BNAMealer
Posts: 615
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 11:15 am

TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I agree that FL is a no-go for a hub. It's too far out of the way. WN wouldn't be an obstacle if IA really wanted a hub at BNA. The problem with BNA is that it is space constrained with no room for expansion. SAV would be an interesting choice but I don't know if there's enough local sand for a decent O/D mix. RDU seems to be the only city in the region without a hub that could offer decent O/D. It could pretumich be a copy and paste of CLT. Just with much nicer facilities. I haven't been to CLT since 2010 but with the exception of the international concourse it was so dark and cramped. But look who had their hub there...


What?

BNA has plenty of space. They could build a whole second terminal for themselves if they wanted to. The problem there is WN is dominant and growing and now possibly NK could be growing as well. Too much competition

SAV? are you kidding me? Way too small of a market.

RDU is too far east and too close to IAD. And they truly don’t have the space for gates for a large hub operation.



That's not what someone told me here a few months ago. They said the interstate changes would prohibit expansion at BNA. And the point of RDU would be to eliminate IAD as a hub. It's not effective for the region it is supposed to serve. DL doesn't seem to mind RDU's close proximity to ATL. They use it as a focus city and even have a CDG flight. Same with AA at CLT.


1. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear. What you were told was wrong. BNA has room to build out their current terminal to 60-70 gates and build a whole second terminal either east of runway 2R or in the midfield south of 13/31.

2. Why on earth would they give IAD, a huge market with a ton of O&D, to hub RDU?! RDU isn’t that much further south and does not have a ton of space to build a hub level terminal.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:26 pm

BNAMealer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

What?

BNA has plenty of space. They could build a whole second terminal for themselves if they wanted to. The problem there is WN is dominant and growing and now possibly NK could be growing as well. Too much competition

SAV? are you kidding me? Way too small of a market.

RDU is too far east and too close to IAD. And they truly don’t have the space for gates for a large hub operation.



That's not what someone told me here a few months ago. They said the interstate changes would prohibit expansion at BNA. And the point of RDU would be to eliminate IAD as a hub. It's not effective for the region it is supposed to serve. DL doesn't seem to mind RDU's close proximity to ATL. They use it as a focus city and even have a CDG flight. Same with AA at CLT.


1. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear. What you were told was wrong. BNA has room to build out their current terminal to 60-70 gates and build a whole second terminal either east of runway 2R or in the midfield south of 13/31.

2. Why on earth would they give IAD, a huge market with a ton of O&D, to hub RDU?! RDU isn’t that much further south and does not have a ton of space to build a hub level terminal.


Because UA is completely apathetic to IAD. They have been in a "temporary" terminal for 30 years. Over the years they have cut and added flights trying to find something that would work. It is also very close to their EWR hub which could cover the Mid-Atlantic area adequately.

IAD does not serve the southeast and Florida well at all. They can't even make MIA work out of IAD. RDU would provide a true hub to serve that region. They are also home to large industries such as pharmaceutical firms. I like United but they are pretty much useless to people like me who lIve in FL and need to travel within the southeast region. It would also serve as a nice gateway to the Caribbean like AA does at CLT.

The only airport in that region that could offer them immediate gate access is MEM. But that area just isn't sustainable as a hub unfortunately.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10020
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:32 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:


That's not what someone told me here a few months ago. They said the interstate changes would prohibit expansion at BNA. And the point of RDU would be to eliminate IAD as a hub. It's not effective for the region it is supposed to serve. DL doesn't seem to mind RDU's close proximity to ATL. They use it as a focus city and even have a CDG flight. Same with AA at CLT.


1. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear. What you were told was wrong. BNA has room to build out their current terminal to 60-70 gates and build a whole second terminal either east of runway 2R or in the midfield south of 13/31.

2. Why on earth would they give IAD, a huge market with a ton of O&D, to hub RDU?! RDU isn’t that much further south and does not have a ton of space to build a hub level terminal.


Because UA is completely apathetic to IAD. They have been in a "temporary" terminal for 30 years. Over the years they have cut and added flights trying to find something that would work. It is also very close to their EWR hub which could cover the Mid-Atlantic area adequately.

IAD does not serve the southeast and Florida well at all. They can't even make MIA work out of IAD. RDU would provide a true hub to serve that region. They are also home to large industries such as pharmaceutical firms. I like United but they are pretty much useless to people like me who lIve in FL and need to travel within the southeast region. It would also serve as a nice gateway to the Caribbean like AA does at CLT.

The only airport in that region that could offer them immediate gate access is MEM. But that area just isn't sustainable as a hub unfortunately.


UA is not “apathetic” to IAD, they have been growing IAD significantly the past couple of years.

I question how great RDU would be for a SE hub. Better than IAD yes but RDU is still pretty far northeast in the region to make a great Southeast hub.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:36 pm

Polot wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

1. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear. What you were told was wrong. BNA has room to build out their current terminal to 60-70 gates and build a whole second terminal either east of runway 2R or in the midfield south of 13/31.

2. Why on earth would they give IAD, a huge market with a ton of O&D, to hub RDU?! RDU isn’t that much further south and does not have a ton of space to build a hub level terminal.


Because UA is completely apathetic to IAD. They have been in a "temporary" terminal for 30 years. Over the years they have cut and added flights trying to find something that would work. It is also very close to their EWR hub which could cover the Mid-Atlantic area adequately.

IAD does not serve the southeast and Florida well at all. They can't even make MIA work out of IAD. RDU would provide a true hub to serve that region. They are also home to large industries such as pharmaceutical firms. I like United but they are pretty much useless to people like me who lIve in FL and need to travel within the southeast region. It would also serve as a nice gateway to the Caribbean like AA does at CLT.

The only airport in that region that could offer them immediate gate access is MEM. But that area just isn't sustainable as a hub unfortunately.


UA is not “apathetic” to IAD, they have been growing IAD significantly the past couple of years.

I question how great RDU would be for a SE hub. Better than IAD yes but RDU is still pretty far northeast in the region to make a great Southeast hub.


UA setting up a hub in RDU? Yeah, no. With Delta's big footprint there, AA's renewed interest in it, and the traffic RDU already gets, which continues to grow, it would be a bloodbath if UA were to hub at RDU.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:39 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
With AS joining AA in OneWorld greatly expanding their West Coast connectivity and DL growing in many cities including SEA, BOS, AUS, is it finally time for UA to make a move and expand outside of its hubs? Could this be accomplished through a partnership with B6? A new focus city? Reinforcing its LAX and NYC presence? What is UA’s best route to avoid falling to #4 behind WN?

In other words, how can UA expand and grow outside of their current hubs?


The airline that needed to step it up was AA. It has a formidable network, very strong assets, and the size and scale to focus expansion beyond just protecting its biggest turf. It is finally beginning to do that and in very specific ways. UA stepped up a while back and is a very different airline now than it was just a few years ago. DEN, SFO, and further optimizing IAD/EWR are going to be the focal point of UA's growth for some time.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:39 pm

Polot wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

1. You shouldn’t believe everything you hear. What you were told was wrong. BNA has room to build out their current terminal to 60-70 gates and build a whole second terminal either east of runway 2R or in the midfield south of 13/31.

2. Why on earth would they give IAD, a huge market with a ton of O&D, to hub RDU?! RDU isn’t that much further south and does not have a ton of space to build a hub level terminal.


