United suspends ORD-HKG

GoSharks · Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:50 pm

Benni228 wrote:
I was on 869 from SFO-HKG the other day and the load in J was shocking. Not even 30 seats sold in a 60 seat cabin, even after upgrades. Not surprised airlines are consolidating but it’s still a shame it’s come to that.

That’s even worse than when I was on it Tuesday. I think it was 35 sold and ended up about 2/3s full after non-revs. Usually Tuesdays are the slow days...

raylee67 · Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:06 pm

airbazar wrote:
The goal is to shift the focus to Shanghai and make HK irrelevant and it seems to be working..

That's the goal for sure. But if you are in the financial industry and see how much money (clean (northbound) AND dirty (southbound)) flow thru Hong Kong into and out of China, it doesn't seem to be working. I am not going to say more, otherwise it's going to be state secret.

jayunited · Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:18 pm

Pellegrine wrote:
Then they should have ordered enough 789s. To go from a 744 to nothing is pathetic.

No where did I or any one else say or elude to the lack of 789s. What was stated is this route could have gone 789 because of its lower operating cost. UA has 19 additional 789s coming the next batch of deliveries start January 2020, but there's still no plans to open a 787 base at ORD do to gate constraints.

As other people have talked about there has been a sizable shift in demand for travel between ORD and Asia. United is still launching 2x daily SFO-HKG and the 77W remains on EWR-HKG so overall capacity to HKG remains the same it just UA is seeing stronger demand for travel to HKG from SFO and EWR.

When UA down gauged 895/896 to the 77E it was impossible for non revs to get business or first class. However for the past year and a half maybe 2 years there has been a noticeable drop in demand in coach but more importantly in business class from ORD.There is nothing pathetic about an airline responding to a changing market.

And lets be honest here the 744 was to much aircraft for the route even before CX's arrival at ORD. Once CX arrived the 77E was the appropriate choice (with 48 total first and business class seats) given its lower cost despite the constant weight restrictions. When UA first down gauged ORD-HKG many though UA was walking away from business class passengers I learned the truth was UA was not selling 12F and 52J seats daily it was much closer to 8F and 40J the rest of those seats on the 744 were filled with non revs or going out empty. Fast forward and now UA isn't even filling 48 premium seats. The market has changed UA is just responding to the change.

EvanWSFO · Sat Aug 24, 2019 2:32 pm

marcecar10 wrote:
This is probably the last thing the protesters wanted honestly. To see their Hong Kong reduce airlinks to the rest of the democratic world. Hopefully UA returns but the situation in HKG is unbearable and probably won't stay like this for long.

Trying not to make this political, but yes the situation will end; probably sooner rather than later. IMO the situation will result in China "winning" this so called war. HKG (the airport and the citizens) will probably suffer as a result.

AmricanShamrok · Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:08 pm

jayunited wrote:
And lets be honest here the 744 was to much aircraft for the route even before CX's arrival at ORD. Once CX arrived the 77E was the appropriate choice (with 48 total first and business class seats) given its lower cost despite the constant weight restrictions.

I didn't realize UA's ORD-HKG 77E flights were weight restricted. Did they restrict seats or cargo (or both)? Are any other UA 77E ORD-Asia routes weight restricted?

Max Q · Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:40 pm

Surprised they didn’t try downgrading to a 787 rather than suspending service completely

dcajet · Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:35 pm

Max Q wrote:
Surprised they didn’t try downgrading to a 787 rather than suspending service completely

There is no 787 base at ORD. Just as with AA not operating the 787 from the MIA base, UA does not operate with the 787 from ORD. Certainly the costs of doing so just for one specific (money losing) flight would outweigh the benefits.

LAXdude1023 · Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:42 pm

dcajet wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Surprised they didn’t try downgrading to a 787 rather than suspending service completely

There is no 787 base at ORD. Just as with AA not operating the 787 from the MIA base, UA does not operate with the 787 from ORD. Certainly the costs of doing so just for one specific (money losing) flight would outweigh the benefits.

