I saw a lot of clues related to Africa, but also South America. Also, while many UA hubs were represented, I saw a lot of EWR. I'm guessing EWR to S America or Africa. Gonna go all-in and say EWR-NBO!

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

CAI, ABJ, and EZE are all being thrown out on Twitter. EWR-CAI or IAD-ABJ are possibilities, UA just recently cut EWR-EZE, so I don't really see anything from EZE.

N292UX wrote:

CAI, ABJ, and EZE are all being thrown out on Twitter. EWR-CAI or IAD-ABJ are possibilities, UA just recently cut EWR-EZE, so I don't really see anything from EZE.

I was debating between NBO and CAI for my guess. That's also a good one!

HouStrategies wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

Obviously IAD would be considerably downsized to just flights that can be filled with O/D if they made a go for RDU. United has tried so many things to make IAD work over the years but nothing ever has. That's why they are still in a "temporary" terminal built nearly 40 years ago. I can't fly within the southeast on UA and that is a big problem.

N292UX wrote:

CAI, ABJ, and EZE are all being thrown out on Twitter. EWR-CAI or IAD-ABJ are possibilities, UA just recently cut EWR-EZE, so I don't really see anything from EZE.

Argentina has been in an inflation crisis since pre pandemic. I wouldn't be surprised to see SCL emerge as the more preferred destination than EZE among both US and EU carriers.

sand26391 wrote:

I see Lotus Temple in that image, which is located in Delhi. But if I'm not wrong United fly to DEL already (?). So could we see a new Indian route? EWR-BLR/MAA/HYD or something?

Maybe ORD-DEL or IAD-DEL

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

jasoncrh wrote:

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

There’s some reality for the rest of you.

We’re all lusting for new routes like it’s 2019 and in reality I’m disappointed in UA for doing this in this way. There is no celebration in anything in this time.

Lot of people saying Spain too. IIRC, there was some chatter a while back about UA starting EWR-Seville SVQ, maybe that is one of the new routes launched.

EWR-GYE is being tossed around, and IAD-LIM is also seeming rather close to a lock. EWR-VIE/OGG seem like near locks at this point.

Scott Kirby commented on the post on Instagram and said: "Am I allowed to offer a clue? I will anyway. Hint: I’ve hiked a lot of mountains but the tallest peak on only one continent.."

The highest mountain in South America is located near Mendoza, Argentina... IAH-MDZ? More likely something like IAD/ORD-EZE. Some people are saying Kilimanjaro or Dar Es Salaam from EWR but I don't see that happening. The highest mountain Europe is in Russia, but I don't see them adding back DME either.

There's a lot of hints toward Africa but Dar Es Salaam? That'd be an all-time shocker. I don't see it happening.

jasoncrh wrote:

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

It's not a "vanity video" - it's marketing. They have a business to continue running despite these misfortunes related to Covid. There isn't a specific "mourning period" that they need to honor before they can continue on with the day to day operations. Selling flights is their business and good marketing helps to that effect.

santi319 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Going by twitter where they're saying its largely new routes. BKK and MNL are low yield VFR and is extremely unlikely with minimal business demand to subsidise the high VFR (and tourist) traffic to both cities.

Both cities would've been candidates had UA had a long-haul LCC to serve the low yielding, tourist/VFR, low fare nature of markets like BKK and MNL.

This may come as a shock to you, but there is no more business demand anywhere....

I work at AirFrance and while you are correct Int'l business travel is down big time, we are still seeing reasonable loads in La Premiere. I realize UA has no F Class Int'l cabins, but at the moment the majority of those able to travels are either the super rich at full fare or the super have-to at the lowest price possible!

Most marketing pieces don’t have videos of the international network planning vp giving a faux seductive wink at the audience. Market the new destination through the channels once announced. This video is vanity and unneeded in this moment and rather tone deaf

quote="ASFlyer"]

jasoncrh wrote:

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

It's not a "vanity video" - it's marketing. They have a business to continue running despite these misfortunes related to Covid. There isn't a specific "mourning period" that they need to honor before they can continue on with the day to day operations. Selling flights is their business and good marketing helps to that effect.[/quote]

adambrau wrote:

santi319 wrote:

SCFlyer wrote:

Going by twitter where they're saying its largely new routes. BKK and MNL are low yield VFR and is extremely unlikely with minimal business demand to subsidise the high VFR (and tourist) traffic to both cities.

Both cities would've been candidates had UA had a long-haul LCC to serve the low yielding, tourist/VFR, low fare nature of markets like BKK and MNL.

This may come as a shock to you, but there is no more business demand anywhere....

I work at AirFrance and while you are correct Int'l business travel is down big time, we are still seeing reasonable loads in La Premiere. I realize UA has no F Class Int'l cabins, but at the moment the majority of those able to travels are either the super rich at full fare or the super have-to at the lowest price possible!

Exactly my point, super rich on leisure or leisure on a buck. Add VFR to the mix as things get back to normal and business travel is dead medium term.

Remember business corporations dont want to be liable of their employees being exposed to covid, specially in America

N292UX wrote:

CAI, ABJ, and EZE are all being thrown out on Twitter. EWR-CAI or IAD-ABJ are possibilities, UA just recently cut EWR-EZE, so I don't really see anything from EZE.

I think I saw Cairo somewhere in the video.