Because UA is completely apathetic to IAD. They have been in a "temporary" terminal for 30 years. Over the years they have cut and added flights trying to find something that would work. It is also very close to their EWR hub which could cover the Mid-Atlantic area adequately.

IAD does not serve the southeast and Florida well at all. They can't even make MIA work out of IAD. RDU would provide a true hub to serve that region. They are also home to large industries such as pharmaceutical firms. I like United but they are pretty much useless to people like me who lIve in FL and need to travel within the southeast region. It would also serve as a nice gateway to the Caribbean like AA does at CLT.

The only airport in that region that could offer them immediate gate access is MEM. But that area just isn't sustainable as a hub unfortunately.


UA is not “apathetic” to IAD, they have been growing IAD significantly the past couple of years.

I question how great RDU would be for a SE hub. Better than IAD yes but RDU is still pretty far northeast in the region to make a great Southeast hub.


Sure, only for them to get cut again. It's been like this for years. When are the new C/D concourses coming? Listen, I like UA but they are big enough and should be everything to everyone in the US. Just like DL and AA manage to do. They have abandoned an entire region. I can't fly to places in the southeast from MCO without going way out of the way on UA. Believe me if I could I'd never set foot in ATL again.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10020
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:40 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
Polot wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Because UA is completely apathetic to IAD. They have been in a "temporary" terminal for 30 years. Over the years they have cut and added flights trying to find something that would work. It is also very close to their EWR hub which could cover the Mid-Atlantic area adequately.

IAD does not serve the southeast and Florida well at all. They can't even make MIA work out of IAD. RDU would provide a true hub to serve that region. They are also home to large industries such as pharmaceutical firms. I like United but they are pretty much useless to people like me who lIve in FL and need to travel within the southeast region. It would also serve as a nice gateway to the Caribbean like AA does at CLT.

The only airport in that region that could offer them immediate gate access is MEM. But that area just isn't sustainable as a hub unfortunately.


UA is not “apathetic” to IAD, they have been growing IAD significantly the past couple of years.

I question how great RDU would be for a SE hub. Better than IAD yes but RDU is still pretty far northeast in the region to make a great Southeast hub.


UA setting up a hub in RDU? Yeah, no. With Delta's big footprint there, AA's renewed interest in it, and the traffic RDU already gets, which continues to grow, it would be a bloodbath if UA were to hub at RDU.

Yes, the bloodbath would make it a no go period. I was thinking more in just a geographical sense though.

But hey, maybe UA can create United Lite with a hub in GSO again :spin:
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:47 pm

Polot wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:
Polot wrote:

UA is not “apathetic” to IAD, they have been growing IAD significantly the past couple of years.

I question how great RDU would be for a SE hub. Better than IAD yes but RDU is still pretty far northeast in the region to make a great Southeast hub.


UA setting up a hub in RDU? Yeah, no. With Delta's big footprint there, AA's renewed interest in it, and the traffic RDU already gets, which continues to grow, it would be a bloodbath if UA were to hub at RDU.

Yes, the bloodbath would make it a no go period. I was thinking more in just a geographical sense though.

But hey, maybe UA can create United Lite with a hub in GSO again :spin:


That's some silly logic. If that were true then DL would never have setup a hub in SEA with Alaska. They would never have dramatically increased their flights at BOS with Jetblue there. AA and UA wouldn't be able to coexist at ORD. Delta and Airtran could never have made it at ATL...the list goes on. If UA wanted RDU then AA and DL's token presence wouldn't stop them.
Last edited by TTailedTiger on Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:47 pm

N649DL wrote:
Aside SFO, forget the bloodbath on the West Coast. The Low hanging fruit would be for UAL to merge with JetBlue: Divest some of EWR (already eroding their market share somewhat by LCC's), get back into JFK, get FLL and MCO as true hubs in the South, and focus on being the core East Coast carrier with EWR / JFK / BOS / IAD hubs.

The new UA color scheme and B6's would complement each other as well as both carriers having comped contracts with DirecTV on many of their planes (plus IIRC, B6 has free Wi-Fi.) Also they can leverage B6's "Mint" to reinvigorate a rather stale Transcon product by UA. B6 can finally rebound with better operational performance by way of UA as well.

I know it sounds nuts, it actually makes sense in a lot of ways for UA to get ahead. For instance if UA decided to forfeit all gates in the new Terminal A at EWR, the deal could be sealed very quickly. If this were to happen, trust me, both AA and DL would s*** the bed. EWR and JFK would have to be downsized (especially EWR) but that's good for competition anyway. UA is already favoring domestic traffic down to IAD instead of EWR anyway these days. AA especially because UA / B6 would own the NYC-Caribbean market which AA was king of back in the 1990s.

B6 wants TATL routes and both are in a bit of an identity crisis, so what do they both have to loose? (aside consolidation at the New York Airports which are nuts in terms of gates and infrastructure anyway.)


This would not add anything substantial to UA’s bottom line. The company does not have any issues selling tickets on premium and hub-hub transcontinental service.

IAmGaroott wrote:


I'd like to see UA open a focus city in Florida. It could increase their presence in the southeast and alleviate vacation traffic from IAH.


strfyr51 wrote:
The ONLY thing UA needs? Is to establish ang Grow a S.E,US hub. and that will complete all they need to so. From there it's organic growth. As they have all 4 corners of the USA covered and they can then fuel long haul flying from the East and West Coasts as they'll have the east and west connected and they can shift their focus in whatever way they choose. Domestic flying will need more Narrow body airplanes if they do that so Boeing had damn sure get ready and step up their game on getting the 737MAX back in the Air and building it's 757 replacement


TTailedTiger wrote:
tkoenig95 wrote:
Why fix something that isn't broken? UA is strengthening its core and will do so for a while before charting into unknown territory.


They have a very large hole in the southeast. RDU is ripe for the picking with no dominant airline. UA needs to make it a hub. IAD has lost and gained flights over the decades like a celebrity on a diet. It just doesn't work. UA is almost non-existent in the southeast and they need to fix that.


No one here has explained what a SE Hub would bring to the table for UA’s operation. The three obvious markets- Charlotte, Atlanta and Miami are all spoken for. UA could certainly do better in these cities- but I don’t see what’s left of the region that brings something of significance to the table that would be worth the major investment in money and resources, just so UA could say it has a SE hub.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10020
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:54 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Polot wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:

UA setting up a hub in RDU? Yeah, no. With Delta's big footprint there, AA's renewed interest in it, and the traffic RDU already gets, which continues to grow, it would be a bloodbath if UA were to hub at RDU.

Yes, the bloodbath would make it a no go period. I was thinking more in just a geographical sense though.

But hey, maybe UA can create United Lite with a hub in GSO again :spin:


That's some silly logic. If that were true then DL would never have setup a hub in SEA with Alaska. They would never have dramatically increased their flights at BOS with Jetblue there. AA and UA wouldn't be able to coexist at ORD. Delta and Airtran could never have made it at ATL...the list goes on. If UA wanted RDU then AA and DL's token presence wouldn't stop them.

Every place you mention has far more O&D traffic and/or far better geographical location (for hub’s intended mission) than RDU has.

AA/DL’s presence at RDU is a bit more than “token”, especially relative to UA’s current presence in the market.
 
jayunited
Posts: 2438
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:03 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 12:58 pm

BNAMealer wrote:
But they wouldn't need a big operation at both JFK and EWR, just keep enough slots at JFK for a few flights to hubs. Problem solved. I never envisioned a combined UA/B6 having or being allowed to have dual hubs in both JFK/EWR. The gains in BOS, Florida and the Caribbean would far outweigh the loss of JFK.