That wouldn’t be an obstacle if they saw value in the route. UA flies IAH-SYD despite the fact that there is no base.

jayunited · Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:50 pm

AmricanShamrok wrote:
I didn't realize UA's ORD-HKG 77E flights were weight restricted. Did they restrict seats or cargo (or both)? Are any other UA 77E ORD-Asia routes weight restricted?

The quick answer is both especially in the summer when we have to take a weight penalty for high temps. However looking at the history of this flight ORD-HKG even when the 744 was on the route it was basically passengers and bags only the most cargo we would see was about 2,000 pounds. With the PW 77Es it was strictly passengers and bags ORD-HKG and we were always weight restricted. The return flight HKG-ORD on both the 744 and PW 77Es could accommodate some cargo but not much simply because the return didn't require as much fuel as the outbound. Once both the Pilots and Flight Attendants were merged and operating under one system (the FA's took much longer) that opened the door for UA to place a GE engined 77E on this route which brought some relief from the weight restrictions. But by the time the GE 77E was on this route it was already on a downward trajectory demand in both business and coach was already slipping.

Max Q wrote:
Surprised they didn’t try downgrading to a 787 rather than suspending service completely

As much as I would love to see this route continue on a 789 we have to face the facts, which are UA isn't selling out business class or coach on the 77E. UA's 789s have 48 seats in business class and 204 in coach, even with the lower operating cost of the 789 UA can't manufacture demand. With falling demand and the fact that ORD is not a 787 base UA must feel its better to suspend the route than invest the money to setup a 787 base just to operate one 787 flight a day.

jayunited · Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:02 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
dcajet wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Surprised they didn’t try downgrading to a 787 rather than suspending service completely

There is no 787 base at ORD. Just as with AA not operating the 787 from the MIA base, UA does not operate with the 787 from ORD. Certainly the costs of doing so just for one specific (money losing) flight would outweigh the benefits.

That wouldn’t be an obstacle if they saw value in the route. UA flies IAH-SYD despite the fact that there is no base.

No you are 100% wrong. There is a 787 base at IAH it was reopened prior to IAH-SYD launching and IAH mechanics still perform a lot of the maintenance on the 789 fleet. And one IAH-LHR flights is a 789.
At ORD you have no base and the cost involved in setting up maintenance and having spare parts all to support one flight when demand is dropping isn't worth the investment. UA learned the maintenance lessons early from from the early days of UA DEN-NRT flight when they thought they could cycle 788s through DEN without setting up maintenance with the tools and spare parts needed to do their job. The result was cancelations or long overnight delays.

That course of action had to be reversed but the difference is DEN-NRT was seeing demand growing which justified the investment from a maintenance perspective. ORD-HKG is seeing demand drop and there being no plans to base any 787s at ORD at this time it would be a waist of money to cycle a 789 through ORD, open an ORD 787 pilot base and order additional parts and tools to properly set up maintenance for success for a route that for the past year and a half or 2 years has been on a downward trajectory.

dcajet · Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:03 pm

LAXdude1023 wrote:
dcajet wrote:
Max Q wrote:
Surprised they didn’t try downgrading to a 787 rather than suspending service completely

There is no 787 base at ORD. Just as with AA not operating the 787 from the MIA base, UA does not operate with the 787 from ORD. Certainly the costs of doing so just for one specific (money losing) flight would outweigh the benefits.

That wouldn’t be an obstacle if they saw value in the route. UA flies IAH-SYD despite the fact that there is no base.

That is why I specified "money losing" about the ORD-HKG route.

x1234 · Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:22 pm

jayunited, with the protests in HKG has UA ever thought about expanding into CAN?

YangFeng · Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:32 pm

x1234 wrote:
jayunited, with the protests in HKG has UA ever thought about expanding into CAN?

https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... r-china-jv

sincx · Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:57 pm

x1234 wrote:
jayunited, with the protests in HKG has UA ever thought about expanding into CAN?

UA has had the route authority for SFO-CAN for a decade+ now without starting the service. It's telling that no one else wants those frequencies.

tigerzhong13 · Sun Aug 25, 2019 7:47 am

Another thought: maybe their bad service pushed the pax to CX?