DTWLAX wrote:

N292UX wrote:

CAI, ABJ, and EZE are all being thrown out on Twitter. EWR-CAI or IAD-ABJ are possibilities, UA just recently cut EWR-EZE, so I don't really see anything from EZE.

I think I saw Cairo somewhere in the video.

Would have to be EWR-CAI if that's the case. I don't really see it being anywhere besides that.

ddaly241 wrote:

What about EWR-MNL, huge Fillipino population in NJ and NYC and Philly area.

UA and the Philippine government have been involved in a spat since UA couldn't get extra slots in Manila for GUM-MNL expansion... so unless they've managed to work something out behind the scenes, I would rule MNL out for now.

N292UX wrote:

The highest mountain in South America is located near Mendoza, Argentina... IAH-MDZ? More likely something like IAD/ORD-EZE. Some people are saying Kilimanjaro or Dar Es Salaam from EWR but I don't see that happening. The highest mountain Europe is in Russia, but I don't see them adding back DME either.

Aconcagua is located on the Chile-Argentina border just east of Santiago. I'm thinking this means an SCL route is coming.

when i saw the llama i immediately thought of Peru.

Irehdna wrote:

N292UX wrote:

The highest mountain in South America is located near Mendoza, Argentina... IAH-MDZ? More likely something like IAD/ORD-EZE. Some people are saying Kilimanjaro or Dar Es Salaam from EWR but I don't see that happening. The highest mountain Europe is in Russia, but I don't see them adding back DME either.

Aconcagua is located on the Chile-Argentina border just east of Santiago. I'm thinking this means an SCL route is coming.

That makes more sense. Probably EWR-SCL then.

rjbesikof wrote:

I am going to say another Tel Aviv (either LAX, IAH, or DEN). By the end of October, with the exception of SFO remaining sub daily, they will have an almost complete schedule to TLV. With the ORD launch that will come later this week, they seem to be going all in on that market. Now, could they launch SFO-CHC to take on AA's upcoming LAX-CHC in W21?

LAX before IAH or DEN. That would be a shot to replace LY on that route.

HouStrategies wrote:

The Tampa Bay metro area has a population of 3.2 million, the 18th-largest metro in the country - larger than Denver, Charlotte, or Salt Lake City which all support substantial hubs. It's also one of the fastest-growing (nearby Lakeland as well), and has manageable low-fare competition.

I think you vastly underestimate the low-fare competition. Pre-Covid WN had over 30% market share at TPA (for 2019) and WN+NK+B6+F9 combined had over 50% share at TPA. G4's operation at PIE carried just over 10% of TPA's total, so combining low-fare carriers at TPA and PIE, well over half of the region's air traffic is on low-fare carriers. I wouldn't call that manageable. WN is the leading carrier in about half of TPA's top 50 O&D markets and there's a low-fare carrier in pretty much every O&D market large enough to support daily non-stop service on a 737 or A32X. Add in G4 at PIE and there's entrenched competition even in markets too small for daily mainline service.

Geography is terrible. It's a poor hub for the Southeast so you won't take profitable share from DL or AA. It can work (geographically) as a hub to the Caribbean and Latin America but UA already has hubs in some of the largest markets to the Caribbean and Latin America at EWR/IAH/IAD/ORD. Only bargain-hunters would back-track from MIA/FLL via TPA.

I'd add that the current design of the airport is unsuitable for an airline hub with security checkpoints out at the airsides. United would have to put up the money for an expensive reconfiguration and/or construction of a new terminal in order to support hub banks with more than 15-20 aircraft. It's a great design for O&D travel but terrible for a hub. The largest airside has maybe 16 gates.

ASFlyer wrote:

jasoncrh wrote:

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

It's not a "vanity video" - it's marketing. They have a business to continue running despite these misfortunes related to Covid. There isn't a specific "mourning period" that they need to honor before they can continue on with the day to day operations. Selling flights is their business and good marketing helps to that effect.

Agreed. Their Facebook post has gotten 78,000 views in 7 hours and we're already on page 3 of this thread speculating as to what the routes will be, so guess what? Their marketing worked. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't release the video more than 24ish hours in advance to let the hype build in tomorrow's media publications before the announcement a day or two later.

That said, I'm excited and glad we don't have to wait that long! Judging by the 7 paper airplanes, I think it's safe to assume 7 new routes, which isn't bad given the current environment.

jasoncrh wrote:

Most marketing pieces don’t have videos of the international network planning vp giving a faux seductive wink at the audience. Market the new destination through the channels once announced. This video is vanity and unneeded in this moment and rather tone deaf

And judging by the reaction here and online, extremely successful. The last route announcement by AA or DL, for example, was a significantly more ho-hum affair.

UA needs to make money. Drumming up interest in new routes might help them. This was a home run.

I'm thinking more in terms of what was profitable, but is now vacant due to several carriers going under and UA could swoop in to pick up:

EWR-JNB (South African) possibly as a triangle route
IAD-ACC (South African)
LAX/SFO-BNE (Virgin Australia longhaul)

Beyond that, it looks like there's something to South America.

HouStrategies wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

What gulf coast/east coast connectivity isn’t already accomplished via IAH, IAD, or EWR?

HouStrategies wrote:

The really intriguing alternative that remains: Tampa. The Tampa Bay metro area has a population of 3.2 million, the 18th-largest metro in the country - larger than Denver, Charlotte, or Salt Lake City which all support substantial hubs.

