, I bet they will be moving to Terminal 3 at LHR, making connections harder and less pleasant. I really wish LH would expand to some more small UK markets, and that UA would restart CPH, so those connections would be available again. Places that my wife and I are most interested in like ABD and INV are likely to now involve train travel and/or extra stops with extra tickets.

Considering UA pulled out of BFS, BRS, BHX and made GLA seasonal, I don't think UA or their JV partners are interested in expanding in UK besides the LHR market. Even AC only flies to a single destination in the UK year-round.

notconcerned wrote:

cosyr wrote:

It is really sad to see the luck United has ended up in the UK. Once, one of the strongest carriers in the UK, as one of only two US carriers allowed in LHR. CO also added a unique strength to secondary markets in the UK that no other US airline flew to, plus partnering with KLM, who fly to more cities in the UK than British Airways does. Now finally, with Virgin and Stobart buying FlyBE, I suspect that Stobart and FlyBe will now align more with DL Even if you will still be able to transfer to FlyBE flights, I bet they will be moving to Terminal 3 at LHR, making connections harder and less pleasant. I really wish LH would expand to some more small UK markets, and that UA would restart CPH, so those connections would be available again. Places that my wife and I are most interested in like ABD and INV are likely to now involve train travel and/or extra stops with extra tickets.

Considering UA pulled out of BFS, BRS, BHX and made GLA seasonal, I don't think UA or their JV partners are interested in expanding in UK besides the LHR market. Even AC only flies to a single destination in the UK year-round.

I don't know that interest has anything to do with it. Norwegian and other airlines have made many smaller European cities less profitable. DL with KLM and AA with BA have always had the luxury of flying to larger markets and providing connections, but since BM, UA has not had the same options. I think they would love to keep flying 752 routes (particularly the UK and Scandinavia), but they're obviously not going to do it at a loss.

notconcerned wrote:

cosyr wrote:

It is really sad to see the luck United has ended up in the UK. Once, one of the strongest carriers in the UK, as one of only two US carriers allowed in LHR. CO also added a unique strength to secondary markets in the UK that no other US airline flew to, plus partnering with KLM, who fly to more cities in the UK than British Airways does. Now finally, with Virgin and Stobart buying FlyBE, I suspect that Stobart and FlyBe will now align more with DL Even if you will still be able to transfer to FlyBE flights, I bet they will be moving to Terminal 3 at LHR, making connections harder and less pleasant. I really wish LH would expand to some more small UK markets, and that UA would restart CPH, so those connections would be available again. Places that my wife and I are most interested in like ABD and INV are likely to now involve train travel and/or extra stops with extra tickets.

Considering UA pulled out of BFS, BRS, BHX and made GLA seasonal, I don't think UA or their JV partners are interested in expanding in UK besides the LHR market. Even AC only flies to a single destination in the UK year-round.

IAD-EDI was added fairly recently (albeit in place of a second daily EWR-EDI, meaning the capacity is unchanged) and this summer saw MAN go from 75W to 764. It's unlikely that new destinations will be added given that just about every possible market has been tried and tested but there's every possibility that GLA will go year round again and that MAN and EDI will see further changes.

The way the chips fell with BM is sad. AA has BA and UA has LH.
Soon UA will have a great consistent premium product to LHR- especially if a lot of the flying is on the 78X.
I was at United GS event near the WTC, the discussion was of the opportunities UA at EWR has with the whole Manhattan West Side development, Hudson Yards, Financial District, and the giant towers springing up on the NJ side of the Hudson will create an enormous “executive” pond for UA to fish from. (It was not that long ago that the most prominent building in NJ was Journal Square (today you can’t even find it in the NJ skyline!)
And while I don’t know the answer about the 73MAX-10, range etc, or 797, perhaps the future to UK secondary cities will be brighter?
I don’t often need to other places than London in the UK, but if it means flying to FRA to connect and fly back to a northern UK city once in a blue moon I will.
But United from LHR to such big US hubs with so many connections and a real sense of freshness to the UNITED brand, they nothing to be ashamed of.