Cubsrule · Sun Aug 25, 2019 12:45 pm

sincx wrote:
x1234 wrote:
jayunited, with the protests in HKG has UA ever thought about expanding into CAN?

UA has had the route authority for SFO-CAN for a decade+ now without starting the service. It's telling that no one else wants those frequencies.

It’s telling, but the situation in HKG is unprecedented. If things do not become more normal, UA would be crazy not to think about (note - I didn’t say start) CAN. Maybe they are already thinking.

MIflyer12 · Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:40 pm

How is CAN, really, an alternate for the Hong Kong business traffic/premium traffic that UA seeks to attract? Sure, it's a big, busy airport - with a very heavy emphasis on intra-China and other Asia flights. That doesn't make it inherently a desirable long-haul destination for a U.S. carrier.

HP69 · Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:51 pm

UA should temporarily switch all of their HKG flights to CAN given the issues in HKG right now.

sincx · Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:46 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
How is CAN, really, an alternate for the Hong Kong business traffic/premium traffic that UA seeks to attract? Sure, it's a big, busy airport - with a very heavy emphasis on intra-China and other Asia flights. That doesn't make it inherently a desirable long-haul destination for a U.S. carrier.

UA also doesn't have much feed at CAN, which is primarily a CZ hub. CA and ZH do have some flights there, but Star Alliance connections are better served from PEK and PVG.

And most of the money in the mainland part of the Pearl River Delta is in Shenzhen. It's not trivial to get from CAN, which is on the north side of Guangzhou, to Shenzhen.

HP69 wrote:
UA should temporarily switch all of their HKG flights to CAN given the issues in HKG right now.

That's like saying UA should start flying to Guyana as a substitute for Venezuela. HKG and CAN have entirely different entry and customs requirements. There's a hard internal border between mainland China and Hong Kong.

Antarius · Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:56 pm

sincx wrote:
HP69 wrote:
UA should temporarily switch all of their HKG flights to CAN given the issues in HKG right now.

That's like saying UA should start flying to Guyana as a substitute for Venezuela. HKG and CAN have entirely different entry and customs requirements. There's a hard internal border between mainland China and Hong Kong.

Not to mention wildly different markets and therefore expected revenue.

The fact that UA is adding capacity from SFO and maintaining EWR, indicates that the problem isn't with HKG or the situation there now.

incitatus · Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:33 pm

The people at Delta that decided to can SEA-HKG must be feeling real smart!

dfdubflyer · Sun Aug 25, 2019 9:45 pm

tigerzhong13 wrote:
Another thought: maybe their bad service pushed the pax to CX?

Next to no people choose an airline based off of “service,” and, furthermore, how is United Polaris any different than the assembly line in CX?

zakuivcustom · Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:35 am

Antarius wrote:
The fact that UA is adding capacity from SFO and maintaining EWR, indicates that the problem isn't with HKG or the situation there now.

And how do you know that they'll REALLY start that 2nd daily SFO-HKG from W19/20 given the current situation? Back when they announced it on mid-July HK was definitely not as messy as things can get right now (It was the July 21st incident that really ticked off HKers and made the HKPF from somewhat unpopular to completely untrusted). At a minimum, if you followed the thread in non-AV, I was laughing off the idea of "HK being dangerous" even a month ago - something that I certainly won't say today.

Also keep in mind that October 1st is coming up, and it's the 70th anniversary of PRC's founding. Rumors are that there's no way PRC gov't will tolerate HK still being a mess by that date.

HP69 wrote:
UA should temporarily switch all of their HKG flights to CAN given the issues in HKG right now.

You realized that CAN is actually pretty far from HKG, right?

Might as well just switch to SZX, which is actually fairly close to the HK-PRC border.

On the other hand, there's the Chinese visa problem, then there's also the fact that there's absolutely nothing wrong with HKG (the airport) right now (well, other than that security check ensuring a long line to enter the airport). Demands are just reduced, period, as travelers are thinking twice before going to HK.

sincx wrote:
And most of the money in the mainland part of the Pearl River Delta is in Shenzhen. It's not trivial to get from CAN, which is on the north side of Guangzhou, to Shenzhen.