Neither DEN, CLT, or SLC have a major international airport 85 miles to their northeast, or a regional airport 60 miles due south.

TPA does.

strfyr51 wrote:

I can say I agree with you. At one point United was in the process of building a hub in South Florida at MIA. where we had a number of South American routes. I don't know what really happened but what I remember was that American decided to build a new hub there and MIA wanted to raise the rents and fees for Everybody else to help pay for American's new terminal and facilities to which United said "screw that" and Broke down the operation at MIA, and moved the flights all over the place. After the CO merger, CO had a station at TPA and it was a good one. Slowly? United has seen the wisdom of a South Florida operation So hopefully? They'll once again consider a Hub in South Florida. As it's the only corner of the USA we haven't built one build one in. SEA would have been a dandy hub had Politics not gotten into the mix after we bought the Pan AM Pacific division. United had the makings of a hub at SEA as we were flying SEA-HKG and SEA- NRT. And? quite nicely too..

AA started building their MIA hub in 1989 and UA didn’t start until Pan Am collapsed in 1991 and UA got PA’s Latin American routes.

MIA was also building a new terminal for UA (Concourse J) which was to serve as the home of a Star Alliance hub. By the time it was done MIA wasn’t even a mainline station for UA anymore. UA pulled down what was left a year or two after 9/11.

The reason UA failed at MIA is they didn’t move as aggressively as AA did. As AA continued to grow, UA really didn’t add much beyond what they inherited from PA. IIRC the hub/focus city peaked around 1996 or 1997.

flyjoe wrote:

I think UA is just a bit too late to the party. The TPA/PIE area is chock full of low fare competition like MCO and FLL. If UA has the desire to create a SE to Caribbean gateway, they might as well go full speed and fight it out in FLL or MIA and make a play for the O&D traffic.

If the thought is to build up a SE hub, the only good (and not really that good) option is to try and set up shop with something small in ATL, like TWA did in the 90s. Of course Delta will have none of that and to a lesser extent, Southwest.

There’s no point in UA going into a five or six way battle (AA/B6/F9/NK/WN) at MIA or FLL. Likewise going into ATL would be equally futile. Out of the remaining feasible options for a southeast hub, TPA’s not bad, but does UA a really need another hub?

I don't think United needs another hub anywhere. The idea that every airline has to be everything for everyone doesn't make sense.

People seem to think airlines need hubs everywhere. UA has hubs in the highest O/D, premium heavy airports in the United States. And they aren’t small hubs.

They could very well strengthen their position in Florida, but they don’t need a hub there to do that.

catiii wrote:

HouStrategies wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

What gulf coast/east coast connectivity isn’t already accomplished via IAH, IAD, or EWR?

Connecting any two points between IAH and IAD without backtracking.

United is opening a bunch of new widebody, international-capable, gates in DEN next year. . .

There are a lot of issues with TPA

HouStrategies wrote:

The pandemic has made this even more important, as the rise of remote work is driving a huge migration from the north to Florida and even the Caribbean. United sensed this migration early and quickly established a wide range of non-hub flights to better serve Florida. And no matter what you think about the future of the pandemic, remote work has now been absolutely normalized.

Your assumption seems flawed:

For example you cite a large migration of people from the north to Florida. At this point in time it is unclear whether any of that movement is actually permanent, remember many "northerners" have second homes in Florida. UA didn't add those flights because of a migration of northerners, (well not the type of migration you are implying) they added those flights because it's well known that during winter break many midwestern/northeast residents fly down to Florida annually.

HouStrategies wrote:

The really intriguing alternative that remains: Tampa. The Tampa Bay metro area has a population of 3.2 million, the 18th-largest metro in the country - larger than Denver, Charlotte, or Salt Lake City which all support substantial hubs. It's also one of the fastest-growing (nearby Lakeland as well), and has manageable low-fare competition. The housing is far more affordable than the Miami area. It's also about an hour from Walt Disney World, the largest tourist attraction in the country (soon to be connected by the Brightline train). And it's not just tourists - there are plenty of business travelers as well (United's core market). Tampa has been steadily growing its corporate presence - especially financial - and it's the center of Florida's High Tech Corridor.

Profitable airline hub basics:
Well placed geography:
High yielding local market:
Sizable local market:
Limited low cost carrier competition:

TPA hardly ticks off any of the boxes that make an airline hub profitable. Not to mention the gate configuration is not at all built to accommodate a hub operation.

DEN has double the O&D of TPA, & SLC/CLT/DEN have much better geography (CLT also having a large banking sector).
https://orlandoairports.net/site/upload ... D-Rank.pdf

The financial sector you are referring to is mostly focused on wealth management (think little to no corporate travel). The tech sector you reference is relatively small, lower tech sector employment than MCI, STL, CLT, e.t.c.
https://www.cbre.us/research-and-report ... erica-2020

You mention it being close to Disney, but there are very few people booking tickets from Orlando to depart out of TPA, so it being close to Disney doesn't mean much:

https://www.florida-aviation-database.c ... 5a6b7f5b71

HouStrategies wrote:

Florida is the third-largest state in the country at 22 million and growing fast. United needs a strong presence there to match its strength in other top five states like California (38m), Texas (28m), New York (20m), and Illinois (13m). A hub (or at least a strong focus city) in Tampa is the best strategic option for them to tap that market. This pandemic will reshuffle the airline pecking order - why play defense when they can seize the initiative and fill a long-standing and growing gap in their route network while also putting more planes and crews to work?