BMI never seriously offered much of value to UA flyers. A missed opportunity, perhaps, and I suppose you can blame LH for that. On the other hand, it didn't take long for LH to take over control of BMI before selling it all off to BA, so BMI must have really been a weak operation.

Star Alliance is nothing to sneeze at with LHR T2. It's no BA, but if you look at it collectively, Star can get you to a good number of destinations from there out of a nice facility. It would have been nice for UA to have ended up with a UK partner, but that was never going to happen with BA, and VS at the time still didn't amount to too much more than a handful or two of longhaul routes.

LH is a good partner for UA. The strength of LH has tempered UA's chaos, not unlike the reverse of DL and AF.

notconcerned wrote:

cosyr wrote:

Considering UA pulled out of BFS, BRS, BHX and made GLA seasonal, I don't think UA or their JV partners are interested in expanding in UK besides the LHR market. Even AC only flies to a single destination in the UK year-round.

I think if you look at the routes you mentioned, the Scandinavian routes an other secondary 757 routes UA use to fly on their own then what you and others are saying is correct.
But if we take into account UA's overall network and where those 757's ended up it becomes clear why UA canceled these routes. Those 757's allowed UA to upguage their service year around on routes like SFO-BOS-SFO, LAX-BOS-LAX, DEN-KOA-DEN, DEN-LIH-DEN, and for a while it allowed UA go year around DEN-OGG-DEN that year around 757 service then led to a upguage of equipment from a 752 to a 77A.
On the transcon routes it has allowed UA to upgrade their onboard service and address on of the biggest complaints UA customers in BOS had ever since the launch of P.S. flights from JFK. Having premium service on BOS-SFO/LAX is far more important and offers a much greater return to UA than seasonal flights to smaller secondary cities in Europe during the summer ever could. That doesn't mean UA isn't interested in going back into those secondary markets during the summer travel season. I believe they are interested but right now we don't have enough 757s to cover the domestic routes mentioned above on a year around basis and cover these secondary European markets during the summer travel season. Faced with the choice of offering a inconsistent product and angering premium passengers on transcons out of BOS from May through September and only flying DEN-OGG/KOA/LIH from October through April UA chose to cut some secondary markets. The truth is they probably were money makers during the height of the summer travel season, June though the second week of September, but the disruption those flight would/could have cause to the domestic schedule wasn't worth the price. I think UA has seen far greater return utilizing those 752s on the domestic routes than they ever could have seen on those seasonal secondary European routes.
UA has already stated they will configure some of their MAX10s in a premium heavy configuration with lie flat seating. (Not sure if P.E. will be onboard or just economy plus and regular economy.) I think once the premium heavy MAX10s arrive that should free up some of the RR 752s to go back into some of these secondary European markets during the summer season while still allowing UA to offer a premium experience on certain transcon routes year around. After the busy summer season is over UA can deploy these RR 752s on any number of regular domestic routes without disrupting the premium passenger experience on routes like BOS-SFO/LAX.

The Max groundings will continue into November. At this point, UA should just extend them into next year and plan on a total reintroduction of the plane into the fleet. No point in trying to put them into service for the shoulder season

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/12/uni ... ember.html

piedmontf284000 wrote:

The Max groundings will continue into November. At this point, UA should just extend them into next year and plan on a total reintroduction of the plane into the fleet. No point in trying to put them into service for the shoulder season

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/12/uni ... ember.html

Just dump them altogether... I am sure Airbus would give United a sweet deal to go "all in" on the 320neo and 321.

Scarebus34 wrote:

piedmontf284000 wrote:

The Max groundings will continue into November. At this point, UA should just extend them into next year and plan on a total reintroduction of the plane into the fleet. No point in trying to put them into service for the shoulder season

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/07/12/uni ... ember.html

Just dump them altogether... I am sure Airbus would give United a sweet deal to go "all in" on the 320neo and 321.

They would have years to wait for the first arrival, but I do think this might give UA more of an incentive to move on the 321XLR. In fact, this whole mess might spell the end for the 797 (at least as a 757/767 replacement. I'm sure Boeing will name their next plane 797, whatever it is.)

cosyr wrote:

They would have years to wait for the first arrival, but I do think this might give UA more of an incentive to move on the 321XLR. In fact, this whole mess might spell the end for the 797 (at least as a 757/767 replacement. I'm sure Boeing will name their next plane 797, whatever it is.)