Shenzhen is a boomtown, but to say "most of the money" is in Shenzhen is far from correct. GDP (total) wise Guangzhou and Shenzhen are nearly identical (Although Shenzhen does have higher GDP per capita as the population there is less, but Guangzhou is only behind Shenzhen, Wuxi, and Suzhou (and well, Zhuhai, but Zhuhai is tiny...) in GDP per capita for larger cities.

But yes, getting from CAN to Hong Kong is a pain. Hack, getting from CAN to central Guangzhou is a pain itself.

tpaewr · Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:38 am

airbazar wrote:
raylee67 wrote:
worldranger wrote:
In 1993 HONG KONGs GDP as a percentage of China’s was 27%. Today it is less than 3%.

This is by design by the Chinese govt.
It’s relevance in the overall China story - is not what it was and with the current political events - China will make sure it never will be again.

GDP is not relevant. It was when China was manufacturing plastic toys and garments. But not any more. The role of Hong Kong for China now is to be the conduit to attract foreign capital and investment into China. Foreign firms do not like to invest into China directly given the arbitrary nature of the policies and law enforcement in China.

The significant number is that 60% of foreign capital flow into China goes through Hong Kong.

That is why there is onshore RMB (CNY) and offshore RMB (CNH), where they have different exchange rate with USD, and the onshore one gives you much higher interest rate, if you are brave enough to put your RMB into a bank account inside China.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Hong Kong IS China. The government is in Beijing. Isolating HK is the plan so they can control the media and everything else. The goal is to shift the focus to Shanghai and make HK irrelevant and it seems to be working.
As for CX, they would love nothing more than to see it go extinct so the business can shift entirely to the government controlled airlines.

Shanghai will never take the place HK had/has in the world. The value was it transparent rule of law based legal system inherited from the British. If the PRC destroys this, the winner will be Singapore not Shanghai.

UAUA · Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:05 am

Hong Kong is the world's 3rd largest business and financial centre after New York and London and it is a very important city. I am a bit surprised that ORD doesn't work.

After all these mess I guess it will be back?

LondonXtreme · Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:42 am

Chicago is a city for Europeans. The connection between Chicago and Asia is less compare to Seattle, Boston, DC area, even Houston and way less than CA and NY.

Apart from JV between NH and UA, I don't see any other Asian carriers have significantly success in ORD.

SurfandSnow · Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:28 am

Very sad, although hardly unexpected. I grew up in Chicago, where my mom was an international flight attendant for UA based at ORD. I may have only been 8 years old, but I distinctly remember the fanfare when UA began what was then (in 1996) the world's longest nonstop flight: ORD-HKG, operated by the carrier's flagship 747-400. Now that this convenient new nonstop flight was available to us, my parents treated my grandma and I to a trip to their favorite city in the world: Hong Kong.

I'll never forget the palpable excitement onboard when the queen of the skies began descending towards Kai Tak Airport. Everybody knew this world famous approach would soon be coming to an end - IIRC, I was told "look closely enough, and you'll be able to see people in their apartments watching TV!" This, of course, in an era when most TV screens were quite a bit smaller (and probably also a lot less bright) than today. We then went on to have such an amazing visit to British Hong Kong that we returned to the city after its handover to China.

LAX772LR · Mon Aug 26, 2019 6:32 am

AmricanShamrok wrote:
I didn't realize UA's ORD-HKG 77E flights were weight restricted.

The PW-powered sUA 77Es have a lower MTOW (648K lbs vs 656K lbs) than the GE-powered sCO birds that UA also has.

Their ORD base sees the PW birds, so no surprise if there's restrictions.

wn676 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:30 am

LAX772LR wrote:
AmricanShamrok wrote:
I didn't realize UA's ORD-HKG 77E flights were weight restricted.

The PW-powered sUA 77Es have a lower MTOW (648K lbs vs 656K lbs) than the GE-powered sCO birds that UA also has.

Their ORD base sees the PW birds, so no surprise if there's restrictions.

ORD-HKG is scheduled with one of the GE aircraft.

jayunited · Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:39 am

incitatus wrote:
The people at Delta that decided to can SEA-HKG must be feeling real smart!