United does not need a strong presence in Florida just because it is growing and large. There are plenty of destinations/countries that fit that bill that every airline does not serve.

Airlines build hubs to drive higher profits, you haven't cited how this will be accretive to earnings.

My predictions would be:
EWR-OGG
EWR-LOS
EWR-SCL
IAD-ACC
ORD-DEL
SFO-BKK
LAX-TLV

ALPA and company reached an agreement in principle to avoid involuntary furloughs.

Lets see what the details are.



https://i.ibb.co/YT6r0rT/UALMEC090820.jpg

Already 121 posts discussing a new route means the marketing has done its job! COVID or not, they have us talking about it......and that boys and girls.....is what good marketing is all about.

jasoncrh wrote:

Most marketing pieces don’t have videos of the international network planning vp giving a faux seductive wink at the audience. Market the new destination through the channels once announced. This video is vanity and unneeded in this moment and rather tone deaf

quote="ASFlyer"]

jasoncrh wrote:

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

It's not a "vanity video" - it's marketing. They have a business to continue running despite these misfortunes related to Covid. There isn't a specific "mourning period" that they need to honor before they can continue on with the day to day operations. Selling flights is their business and good marketing helps to that effect.

[/quote]

This is an insane criticism. UA needs marketing right now - simple announcements and more. To criticize the airline for trying to avoid laying off more is tone deaf. This isn’t like UA granted executives bonuses while laying people off.

jasoncrh wrote:

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

You've got some bizarre axe to grind or a poor grasp of reality. If 1/3 of positions in a department are eliminated, reality is that life goes on for the 2/3 that remain. They can either continue to do their jobs -- which may be marketing -- and hope their contributions continue the business so it can stabilize and grow again. Or they can sit around in mourning and do nothing because they're worried about "how it might look" until they inevitably get canned like the others.

This is hardly a "vanity video" or a major capital expense.

jasoncrh wrote:

I have a lot of friends in network planning and other corporate positions at United who’ve recently lost their jobs due to covid. Something like 1/3 if their management positions gone. Pretty terrible timing for a vanity video like this to be produced

While I feel for your friends -- and all of our colleagues across the industry who have been laid off or furloughed -- those of us still employed rely on United's ability to attract passengers and revenue. Business travel is nonexistent and the hub/spoke has been significantly impacted, so let's fly where people want to go. We did it in a relatively minor way with the Florida point-to-point flying, and it seems like we're going to try it again with some VFR-focused routes. There's no need to sit on our hands and wait for the pitch.

UALFAson wrote:

Agreed. Their Facebook post has gotten 78,000 views in 7 hours and we're already on page 3 of this thread speculating as to what the routes will be, so guess what? Their marketing worked. Frankly, I'm surprised they didn't release the video more than 24ish hours in advance to let the hype build in tomorrow's media publications before the announcement a day or two later.

Low budget way to create a buzz

Antarius wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

Seems to be 7 routes. I'm thinking:

SFO-BKK
ORD-BOG
EWR-SCL
EWR-OGG
EWR-Croatia
EWR-BLR
ORD-LIM

EWR-BLR? Curious on your thought process.

BLR would not surprise me. Good way to take on AA when SEA-BLR commences next year. Wouldn't SFO be a better fit for BLR or would EWR work just fine?

sand26391 wrote:

I see Lotus Temple in that image, which is located in Delhi. But if I'm not wrong United fly to DEL already (?). So could we see a new Indian route? EWR-BLR/MAA/HYD or something?

There's a pin on DEL on an India map (left edge of board) so possibly another DEL route. Though can't really rule anything out. BLR would be a dark horse.

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

HouStrategies wrote:

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

I don't think any of this makes sense. First of all, this wouldn't happen given the current economic situation of the airline industry. But in a hypothetical where UA had money to burn on this:
1) Even if DL were "down," they wouldn't let UA gain any meaningful market share in the Southeast and neither would AA. CLT is IIRC AA's most profitable hub and ATL is the crown jewel of the DL network. UA would be setting money on fire to even try in BNA or RDU.

2) Regardless of how you put it, TPA is too low-yielding AND too far South and whatever East-West or North-Central/South America flows UA is missing out on by not having a SE hub are either not profitable enough to support the immense cost of building up a TPA hub or would require going out of the way via TPA. Look at it this way - if we take US-Latin America/Caribbean traffic, the majority of this can already be served through UA's existing hubs or it's concentrated at MIA and MCO for whom TPA would be a terrible connection point. The number of passengers flying from the majority of SE cities combined to Buenos Aires in a given day is probably already dwarfed by the number of passengers flying from MIA alone to Buenos Aires. The traffic also isn't there from TPA itself. All the LCCs have a sizeable presence at TPA yet outside of SJU, none of them fly south, even to Caribbean destinations or Colombia/Ecuador.

3) CLT and ATL are what they are because they move a MASSIVE volume of traffic at a low cost and the airports are set up in a way that is conducive to this. I'm not sure in our lifetimes if we'll see a hub of that size built from scratch by any carrier.