I'm not sure UA is willing to pull the trigger just yet. I think the MAX10s delivery date will slip do to the grounding, but if UA can still get their hands on the MAX10 before they could secure a delivery slot for the A321NEO then I think UA sticks with the MAX10. The A321XLR would serve little purpose on most domestic routes but could help UA reenter many of those secondary European markets but again we are still a fews years away from the A321XLR entry into service.
For now from UA's perspective time is on Boeings side, but if they don't get the MAX jets fixed and back into service, if there is a lengthy delay to the MAX10 program and if the delay effects the potential launch of the 797 then I can see UA going for the A321NEO/XLR and more 788s because the A321 can not replace 763s on all the routes they currently fly especially seeing how much freight UA loads on this 763s.

One simple question please! Can someone shed any light or facts on:
Can a 737MAX-10, with lie flat First, PE, E+ & tiny Y (or some other configuration with Lie Flat First...make a TATL route? Or only Transcontinental?

VC10er wrote:

One simple question please! Can someone shed any light or facts on:
Can a 737MAX-10, with lie flat First, PE, E+ & tiny Y (or some other configuration with Lie Flat First...make a TATL route? Or only Transcontinental?

The 737 Max 10 will have the least range of the Max
Variants. No it’s not going to be used by UA to replace trans-Atlantic 757s. It’s going to haul 200 passengers on routes such as EWR-MCO, IAH-LAS, ORD-LAX, SFO-DEN etc..

There was discussion that a few may get a premium cabin for trans cons.

We shall see.

PacoMartin wrote:

BACKGROUND
United mainline has reduced operations in Pennsylvania so that it has about the same carrying capacity as Spirit and Frontier in the state. American Airlines and American Eagle carry well over 50% of Pennsylvania capacity, with Southwest a distant #2 and Delta an even more distant #3. United operations consist primarily of 600 takeoffs from the two major airports on 10 routes, 4 of which are under 700 miles.


350 takeoffs in DEC 2018 from PHL on United mainline
130 ORD 678 miles 163 average number of seats per takeoff
74 IAH 1,325 137
84 DEN 1,558 155
62 SFO 2,521 149

255 takeoffs in DEC 2018 from PIT on United mainline
31 IAD 182 miles 149 average number of seats per takeoff (has become a UAX route since December)
15 EWR 319 miles 142
74 ORD 413 miles 143
30 IAH 1,117 145
61 DEN 1,290 150
44 SFO 2,254 134

United is in fierce competition at PHL
A four-way competition against American, Southwest, Frontier for PHL to Denver.
A three-way competition from PHL to Houston–Intercontinental against American and Frontier.
A three-way competition from PHL to San Francisco against American and Alaska
A two-way competition from PHL to ORD with American.

Of course Southwest is flying into Houston Hobby an Chicago Midway from Philadelphia.

QUESTION
PHL is a major airport, but it is only 80 air miles from EWR. How long will United keep trying to slug it out against so much competition? Do you envision United cutting routes or frequencies, or do you think they will stay at the level they are at?

I can’t speak for PHL, but UA has absolutely not shrunk at PIT. In fact, it’s been the total opposite.

Despite losing mainline to IAD, in the past year, UA at PIT has:

- Added mainline to EWR and reintroduced mainline to IAH
- Added a 6th daily flight to IAH
- Will go up to 10x daily flights to EWR later this year.
- Made SFO year-round, added a summer-only 2nd daily flight, now making that 2nd daily year-round as well
- Added a 3rd daily flight to DEN for the summer
- Runs four out of their six flights to ORD on mainline
- Is entirely 70/76-seaters on RJ ops. 50-seaters are very rarely scheduled.
- Operated special PIT-LAS flights for CES
- Surpassed AA for #2 in total mainline ASKs in 2019.

Airbus A319, N837UA, flew a test flight today, 7/12, UA2698. This is the aircraft that had to perform an emergency landing at EWR due to a hydraulic system failure.

winstonavgeek wrote:

The metro area of Philadelphia is 8th largest(2018 estimate) so cutting PHL would be foolish. I think if you want a good argument, you need to present a broad picture, not a narrow picture with only one point of view.