What does DL and their canceled SEA-HKG flight have to do with UA's ORD-HKG flight? UA will still maintain the same number of flights from the US to HKG and overall capacity will mostly remain the same as SFO-HKG goes daily double 77E and EWR remains 77W.

tphuang · Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:22 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
How is CAN, really, an alternate for the Hong Kong business traffic/premium traffic that UA seeks to attract? Sure, it's a big, busy airport - with a very heavy emphasis on intra-China and other Asia flights. That doesn't make it inherently a desirable long-haul destination for a U.S. carrier.

exactly, it's not. any assertion otherwise shows lack of awareness in the region.

UAUA wrote:
Hong Kong is the world's 3rd largest business and financial centre after New York and London and it is a very important city. I am a bit surprised that ORD doesn't work.

After all these mess I guess it will be back?

here is the sad part for HK. Western business after this are going to rethink their long term location in Asia and a lot of them are going to move to Singapore. At least this is what I'm hearing through the grapevine.

raylee67 wrote:
worldranger wrote:
In 1993 HONG KONGs GDP as a percentage of China’s was 27%. Today it is less than 3%.

This is by design by the Chinese govt.
It’s relevance in the overall China story - is not what it was and with the current political events - China will make sure it never will be again.

GDP is not relevant. It was when China was manufacturing plastic toys and garments. But not any more. The role of Hong Kong for China now is to be the conduit to attract foreign capital and investment into China. Foreign firms do not like to invest into China directly given the arbitrary nature of the policies and law enforcement in China.

The significant number is that 60% of foreign capital flow into China goes through Hong Kong.

That is why there is onshore RMB (CNY) and offshore RMB (CNH), where they have different exchange rate with USD, and the onshore one gives you much higher interest rate, if you are brave enough to put your RMB into a bank account inside China.

That's not exactly true. There is a lot of capital restriction around moving money on short to China. If I'm doing business in the mainland, it's not easy to move money around. And they are in there for a reason. If China lifts the capital restriction today, there will be a huge outflow of money tomorrow which would completely tank CNY and local economy.

For western business, if you can try to hedge your fx exposure doing business in China with a delivery currency like CNH that in most part can be handled by western banks, why would you get involved with a non-deliverable CNY? Over time, HK given it's own non-floating currency will continue to lose out to Singapore and Shanghai.

rjmf22 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:41 pm

UAUA wrote:
Hong Kong is the world's 3rd largest business and financial centre after New York and London and it is a very important city. I am a bit surprised that ORD doesn't work.

After all these mess I guess it will be back?

It will most likely be back. UA seems to have almost a "no tolerance" policy when it comes to political unrest, and we can tell that by them cutting India because of Pakistan airspace issues, the tenseness in Argentina, and now Hong Kong. Keep in mind that they have returned to India, and the flight to DEL has been moved to daily before the route even started. I suspect UA will be back in HKG soon.

chepos · Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:54 pm

rjmf22 wrote:
UAUA wrote:
Hong Kong is the world's 3rd largest business and financial centre after New York and London and it is a very important city. I am a bit surprised that ORD doesn't work.

After all these mess I guess it will be back?

It will most likely be back. UA seems to have almost a "no tolerance" policy when it comes to political unrest, and we can tell that by them cutting India because of Pakistan airspace issues, the tenseness in Argentina, and now Hong Kong. Keep in mind that they have returned to India, and the flight to DEL has been moved to daily before the route even started. I suspect UA will be back in HKG soon.

UA is not leaving HKG. They will still fly EWR/SFO-HKG.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

leader1 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:58 pm

Just out of curiosity, but is the EWR-HKG flight weight restricted?

chepos · Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:02 pm

LondonXtreme wrote:
Chicago is a city for Europeans. The connection between Chicago and Asia is less compare to Seattle, Boston, DC area, even Houston and way less than CA and NY.

Apart from JV between NH and UA, I don't see any other Asian carriers have significantly success in ORD.