4) It's not a good idea to use these random flights UA are flying in the Winter as a signal of anything. They simply have too many planes to fly the current network. So they figure they'll lose less money flying 50 or so passengers from Milwaukee to Tampa than if the plane were just sitting somewhere and it costs them almost nothing to do this. Starting a banked hub and building that infrastructure is a massive investment. Do you really think UA is expecting to make a sizeable dollar flying from Columbus to Fort Myers?

NYCVIE wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

HouStrategies wrote:

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

I don't think any of this makes sense. First of all, this wouldn't happen given the current economic situation of the airline industry. But in a hypothetical where UA had money to burn on this:
1) Even if DL were "down," they wouldn't let UA gain any meaningful market share in the Southeast and neither would AA. CLT is IIRC AA's most profitable hub and ATL is the crown jewel of the DL network. UA would be setting money on fire to even try in BNA or RDU.

2) Regardless of how you put it, TPA is too low-yielding AND too far South and whatever East-West or North-Central/South America flows UA is missing out on by not having a SE hub are either not profitable enough to support the immense cost of building up a TPA hub or would require going out of the way via TPA. Look at it this way - if we take US-Latin America/Caribbean traffic, the majority of this can already be served through UA's existing hubs or it's concentrated at MIA and MCO for whom TPA would be a terrible connection point. The number of passengers flying from the majority of SE cities combined to Buenos Aires in a given day is probably already dwarfed by the number of passengers flying from MIA alone to Buenos Aires. The traffic also isn't there from TPA itself. All the LCCs have a sizeable presence at TPA yet outside of SJU, none of them fly south, even to Caribbean destinations or Colombia/Ecuador.

3) CLT and ATL are what they are because they move a MASSIVE volume of traffic at a low cost and the airports are set up in a way that is conducive to this. I'm not sure in our lifetimes if we'll see a hub of that size built from scratch by any carrier.

4) It's not a good idea to use these random flights UA are flying in the Winter as a signal of anything. They simply have too many planes to fly the current network. So they figure they'll lose less money flying 50 or so passengers from Milwaukee to Tampa than if the plane were just sitting somewhere and it costs them almost nothing to do this. Starting a banked hub and building that infrastructure is a massive investment. Do you really think UA is expecting to make a sizeable dollar flying from Columbus to Fort Myers?

There are too many double standards around here. Why is it ok for Delta to burn money on their pet projects in SEA and BOS duking it out with AS and B6? How many times has Delta started and stopped flights like SEA-KIX? Three times now? But no criticism for that it seems.

Delta already served the PNW quite well via SLC and LAX and the Northeast/New England via JFK/LGA. Going in hot in SEA and BOS was just an attempt to squeeze out competitors.

But United has pretty much no presence in the southeast. Setting up a hub there would not be a vanity or anti-competitive move. They actually have a need for it. It's a growing region and fills a void in their network. For example, I can efficiently fly MCO-BHM on both AA (via CLT) and DL (via ATL). I can't do that on United. I would have to go way out of the way and connect in either ORD or IAH. It's the same for any other city pair in the region.

TTailedTiger wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

HouStrategies wrote:

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

I don't think any of this makes sense. First of all, this wouldn't happen given the current economic situation of the airline industry. But in a hypothetical where UA had money to burn on this:
1) Even if DL were "down," they wouldn't let UA gain any meaningful market share in the Southeast and neither would AA. CLT is IIRC AA's most profitable hub and ATL is the crown jewel of the DL network. UA would be setting money on fire to even try in BNA or RDU.

2) Regardless of how you put it, TPA is too low-yielding AND too far South and whatever East-West or North-Central/South America flows UA is missing out on by not having a SE hub are either not profitable enough to support the immense cost of building up a TPA hub or would require going out of the way via TPA. Look at it this way - if we take US-Latin America/Caribbean traffic, the majority of this can already be served through UA's existing hubs or it's concentrated at MIA and MCO for whom TPA would be a terrible connection point. The number of passengers flying from the majority of SE cities combined to Buenos Aires in a given day is probably already dwarfed by the number of passengers flying from MIA alone to Buenos Aires. The traffic also isn't there from TPA itself. All the LCCs have a sizeable presence at TPA yet outside of SJU, none of them fly south, even to Caribbean destinations or Colombia/Ecuador.

3) CLT and ATL are what they are because they move a MASSIVE volume of traffic at a low cost and the airports are set up in a way that is conducive to this. I'm not sure in our lifetimes if we'll see a hub of that size built from scratch by any carrier.

4) It's not a good idea to use these random flights UA are flying in the Winter as a signal of anything. They simply have too many planes to fly the current network. So they figure they'll lose less money flying 50 or so passengers from Milwaukee to Tampa than if the plane were just sitting somewhere and it costs them almost nothing to do this. Starting a banked hub and building that infrastructure is a massive investment. Do you really think UA is expecting to make a sizeable dollar flying from Columbus to Fort Myers?

There are too many double standards around here. Why is it ok for Delta to burn money on their pet projects in SEA and BOS duking it out with AS and B6? How many times has Delta started and stopped flights like SEA-KIX? Three times now? But no criticism for that it seems.

Delta already served the PNW quite well via SLC and LAX and the Northeast/New England via JFK/LGA. Going in hot in SEA and BOS was just an attempt to squeeze out competitors.

But United has pretty much no presence in the southeast. Setting up a hub there would not be a vanity or anti-competitive move. They actually have a need for it. It's a growing region and fills a void in their network. For example, I can efficiently fly MCO-BHM on both AA (via CLT) and DL (via ATL). I can't do that on United. I would have to go way out of the way and connect in either ORD or IAH. It's the same for any other city pair in the region.