To try to get a broader picture, I ranked the 30 largest airports in the United States with regard to United Airlines service measured by number of seats on UA jets. All of these airports are considered LARGE by the FAA because they each exceed 1% of the total commercial passengers of the country. Cumulatively they carry over 70% of the commercial passenger traffic.

With the exception of JFK and MDW where UA has a hub in the same metro area, conventional wisdom says you have to maintain service to a large airport because UA frequent flyers may want to fly there. While the city of Charlotte may have almost no UA Frequent Flyers, other people may have business there.


JFK New York (No United Service)
MDW Chicago (No United Service)
CLT Charlotte
DTW Detroit
SLC Salt Lake City
MSP Minneapolis
MIA Miami
BWI Glen Burnie
ATL Atlanta
DFW Fort Worth
PHL Philadelphia
DCA Arlington
PDX Portland
FLL Fort Lauderdale
TPA Tampa
PHX Phoenix
LGA New York
HNL Honolulu
SEA Seattle
SAN San Diego
MCO Orlando
LAS Las Vegas
BOS Boston
-----
IAD Dulles
LAX Los Angeles
SFO San Francisco
EWR Newark
IAH Houston
DEN Denver
ORD Chicago


Big picture question, is there any reasons you can think of that UA would want to radically reduce service or even eliminate a LARGE airport?
Questions that come to mind are: Why serve MIA when FLL is so near? Why serve PHL when EWR is only 80 miles away? Why serve BWI when IAD is so close?

A big question is Las Vegas which is ranked only two positions below the hubs. What if the city goes ahead with Ivanpah Airport and lets Southwest Allegiant Air, Frontier Airlines, and Spirit Airlines stay at McCarran airport and forces United and other legacy airlines plus the international carriers to move to Ivanpah. Would that be grounds for United to abandon Las Vegas service?

Runway28L wrote:

I can’t speak for PHL, but UA has absolutely not shrunk at PIT. In fact, it’s been the total opposite.
- Surpassed AA for #2 in total mainline ASKs in 2019.

That is a pretty impressive feat!

PacoMartin wrote:

Big picture question, is there any reasons you can think of that UA would want to radically reduce service or even eliminate a LARGE airport?
Questions that come to mind are: Why serve MIA when FLL is so near? Why serve PHL when EWR is only 80 miles away? Why serve BWI when IAD is so close?

A big question is Las Vegas which is ranked only two positions below the hubs. What if the city goes ahead with Ivanpah Airport and lets Southwest Allegiant Air, Frontier Airlines, and Spirit Airlines stay at McCarran airport and forces United and other legacy airlines plus the international carriers to move to Ivanpah. Would that be grounds for United to abandon Las Vegas service?

Are you Jeff Smisek in disguise or something? Why is every post of yours a random list of data, followed by a suggestion that United should cut service?

hOMSaR wrote:

Are you Jeff Smisek in disguise or something?

United and Continental merged in October 2010, keeping the United name, and Smisek became president, CEO and, eventually, chairman of the board. Smisek resigned from United on September 8, 2015 with a severance payment worth $28.8 million. From 2010 to 2015, Smisek tripled the value of United's stock.

For basically all of Smisek's term the domestic operations at United lost money, while nearly every year each of the international operations (Latin America, TransAtlantic, and Trans Pacific) were profitable.

Yes, I am him.

hOMSaR wrote:

Why is every post of yours a random list of data, followed by a suggestion that United should cut service?

Do you really find the list random? I think they are thought provoking. I don't copy them, but I try to create them from the database.

STT757 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

One simple question please! Can someone shed any light or facts on:
Can a 737MAX-10, with lie flat First, PE, E+ & tiny Y (or some other configuration with Lie Flat First...make a TATL route? Or only Transcontinental?

The 737 Max 10 will have the least range of the Max
Variants. No it’s not going to be used by UA to replace trans-Atlantic 757s. It’s going to haul 200 passengers on routes such as EWR-MCO, IAH-LAS, ORD-LAX, SFO-DEN etc..