Say what??? Chicago is a city that attracts business/tourist from all over the world and will definitely have service to more than just Japan on NH/UA to Asia. It is no SFO, LAX, NYC, but to say it’s a city for Europeans is just silly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

chepos · Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:04 pm

LondonXtreme wrote:
Chicago is a city for Europeans. The connection between Chicago and Asia is less compare to Seattle, Boston, DC area, even Houston and way less than CA and NY.

Apart from JV between NH and UA, I don't see any other Asian carriers have significantly success in ORD.

Say what??? Chicago is a city that attracts business/tourist from all over the world and will definitely have service to more than just Japan on NH/UA to Asia. It is no SFO, LAX, NYC, but to say it’s a city for Europeans is just silly.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

birdbrainz · Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:19 pm

Just got back from HKG yesterday. UA895 (ORD-HKG) Friday outbound. UA180 (HKG-EWR) return.
No protesters seen. Very "business as usual" except for more security presence outside terminal.
UA895 (77E) had poor loads and probably half full overall. Maybe 2/3.
UA180 (77W) had better loads (~90%) up front and almost full in back.
I personally wouldn't hesitate transiting through HKG if I had to make another last minute trip.

patrickjp93 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 2:24 pm

YYZORD wrote:
UA customers can easily connect on AC flights to HKG at YYZ or YVR. It honestly seems like YYZ will one day beat ORD in asian traffic with the number of asian flights being discontinued at ORD.

Wouldn't shock me given how outdated the processes are at U.S. airports. Connecting from BNE through YVR to EWR is a much smoother affair than BNE-LAX-PHL, despite it having no real right to be in terms of flying time. Going back the same way though is a murderous extra 5 hours of travel vs. leaving via LAX.

If LAX, SFO, or EWR were even as efficient as YVR at handling U.S. Customs, they wouldn't be considered third world airports. If they reached the levels of SIN or KUL, that'd be ideal.

LAXdude1023 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:06 pm

rjmf22 wrote:
UAUA wrote:
Hong Kong is the world's 3rd largest business and financial centre after New York and London and it is a very important city. I am a bit surprised that ORD doesn't work.

After all these mess I guess it will be back?

It will most likely be back. UA seems to have almost a "no tolerance" policy when it comes to political unrest, and we can tell that by them cutting India because of Pakistan airspace issues, the tenseness in Argentina, and now Hong Kong. Keep in mind that they have returned to India, and the flight to DEL has been moved to daily before the route even started. I suspect UA will be back in HKG soon.

If that were the case, they would be canceling flights from SFO and EWR to HKG as well.

Something tells me that this particular flight was simply a dud in recent years.

LAXdude1023 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:06 pm

jayunited wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
dcajet wrote:

There is no 787 base at ORD. Just as with AA not operating the 787 from the MIA base, UA does not operate with the 787 from ORD. Certainly the costs of doing so just for one specific (money losing) flight would outweigh the benefits.

That wouldn’t be an obstacle if they saw value in the route. UA flies IAH-SYD despite the fact that there is no base.

No you are 100% wrong. There is a 787 base at IAH it was reopened prior to IAH-SYD launching and IAH mechanics still perform a lot of the maintenance on the 789 fleet. And one IAH-LHR flights is a 789.
At ORD you have no base and the cost involved in setting up maintenance and having spare parts all to support one flight when demand is dropping isn't worth the investment. UA learned the maintenance lessons early from from the early days of UA DEN-NRT flight when they thought they could cycle 788s through DEN without setting up maintenance with the tools and spare parts needed to do their job. The result was cancelations or long overnight delays.

That course of action had to be reversed but the difference is DEN-NRT was seeing demand growing which justified the investment from a maintenance perspective. ORD-HKG is seeing demand drop and there being no plans to base any 787s at ORD at this time it would be a waist of money to cycle a 789 through ORD, open an ORD 787 pilot base and order additional parts and tools to properly set up maintenance for success for a route that for the past year and a half or 2 years has been on a downward trajectory.

Then I was mistaken. Apologies.

LAXdude1023 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:07 pm

LondonXtreme wrote:
Chicago is a city for Europeans. The connection between Chicago and Asia is less compare to Seattle, Boston, DC area, even Houston and way less than CA and NY.