B6 would also give UA something it desperately needs, more mainline narrowbody aircraft. One thing UA desperately needs to do over the course of the next decade is upgauge its network, and its gonna need more new narrowbody aircraft to do so, not simply used A319's/73G's.

I agree 100% about IAD, I hope that hub becomes much bigger. ORD also needs to get bigger, but gate constraints plus intense competition from AA is keeping UA from achieving its full potential there.



I get what you are saying and I know there are potential benefits to both airlines. However there is simply to much overlap in the Northeast corridor and down the entire eastern seaboard for regulators to allow a UA/B6 codeshare.

UA is the largest airline at EWR and B6 (if I'm not mistaken) is still the largest carrier at JFK, I don't see how regulators could overlook this. B6 has two really solid hubs at JFK and BOS, UA has EWR. If we look at AA/AS, AS is clearly the dominate carrier at SEA whereas AA is 5th (behind UA at SEA), down at LAX no single carrier dominates. It is much easier for regulators to approve an AA/AS codeshare than it would be for a UA/B6 codeshare..

UA has mainline narrowbody aircraft coming, once the MAX is fixed and re-certified there will be a mixture of 56 MAX frames (8/9/10s) entering the fleet over time. There is also the used aircraft that also at some point will enter the fleet. (Again it is difficult to say when these used frames will enter the fleet because UA has to go through every maintenance record which is a tedious process.) UA has a plan we have the mainline narrowbody aircraft in the pipeline and once these frames start entering the fleet we are going to see UA make even more moves than those already announced. UA can execute its current plan faster than it would take for regulators to approve a UA/B6 codeshare. I don't think UA should be following AA/AS I think UA should follow DL's lead go at it alone in the domestic market and grow organically. Even though UA is still 6 perhaps even 8 years behind DL I don't believe UA would close the gap by codesharing with B6.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3878
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:04 pm

First of all, B6 is not the largest carrier at JFK. It has probably 75 fewer slots than DL.

I made the case for JetBlue + United partnership (not merger) in JetBlue thread.
Why partnership and not merger?
1) a lot easier to get through regulators if it's just domestic code share. UA right now has IAD + EWR in the east coast. B6 has JFK/BOS/FLL/MCO in the east coast but the combined size of that is not larger than what UA has. The combined operation would only be a smaller than what AA has with BOS/LGA/JFK/PHL/DCA/CLT. It would also be smaller than what DL has with BOS/LGA/JFK/ATL. Even if we just restrict to Northeast, the combined JFK/BOS/EWR/IAD will be just a little larger than what AA has with BOS/LGA/JFK/PHL/DCA or DL has with BOS/LGA/JFK. Certainly, no more dominant than what combined AA+AS has in the west coast.
2) A merger would require divestiture at JFK/EWR which would make this not appealing. Even if UA got all of B6 slots at JFK, it would get hammered at LGA/JFK market by DL because it's costs are too high. B6 cost allows as it to be the most profitable carrier in NYC despite being a lot smaller than DL.
3) A merger would require giving up a couple of gates at BOS, which would make this also less appealing. A code share should not require giving up anything since AA+DL combined would still have more gates than B6+UA.

Why partnership makes sense
1) *A needs a real partner at JFK, the international gateway into America. JetBlue with its new terminal setup is perfect for that. There is a reason they have so many code share agreements with *A airlines.
2) They compete on very few major business routes directly with only BOS-SFO/ORD being the exception. Their strength actually complements pretty well.
3) FLL/MCO is much better connection point to Latin America for all of the east coast compared to IAH. It's also a better place for *A carrier from South America to connect into.
4) It would allow BOS to become a dominant *A hub.
5) As large as B6 is at JFK, it's not in a position to pursue the top level corporate contracts and ff at NYC. So it's not a threat to UA in that department

As for competition worries, I'm sure B6 will stop any further growth at EWR if it has a partnership with UA. Their current schedule is basically to BOS + Florida/PR/DR. If they just keep at that level of 30 flights, it's not a major hindrance to UA. B6's European ambitions don't really encroach on *A carriers unless they start to fly to central Europe. And frankly, with real partners in central Europe, it will leave B6 to concentrate on other markets out of BOS.

The big question for me is whether UA sees enough benefits in this to overcome the threat of B6 growing larger. At this point, a stronger B6 in the east coast would depress the margins for DL/AA. So at least in the near term, a stronger B6 is a good thing for UA. Longer term, maybe not.

The risk for UA not doing anything here is that it will fall further behind DL domestically and to Latin America. And with AS, AA will have a more complete domestic map and a way to poke at UA to TPAC region. And it's already behind AA/OW to Latin America and Western Europe.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:12 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:

Because UA is completely apathetic to IAD. They have been in a "temporary" terminal for 30 years. Over the years they have cut and added flights trying to find something that would work. It is also very close to their EWR hub which could cover the Mid-Atlantic area adequately.

IAD does not serve the southeast and Florida well at all. They can't even make MIA work out of IAD. RDU would provide a true hub to serve that region. They are also home to large industries such as pharmaceutical firms. I like United but they are pretty much useless to people like me who lIve in FL and need to travel within the southeast region. It would also serve as a nice gateway to the Caribbean like AA does at CLT.

The only airport in that region that could offer them immediate gate access is MEM. But that area just isn't sustainable as a hub unfortunately.


I don't think you understand the market that UA is serving at IAD/WAS.

The purpose of the operation isn't to serve as a hub for SE/Florida residents. It's to serve the Mid-Atlantic region, centered around the Baltimore-Washington area, which bleeds into the Eastern Shore of Maryland, West Virginia and down towards Richmond. A region that is very wealthy, and has a diversified, robust economy with stable low unemployment, a strong housing market- one that didn't really suffer significantly from the recession; and a permanent institution-the federal government, and all of it's appendages and players- which demands and is willing to pay for the presence of a global carrier.

The latest management regime at UA has leveraged IAD to funnel more passengers through the hub. I don't think you can say the Smisek years, immediately post merger were indicative of UA's long game here. Similarly, just because the terminal is "temporary," doesn't mean the hub is. The airport authority has been in a complicated relationship with local, state and federal government, developers and interest groups and the it hasn't always been a fruitful relationship. That being said, things appear to be improving, and through all the drama that encompasses the MWAA (if you follow local media coverage on it)- UA has stuck around. My personal take on the situation (with some knowledge) is that UA has enjoyed very favorable lease rates, compared to other carriers here, operating out of a "temporary" terminal.

I agree that UA could serve Florida better- but the company is clearly focused on bringing people from colder regions into Florida- than serving the FL local market itself.

As to your point about the Caribbean... why establish a hub in an entrenched region to a highly seasonal, and traditionally low yielding market? A market in which they have to compete with other network carriers, low cost carriers, and the cruise ship consortium?
 
Gulfstream500
Posts: 444
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2018 2:30 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:23 pm

PANAMsterdam wrote:
Maybe United can open a new hub in Cleveland :stirthepot:

(they have to pay CLE Terminal D rent till 2027 anyway, so why not :duck:)


I still think that UA should sublease it to the F9 and NK to cut down on their costs in CLE. UA would not be losing so much money for rent at concourse D, and the LCCs would have a cheap place to park their planes. While D would need some work, the LCCs could use ground boarding while that construction is in progress.