There was discussion that a few may get a premium cabin for trans cons.

We shall see.

THANK YOU! It was not what I was hoping to read but it makes sense that it’s range would be less.
When I read many months ago that UA had designed a Polaris inspired lie-flat for the 737MAX cabin, my hopes of UA having a unique and innovative product skyrocketed. With 100 MAX-10’s on order I had envisioned United being able to have a real palpable fix (even if expensive to buy a ticket) to the 50 State narrow body zigzag norm - from any single airline (legacy or LCC). From the back or front, using similarly configured 737 series, or A320 series or E175/A220 (and some T-tops) hopping from airport to airport regardless the flight time. Naturally any average domestic route, New York City to Tampa or Atlanta to Santa Fe etc, etc makes sense. But those times when you find yourself being able to fly a WB (recently I was on a 763 from EWR to IAH, and a 77W from ORD to EWR) and not because you’re flying onward internationally, would be such a game changer! That one day legacies (or special airlines Eg JetBlue) going East/West and hub to hub and special destinations had something other than the thousands of NBs.
Just looking at the flight options to what I’d call “special destinations” like NYC to Las Vegas or Palm Springs, always to Hawaii- was just not the same experience as NYC to Austin, Tampa, or ORD to Phoenix etc. Perhaps an enormous positive impact on people’s affinity for flying could happen and with an ROI.
The only thing that has really changed since the days of 727s and MD80’s is a far less comfortable seat, less legroom and while more frequencies, less airline choices.
As for the big spenders, what has really changed for the better in the 3-4 rows of F? Yes, a lot better than economy, but unless I luck out and find a 752 with bed seats to Denver, not much has changed other than “it beats Y” . Imagine if F on a 737 was even like a 1990’s international J recliner (not a lie flat) - then the price premium starts making sense for those who can afford to spend $2k RT on a 4-5 hour flight.

STT757 wrote:

The 737 Max 10 will have the least range of the Max
Variants. No it’s not going to be used by UA to replace trans-Atlantic 757s. It’s going to haul 200 passengers on routes such as EWR-MCO, IAH-LAS, ORD-LAX, SFO-DEN etc..

There was discussion that a few may get a premium cabin for trans cons.

We shall see.

There are several cabin mockups set up at Willis Tower for the MAX10 premium heavy configuration I'm not allowed in that room but happened to be on the floor a few months back as a group of what I assume was G.S. and 1K passengers were leaving the only thing I could see from the hallway was several different versions of lie flat seats, I couldn't see if there was any P.E. seats in those mock cabins. But UA is currently testing out lie flat seating and I fully believe it will be installed on a portion of the MAX10 fleet for use on some cross country flights from EWR/IAD/SFO/LAX. JetBlue's Mint changed the game, UA's intention is to catch up but don't expect to see this product flying out of ORD/IAH/DEN the standard version of the MAX10 will be utilized at those hubs.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... iggest-737

A few years ago UA started talking about UA Coast the service that would eventually replace P.S.. However after the failures with the Polaris rollout (talking and advertising a product that didn't exist and wouldn't exist for years) UA pulled all Coast related material and ceased talking about it. So as far as the public is concerned the program no longer exist which is good because we are still years away from lie flat seating certain coast to coast flights from EWR/IAD/SFO/LAX. But UA Coast (or whatever the name will eventually be) still exist only internally now, as the work continues behind the scenes.

763:
N664UA entered MCO maint 2719/12Jul

Awaiting for HKG exits with Polaris of 772 N78003 and 763s N665UA/Ex HA units N685UA and N685UA

STT757 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

One simple question please! Can someone shed any light or facts on:
Can a 737MAX-10, with lie flat First, PE, E+ & tiny Y (or some other configuration with Lie Flat First...make a TATL route? Or only Transcontinental?

The 737 Max 10 will have the least range of the Max
Variants. No it’s not going to be used by UA to replace trans-Atlantic 757s. It’s going to haul 200 passengers on routes such as EWR-MCO, IAH-LAS, ORD-LAX, SFO-DEN etc..

There was discussion that a few may get a premium cabin for trans cons.