MCO - BHM like you said is already covered by well oiled hubs at ATL and CLT. United might as well put a bullet to their head if they wanted a Florida hub.

United was a significantly distant second at MIA compared to AA.

Delta inherited Northwest’s already established SEA hub and pacific network at merger time.
The metro area of MIA alone helps AA serve it’s Latin and Caribbean destinations. The OP has REC and BSB... cities AA has cut from MIA recently. The thread makes me laugh.
AA’s MIA is UA’s SFO.

HouStrategies wrote:

United has a ton of planes and crews sitting around doing nothing right now during the pandemic - they could literally create an instant hub somewhere if they wanted to (assuming they could get the gates). But where?

If anything, the pandemic has encouraged consumers to avoid hub connections whenever possible. In years past, United Airlines travelers headed from Boston to Tampa would be routed through EWR. Those departing Milwaukee would have to connect through ORD to reach Tampa. Pax using LGA would have to make a connection at IAD en route to TPA. Now, UA has decided to no longer force Tampa-bound passengers at BOS, CLE, LGA and MKE to endure connections at busy international hub airports. After all, even an hour or two at EWR, IAD and/or ORD could be a major concern for older "snowbird" travelers, elderly VFR pax, etc. It will be very interesting to see how United's new p2p services to Florida do. I certainly can't see United or its passengers wanting to make connections at TPA when headed to places like CUN, MIA, SJO, SJU, etc. though. Perhaps those destinations could see their own p2p services from the likes of BOS and CLE - rather than connections to a new TPA hub.

HouStrategies wrote:

But they do lack good coverage in the southeastern US like Delta does from Atlanta (world's largest hub) and American does from Charlotte.

Southeastern markets that are absent from the UA route map - say, AGS (Augusta, Georgia) or MGM (Montgomery, Alabama) - obviously aren't possible from EWR/IAD/IAH/ORD. I just can't imagine those types of markets ever working from a TPA hub either. Then again, quite a few Southeastern markets that had been missing from the UA route map, like EYW, HHH and TLH, have been added in recent years. I think coverage of the region may have been pretty spotty by PMCO and PMUA, but the combined carrier seems to have done a pretty good job filling in as many holes as it can.

HouStrategies wrote:

Additionally, Houston serves as a great United hub to Latin America for the central and western US, but is not geographically well-positioned for serving the eastern US the way American is with its hub in Miami. Is there somewhere United could establish a hub that does some combination of what Charlotte and Miami do for American?

CLT seems to be an extremely profitable hub for AA, but MIA seems to be middle of the pack in terms of AA hub profitability. There just isn't much that those hubs do that UA can't do through its EWR, IAD and IAH hubs though. I suppose a traveler from BHM to NAS or SAV to SJU probably won't find any appealing routings on UA - but I doubt there are that many travelers on routes like that. Folks in the South do not face the same harsh winter weather as those in the North do, and many that do travel to beaches opt to drive rather than fly.

Really the only thing UA is missing out on is the O&D between Florida and Latin America/the Caribbean - but its not like UA's international gateway at MIA (inherited from Pan Am in the early 90s, then quickly cut after the airline declared bankruptcy in the early 2000s) was a success. Plenty of other carriers, both domestic and foreign, continue to fight over that traffic. I can't see United wanting to jump back into that fray again, especially now that carriers like B6, NK and even WN have established themselves in that realm.

HouStrategies wrote:

The really intriguing alternative that remains: Tampa. The Tampa Bay metro area has a population of 3.2 million, the 18th-largest metro in the country - larger than Denver, Charlotte, or Salt Lake City which all support substantial hubs. It's also one of the fastest-growing (nearby Lakeland as well), and has manageable low-fare competition. The housing is far more affordable than the Miami area. It's also about an hour from Walt Disney World, the largest tourist attraction in the country (soon to be connected by the Brightline train). And it's not just tourists - there are plenty of business travelers as well (United's core market). Tampa has been steadily growing its corporate presence - especially financial - and it's the center of Florida's High Tech Corridor.

Is TPA not already a "substantial hub" for WN? I should think quite a few WN pax connect through TPA en route to places like FLL, HAV and SJU. Perhaps in the future WN will offer additional connection opportunities given its longstanding strength in the Tampa market. NK, F9 and DL have also shown quite a bit of interest in the TPA market in recent years - adding p2p services long before UA did. I suppose if UA's p2p services catch on, the airline could attempt to forge closer ties with Silver Airways. Perhaps UA passengers will be willing to connect to 3M flights from TPA to popular destinations like EYW, FLL, NAS and PNS?

HouStrategies wrote:

As you can see, it's much better geographically from the eastern US to the Caribbean and Latin America than Houston is. Would it cannibalize traffic from IAH? Based on American's service to the same region from DFW and Miami (the equivalent of United's IAH and Tampa), we don't think so. DFW has Latin service nearly as comprehensive as IAH despite American's Miami hub. The two hubs actually reinforce and support each other and give American a dominant position in Latin America. United could challenge that dominance with a combination of Houston, Tampa, and Newark/NYC.