What they should do is restore CLE to a focus city (for PR purposes, sort of like DL), and create a small hub in FLL to compete with B6 (like B6 did to them in NY). That way, UA will have positive PR, and an actual southeast hub (no, IAD does not count). Nobody wants to stop in IAD if they’re flying to the Caribbean from NC/SC/GA. (By the way, I do not expect UA to do any of this)
 
tphuang
Posts: 3878
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:40 pm

Gulfstream500 wrote:

What they should do is restore CLE to a focus city (for PR purposes, sort of like DL), and create a small hub in FLL to compete with B6 (like B6 did to them in NY). That way, UA will have positive PR, and an actual southeast hub (no, IAD does not count). Nobody wants to stop in IAD if they’re flying to the Caribbean from NC/SC/GA. (By the way, I do not expect UA to do any of this)


That doesn't work, because there is not enough gates available at FLL to make UA even a competitor to B6/NK let alone the much larger AA's MIA presence. B6's FLL operation is lower yielding than AA's MIA operation. It's only more profitable due to the lower cost. UA can't possible be profitable at B6's yield level. So building it's own "small hub" or even buying B6 would not allow this to work.

Again, what AA did at SEA makes sense. It wanted the connections that AS provided at SEA without getting into the bloodbath between AS and DL. Similar in Florida, UA on its own metal will be a huge money losing operation that would take away precious resource from its major projects of rebuilding IAD and building up DEN.
 
kavok
Posts: 663
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 10:12 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:51 pm

I think it is important to note that over the last few years both AA and UA have been trying to follow DL’s lead in certain, but different, areas. And with DL being the top performer financially, and arguably in experience, it is obvious why both AA and UA would try to mimic some successful things DL is doing.

It is interesting though that AA and UA have chosen different aspects to mimic. AA has been more concerned about matching DL’s network style with more point-to-point flying and focus cities. United has been more focused on improving the network reliability and quality of experience in certain core-hub airports.

Honestly, I think of the two, UA has chosen the better priority. Above all else, people fly DL because they are viewed (fair or not) as the most reliable and least likely to have a missed connection. They also have (again arguably) among the best core-hub connection experiences in the nice airports of DTW, MSP, and soon SLC. For UA, DEN is obviously nice as well, and UA is working on improving IAH and (longer term) ORD. So UA is getting there. I do think UA has chosen the more important path (compared to AA) to eventual success but time will tell.
 
JAMBOJET
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2018 6:23 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 1:59 pm

This thread seems a bit Silly. United has never been stronger and more innovative.
1. Don't have regional scope? Come up with an innovative idea: CR550. Not perfect but a very innovative way to address the problem.
2. Amazing international hubs and business traffic hubs, not great domestic connectivity: Build up DEN to 700 departures/day. Work on making IAD more of a connecting hub so EWR focuses on local O&D. Taking more local Chicago traffic.
3. IPTE: 2-4-2 Business class product while everyone else Has aisle access: Come up with the only true innovative J-class among the US3. Delta is out there taking their tired old coffin seat and slapping a plastic door on it with new stitching. AA is out there taking a nice seat, but a seat right off the catalog shelf and getting on the plane asap. United actually spent a lot of time developing a new seat and creating an entire brand around it.
4. Polaris: Related to the J class but also creating an entire new Business class brand with a new polaris lounge product to rival or perhaps be better than AA's Flagship Lounge by some accounts. Delta is still serving stale soups in the Sky Club to their premium passengers along with all the other sky club members. Also redone United clubs
5. Focus Cities: United has hubs at most Economic powerhouse cities in the US: Corporate travelers want to fly to their hubs naturally: NYC, DC, SFO, LAX, IAH, ORD (DEN less so compared to their other hub but certainly a major economic powerhouse in the Mountain West)...
6. United is already a part of the most important and powerful airline alliance with partners like LH Group that covers Europe like no other then ANA, SQ, NZ, AC, AV, Air China, etc.
I don't think United needs to step up. They already have.
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5984
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:24 pm

jayunited wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
UA-B6 merger is dead on arrival, it’s silly talk.

It would be more anti-consumer than WN-FL.


How so?

How would it be more anti-consumer than DL dominating four interior hubs with minimal competition?


Because UA would dominate the entire Northeast.

In the real world the cost of any potential codeshare or merger would be so great that that neither UA or B6 would be willing to pay it. Imagine what both airlines would have to give up just to get regulators to sign off on a codeshare or merger. By the time regulators are done either UA's operation at EWR or B6's operation at JFK would be a shell of its former self. The only thing UA would gain from a potential tie up with B6 would be more access to the markets in Florida, the Caribbean and Central America. UA can grow those market organically UA does not need B6 for these markets.

UA needs to stay the course we are already on growing DEN, and IAH. We need to continue to build up IAD as a reliever hub for EWR to allow EWR to focus more on O&D. At ORD perhaps UA could add either an early morning departure bank 05:30 and/or a later departure bank 22:30-23:30. At LAX there isn't much UA can do right now do to gate constraints, however we need to be ready to capitalize once terminal 9 is built and open. Finally at SFO UA just needs to keep their foot on the gas pedal and continue to grow that hub both domestically and internationally.

AA signing a codeshare agreement with AS and launching 2 international routes from a nonhub location is freaking amazing (BLR whoever would have guessed). But who knows if AA's decision will pay off. Once the excitement and shock wear off only time will tell if these moves will pay dividends, but UA does not need to follow AA's lead.


100% this.

To the OP, why would UA need to grow outside their current hubs? They’ve got a good thing going. The only thing they’re missing is a true southeast hub, but you can’t be everything to everyone.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
slider
Posts: 7512
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 11:42 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:36 pm

JAMBOJET wrote:
I don't think United needs to step up. They already have.


It's a fair point that probably doesn't get enough credence, since UA bashing is generally an Olympic sport.

For as long as it took UA to un*uck itself postmerger, the network is finally beginning to work as was promise. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it was the NETWORK that was the entire premise of the merger and it works perfectly. Now UA has augmented the regional network, beefed up domestic hubs, improved connectivity and flows, reduced some of the superfluous hub overflying, and is seeing yields climb back up to where they needed to be.

And adding a hub (RDU?) is laughable.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:39 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Polot wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:

UA setting up a hub in RDU? Yeah, no. With Delta's big footprint there, AA's renewed interest in it, and the traffic RDU already gets, which continues to grow, it would be a bloodbath if UA were to hub at RDU.

Yes, the bloodbath would make it a no go period. I was thinking more in just a geographical sense though.

But hey, maybe UA can create United Lite with a hub in GSO again :spin:


That's some silly logic. If that were true then DL would never have setup a hub in SEA with Alaska. They would never have dramatically increased their flights at BOS with Jetblue there. AA and UA wouldn't be able to coexist at ORD. Delta and Airtran could never have made it at ATL...the list goes on. If UA wanted RDU then AA and DL's token presence wouldn't stop them.


UA and AA at ORD originated in a different time and the market is exponentially larger than RDU. As for SEA, DL and AS initially were cooperating and then became frenemies as Delta built out its own network there independently from AS. As for BOS, the market is rich, it's bigger than RDU by a lot. B6 expanded when AA retrenched at BOS, and Delta is building out a hub that isn't quite the same as B6. So, check your facts before calling me silly. Corporate contracts in RDU and the Triangle are what would drive a hub and DL and AA essentially have the bulk of it.
 