We shall see.

Regarding trans-Atlantic service with the -10Max 737s, your statement is directly contrary to what I've been told by managers in UA Flight Ops and Flight Standards. That is, they (multiple people) stated that the -10Max would be used for western U.K. flights and that's a big part of the reason the -10s will have lie-flat seats. Will that come to pass? Time will tell, but if the -10Max does have the range to do it from EWR, I suspect that it will.

FlyHossD wrote:

STT757 wrote:

VC10er wrote:

One simple question please! Can someone shed any light or facts on:
Can a 737MAX-10, with lie flat First, PE, E+ & tiny Y (or some other configuration with Lie Flat First...make a TATL route? Or only Transcontinental?

The 737 Max 10 will have the least range of the Max
Variants. No it’s not going to be used by UA to replace trans-Atlantic 757s. It’s going to haul 200 passengers on routes such as EWR-MCO, IAH-LAS, ORD-LAX, SFO-DEN etc..

There was discussion that a few may get a premium cabin for trans cons.

We shall see.

Regarding trans-Atlantic service with the -10Max 737s, your statement is directly contrary to what I've been told by managers in UA Flight Ops and Flight Standards. That is, they (multiple people) stated that the -10Max would be used for western U.K. flights and that's a big part of the reason the -10s will have lie-flat seats. Will that come to pass? Time will tell, but if the -10Max does have the range to do it from EWR, I suspect that it will.

Unless UA does an absolutely high premium/low weight config MAX 10s would likely be limited to KEF/Ireland/Scotland/non-London UK from EWR. (I can't see them wasting LHR slots on so few seats.) Maybe that's how they get a little more utilization out of transcon aircraft. I wouldn't bet on any of it - except domestic F aircraft to KEF.

How about MAX-10 service from IAH to
miles - code - country
2223 BOG Colombia
2350 UIO Ecuador
2562 POS Trinidad and Tobago
3133 LIM Peru (may not have capacity current B767, unless UA replace wth two daily)

PacoMartin wrote:

How about MAX-10 service from IAH to
miles - code - country
2223 BOG Colombia
2350 UIO Ecuador
2562 POS Trinidad and Tobago
3133 LIM Peru (may not have capacity current B767, unless UA replace wth two daily)

It won’t have the performance for the high altitudes in BOG, UIO etc..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

PacoMartin wrote:

Big picture question, is there any reasons you can think of that UA would want to radically reduce service or even eliminate a LARGE airport?
Questions that come to mind are: Why serve MIA when FLL is so near? Why serve PHL when EWR is only 80 miles away? Why serve BWI when IAD is so close?

To your first question, not a single reason. United is in a growth mode domestically and I would be absolutely, positively BLOWN AWAY (can I emphasize that even more?) to see the company exit what you classify as a "large" airport, barring any sort of cataclysmic macroeconomic situation. Under Kirby, Nocella and Gupta, it's not happening. Period. In fact, if United could get back into JFK with a competitive portfolio of slots for SFO service, it would have done so already. United has already mentioned that it would also like to reinstate OAK service.

To your second question, because these airports are sufficiently large, serving sufficiently valuable markets that have some measure of importance to the network. The JFK cut, and the logic underpinning it, was of a former management team with a completely different domestic network philosophy.

FlyHossD wrote:

Regarding trans-Atlantic service with the -10Max 737s, your statement is directly contrary to what I've been told by managers in UA Flight Ops and Flight Standards. That is, they (multiple people) stated that the -10Max would be used for western U.K. flights and that's a big part of the reason the -10s will have lie-flat seats. Will that come to pass? Time will tell, but if the -10Max does have the range to do it from EWR, I suspect that it will.

I remember hearing the UA 737-10 is spec'd with at least 1 and perhaps a second aux tank. A necessity for winter westbound TCON and likely for KEF/DUB/SNN/GLA/EDI service.

PacoMartin wrote:

3133 LIM Peru (may not have capacity current B767, unless UA replace wth two daily)

Would agree with the others but LIM is a 767 to move containerized freight, which is key (and competitive necessity) in that market. EWR-LIM with -10 probably more likely.