Apart from JV between NH and UA, I don't see any other Asian carriers have significantly success in ORD.

But that isnt true. ORD still has more O&D to Asia than any of the cities you listed.

HP69 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:06 pm

This cancellation indicates a broader pullback in Asia for UA, IMO.

drdisque · Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:27 pm

UA tried to make a go of this route against CX since they entered but it's just been too problematic and the Protests and subsequent drop in traffic were the tipping point.

It's potentially viable on the B788 but UA doesn't currently schedule those through ORD and all of them are currently accounted for. It's possible that some day this route will return with some sort of 787 if/when UA eventually starts basing these in ORD.

LAXdude1023 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:47 pm

HP69 wrote:
This cancellation indicates a broader pullback in Asia for UA, IMO.

How?

x1234 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:08 pm

Someone posted PDEW stats here saying that the PRIMARY demand to HKG from the USA is from the coasts so of course SFO & EWR do better with more O&D. ORD survived on connections to SE Asia as well. The only reason the AA DFW-HKG flight works is to the Texas tech traffic from the DFW area and Latin America connections (plus CX connections). Not a surprise ORD-HKG is UA's weakest HKG flight.

RemoFlyer · Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:18 pm

x1234 wrote:
Someone posted PDEW stats here saying that the PRIMARY demand to HKG from the USA is from the coasts so of course SFO & EWR do better with more O&D. ORD survived on connections to SE Asia as well. The only reason the AA DFW-HKG flight works is to the Texas tech traffic from the DFW area and Latin America connections (plus CX connections). Not a surprise ORD-HKG is UA's weakest HKG flight.

DFW HKG has been having dismal J cabin loads lately, almost every flight now is C7 (at least 7 business upgrades) starting around 48 hours before the flight. LAX HKG is faring a little bit better. Which is another data point for coast versus middle of the country issues with respect to transpac.

YoungDon · Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:28 pm

RemoFlyer wrote:
x1234 wrote:
Someone posted PDEW stats here saying that the PRIMARY demand to HKG from the USA is from the coasts so of course SFO & EWR do better with more O&D. ORD survived on connections to SE Asia as well. The only reason the AA DFW-HKG flight works is to the Texas tech traffic from the DFW area and Latin America connections (plus CX connections). Not a surprise ORD-HKG is UA's weakest HKG flight.

DFW HKG has been having dismal J cabin loads lately, almost every flight now is C7 (at least 7 business upgrades) starting around 48 hours before the flight. LAX HKG is faring a little bit better. Which is another data point for coast versus middle of the country issues with respect to transpac.

That's not too surprising, I would expect the DFW flight to be fairly marginal considering the distance and the reliance on connections. We'll see if it survives this. AA doesn't have nearly as many alternative flights to HKG compared to UA so I wouldn't be surprised if they tough it out from DFW.

Antarius · Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:30 pm

YoungDon wrote:
RemoFlyer wrote:
x1234 wrote:
Someone posted PDEW stats here saying that the PRIMARY demand to HKG from the USA is from the coasts so of course SFO & EWR do better with more O&D. ORD survived on connections to SE Asia as well. The only reason the AA DFW-HKG flight works is to the Texas tech traffic from the DFW area and Latin America connections (plus CX connections). Not a surprise ORD-HKG is UA's weakest HKG flight.

DFW HKG has been having dismal J cabin loads lately, almost every flight now is C7 (at least 7 business upgrades) starting around 48 hours before the flight. LAX HKG is faring a little bit better. Which is another data point for coast versus middle of the country issues with respect to transpac.

That's not too surprising, I would expect the DFW flight to be fairly marginal considering the distance and the reliance on connections. We'll see if it survives this. AA doesn't have nearly as many alternative flights to HKG compared to UA so I wouldn't be surprised if they tough it out from DFW.

To the contrary, I am quite surprised. DFW-HKG has historically been murderers row for upgrades with zero cleared going out. Something definitely changed.

Judge1310 · Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:53 pm

jayunited wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
dcajet wrote:

There is no 787 base at ORD. Just as with AA not operating the 787 from the MIA base, UA does not operate with the 787 from ORD. Certainly the costs of doing so just for one specific (money losing) flight would outweigh the benefits.