Cointrin330
Posts: 1455
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:41 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
Polot wrote:
Cointrin330 wrote:

UA setting up a hub in RDU? Yeah, no. With Delta's big footprint there, AA's renewed interest in it, and the traffic RDU already gets, which continues to grow, it would be a bloodbath if UA were to hub at RDU.

Yes, the bloodbath would make it a no go period. I was thinking more in just a geographical sense though.

But hey, maybe UA can create United Lite with a hub in GSO again :spin:


That's some silly logic. If that were true then DL would never have setup a hub in SEA with Alaska. They would never have dramatically increased their flights at BOS with Jetblue there. AA and UA wouldn't be able to coexist at ORD. Delta and Airtran could never have made it at ATL...the list goes on. If UA wanted RDU then AA and DL's token presence wouldn't stop them.


Take another look at what DL and AA have at RDU. It's far from token.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2736
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:43 pm

COSPN wrote:
No need to change just add flights like IND-LAX DL WN AA all fly the route...


Yes because adding capacity in markets that are already well served to over served is a good use of assets. Nothing like a good yield destroying bloodbath, instead of finding new markets that will return a good ROI...
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333 / 707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753
/762/763/764/772/788/789/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440 /700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 581
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 2:57 pm

I'm a biased UA 1K flyer, but personally I think UA is playing this well.

They know what their weaknesses are and are working on them. If anything, they probably like the fact that AA & DL have decided to start this mini-war with DL shacking up with LATAM and now AA moving into SEA, the hub that never was for DL. (obviously I'm over-simplifying here).

If anything, UA has a clear focus on premium business traffic with hubs in basically all top economic centers of the country (NY, Bay Area, LA, Chicago, Houston) save a few, a premium product that was a game-changer for them (even if the roll-out is taking longer than most would like), and a truly premium club product in their Polaris lounges. They've carved this niche that is working. Maybe not as well as DL in their niche, but I don't see why UA needs to do something foolhardy.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7842
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:00 pm

I can see UA-B6 cooperating to complement each other's networks. UA gets presence in JFK, BOS, and the Caribbean, and B6 gets international presence through UA (and heartland operations). They can test the waters, readjust, and agree to merge down the road if everything passes the sniffing test.

But I still think, if B6 really wanted to explore taking over a carrier, F9 is the prime player, having a mountain hub (though NK will also want to make a play for F9). UA's options in the SE are to either open a hub or cooperate with a player, and only B6 serves that role.

RDU is a no-no (too close to IAD for it to be meaningful, and with CLT next door, AA is likely to have the upper hand). MCO is an LCC base, as is FLL (and MIA just a few minutes down the road? Hah!).

Now, here's a sleeper airport: what about CHS? SC's busiest airport, far enough from ATL and CLT to not be preyed upon by the rivals, far away from UA's closest hubs, prime SE location, and a closer hub to the Caribbean than IAH or IAD.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
mia
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:40 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 3:06 pm

TWA772LR wrote:
UA has been doubling down on strengths while making large investments ... physical upgrades.


OK. I see Delta truly putting their money where their mouth is in terms of terminal and amenity upgrades. Don't see that from United.
"Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember, and remember more than I have seen."
 
blockski
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:00 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
With AS joining AA in OneWorld greatly expanding their West Coast connectivity and DL growing in many cities including SEA, BOS, AUS, is it finally time for UA to make a move and expand outside of its hubs?


Do yourself a favor before asking broad questions: research. You might start by charting domestic ASMs, and rates of growth in domestic ASMs, for the major U.S. carriers. The last ~seven years would be good.


Perhaps you’re not understanding the question, I’m asking how they can grow outside of their hubs.


I think folks understand what you're asking just fine; they're just rejecting the premise of the question.

The assertion is that UA needs to 'make a move' because... why? Because American also 'made a move?' What kind of lowest-common-denominator, reactionary rationale is that?

United has already outlined their strategy for domestic growth. It's quite clear and solid: beef up their mid-continent domestic hubs (add small markets to increase connectivity, re-bank to multiply the connecting possibilities, add 2-class cabins to more markets); grow IAD as an east coast domestic hub while shifting EWR towards O/D traffic; and grow the domestic network overall to reach their 'natural share.'

United doesn't need to drop in to Seattle and add international flights to a gateway like that - United already has perfectly good international gateway hubs on both coasts.

Likewise, United doesn't need to create a new domestic hub in order to grow their network. Devoting limited resources to building a new hub or focus city is going to be an inferior return compared against their strategy of strengthening their existing hubs.
 
UA772IAD
Posts: 1329
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2004 7:43 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:26 pm

blockski wrote:
Nicknuzzii wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

Do yourself a favor before asking broad questions: research. You might start by charting domestic ASMs, and rates of growth in domestic ASMs, for the major U.S. carriers. The last ~seven years would be good.


Perhaps you’re not understanding the question, I’m asking how they can grow outside of their hubs.


I think folks understand what you're asking just fine; they're just rejecting the premise of the question.

The assertion is that UA needs to 'make a move' because... why? Because American also 'made a move?' What kind of lowest-common-denominator, reactionary rationale is that?

United has already outlined their strategy for domestic growth. It's quite clear and solid: beef up their mid-continent domestic hubs (add small markets to increase connectivity, re-bank to multiply the connecting possibilities, add 2-class cabins to more markets); grow IAD as an east coast domestic hub while shifting EWR towards O/D traffic; and grow the domestic network overall to reach their 'natural share.'

United doesn't need to drop in to Seattle and add international flights to a gateway like that - United already has perfectly good international gateway hubs on both coasts.

Likewise, United doesn't need to create a new domestic hub in order to grow their network. Devoting limited resources to building a new hub or focus city is going to be an inferior return compared against their strategy of strengthening their existing hubs.


I want to add to this that I think the OP's premise re: AA-AS is backwards. AS frequent flyers are the biggest benefactors of the OW alliance. AA isn't really breaking into any new markets. Yes, they are now able to route passengers through SEA/PDX- but to many places already served by AA and it's regional carriers.

UA has a very strong network of hubs and routes. They can (and are) filling holes through their existing infrastructure and adding capacity where needed. They don't need to establish P2P flying - which has never been their model.
 
codc10
Posts: 2656
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:33 pm

JAMBOJET wrote:
This thread seems a bit Silly. United has never been stronger and more innovative.
1. Don't have regional scope? Come up with an innovative idea: CR550. Not perfect but a very innovative way to address the problem.
2. Amazing international hubs and business traffic hubs, not great domestic connectivity: Build up DEN to 700 departures/day. Work on making IAD more of a connecting hub so EWR focuses on local O&D. Taking more local Chicago traffic.
3. IPTE: 2-4-2 Business class product while everyone else Has aisle access: Come up with the only true innovative J-class among the US3. Delta is out there taking their tired old coffin seat and slapping a plastic door on it with new stitching. AA is out there taking a nice seat, but a seat right off the catalog shelf and getting on the plane asap. United actually spent a lot of time developing a new seat and creating an entire brand around it.
4. Polaris: Related to the J class but also creating an entire new Business class brand with a new polaris lounge product to rival or perhaps be better than AA's Flagship Lounge by some accounts. Delta is still serving stale soups in the Sky Club to their premium passengers along with all the other sky club members. Also redone United clubs
5. Focus Cities: United has hubs at most Economic powerhouse cities in the US: Corporate travelers want to fly to their hubs naturally: NYC, DC, SFO, LAX, IAH, ORD (DEN less so compared to their other hub but certainly a major economic powerhouse in the Mountain West)...
6. United is already a part of the most important and powerful airline alliance with partners like LH Group that covers Europe like no other then ANA, SQ, NZ, AC, AV, Air China, etc.
I don't think United needs to step up. They already have.