PacoMartin wrote:

How about MAX-10 service from IAH to
miles - code - country
2223 BOG Colombia
2350 UIO Ecuador
2562 POS Trinidad and Tobago
3133 LIM Peru (may not have capacity current B767, unless UA replace wth two daily)

Someone else already pointed out high altitude performance for BOG and UIO. As far as LIM from IAH that will remain a widebody there is way to much freight on LIM-IAH there is no way 2 MAX10s can accommodate 25,000+ pounds of freight almost nightly. Most of the cargo UA handles out of LIM is routes through IAH because LIM-EWR is usually close to MTOG with full passengers/bags and 76,000 pounds of jet fuel.

This is way the MAX10 or the A321XLR is not perfect replacement for the 763, they are to small and can't accommodate cargo. While on the flip side the 788 is larger than the 763 can accommodate the cargo but now there are more seats to fill which could impact yields. This is part of the reason why UA is still on the fence hoping Boeing will get it together with the MAX program and do something with the 797.

I still think a lot of the projections about the Max 10 are overstated. It’s the Max 9 stretched by five feet. That’s the equivalent of two rows of Y. I’d be surprised to see the Ten Hundred on anything that’s not already on the 900s.

codc10 wrote:

I remember hearing the UA 737-10 is spec'd with at least 1 and perhaps a second aux tank. A necessity for winter westbound TCON and likely for KEF/DUB/SNN/GLA/EDI service.

Why is there this myth that the 737 cannot do westbound transcons? The 739ER does it every day with no issues. The Max 9 burns about 15% less than the NG, which will more than offset the two extra rows of pax in the 10. If it’s a lie flat configuration, the Max 10 will hold fewer people.

sdh9 wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I remember hearing the UA 737-10 is spec'd with at least 1 and perhaps a second aux tank. A necessity for winter westbound TCON and likely for KEF/DUB/SNN/GLA/EDI service.

Why is there this myth that the 737 cannot do westbound transcons? The 739ER does it every day with no issues. The Max 9 burns about 15% less than the NG, which will more than offset the two extra rows of pax in the 10. If it’s a lie flat configuration, the Max 10 will hold fewer people.

No myth. 737-10 on westbound BOS-SFO with peak winds will be an issue. Not always, but aux tanks mitigate range issues and allow for ETOPS TATL operations, which are projected for UA -10s.

codc10 wrote:

United is in a growth mode domestically and I would be absolutely, positively BLOWN AWAY (can I emphasize that even more?) to see the company exit what you classify as a "large" airport, barring any sort of cataclysmic macroeconomic situation. Under Kirby, Nocella and Gupta, it's not happening. Period. In fact, if United could get back into JFK with a competitive portfolio of slots for SFO service, it would have done so already. United has already mentioned that it would also like to reinstate OAK service.

The FAA classifies 30 airports as "large" if passengers that took off from the airport exceeded 8.56 million in 2017 (1% of commercial passengers).
The FAA classifies 31 airports as "medium" if passengers that took off from the airport exceeded 2.14 million in 2017 (.25%).
Large airports carry 72% of passengers and Medium airports carry 16% of passengers.

The only medium airports that United does not serve are DAL and HOU. As stated before the only large airports that United does not serve are JFK and MDW.


Basically, can I assume that you expect the current fleet of 500 jets will still exist (by seat count not necessarily jet count) in ten years?

Count Type years
72 A319-100 17.9
99 A320-200 21.0
40 B737-700 20.3
141 B737-800 15.4
148 B737-900 7.4

UAX Update:

E175SC:
N606UX enters revenue service 15Jul

CR7:
N166GJ entered STL 12Jul in prep for CR5 conversion
N162GJ entered STL 12Jul in prep for CR5 conversion
N156GJ entered STL 13Jul in prep for CR5 conversion

Aircraft B757-224 line number 3123 (N26123) has started being dismantled and prepared for aircraft salvage due to major structural damage. Engines and APU are in the process of being removed. Any salvageable parts are being kept once approved by engineering. The rest will be dismantled on site.

This is the aircraft involved in the hard landing incident at EWR about a month ago. Total loss. Possible replacement for this aircraft is unknown