Actually quite a few of AA's DFW-Latin America services have been cut lately. I think to reinforce and support the MIA hub during these challenging times AA has had to reduce and eliminate quite a few flights from DFW. Also, O&D from Tampa to Latin America is probably far weaker than that from South Florida or for that matter Orlando.

HouStrategies wrote:

Florida is the third-largest state in the country at 22 million and growing fast. United needs a strong presence there to match its strength in other top five states like California (38m), Texas (28m), New York (20m), and Illinois (13m). A hub (or at least a strong focus city) in Tampa is the best strategic option for them to tap that market. This pandemic will reshuffle the airline pecking order - why play defense when they can seize the initiative and fill a long-standing and growing gap in their route network while also putting more planes and crews to work?

Florida was a very weak market for PMUA. CO brought a lot of Florida service to the combined carrier, and it seems as the merger progressed, more opportunities arose - new services to ECP, EYW, SRQ and TLH spring to mind. There was also quite a bit of "connecting the dots", including a resumption of service between South Florida and California, new routes between Denver and the Florida Panhandle (as well as Southwest Florida), vastly improved connectivity between IAD and Florida, etc. I can't help but wonder about additional opportunities for UA in Florida like APF (imagine how popular an E-jet between Naples and ORD could be!), a return to DAB, perhaps even a resumption of MLB. There's certainly no need for a TPA hub, though I imagine there is the possibility of additional p2p flights being added if the initial batch are successful. Stuff like BDL/BUF/CMH/DSM/GRR/MCI/OMA/PHL/PIT/STL-TPA springs to mind - if only at weekly, highly seasonal frequencies initially.

bourbon wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

I don't think any of this makes sense. First of all, this wouldn't happen given the current economic situation of the airline industry. But in a hypothetical where UA had money to burn on this:
1) Even if DL were "down," they wouldn't let UA gain any meaningful market share in the Southeast and neither would AA. CLT is IIRC AA's most profitable hub and ATL is the crown jewel of the DL network. UA would be setting money on fire to even try in BNA or RDU.

2) Regardless of how you put it, TPA is too low-yielding AND too far South and whatever East-West or North-Central/South America flows UA is missing out on by not having a SE hub are either not profitable enough to support the immense cost of building up a TPA hub or would require going out of the way via TPA. Look at it this way - if we take US-Latin America/Caribbean traffic, the majority of this can already be served through UA's existing hubs or it's concentrated at MIA and MCO for whom TPA would be a terrible connection point. The number of passengers flying from the majority of SE cities combined to Buenos Aires in a given day is probably already dwarfed by the number of passengers flying from MIA alone to Buenos Aires. The traffic also isn't there from TPA itself. All the LCCs have a sizeable presence at TPA yet outside of SJU, none of them fly south, even to Caribbean destinations or Colombia/Ecuador.

3) CLT and ATL are what they are because they move a MASSIVE volume of traffic at a low cost and the airports are set up in a way that is conducive to this. I'm not sure in our lifetimes if we'll see a hub of that size built from scratch by any carrier.

4) It's not a good idea to use these random flights UA are flying in the Winter as a signal of anything. They simply have too many planes to fly the current network. So they figure they'll lose less money flying 50 or so passengers from Milwaukee to Tampa than if the plane were just sitting somewhere and it costs them almost nothing to do this. Starting a banked hub and building that infrastructure is a massive investment. Do you really think UA is expecting to make a sizeable dollar flying from Columbus to Fort Myers?

There are too many double standards around here. Why is it ok for Delta to burn money on their pet projects in SEA and BOS duking it out with AS and B6? How many times has Delta started and stopped flights like SEA-KIX? Three times now? But no criticism for that it seems.

Delta already served the PNW quite well via SLC and LAX and the Northeast/New England via JFK/LGA. Going in hot in SEA and BOS was just an attempt to squeeze out competitors.

But United has pretty much no presence in the southeast. Setting up a hub there would not be a vanity or anti-competitive move. They actually have a need for it. It's a growing region and fills a void in their network. For example, I can efficiently fly MCO-BHM on both AA (via CLT) and DL (via ATL). I can't do that on United. I would have to go way out of the way and connect in either ORD or IAH. It's the same for any other city pair in the region.

MCO - BHM like you said is already covered by well oiled hubs at ATL and CLT. United might as well put a bullet to their head if they wanted a Florida hub.

United was a significantly distant second at MIA compared to AA.

Delta inherited Northwest’s already established SEA hub and pacific network at merger time.
The metro area of MIA alone helps AA serve it’s Latin and Caribbean destinations. The OP has REC and BSB... cities AA has cut from MIA recently. The thread makes me laugh.
AA’s MIA is UA’s SFO.

NWA hub at SEA? MSP, MEM, DTW, NRT, PEK does not make a hub.

Short term there might be additional opportunities for leisure routes until business travel comes back. I could see almost any o&d leisure route being tried right now. A true connection hub, that's not happening from scratch.

CPS001 wrote:

sand26391 wrote:

I see Lotus Temple in that image, which is located in Delhi. But if I'm not wrong United fly to DEL already (?). So could we see a new Indian route? EWR-BLR/MAA/HYD or something?

There's a pin on DEL on an India map (left edge of board) so possibly another DEL route. Though can't really rule anything out. BLR would be a dark horse.