Some reasonable points here in a very UA-favorable post. First, the Polaris Lounges are already better than the Flagship Lounges, with the notable exceptions of Flagship Dining (where available, with an even more restrictive access policy than Polaris) and the more permissive access policy of the FL generally. It's also a good point that UA already has hubs in most of the strongest local markets in the country, making focus cities less important. Finally, UA has hands-down the best Pacific joint venture, and its Atlantic JV is strong in a more evenly-matched field. Star Alliance is nice but revenue-sharing, immunized joint ventures are the name of the game these days.

einsteinboricua wrote:
I can see UA-B6 cooperating to complement each other's networks. UA gets presence in JFK, BOS, and the Caribbean, and B6 gets international presence through UA (and heartland operations). They can test the waters, readjust, and agree to merge down the road if everything passes the sniffing test.

But I still think, if B6 really wanted to explore taking over a carrier, F9 is the prime player, having a mountain hub (though NK will also want to make a play for F9). UA's options in the SE are to either open a hub or cooperate with a player, and only B6 serves that role.

RDU is a no-no (too close to IAD for it to be meaningful, and with CLT next door, AA is likely to have the upper hand). MCO is an LCC base, as is FLL (and MIA just a few minutes down the road? Hah!).

Now, here's a sleeper airport: what about CHS? SC's busiest airport, far enough from ATL and CLT to not be preyed upon by the rivals, far away from UA's closest hubs, prime SE location, and a closer hub to the Caribbean than IAH or IAD.


I might be in a minority but I think a UA-B6 merger would be approved without much "surgery". The combined entity might be forced to divest some JFK slots, and the equivalent of the B6 operation at EWR (which itself is comparable to the pre-merger United operation), but the question would be, to whom? AA/DL are out, Allegiant/Spirit/Frontier are obvious contenders

CHS is interesting, but it doesn't have the facilities (terminal or airfield) to support a true hub operation. It also would be an incredibly capital-intensive, questionable undertaking to launch a hub at CHS in a growing, but still leisure-oriented market 250 miles away from ATL and even closer to CLT.

mia wrote:
OK. I see Delta truly putting their money where their mouth is in terms of terminal and amenity upgrades. Don't see that from United.


UA is building out its 6th Polaris Lounge at IAD, starting work on a massive United Club at EWR, within the last 5 years completed major terminal projects at SFO/LAX/IAH, and is underway with or will soon be starting even larger projects at ORD, DEN and LAX. UA will also be the largest tenant at EWR Terminal 1, with a new lounge there as well. Many of these projects are in conjunction with airport operators bearing the largest burden, but the same is the case with DL at SLC/LGA/JFK/LAX, etc.

Bottom line, everyone has a lot of capex in real estate projects right now.
 
fun2fly
Posts: 1550
Joined: Tue Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:43 pm

In addition to the 100 or so narrow body a/c mentioned in previous posts, UA has a good # of wide body a/c coming plus a bump when the mod lines are done over the next 18 months or so. With that in mind, UA should have some nice routes to expand on. Here's to hoping they are as creative as they have been in the past few years, PPT, PMO, etc.
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:50 pm

I agree with the posters saying they could beef up their LAX presence. They don't even fly to SJC from LAX which seems crazy to me. I understand they have their hub nearby in SFO, but LAX-SJC is an extremely popular business route with cash-rich companies on either end. Other big holes off the top of my head are PDX, DFW, MEX, and MIA. They could also upgauge a few UX routes such as AUS, PHX, and SEA.

On the international side I think they have a pretty good network out of LAX, but maybe they could add a few key Star Alliance destinations such as BOG, ICN, PTY or FRA. If they were feeling really bold they could take on AA's monopoly by flying to GRU or EZE from LAX. I would love to be able to fly on a UA 787 instead of an old AV A330 or CM 737 for my trips down to South America. The new Polaris seats are quite nice and I actually am starting to prefer them to international carriers.
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:54 pm

mia wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
UA has been doubling down on strengths while making large investments ... physical upgrades.


OK. I see Delta truly putting their money where their mouth is in terms of terminal and amenity upgrades. Don't see that from United.


You might want to look a bit harder mate...

UA and the local airport authority have construction projects either underway or planned for the near future at:
SFO, LAX, DEN, IAH, ORD, EWR and at least are talking with IAD about a C/D replacement...that seems to cover all of their hub airports.
Polaris lounges are world class (if you haven't been in one take a look on youtube for a walk through.)
Adding additional United Clubs the network and refurbishing their existing ones.
Working with Apple on redeveloping the check in lobby at SFO...just to start.

In-flight UA has:
Added additional F class seats to the A319 fleet.
Started replacing all of the F class seats in the fleet with a new model.
On track to complete the Polaris seat rollout by early 2021.
Made DirectTV free on every flight
Upgrading the WiFi systems onboard as part of the preparation for rolling out free WiFi on domestic flights.
Added snack options in Y
Adding power ports in Y on the aircraft that don't already have them.
One of the upcoming projects is replacing the overhead bins on aircraft that will be in the fleet longer than five years with larger ones (probably Sky Interior style.)

I'm sure I have forgotten something :)
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
NiMar
Posts: 45
Joined: Fri Jul 19, 2019 7:08 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:55 pm

IAD to MIA is like 110 miles further than BNA to MIA. At cruising speed that is covered quite quickly, like 13 extra minutes or so. Cost of fuel versus cost of new airport operations. I don't know the business thinking behind this stuff. Me I can see why they would currently rather have the hub in one of the most important cities in the country/world. They might have to price flights a little cheaper to entice time sensitive travelers.
 
User avatar
einsteinboricua
Posts: 7842
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:11 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 4:56 pm

codc10 wrote:
CHS is interesting, but it doesn't have the facilities (terminal or airfield) to support a true hub operation. It also would be an incredibly capital-intensive, questionable undertaking to launch a hub at CHS in a growing, but still leisure-oriented market 250 miles away from ATL and even closer to CLT.

Has there ever been an airport that was build to support hub operations from the get go? Aside from the major city airports, that is. Consider MCI and STL. Heck, look at AUS and BNA which people are raving about turning into focus cities or future hubs.

If UA were ever to look for a southern airport, I think CHS is a suitable option. I thought about TPA but with MCO nearby and TPA itself hosting many LCC flights, TPA would be suicide. Any other airport (that's not served by LCCs) with existing infrastructure to handle mainline flights needs expansion.
"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
 
hereandthere41
Posts: 57
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:31 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 5:28 pm

MWAA has stated IAD is at 27 million passengers. Once they hit 30 million, the new C/D concourse will come.
 
freakyrat
Posts: 1794
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 1:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:02 pm

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
UA is stepping up and doubling down on its domestic network, new aircraft, and product.

Look at their planned bulking up of DEN for example.


My hometown airport SBN is trying to get them to add a few SBN-DEN regional flights as backups to their ORD flights that have constant weather delays or cancellations everytime O'Hare burps. Connecting traffic is there as F9 enplaned 22,000 passengers on 189 flights into their Denver hub when they still operated it as a hub.
 
cledaybuck
Posts: 1636
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2016 6:07 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:03 pm

einsteinboricua wrote:
codc10 wrote:
CHS is interesting, but it doesn't have the facilities (terminal or airfield) to support a true hub operation. It also would be an incredibly capital-intensive, questionable undertaking to launch a hub at CHS in a growing, but still leisure-oriented market 250 miles away from ATL and even closer to CLT.