That wouldn’t be an obstacle if they saw value in the route. UA flies IAH-SYD despite the fact that there is no base.

No you are 100% wrong. There is a 787 base at IAH it was reopened prior to IAH-SYD launching and IAH mechanics still perform a lot of the maintenance on the 789 fleet. And one IAH-LHR flights is a 789.
At ORD you have no base and the cost involved in setting up maintenance and having spare parts all to support one flight when demand is dropping isn't worth the investment. UA learned the maintenance lessons early from from the early days of UA DEN-NRT flight when they thought they could cycle 788s through DEN without setting up maintenance with the tools and spare parts needed to do their job. The result was cancelations or long overnight delays.

That course of action had to be reversed but the difference is DEN-NRT was seeing demand growing which justified the investment from a maintenance perspective. ORD-HKG is seeing demand drop and there being no plans to base any 787s at ORD at this time it would be a waist of money to cycle a 789 through ORD, open an ORD 787 pilot base and order additional parts and tools to properly set up maintenance for success for a route that for the past year and a half or 2 years has been on a downward trajectory.

Preach on and please say it louder for the good folks in the back! :lol:

zakuivcustom · Mon Aug 26, 2019 7:41 pm

Antarius wrote:
To the contrary, I am quite surprised. DFW-HKG has historically been murderers row for upgrades with zero cleared going out. Something definitely changed.

Business demand is clearly dropping lately - not surprising as I can certainly see some business trip to/from HK being delayed/pushed back until the situation stabilized a little bit more.

tphuang wrote:
here is the sad part for HK. Western business after this are going to rethink their long term location in Asia and a lot of them are going to move to Singapore. At least this is what I'm hearing through the grapevine.

https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/ar ... apore-amid

Well, while there are grumbling about how companies may moved to Singapore, HK will always have the advantage of being in the backyard of mainland China.

Of course, the main concern for business would be how much longer HK can still be under "rule of law" that's independent from mainland China. The day "rule of law" disappear, HK is dead and business might just as well go to Shanghai or even Shenzhen. This is a place where Singapore would have advantage.

Anyway, back on topic.

birdbrainz wrote:
Just got back from HKG yesterday. UA895 (ORD-HKG) Friday outbound. UA180 (HKG-EWR) return.
No protesters seen. Very "business as usual" except for more security presence outside terminal.
UA895 (77E) had poor loads and probably half full overall. Maybe 2/3.
UA180 (77W) had better loads (~90%) up front and almost full in back.
I personally wouldn't hesitate transiting through HKG if I had to make another last minute trip.

It has nothing to do with the airport anyway (There's no way HK gov't will allow disturbance there again), but rather, the HK economic outlook in general.

x1234 wrote:
Someone posted PDEW stats here saying that the PRIMARY demand to HKG from the USA is from the coasts so of course SFO & EWR do better with more O&D. ORD survived on connections to SE Asia as well. The only reason the AA DFW-HKG flight works is to the Texas tech traffic from the DFW area and Latin America connections (plus CX connections). Not a surprise ORD-HKG is UA's weakest HKG flight.

It partially has to do with US economy as well.

Chicago, while a great city, is more or less stagnating economically. Economic growth in Midwestern US is also lagging behind the rest of US for the most part (MSP is a little bit of an exception IMHO, and no, I don't count North Dakota as most of the growth there are just due to the oil boom)

Meanwhile, West Coast (SEA/SFO/LAX) is growing, as is Boston/NYC/DC (and Philly to lesser extent). Places like DFW, Austin, and Houston never stop growing, as is a few southern metro like ATL, CLT, RDU, and BNA.

http://money.com/money/5650327/map-of-e ... -by-state/

In another word, there's absolutely no surprise that ORD-HKG is the weakest of the 3 HKG flight. The demographics matter also - SFO and NYC (along with LAX) has by far the most people from HK or nearby region, while HKer (Chinese in general actually) population in places like Texas are also growing quick. Midwest? Outside of Chicago there's just not a big Chinese community, and the one in Chicago is not exactly growing, either.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net