Very likely to be either 2 routes to DEL IMO or even
1 from BOM. Unlikely to be BLR at all IMHO. Or else there would be something related to BLR for sure in that picture.

rjbesikof wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Irehdna wrote:

Seems to be 7 routes. I'm thinking:

SFO-BKK
ORD-BOG
EWR-SCL
EWR-OGG
EWR-Croatia
EWR-BLR
ORD-LIM

EWR-BLR? Curious on your thought process.

BLR would not surprise me. Good way to take on AA when SEA-BLR commences next year. Wouldn't SFO be a better fit for BLR or would EWR work just fine?

I've been hearing EWR-BLR since 2015. I remember that guys from BLR aiport visited UA HQ in Jan 2020 along with AA and AC. And it turns out AA announced SEA-BLR. But I think right nowz Delhi would be THE right choice for a non stop UA flight as they also have a codeshare with Vistara if I'm not wrong, which id based in Delhi. Would be surprised to see EWR-BLR but I don't think it wi happen.

TTailedTiger wrote:

NYCVIE wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

I would argue BNA or RDU is the better choice. They desperately need a southeast hub. Go after the southeast while DL is down. United can quickly recall furloughed employees as needed. Delta offered so many early retirement packages and retired so many aircraft that they are a skeleton of their former operation.

HouStrategies wrote:

RDU is just too close to IAD - way too much overlap. BNA has too much overlap with ORD, IAH, and IAD - as well as having way too much low fare competition and not being helpful at all for east coast to the Caribbean or Latin America. TPA may seem too far south, but most of the southeastern population is along the coasts, and it's located very reasonably to connect Gulf coast destinations to Atlantic coast ones. It can be a fairly effective hybrid of what AA does with CLT+MIA.

I don't think any of this makes sense. First of all, this wouldn't happen given the current economic situation of the airline industry. But in a hypothetical where UA had money to burn on this:
1) Even if DL were "down," they wouldn't let UA gain any meaningful market share in the Southeast and neither would AA. CLT is IIRC AA's most profitable hub and ATL is the crown jewel of the DL network. UA would be setting money on fire to even try in BNA or RDU.

2) Regardless of how you put it, TPA is too low-yielding AND too far South and whatever East-West or North-Central/South America flows UA is missing out on by not having a SE hub are either not profitable enough to support the immense cost of building up a TPA hub or would require going out of the way via TPA. Look at it this way - if we take US-Latin America/Caribbean traffic, the majority of this can already be served through UA's existing hubs or it's concentrated at MIA and MCO for whom TPA would be a terrible connection point. The number of passengers flying from the majority of SE cities combined to Buenos Aires in a given day is probably already dwarfed by the number of passengers flying from MIA alone to Buenos Aires. The traffic also isn't there from TPA itself. All the LCCs have a sizeable presence at TPA yet outside of SJU, none of them fly south, even to Caribbean destinations or Colombia/Ecuador.

3) CLT and ATL are what they are because they move a MASSIVE volume of traffic at a low cost and the airports are set up in a way that is conducive to this. I'm not sure in our lifetimes if we'll see a hub of that size built from scratch by any carrier.

4) It's not a good idea to use these random flights UA are flying in the Winter as a signal of anything. They simply have too many planes to fly the current network. So they figure they'll lose less money flying 50 or so passengers from Milwaukee to Tampa than if the plane were just sitting somewhere and it costs them almost nothing to do this. Starting a banked hub and building that infrastructure is a massive investment. Do you really think UA is expecting to make a sizeable dollar flying from Columbus to Fort Myers?

There are too many double standards around here. Why is it ok for Delta to burn money on their pet projects in SEA and BOS duking it out with AS and B6? How many times has Delta started and stopped flights like SEA-KIX? Three times now? But no criticism for that it seems.

Delta already served the PNW quite well via SLC and LAX and the Northeast/New England via JFK/LGA. Going in hot in SEA and BOS was just an attempt to squeeze out competitors.

But United has pretty much no presence in the southeast. Setting up a hub there would not be a vanity or anti-competitive move. They actually have a need for it. It's a growing region and fills a void in their network. For example, I can efficiently fly MCO-BHM on both AA (via CLT) and DL (via ATL). I can't do that on United. I would have to go way out of the way and connect in either ORD or IAH. It's the same for any other city pair in the region.

That's not a good comparison at all. SEA and BOS are very different from TPA/whatever SE hub you want to hypothetically give UA. SEA and BOS are both large cities with strong O&D demand on the coasts whose purpose is domestic to international connections and vice versa. The dynamics for a SE hub require it to be a high volume domestic hub like ATL and CLT and TPA is too far south to do that not to mention it lacks the infrastructure for that. Or it would have to be a Caribbean/Latin America hub and TPA lacks the O&D demand that MIA has. TPA is also already full of LCC carriers which already cover the market which is largely lower yielding VFR and tourism traffic.

AS and B6 are much smaller to DL than DL and AA are to UA. SEA and BOS are not domestic hubs (I don't think there are ANY DL domestic connections flowed over BOS and few over SEA). The DL SEA and BOS operations are peanuts compared to what UA would need to build in the Southeast. Furthermore, in an economic recession like the one we are in now BOS will be the first to go (a lot of the cut routes won't be back anytime soon) followed probably by SEA. The SE ship has sailed for UA, it is what it is - and not every airline needs to be everything to everyone. It's like DL in Texas. Even if they eventually build AUS up to an actual focus city operation, there's no room for them to build a DFW/IAH level hub there anymore.