Has there ever been an airport that was build to support hub operations from the get go? Aside from the major city airports, that is. Consider MCI and STL. Heck, look at AUS and BNA which people are raving about turning into focus cities or future hubs.

If UA were ever to look for a southern airport, I think CHS is a suitable option. I thought about TPA but with MCO nearby and TPA itself hosting many LCC flights, TPA would be suicide. Any other airport (that's not served by LCCs) with existing infrastructure to handle mainline flights needs expansion.

UA isn't going to start a hub in CHS. We are talking about a MSA with a population under 800,000. Yes, it is growing quickly but it is still too small of a market.
As we celebrate mediocrity, all the boys upstairs want to see, how much you'll pay for what you used to get for free.
 
airzona11
Posts: 1652
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 5:44 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:28 pm

Nicknuzzii wrote:
With AS joining AA in OneWorld greatly expanding their West Coast connectivity and DL growing in many cities including SEA, BOS, AUS, is it finally time for UA to make a move and expand outside of its hubs? Could this be accomplished through a partnership with B6? A new focus city? Reinforcing its LAX and NYC presence? What is UA’s best route to avoid falling to #4 behind WN?

In other words, how can UA expand and grow outside of their current hubs?


That seems counter to their business model. The hub model is what their business is based on, not point to point. What metric are you stating UA would fall behind WN? They are already smaller than WN domestically, all the US3 are.

SFO is the best pacific hub in the US. DL has SEA and AA now has the SEA with AS because neither has SFO. UA has a special Hi J fleet for London, the number 1 US international destination. They are going higher premium cabin vs maximizing CASM by making planes the densest, it is not about flying the most passengers, it is about flying the highest paying, most profitable customers. They have mega hubs in ORD/IAH/NYC/Washington DC/SFO, those are huge O/D business markets, also great connection hubs. DEN is growing like crazy and they just got new gates. LAX has a strong operation.

DL is a very well run airline. They were forced into SEA because SLC is not a pacific hub, and while they have JFK, BOS has the opportunity. AUS is just down the road from IAH. UA is missing a true Southeast hub, but the options are limited. They are number 1 across the pacific and over the Atlantic, they have the JV with LH.

UA is maximizing their hub network and it is paying dividends, chasing domestic capacity is not cheap. Internationally you could argue South America, but IAH is pretty great for that.
 
blockski
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:28 pm

TTailedTiger wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
TTailedTiger wrote:
I agree that FL is a no-go for a hub. It's too far out of the way. WN wouldn't be an obstacle if IA really wanted a hub at BNA. The problem with BNA is that it is space constrained with no room for expansion. SAV would be an interesting choice but I don't know if there's enough local sand for a decent O/D mix. RDU seems to be the only city in the region without a hub that could offer decent O/D. It could pretumich be a copy and paste of CLT. Just with much nicer facilities. I haven't been to CLT since 2010 but with the exception of the international concourse it was so dark and cramped. But look who had their hub there...


What?

BNA has plenty of space. They could build a whole second terminal for themselves if they wanted to. The problem there is WN is dominant and growing and now possibly NK could be growing as well. Too much competition

SAV? are you kidding me? Way too small of a market.

RDU is too far east and too close to IAD. And they truly don’t have the space for gates for a large hub operation.



That's not what someone told me here a few months ago. They said the interstate changes would prohibit expansion at BNA. And the point of RDU would be to eliminate IAD as a hub. It's not effective for the region it is supposed to serve. DL doesn't seem to mind RDU's close proximity to ATL. They use it as a focus city and even have a CDG flight. Same with AA at CLT.


I don't get the obsession with a SE hub for United. What does having a SE hub get UA that UA can't get with their existing hubs? United can effectively serve the area via IAD, ORD, and IAH. The only traffic flows where their network isn't competitive is within the Southeast itself, which isn't a particularly lucrative market. It's certainly not worth eliminating the Dulles hub to chase.

Dulles is strategically valuable. The DC market is wealthy and generates a ton of high-value traffic, both domestic and international. The airport has room to grow. Expanded facilities there will require investment, but I'll bet doing so at Dulles will be far more cost effective for United than it would be to try to start a brand new hub.

And, as noted, there aren't any low-hanging fruit in the Southeast just begging for a network airline to find a diamond in the rough.
 
CobaltScar
Posts: 561
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2017 2:30 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:36 pm

IAmGaroott wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Please tell me how they are “weak” outside of their hubs.... I would like to see some examples here.

Granted about they only place they don’t compete well is east coast/Midwest to Florida and Caribbean to the extent that DL and AA do.

DL would love to have SFO and DEN over Sea and SLC on the flip side


I'd like to see UA open a focus city in Florida. It could increase their presence in the southeast and alleviate vacation traffic from IAH.


People keep forgetting Florida is the 3rd largest state in the Union and growing by leaps and bounds every year. And with the economics of the narrow body long haul aircraft, how can anyone afford to not have a hub in Florida anymore for deep South America traffic?
 
DoctorVenkman
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2016 10:10 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 6:43 pm

CobaltScar wrote:
IAmGaroott wrote:
PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:
Please tell me how they are “weak” outside of their hubs.... I would like to see some examples here.

Granted about they only place they don’t compete well is east coast/Midwest to Florida and Caribbean to the extent that DL and AA do.

DL would love to have SFO and DEN over Sea and SLC on the flip side


I'd like to see UA open a focus city in Florida. It could increase their presence in the southeast and alleviate vacation traffic from IAH.


People keep forgetting Florida is the 3rd largest state in the Union and growing by leaps and bounds every year. And with the economics of the narrow body long haul aircraft, how can anyone afford to not have a hub in Florida anymore for deep South America traffic?


Florida has a lot of people, but outside of MIA there's just not that much high-yielding traffic. That can and will change over time, but for now it's not a business powerhouse like other states are.
 
mia
Posts: 887
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2004 1:40 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 7:43 pm

United1 wrote:

In-flight UA has:
Added additional F class seats to the A319 fleet.
Started replacing all of the F class seats in the fleet with a new model.
On track to complete the Polaris seat rollout by early 2021.
Made DirectTV free on every flight
Upgrading the WiFi systems onboard as part of the preparation for rolling out free WiFi on domestic flights.
Added snack options in Y
Adding power ports in Y on the aircraft that don't already have them.
One of the upcoming projects is replacing the overhead bins on aircraft that will be in the fleet longer than five years with larger ones (probably Sky Interior style.)

I'm sure I have forgotten something :)


Sounds amazing... I guess when you are rock bottom there is only one way to go. I avoid flying united after years of bad experiences. Once I hear of a friend or acquaintance they had a good flight on United, I will consider it.
"Like all great travelers, I have seen more than I remember, and remember more than I have seen."
 
ncflyer
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:32 pm

The only “flaw” if you can call it that with UAs positioning is that their hubs are all in competitive markets. IAD (with BWI), DEN hugely competitive, ORD (with AA and MDW), maybe not quite as much SFO, IAH (with HOU), EWR (LGA and JFK hubs). But these are competitive markets because they are so huge and desirable in the first place.

Contrast that with DL and AA which both have at least one or more fortress hubs no competing hub in the metro area. CLT ATL DTW MSP…heck even WN has some good dominant hubs. my data is probably a little out of date but years ago I saw a study that said the #1 predictor of airline profitability was relative market share in hub cities.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:41 pm

UA should have kept the LAX \ SFO - JFK Slots. Get back in the Market?
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
dc10lover
Posts: 1565
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 6:11 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 8:50 pm

Save co$t$ and only have free WiFi. People have their Phones with them anyway.
Why endure the nightmare and congestion of LAX when BUR, LGB, ONT & SNA is so much easier to fly in and out of. Same with OAK & SJC when it comes to SFO.
 
United1
Posts: 3911
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:21 am

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:04 pm

mia wrote:
United1 wrote:

In-flight UA has:
Added additional F class seats to the A319 fleet.
Started replacing all of the F class seats in the fleet with a new model.
On track to complete the Polaris seat rollout by early 2021.
Made DirectTV free on every flight
Upgrading the WiFi systems onboard as part of the preparation for rolling out free WiFi on domestic flights.
Added snack options in Y
Adding power ports in Y on the aircraft that don't already have them.
One of the upcoming projects is replacing the overhead bins on aircraft that will be in the fleet longer than five years with larger ones (probably Sky Interior style.)

I'm sure I have forgotten something :)


Sounds amazing... I guess when you are rock bottom there is only one way to go. I avoid flying united after years of bad experiences. Once I hear of a friend or acquaintance they had a good flight on United, I will consider it.


Well that is certainly your choice but as someone who has held 1K status with UA sense 2003 I can tell you they are not the same airline they were five years ago. They are investing billions both on the ground and in the air and if you weren't aware of that perhaps you should go read some of the UA threads were we talk about what's going on with UA.

Cheers....happy flighting!
I know the voices in my head aren't real but sometimes their ideas are just awesome!!!
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4261
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 9:56 pm

the only market UAL has yet to move to is the far Southeast. MIA, FLL, or MCO might make excellent Hub cities to connect with the rest of the system.
Since there is already a presence in the Far SE putting a hub there is just a matter of terminal space. UAL was already in MIA and left MIA after being asked to help pay for American's new terminal. It just wasn't something they wanted to do, And they had flights from there to Sao Paulo and Rio. I had friends who worked there and loved the area there. So? They could very well go back to South Florida or Central Florida and fly to South America in aan even Larger way. Or? South Florida to Africa or the Middle East. There are a lot of options for the right city.
 
blockski
Posts: 653
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:30 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:03 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
the only market UAL has yet to move to is the far Southeast. MIA, FLL, or MCO might make excellent Hub cities to connect with the rest of the system.
Since there is already a presence in the Far SE putting a hub there is just a matter of terminal space. UAL was already in MIA and left MIA after being asked to help pay for American's new terminal. It just wasn't something they wanted to do, And they had flights from there to Sao Paulo and Rio. I had friends who worked there and loved the area there. So? They could very well go back to South Florida or Central Florida and fly to South America in aan even Larger way. Or? South Florida to Africa or the Middle East. There are a lot of options for the right city.


Again, to be clear about what a 'Southeast' hub means: None of those Florida cities (MIA, FLL, or MCO) are well-suited to connect passengers within the Southeast United States. When I read comments about UA lacking a "SE Hub," I read that as a lack of an ATL or a CLT. None of the Florida cities have the right geography.

You can make an argument for FLL as a Caribbean/Latin American gateway, but that's not going to be a United Answer to ATL or CLT.
 
strfyr51
Posts: 4261
Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2012 5:04 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:16 pm

ncflyer wrote:
The only “flaw” if you can call it that with UAs positioning is that their hubs are all in competitive markets. IAD (with BWI), DEN hugely competitive, ORD (with AA and MDW), maybe not quite as much SFO, IAH (with HOU), EWR (LGA and JFK hubs). But these are competitive markets because they are so huge and desirable in the first place.

Contrast that with DL and AA which both have at least one or more fortress hubs no competing hub in the metro area. CLT ATL DTW MSP…heck even WN has some good dominant hubs. my data is probably a little out of date but years ago I saw a study that said the #1 predictor of airline profitability was relative market share in hub cities.



I fail to see why you think only a Hub Fortress is the way to go. UA competes just fine at ORD with American, or LAX with damn near Everybody. SFO might be considered a hub fortress but since anybody you can name is in the Area either at SFO, OAK, or SJC? It's not like SFO is much of a Fortress except for the international departures of which anybody can really do.
I don't think there are that many Hub Fortress cities are even available to do that again. Not in the manner of an ATL like Delta has or a DFW like A. what hub cities would you or could you suggest that would compliment UAL's Route structure that wouldn't compromise one of their other Hubs?? nor scavenge from One??
 
LAXdude1023
Posts: 5984
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2006 3:16 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:20 pm

strfyr51 wrote:
the only market UAL has yet to move to is the far Southeast. MIA, FLL, or MCO might make excellent Hub cities to connect with the rest of the system.
Since there is already a presence in the Far SE putting a hub there is just a matter of terminal space. UAL was already in MIA and left MIA after being asked to help pay for American's new terminal. It just wasn't something they wanted to do, And they had flights from there to Sao Paulo and Rio. I had friends who worked there and loved the area there. So? They could very well go back to South Florida or Central Florida and fly to South America in aan even Larger way. Or? South Florida to Africa or the Middle East. There are a lot of options for the right city.


I suppose UA could set fire to a pile of cash by doing that. Flying from MCO or FLL to Latin America and competing with NK and B6 is a downright awful idea. There is MIA but between AAs massive hub and DL trying to break in, thats going to end up being a bloodbath for incoming and losing carriers.

They could do that and shift planes from profitable hubs for unprofitable flying...

...or they could realize that the system they have works quite well for them and just beef up IAH and IAD to cover the Southeast. The only thing they are currently missing out in is traffic within the Southeast.
FOR THE LOVE OF GOD BRING BACK THE PAYWALL!!!!
 
ncflyer
Posts: 1313
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:03 pm

Re: Time for UA to step up?

Fri Feb 14, 2020 10:45 pm

I think UA has terrific hubs— in USAs largest cities and its capital. Fortress hubs have better pricing power since they are in essence monopolies. United is missing out on that but would be incredibly a long time and huge investment to build such a hub, let alone the best markets are taken.


strfyr51 wrote:
ncflyer wrote:
The only “flaw” if you can call it that with UAs positioning is that their hubs are all in competitive markets. IAD (with BWI), DEN hugely competitive, ORD (with AA and MDW), maybe not quite as much SFO, IAH (with HOU), EWR (LGA and JFK hubs). But these are competitive markets because they are so huge and desirable in the first place.

Contrast that with DL and AA which both have at least one or more fortress hubs no competing hub in the metro area. CLT ATL DTW MSP…heck even WN has some good dominant hubs. my data is probably a little out of date but years ago I saw a study that said the #1 predictor of airline profitability was relative market share in hub cities.



I fail to see why you think only a Hub Fortress is the way to go. UA competes just fine at ORD with American, or LAX with damn near Everybody. SFO might be considered a hub fortress but since anybody you can name is in the Area either at SFO, OAK, or SJC? It's not like SFO is much of a Fortress except for the international departures of which anybody can really do.
I don't think there are that many Hub Fortress cities are even available to do that again. Not in the manner of an ATL like Delta has or a DFW like A. what hub cities would you or could you suggest that would compliment UAL's Route structure that wouldn't compromise one of their other Hubs?? nor scavenge from One??

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos